S S C Education College & Anr. vs National Council For Teacher Education & Anr.

$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 29 June, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 8365/2026 & CM APPL. 39312/2026
S S C EDUCATION COLLEGE & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti
Kumari and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray,
Advs.
versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
& ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Nandeesh
Nanda, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL) :

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India (“Constitution”) seeking the following prayers:
“A. issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order
quashing & setting aside impugned refusal order dated 22.05.2026 of
Western Regional Committee; and/or

B. issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order or
direction to respondents to decide its application for recognition of
conversion/transition of existing 4 year integrated B.A.B.Ed/B.Sc.B.Ed
course to ITEP course from present academic session 2026-27
expeditiously and in time bound manner; and/or

C. pass any such other orders/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The case of petitioners is that it is an old institution which was
granted recognition for a 4 year integrated B.A.B.Ed./B.Sc.B.Ed course by
th
the Western Regional Committee (“WRC”) on 27 October, 2021 for
th
academic session 2017-18. Pursuant to public notices dated 25 August,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 1 of 6

th
2025 and 12 September, 2025, the petitioners submitted an application
th
dated 04 October, 2025 to the National Council for Teacher Education
(“NCTE”), seeking transition of existing B.A.B.Ed/B.Sc.B.Ed course to
ITEP course. The inspection of the petitioner institute was carried out on
th
16 February, 2026.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without providing a
st
copy of inspection report, a Show Cause Notice dated 01 April, 2026 under
Sections 14 and 15(3) (b) of National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993 (“NCTE Act”) was issued to petitioners. As required, the petitioners
submitted a reply to said Show Cause Notice, along with the requisite
nd
documents, on the portal. However, WRC, by its impugned order dated 22
May, 2026, refused the petitioners’ application for transition of
B.A.B.Ed./B.Sc.B.Ed course to ITEP course.
4. The grievance of petitioners is that although it submitted reply to the
Show Cause Notice, through the portal within the stipulated time, however,
without any consideration of the said reply, the impugned refusal order
nd
dated 22 May, 2026 has been passed by WRC.
nd
5. Thus, he submits that the impugned order dated 22 May, 2026,
passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside. Further, he relies upon the
th
order dated 29 May, 2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7398/2026,
titled as “Shri Jagat Narayan College & Anr. versus National Council for
Teacher Education & Anr”.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the
respondents, who opposes the matter, and submits that the impugned order
does not require any interference by this Court. He also submits that the
petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of NCTE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 2 of 6

Act.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties.
nd
8. This Court takes note of the impugned order dated 22 May, 2026,
passed by WRC, and the same reads as under:
“

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 3 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 4 of 6

”
nd
9. A perusal of aforesaid impugned order dated 22 May, 2026 shows
that except paragraph 6 therein, which reads as “reply submitted by the TEI /
HEI was considered by the Regional Committee on 13/05/2026 in Meeting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 5 of 6

No. 460(Part-I) and the same was found deficient” , no reasons have been
given by the WRC for rejecting the application of the petitioners. Once reply
to a Show Cause Notice was submitted, it was incumbent upon the WRC to
consider the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner institute.
10. Since the respondent did not take into account and consider the reply
to the Show Cause Notice submitted by the petitioners, which had been duly
received by WRC, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned refusal
nd
order dated 22 May, 2026 issued by WRC has been passed mechanically,
and in violation of Principles of Nature Justice. Therefore, the said order
cannot be sustained.
nd
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22 May, 2026 passed by
WRC is quashed as being illegal.
12. The matter is remanded back to WRC to reconsider the reply to Show
st
Cause Notice dated 01 April, 2026 submitted by the petitioners, as per law,
within a period of two weeks from today. The WRC will also provide a copy
of the inspection report to the petitioners.
13. If any further information and clarification is required, WRC will
inform the petitioners accordingly, and the petitioners will submit their reply
within a period of one week, thereafter.
14. The WRC shall take a final decision, taking into account the reply and
documents submitted by the petitioners, and pass a reasoned and speaking
order, within a period of one week, thereafter.
15. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending
application also stands disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 29, 2026/ au
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:29.06.2026
21:59:49
Page 6 of 6