A writ against a show-cause notice is ordinarily premature absent jurisdictional defect or exceptional illegality.

Petitioner No. 1 operates Kamalnath College, which had NCTE recognition for its B.P.Ed. course and University affiliation.

Following an inspection on 17–18 July 2026, the NCTE issued a show-cause notice dated 27 July 2026 alleging deficiencies.

The petitioners challenged the inspection and notice, contending that they had inadequate prior notice, were not supplied the inspection report, and that their response and corrective measures had not been considered.

They also challenged the College’s removal from the counselling portal.

The NCTE stated that it considered the petitioners’ reply and issued a further, final show-cause notice on 25 September 2026, leaving the statutory proceedings pending.

The High Court dismissed the petition.

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the NCTE show-cause proceedings before the competent authority had made a final decision.

2. Whether the College’s removal from the counselling portal warranted relief in this petition.

Under Sections 12 and 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the NCTE is empowered to maintain standards in teacher education, monitor compliance, and initiate proceedings where a recognised institution is alleged to have breached statutory requirements or recognition conditions.

A show-cause notice ordinarily does not warrant judicial interference before the authority reaches a final decision; interference may be justified in exceptional cases, such as where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or otherwise illegal.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, and State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra, 2025 INSC 412.

The Court treated the NCTE proceedings as ongoing: the petitioners’ reply had been considered, and a further show-cause notice had afforded them another opportunity to present their case.

The alleged deficiencies—including concerns about facilities and the institutions’ premises—were matters for the competent statutory authority to assess on the record and through physical verification, not for the High Court to determine as an appellate forum.

The Court found no basis to intervene at the show-cause stage under the principles governing Article 226 review.

It also noted that Respondent No. 5, the University, did not control the counselling portal; it was operated by the State Department of Higher Education.

It made no order as to costs.