### Disregarding Merits of a Court-Ordered Representation Based on Technical Filing Issues Constitutes Wilful Disobedience of Judicial Directions.

The petitioner was granted recognition for a B.Ed course with 100 seats in 2008 by the Western Regional Committee (WRC) of the NCTE

In 2018, the WRC restored the petitioner’s recognition after a prior withdrawal but reduced the intake to 50 seats, alleging that two faculty members lacked NET qualifications

The petitioner’s appeal against this reduction was dismissed in 2019, leading to a writ petition, W.P.(C) 2633/2020. On 20.03.2026, the High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and provide an opportunity to rectify shortcomings

During the 457th meeting of the WRC (April 2026), the respondent rejected the representation solely because the petitioner had not submitted a fresh online application and processing fee

The petitioner subsequently filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the court's directions

1. Whether the respondent's rejection of the petitioner’s representation on purely technical/procedural grounds constitutes willful disobedience of the Court’s directions dated 20.03.2026

The court applied the principles of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, regarding "willful disobedience" of judicial orders.

It emphasized the doctrine that when a court directs a statutory body to consider a matter "on merits," the authority is bound to look past technicalities and provide a substantive hearing.

Furthermore, the court relied on the specific mandate of its prior order in W.P.(C) 2633/2020, which required the respondent to allow the petitioner to rectify shortcomings and provide an opportunity of hearing.

The court found that the respondent’s decision to reject the representation for lack of a fresh online application was an ex facie violation of the order dated 20.03.2026.

The previous order explicitly mandated a consideration "on merits" and instructed the WRC to afford the petitioner an opportunity to provide additional documents or fulfill requirements to rectify shortcomings.

By dismissing the case on a technical ground (lack of a new online application/fee) without addressing the substantive recognition issues, the WRC failed to comply with the judicial direction to provide a fair hearing and a merits-based review.

The court noted that the requirement to rectify shortcomings was implicit and stated that the respondent's actions resulted in willful disobedience.

Consequently, the court set aside the decision taken during the 457th meeting of the WRC regarding the petitioner.

The court directed the respondent to consider the matter afresh on its merits, in accordance with the law and extant NCTE policy, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

This exercise must be completed within two weeks from the date of the order and the contempt petition was disposed of accordingly.