Mandatory Transition to ITEP Requires Fresh Online Application Despite Prior Submission and Multidisciplinary Status

Petitioner No. 1, a Higher Educational Institute (HEI) recognized since 2017 for integrated B.A./B.Sc. B.Ed. courses, sought to transition to the 4-year Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP) under the National Education Policy 2020.

The Petitioner applied for transition on 05.03.2024 following a National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) notice.

Subsequently, NCTE issued Public Notices dated 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025, requiring all institutions to apply afresh on a new portal.

The Petitioner failed to submit a fresh application by the 05.10.2025 deadline, citing technical glitches.

In a previous round of litigation (LPA 71/2026), the Division Bench set aside a Single Judge's direction to consider the Petitioner’s original 2024 application, observing that the new notices required fresh filings from all institutions.

The Petitioner filed the present writ seeking a declaration that the 2025 notices do not apply to HEIs or, alternatively, to reopen the portal.

The court applied the doctrine of res judicata and the binding nature of appellate observations, specifically from the Division Bench’s order in NCTE v. Bansur Mahavidhyalaya (LPA 71/2026), which held that subsequent Public Notices did not exempt any institution from applying afresh.

The court relied on the principle that regulatory timelines prescribed by statutory bodies like the NCTE are mandatory and sacrosanct to maintain academic standards.

The court adhered to the rule from Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT, restricting the re-agitation of issues after withdrawal of previous proceedings without requisite liberty.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s contention that the 12.09.2025 notice applied only to Stand-alone Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) and not HEIs.

The Court noted that the Division Bench in the previous appeal had already explicitly observed that the Petitioner was "not exempted from applying afresh" and that the notice applied to "all Institutions seeking transition".

Since the Petitioner did not challenge the vires of the 2025 notices, it remained bound by the requirement to apply through the new portal.

Regarding technical glitches, the Court held that it could not dilute sanctioned regulatory schedules, as academic timelines must be strictly followed to prevent uncertainty.

The Court concluded that the Petitioner’s pursuit of this writ was an attempt to circumvent binding findings from the Division Bench which had already settled the applicability of the fresh application requirement.

It held that the Public Notices dated 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 were mandatory for all institutions, including the Petitioner, and no exemption existed based on HEI status.

The Court refused to direct the reopening of the portal, stating that regulatory timelines cannot be diluted by the court.

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to apply afresh for subsequent academic years in accordance with law.