Order passed mechanically without considering reply to show cause notice violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioners, an established educational institution since 2017, applied to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) on October 5, 2025, seeking to transition their existing 4-year integrated B.A.B.Ed/B.Sc.B.Ed course to the Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP) course.

Following an inspection on April 30, 2026, the Western Regional Committee (WRC) issued a Show Cause Notice on May 13, 2026, under the NCTE Act.

Although the petitioners submitted a timely reply and requisite documents via the official portal, the WRC issued an order on June 3, 2026, refusing the application.

The petitioners challenged this refusal on the grounds that their reply was not considered and the inspection report was never provided.

1. Whether the impugned refusal order dated June 3, 2026, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without due consideration of the petitioners' reply.

2. Whether the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the NCTE Act bars the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in this instance.

Principles of Natural Justice, which require administrative bodies to act fairly and consider representations before passing adverse orders.

Sections 14 and 15(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, regarding the recognition of teacher education institutions.

Section 18 concerning the statutory appeals process.

Judicial precedent in Shri Jagat Narayan College & Anr. v. NCTE [W.P.(C) 7398/2026] regarding similar procedural lapses by the Council.

The court found that while the WRC’s order claimed to have considered the petitioners' reply in Meeting No. 461, it failed to provide any specific reasons for finding the reply "deficient".

The court observed that it was "incumbent upon the WRC" to meaningfully evaluate the submitted documents once a reply to the Show Cause Notice had been filed.

By failing to address the substance of the petitioners' response, the court determined that the WRC had acted "mechanically" and in direct violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

Consequently, the lack of a reasoned order and the failure to provide the inspection report rendered the administrative action legally unsustainable regardless of the availability of an alternative remedy.

The matter was remanded to the WRC with directions to: (i) provide the petitioners with a copy of the inspection report; (ii) reconsider the petitioners' reply to the Show Cause Notice within two weeks; and (iii) pass a reasoned and speaking order within one week thereafter.

The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.