Withdrawal of recognition attains finality if deficiencies are not cured before the appellate order is passed.

The Respondent No. 1 (the Institute) was granted revised recognition for its B.Ed. course in 2015, subject to fulfilling NCTE Regulations, 2014, including maintaining an approved faculty list.

Due to non-compliance with faculty norms and infrastructure requirements, a Show Cause Notice was issued in 2019.

On 26.02.2020, Appellant No. 2 (ERC) withdrew recognition under Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act.

An appeal under Section 18 was dismissed by Appellant No. 1 on 10.03.2021.

The learned Single Judge upheld the validity of the withdrawal orders but directed the ERC to reconsider the Institute’s eligibility for the prospective session based on a faculty list approved on 01.08.2022.

1. Whether a court, after upholding the legal validity of a withdrawal of recognition order, can direct the statutory authority to reconsider the institution’s recognition based on subsequent compliance.

2. Whether the appointment and approval of faculty subsequent to the finality of the withdrawal and appellate orders entitles an institution to a "revival" of recognition rather than applying afresh.

Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, which empowers the Regional Committee to withdraw recognition if an institution contravenes the Act’s provisions or regulations.

Regulation 7 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, regarding mandatory faculty and infrastructure standards.

The court distinguished the precedent in Rambha College of Education v. NCTE, noting that while subsequent events may be considered if they occur during the pendency of an appeal, they cannot be used to reopen orders that have attained finality after the appellate process is concluded.

The Court reasoned that since the Single Judge expressly found no infirmity in the withdrawal order dated 26.02.2020 or the appellate order dated 10.03.2021, those orders attained finality.

The Institute’s claim of being thwarted by the University’s delay in approving the faculty list was rejected; evidence showed that 15 out of 20 faculty members were only appointed in June 2022, long after the withdrawal.

The Court held that the Institute operated without requisite faculty from 2017 to 2021, justifying the withdrawal to protect student interests.

High-level changes in NCTE policy regarding standalone B.Ed. institutes meant the Institute could not bypass the new legal framework by seeking a "revival" of a dead recognition order through "reconsideration".

It held that once a withdrawal order is upheld as valid and the appellate remedy is exhausted, the institution must apply for fresh recognition in accordance with extant law.

The Court also waived the costs previously imposed on the Appellants and the interim stay on the Single Judge's order was made absolute.