W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 1 of 16

$~J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 07.05.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 29 .05.2026

+ W.P. (C) 3746/2026

BANSUR MAHAVID HYALAYA & ANR ....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Sahil Ghai, Mr. Anuj Kishore Saxena,

Mr. Sahil Khurana, Ms. Sakshi Jain, Ms

Saloni Ambastha, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR

....Respondents

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:

“i. Declare that public notices dated 25.08.2025 and

12.09.2025, seeking institutes to apply afresh for transition,

are not applicable upon the Petitioner Institute; and/or

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 2 of 16

ii. Direct the Respondents to decide on merit the

Petitioners’ application dated 05.03.2024 for transition

from 4-year Integrated BA/B.Sc.-B.Ed. to 4-year ITEP

under National Education Policy 2020; and/or

iii. Alternatively, direct the Respondents to open the online

web portal for submission of such application by the

Petitioner for transition from 4-year Integrated BA/B.Sc.-

B.Ed. to 4-year ITEP or to accept such application in

physical form; and/or

iv. Alternatively, allow the Petitioner to transition from 4-

year integrated B.A. B.ED./ B.SC. B.ED. programme to the

4-year ITEP and accordingly direct the Respondents to

issue such recognition to the Petitioner.”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Higher Educational Institute established in 2003

imparting a wide variety of courses such as B.A., M.A., B.Sc., M.Sc.,

BBA, B.A. B.Ed. and B.Sc. B.Ed.

3. The respondent No. 1 is the National Council for Teacher Education, a

statutory body established under the National Council for Teacher

Education Act, 1993 (“1993 Act”) and is responsible for regulation and

proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education

system.

4. The respondent No. 2 is the Western Regional Committee of the

respondent No. 1 responsible for recognition of Institutions offering

courses or training in teacher education under Chapter IV of the 1993 Act

in the State of Rajasthan.

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 3 of 16

5. After fulfilling the mandated criteria, the petitioner No. 1 was granted

permission to offer four-year integrated B.A. B.Ed. and B.Sc. B.Ed.

courses in 2017 with an annual intake of 100 students and the same was

duly recognised by the respondent authority vide recognition order dated

02.05.2017.

6. The Government of India introduced the National Education Policy, 2020

in furtherance of which the respondent No. 1 published a gazette

notification being NCTE-Regl. 011/80/2018-MS (Regulation)-HQ dated

26.10.2021 wherein Integrated Teacher Education Programme (“ITEP”)

was introduced.

7. The respondent No. 1 further issued a gazette notification being NCTE-

Regl. 022/16/2023-Reg. Sec.-HQ dated 25.01.2024 amending and

inserting Rule 6A which was incorporated in Appendix-15 of National

Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)

Regulations, 2014 vide National Council for Teacher Education

(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Amendment Regulations, 2024. The

said rule allowed transition of existing Institutions offering four year

integrated B.A. B.Ed. and B.Sc. B.Ed. course into 4-year ITEP course.

8. In furtherance of the said gazette notification, the respondent No. 1

initiated the transition process for the academic session 2025-26 and

opened the application portal for this purpose from 05.02.2024 to

05.03.2024.

9. The petitioner No. 1 had duly filled the application being application No.

2526202402061063 and submitted the same on 05.03.2024 in terms of

the Public Notice dated 05.02.2024. The petitioner No. 1 deposited the

requisite processing fee of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 4 of 16

10. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 extended the timeline for submission

of online application for academic session 2025-26 till 20.05.2024 vide

Public Notices dated 15.03.2024, 22.04.2024 and 20.05.2024.

11. Due to the delay on the part of the respondents in deciding the

applications for transition from the 4-year Integrated B.A. B.Ed. and

B.Sc. B.Ed. programme to the 4-year ITEP, several stakeholders

submitted representations seeking extension of the existing programme so

as to avoid a zero-session. Considering the delay, the respondent No.1

issued Public Notice dated 06.05.2025 extending the transition timeline

till academic session 2026-27 and permitting Institutions recognized

under the omitted Appendix-13 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 to

continue admissions in the existing programmes for academic session

2025-26. By a separate notice, the respondent No. 1 notified that online

applications for academic session 2026-27 were invited from 06.05.2025

to 27.05.2025.

12. The respondent No. 1 further issued a Public Notice dated 25.08.2025 on

account of multiple representations pending from various Institutions, a

final opportunity was provided to the Institutions to apply afresh on the

NCTE Portal. On 12.09.2025 another Public Notice was issued informing

that the online NCTE portal to provide the final opportunity to all

Institutions to apply afresh online is fixed from 15.09.2025 to 05.10.2025.

13. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1, that the petitioner No. 1 made several

attempts to apply on the online portal however, was unable to process its

application due to technical glitches. The petitioner No. 1 even tried

reaching out to the helpline provided by the respondent No. 1 however no

resolution was provided. On the very next day, petitioner also wrote an

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 5 of 16

email dated 06.10.2025 to the respondents apprising them of the

difficulties in submitting the application and the technical glitches,

however received no response. The representatives of the petitioner No. 1

institute also personally visited the office of respondent No. 1 where they

were assured that the portal would open soon as there were several other

institutes who faced similar issues.

BACKGROUND OF LITIGATION

14. Since the portal did not open as assured by the respondent No. 1,

petitioner No. 1 filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) 19683/2025 titled

Bansur Mahavidhyalaya & Anr. v. National Council for Teacher

Education and Anr. wherein vide order dated 12.01.2026 this Court

directed the respondent No. 1 to decide the pending application filed in

furtherance of the Public Notice dated 05.02.2024 for transitioning into

ITEP course.

15. The respondents filed LPA No. 71/2026 titled National Council for

Teacher Education and Anr. v. Bansur Mahavidhyalaya and Anr.

wherein the Hon‟ble Division Bench vide order dated 16.02.2026 set

aside the order dated 12.01.2026 and remanded back the matter to this

Court restoring the writ petition to its original number.

16. Meanwhile, on 12.02.2026 the respondent No. 1 through the National

Testing Agency issued a Public Notice inviting applications for National

Common Entrance Test 2026 to apply for admissions in 4 year ITEP

Course. The online submission of form was scheduled between

12.02.2026 to 10.03.2026 and the tentative date for examination was

fixed for 17.04.2026. The respondents also published a list of Central and

State Universities offering 4 year ITEP Course wherein the name of

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 6 of 16

petitioner No. 1 Institution was not included.

17. After the matter was remanded back to this Court the petitioner No.1

sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh in terms of the

order dated 16.02.2026. Hence, the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

18. Mr. Trideep Pias, learned senior counsel for the petitioners states that the

petitioner No. 1 is a Multi-disciplinary Higher Educational Institute. The

parent notification dated 26.10.2021 categorises being Multidisciplinary

Higher Education Institutions as „HEIs‟ and Stand-alone Teacher

Education Institutions as „TEIs‟.

19. He further states that the Public Notices dated 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025

are only applicable to TEIs and not HEIs. The said Public Notices

specifically direct only the TEIs to apply afresh, including those

Institutions whose transition applications were rejected by the respondent

No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 Institution is not a TEI nor its application has

been rejected by the respondent No. 1. Thus, the impugned Public

Notices dated 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 cannot be made applicable

upon the petitioner No. 1 and the application of the petitioner No. 1

should be adjudicated on merits. Even though the notices are not

applicable to the petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 1 still made serious

attempts to apply afresh which was unsuccessful due to technical glitch in

the portal.

20. He states that the General Body decision, as reflected in the Public Notice

dated 12.09.2025, demonstrates that the only objective sought to be

served by inviting fresh applications was ensuring compliance with the

new multidisciplinary Institution requirements. Thus, the directions to

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 7 of 16

apply afresh could not be mechanically extended to all Institutions.

21. He also points out that in the earlier proceedings in the LPA, the Hon‟ble

Division Bench has not adjudicated the applicability of the impugned

notices dated 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 to the petitioner No. 1. Rather,

the earlier writ was confined to re-opening the portal. The Division Bench

has itself recorded that the petitioner No. 1 has not challenged the said

Public Notices.

22. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, the learned senior counsel

for the petitioner No. 1 alternatively submits that in exercise of its

equitable jurisdiction the Court may direct the respondents to reopen the

portal or accept the petitioner No. 1‟s transition application. He also

states that the requisite fee has already been paid by the petitioner No. 1

and the petitioner No. 1 Institution has been running for the past 9 years

and it shall cause irreparable loss to the petitioner No. 1 if the application

of the petitioner No. 1 is not considered.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

23. Mr. Anuj Kapoor, learned standing counsel for the respondents,

vehemently opposes the present writ petition and submits that the same is

not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as an abuse of the process

of law. It is contended that the present petition is nothing but an attempt

to re-agitate issues which already stood concluded in the earlier round of

litigation.

24. It is submitted that the liberty granted to the petitioner No. 1 while

withdrawing the earlier writ petition was limited to challenge the vires of

the Public Notices dated 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025. Having failed to

assail the vires of the said notices in the present petition, the petitioner

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 8 of 16

No. 1 cannot seek to re-agitate the same reliefs on altered grounds.

Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment in Rahul Modi v.

State of M.P., W.P.(C) 43781/2025 following the principles laid down in

Sarguja Transport Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5.

25. He further states that the petitioner No. 1 cannot be permitted to

approbate and reprobate as in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner No. 1

had itself proceeded on the basis of the Public Notices dated 25.08.2025

and 12.09.2025 and tried to apply for transition through online portal and

had merely sought reopening of the portal on account of alleged technical

glitches. Having earlier sought compliance under the very same notices,

the petitioner No. 1 is now estopped from contending that the said notices

are inapplicable to the petitioner No. 1.

26. He emphasises the argument that plea of non-applicability of the Public

Notices is wholly misconceived. Public Notices clearly applied to all

Institutions offering the 4-year integrated B.A. B.Ed. and B.Sc. B.Ed.

course and seeking transition to ITEP, including the petitioner No. 1

Institution and there exists no distinction between TEIs and HEIs insofar

as the requirement of applying afresh is concerned. Even the Hon‟ble

Division Bench, vide order dated 16.02.2026, has already conclusively

held that the Public Notice dated 12.09.2025 was applicable to the

petitioner No. 1 Institution and that the petitioner No. 1 was not exempted

from applying afresh. Thus, the said finding has attained finality and

operates as res judicata on the issue of applicability of the Public Notices.

Accordingly, this Court is bound by the findings rendered by the Hon‟ble

Division Bench.

27. It is further submitted that regulatory timelines prescribed by the NCTE

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 9 of 16

are mandatory and sacrosanct and admit of no exception. Failure to

submit a timely application disentitles an Institution from seeking any

equitable relief. Thus, once the Petitioner failed to submit an application

within the stipulated period, no enforceable legal right survived in its

favour and consequently no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the

respondents to reopen the portal or entertain the petitioner No. 1‟s

application. Thus, the Court cannot direct the respondents to act contrary

to the statutory framework and regulatory schedule framed by the NCTE.

The alternate prayer seeking reopening of the portal or acceptance of

applications in physical form is also equally untenable, inasmuch as the

same would defeat uncertainty in the regulatory framework and cause

prejudice to the Institutions which adhered to the prescribed timelines.

28. Reliance in this regard is placed on Aditya Institute of Technology v.

GNCTD and Oriental College of Teacher Education v. NCTE, LPA No.

517/2025 to contend that belated applications cannot be directed to be

entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

29. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material

on record.

30. In the present matter, controversy is with respect to whether the petitioner

No. 1 institute is required to apply afresh in terms of the Public Notices

dated 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 and whether the Public Notices dated

25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 is applicable to the petitioner No. 1.

31. Before delving into the merits of the case, the objections against

maintainability are being considered. The submission advanced on behalf

of the respondents that the liberty granted to the petitioner No. 1 was

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 10 of 16

confined to a limited challenge to the vires of the Public Notices alone

does not hold merit. The learned Division Bench in the order dated

16.02.2026 has categorically recorded that all rights and contentions of

the parties are left open to be urged before the learned Single Judge.

Thus, the present petition is maintainable.

32. Now, I shall deal with the merits of the controversy.

33. In this regard the Public Notice dated 12.09.2025 assumes relevance. The

relevant portion of the said Public Notice reads as under:

“6. The matter was again considered by the General Body

of the Council in its 67th meeting and the following

decision(s) were taken by the Council:

i) The final opportunity be provided to all such TEIs

including those institutions of which applications were

refused/rejected by giving an opportunity to apply afresh

online on NCTE Portal. Those institutions which have

earlier submitted Transitions in response to NCTE Public

Notice dated 05.02.2024, may be exempted from making

payment of processing fee, subject to specifying mentioned

the registration number of the earlier application submitted.

ii) The portal be opened as above and public notice be

issued with direction to all recognized existing TEIs offering

B.Sc. B.Ed./ B.A. B.Ed. course (Prior to omission of the

Appendix-13) to apply afresh except the institution which

have either been already transited into ITEP or have been

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 11 of 16

issued Letter of Intent (LOI) by the Regional Committee

concerned.

iii) The application of those institutions which do not fulfil

the criteria of multidisciplinary institution shall be

summarily rejected by the Regional Committee.

7. All the institutions were informed vide Public Notice

dated 25.08.2025 that online portal will be opened by NCTE

in Mid-September 2025 and advised to be in readiness to

apply afresh with all the required relevant

papers/documents including proof of being

multidisciplinary institution as per Guidelines for

Transforming NCTE Recognized Stand-Alone Teacher

Education Institutions into Multidisciplinary Higher

Education Institutions available on NCTE Website. This

shall be the final opportunity to the institutions offering 4-

year Integrated B.Sc. B.Ed./ B.A. B.Ed. programme to

transition into 4-year Integrated Teacher Education

Programme (ITEP).

(emphasis supplied)

34. The petitioner No. 1 contends that the initial notice dated 05.02.2024

created two distinct classification of Institutions being Multidisciplinary

Higher Educational Institutions (“HEIs”) and the Stand Alone Teacher

Educational Institutions (“TEIs”). Proceeding on the basis of the said

classifications, it is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that the latter Public

Notice dated 12.09.2025 is applicable only to TEIs and has no

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 12 of 16

applicability to the petitioner No. 1 as it is an HEI. Consequently, as per

the petitioner No. 1, they stand exempted from the operation of and

directions contained in the notice dated 12.09.2025.

35. In this regard it is relevant to peruse the observations in the order dated

16.02.2026 of the learned Division Bench wherein the order dated

12.01.2026 was set aside. The relevant observations read as under:

“6. For appreciating the prayer made in the Writ Petition,

we need to take note of the Public Notice dated 12.09.2025

issued by the Appellants for operating of its portal for

providing final opportunity to the existing Institutions

offering 4-year integrated B.Sc., B.Ed./B.A. B.Ed. courses to

apply afresh for transition into 4-year ITEP course. The

said Public Notice also mentions a provision inserted in

Appendix-15 of National Council for Teacher Education

(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2014

which provides for a provision for transition to ITEP. Prior

to the said Public Notice dated 12.09.2025, Public Notice

dated 05.02.2024 providing for transition to ITEP was

issued. Whereafter on certain representations, a decision

was taken by the Appellants to accord final opportunity to

the Institutions seeking transition by giving an opportunity

to apply afresh online on the portal of the Appellants. It was

further provided that those institutions which have earlier

submitted application seeking transition in response to

Public Notice dated 05.02.2024 may be exempted from

making payment of processing fee subject to

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 13 of 16

specifying/mentioning the registration number of the earlier

application submitted.

7. The Respondent No.1- Institution had made application

on 05.03.2024 pursuant to the earlier Public Notice dated

05.02.2024 and thus according to the Public Notice dated

12.09.2025, it was not exempted from applying afresh; the

only exemption available to the Respondent No.1-

Institution was that it would be exempted from making

payment of processing fee. The last date of submission of

the application pursuant to the latter Public Notice dated

12.09.2025 was 05.10.2025.

8. The Respondent No.1- Institution has not challenged the

Public Notice dated 12.09.2025 requiring all Institutions

seeking transition to apply afresh. Admittedly, the

Respondent No.1- Institution did not submit its application

pursuant to the Public Notice dated 12.09.2025 prior to the

last date i.e. prior to 05.10.2025.

xxxx

10. However, what we notice from the order impugned in

this Appeal is that the learned Single Judge, without

considering the prayer and the context in which the prayer

was made in the Writ Petition, has allowed the Writ Petition

and has gone into the extent of directing the Appellants to

consider the application made by the Respondent No.1-

Institution not pursuant to the Public Notice dated

12.09.2025 but pursuant to the earlier Public Notice dated

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 14 of 16

05.02.2024. We may note that the need for issuing

subsequent Public Notice dated 12.09.2025 had arisen after

the process pursuant to earlier Public Notice 05.02.2024

was completed for the reason that several representations

were received from the institutions seeking their transition

to ITEP. We have already noticed that Public Notice dated

12.09.2025 did not exempt any institution from applying

afresh. The only exemption provided therein is that those

Institutions which had applied pursuant to the Public Notice

dated 05.02.2024 would be exempted from depositing the

processing fees. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are

of the opinion that the prayer granted in the Writ Petition by

the learned Single Judge exceeds the scope of Writ Petition

itself.

(emphasis supplied)

36. The findings returned by the learned Division Bench as aforesaid clearly

were with respect to the petitioner No. 1. The observation very

categorically states that the petitioner No. 1 Institution is not exempted

from applying afresh as the notice dated 12.09.2025 did not exempt any

Institution from applying afresh.

37. Thus, the argument of the petitioner No. 1 that the Public Notices dated

25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 is inapplicable to the petitioner No. 1 in light

of categorisation between HEIs and TEIs does not cut much ice. The

observations of the Division Bench shall have a binding effect on this

Court.

38. In the present petition as well the petitioner No. 1 has not challenged the

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 15 of 16

validity of the Public Notices dated 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 which

mandates that all the Institutions are required to apply afresh. Rather, it

seems that the petitioner via present writ petition is seeking to challenge

the observations made against it by the Division Bench in the Order dated

16.02.2026, which are binding upon this Court.

39. In light of the above, the prayer (A) cannot be granted to the petitioner

No. 1.

40. With respect to Prayer (B), since it is already discussed that all the

Institutions were required to apply afresh, the application dated

05.03.2024 which was submitted pursuant to the notice dated 05.02.2024

cannot be treated as a new application as per the notice dated 12.09.2026.

41. The timelines prescribed by the respondents under the regulatory

framework cannot be ordinarily diluted by the Court. The academic

schedules are to be strictly adhered to.

42. I also cannot lose sight of the categorical observations of the learned

Division Bench in the order dated 16.02.2026.The Division Bench, while

interpreting the effect of the Public Notices dated 25.08.2025 and

12.09.2025, unequivocally observed that no Institution stood exempted

from the requirement of applying afresh pursuant to the said notices.

There is no ambit of ambiguity left in the requirement that pursuant to the

notices dated 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 all Institutions, TEIs as well as

HEIs have to submit a fresh application and the only exemption available

is with respect to the processing fee.

43. In view thereof, the contention now sought to be advanced by the

petitioner No. 1 that it being a HEI falls outside the purview of the

impugned Public Notices cannot be permitted to be agitated. If there were

W.P. (C) 3746/2026 Page 16 of 16

any such distinctions between the HEIs and TEIs, the same ought to have

been specifically urged before the Division Bench. Having failed to do

so, the petitioner cannot now seek to circumvent the binding effect of the

observations of the Division Bench which are binding upon the petitioner.

CONCLUSION

44. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, nothing precludes the

petitioner No. 1 from approaching the respondent No. 1 in accordance

with law and extant rules and regulations for applying afresh for

subsequent academic years.

JASMEET SINGH, J.

MAY 29

th

, 2026/(MU)