W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 1 of 24

$~71,28-30,32,33,50,57,59,64,65,68,70-73,75,85-87,89-96,

106,108,110,124,125

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 29.05.2026

+ W.P.(C) 4860/2026& CM APPL. 23901/2026, CM APPL.23902/2026

VISION COLLEGE OF TEACHERS TRAINING .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv Mr.

Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayish Aanand Adv

Mr. Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

28

+ W.P.(C) 7747/2026

GYAYAK T.T. COLLEGE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

29

+ W.P.(C) 7767/2026

HUKUM CHAND NOBLE INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 2 of 24

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

30

+ W.P.(C) 7771/2026

RAJASTHAN T.T. COLLEGE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

32

+ W.P.(C) 7791/2026

GANPATI MAHILA MAHAVIDHYALAYA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

33

+ W.P.(C) 7799/2026

RAMSWAROOP AGRAWAL TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 3 of 24

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATIO N AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

50

+ W.P.(C) 7818/2026

MJRP COLLEGE OF EDUCATION .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

57

+ W.P.(C) 7855/2026

NIRMAL TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE & ANR. ...Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

59

+ W.P.(C) 7878/2026

BHARTI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 4 of 24

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

64

+ W.P.(C) 7911/2026

MAHATMA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL GIRLS COLLEGE

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

65

+ W.P.(C) 7926/2026

ADITYA COLLEGE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

68

+ W.P.(C) 6445/2026

KULDEEPAK COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR. ....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 5 of 24

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

70

+ W.P.(C) 6483/2026

MAA SHARDA MAHAVIDHYALAYA & ANR. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

72

+ W.P.(C) 6409/2026

B T INSTITUTE OF EXCELLENCE & ANR. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

73

+ W.P.(C) 6511/2026

VIJYASHREE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE & ANR. ...Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 6 of 24

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

75

+ W.P.(C) 7512/2026

ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDHYALAYA & ANR. ...Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti

Kumari & Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

85

+ W.P.(C) 7599/2026

VARDMAN TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE & ANR.

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR .

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

86

+ W.P.(C) 7607/2026

SORABH COLLEGE OF TEACHER TRAINING & ANR.

.....Petitioner

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 7 of 24

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

87

+ W.P.(C) 7617/2026

SORABH COLLEGE OF TEACHER TRAINING & ANR.

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

89

+ W.P.(C) 7627/2026

ORIENTAL B ED COLLEGE & ANR. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 8 of 24

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

90

+ W.P.(C) 7631/2026

CHOUDHARY A R COLLEGE & ANR. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

91

+ W.P.(C) 7661/2026

BHASKAR KANAYA P G MAHAVIDALAYA & ANR.

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Mr.

Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

92

+ W.P.(C) 7701/2026

B D MEMORIAL KALYAN SANSTHAN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 9 of 24

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

93

+ W.P.(C) 7704/2026

SHRI ONKAR SINGH MEMORIAL WOMENS TEACHERS

TRAINING COLLEGE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

94

+ W.P.(C) 7706/2026

SAMBAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER E DUCATION AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

95

+ W.P.(C) 7719/2026

AKASHDEEP PG GIRLS COLLEGE & ANR. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti

Kumari & Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION..Respondent

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 10 of 24

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

96

+ W.P.(C) 7938/2026

SHRI G.D. KISSAN B.ED. COLLEGE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

106

+ W.P.(C) 7964/2026

SHRI KRISHNA TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE ....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

108

+ W.P.(C) 7968/2026

SARASWATI GIRLS COLLEGE, MANOHARPUR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 11 of 24

110

+ W.P.(C) 7971/2026

MANAV P.G. MAHAVIDYALAYA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

124

+ W.P.(C) 7737/2026

MAHARAJA AGRASEN TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

125

+ W.P.(C) 7739/2026

SHRI KANIRAM COLLEGE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with

Mr. Mayank Manish Adv Mr. Ravi Kant Adv

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay Adv Mr. Ayush Aanand

Adv Jayant Dubey Adv

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 12 of 24

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

JASMEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 4860/2026

1. The facts of this writ petition are being treated as the lead petition.

2. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following prayers:-

“(a) quash the Refusal Order dated 11.03.2026 issued by the

Respondent No.2, whereby it has refused the application

submitted by Petitioner Institution for transition of its B.A.

B.Ed. / B.Sc. B.Ed. course to Integrated Teacher Education

Programme, for the Academic Session 2026-27; in an arbitrary

and illegal manner; and

(b) direct the Respondent no.2 to restore, reconsider and

decide the aforesaid application of the Petitioner Institution,

submitted for transition of its B.A. B.Ed. / B.Sc. B.Ed. course to

Integrated Teacher Education Programme, for ensuing

academic session; in accordance with provisions made

therefor, as also, in a reasonable time...”

3. In the present matter, the notice was issued vide order dated

13.04.2026 and yet, no reply has been filed on behalf of respondents.

4. However, since there is urgency in the matter, the petition is taken up

for hearing.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a running institution

and is seeking transition to the 4-year ITEP course. After the first

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 13 of 24

round of litigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner

on 19.12.2025 pointing out 5 deficiencies. Subsequently, the

petitioner responded to the said Show Cause Notice within stipulated

time and thereafter, another Show Cause Notice was issued on

03.02.2026 pointing out additional 27 deficiencies. The same was also

responded to on 10.02.2026. Thereafter, the impugned refusal order

was passed on 11.03.2026 refusing transition.

6. Hence, the present petition.

7. Mr. Sharawat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, states that in

the present case, the petitioner has deposited application fee and is

only seeking inspection of the petitioner institute. The deficiencies as

pointed out in the 2 Show Cause Notices as well as in the impugned

refusal orders have been passed without inspecting the petitioner

institution, which is contrary to the National Council For Teacher

Education (“NCTE”) Regulations.

8. Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel for respondents, states that in the present

case, the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of approaching

the appellate forum. He further places reliance upon the Scheme of

the NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2014 as

well as the Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) governing

processing of applications The regulatory framework itself

contemplates issuance of two separate Show Cause Notices at distinct

stages of scrutiny and therefore the argument that both Show Cause

Notices must be identical or cannot contain different grounds is

wholly misconceived. He states that the first Show Cause Notice is

issued at the stage of preliminary scrutiny and maintainability,

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 14 of 24

particularly to determine whether the applicant institution satisfies the

threshold eligibility requirements, including compliance with the

requirement of being a Multidisciplinary Institution (“MDI”).

Thereafter, upon consideration of documents and materials placed on

record, a second Show Cause Notice may be issued containing further

deficiencies or grounds arising during substantive scrutiny of the

application. In this regard, the SOP of the NCTE was specifically

relied upon to demonstrate that the Council possesses the power and

authority to undertake preliminary scrutiny and form a prima facie

satisfaction regarding eligibility before directing inspection. It was

argued that inspection is not an automatic or mechanical exercise and

can be undertaken only where the Council is prima facie satisfied that

the institution fulfills the threshold requirements under the

Regulations. Reliance was also placed upon Regulation No. 7(7) of

the NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2014,

which provides that the Regional Committee may decide the matter

either on the recommendations of the State Government or “on its

own merits.” It was submitted that the expression “on its own merits”

necessarily implies that the NCTE is empowered to independently

scrutinize the application and assess whether the institution satisfies

the essential eligibility conditions before proceeding further, including

before ordering inspection. It was further argued that the SOP and

Regulations operate harmoniously and specifically contemplate a two-

stage scrutiny mechanism involving separate Show Cause Notices.

Accordingly, the mere fact that the second Show Cause Notice

contains additional or more detailed grounds cannot by itself

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 15 of 24

invalidate the proceedings. Further submissions were advanced that

the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal

under Section 18 of the NCTE Act and that the Hon’ble Court, in

exercise of writ jurisdiction, ought not to undertake factual

examination regarding veracity of documents or grant transitional

relief bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism. It was also

submitted on behalf of the NCTE that the validity of the refusal order

must be independently assessed and that any alleged infirmity in the

Show Cause Notices does not ipso facto render the refusal order

invalid, particularly where the grounds forming the basis of refusal

are otherwise sustainable on merits.

9. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

10. As regards the question of equally efficacious remedy is concerned,

there is merit in the submission that the Show Cause Notices itself are

contrary to the NCTE Regulations.

11. Regulation No. 7 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure)

Regulations, 2014 reads as under:-

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 16 of 24

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 17 of 24

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 18 of 24

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 19 of 24

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 20 of 24

12. Regulation No. 7(1) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure)

Regulations, 2014, reproduced above, shows that an application made

by the institute can be rejected only (a) if it is not complete and/or (b)

requisite documents are not attached to the application. In the present

case, the same is not the situation. The Show Cause Notices show

various non-compliances by the petitioner institution, which

according to my mind can only be done after inspection. Before

inspection and issuance of Letter of Intent (“LOI”), the respondents

cannot be in a position to require the petitioner to show cause against

deficiencies such as shortage of teaching staff, lack of physical

infrastructure etc. While the respondents are right in contending that

two show cause notices can be issued, but the show cause notices are

in violation of Regulation No. 7 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms &

Procedure) Regulations, 2014, as explained.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Rikhab Chand Jain

v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510, has reiterated the

settled position of law concerning the exercise of writ jurisdiction

vested with the Courts, despite the availability of an alternative

statutory remedy. The existence of an alternative remedy is termed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment as a self-imposed

restriction and the same cannot be treated as an absolute bar. The

relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-

“7. Decisions of this court are legion from which guidance

can aptly be drawn as to when a writ petition ought to be

entertained despite the party approaching the High Court

not exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available to

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 21 of 24

him/her/it. Insistence by the courts—both this court and the

High Courts—of exhaustion of a statutory remedy provided

by an enactment before invoking the writ jurisdiction of a

High Court under article 226 of the Constitution can be

traced to one of several self-imposed restrictions, laid down

by judicial precedents of this court. Unless, of course, any of

the exceptions (challenge to an act/order grounded on (i)

breach of a fundamental right; (ii) violation of natural

justice principles; (iii) lack of jurisdiction; and (iv)

unconstitutionality of a statute) is satisfied, that a writ court

may refuse to entertain a writ petition does not admit of

anydoubt. This court relying on a host of decisions including

State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh [1957 SCC OnLine SC

21; AIR 1958 SC 86.] and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v.

State of Orissa [(1983) 53 STC 315 (SC); (1983) 142 ITR

663 (SC); (1983) 2 SCC 433; 1983 SCC (Tax) 131; 1983

SCC OnLine SC 102.] has, in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise

and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority [(2023) 109

GSTR 402 (SC); 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95.] , reiterated that

availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust

the jurisdiction of a writ court. It was also explained how

“entertainability of a writ petition” is a concept distinct

from the concept of “maintainability of a writ petition”.

(Emphasis added)

14. From a conspectus of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that

even though the Section 18 of the NCTE Act provides an appellate

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 22 of 24

statutory remedy but in the present case, the availability of such

statutory remedy, does not stand in way of this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the show

cause notice which forms the basis of the impugned order is itself

vitiated by law for the reason of being violative of principles of

natural justice and violative of Regulation No. 7 of the NCTE

(Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2014.

15. These are important institutions which are required to function within

strict and time bound parameters. The timelines governing such

matter have been authoritatively prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Courtitself in its judgment titled Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 617, which are to be

scrupulously followed by all the concerned parties. The necessity to

ensure compliance with these timelines is also one of the grounds

which persuades me to entertain the present petition.

16. For the said reasons, the present petition is allowed and the impugned

Refusal Order dated 11.03.2026 is set aside. Accordingly, the

respondents shall conduct inspection of the petitioner College within

3 weeks from today and shall thereafter take all appropriate necessary

steps to ensure that the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are

scrupulously complied with. The entire exercise including the

issuance of show cause notice pointing out the deficiencies, furnishing

of their replies, and the adjudication of those show cause notices, shall

be completed on or before 30.06.2026, for the academic session 2026-

2027. Let a copy of the inspection report also be supplied to the

petitioner.

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 23 of 24

17. This order is being passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of this

case, where the institute in question seeking transition, is already an

institute operating a 4-year integrated B.A.B.Ed./ B.Sc. B.Ed. course

and the infrastructural requirements are not substantially different.

18. With these directions, the present petition is disposed of, along with

pending applications, if any.

W.P.(C) 7747/2026, W.P.(C) 7767/2026, W.P.(C) 7771/2026, W.P.(C)

7791/2026, W.P.(C) 7799/2026, W.P.(C) 7818/2026, W.P.(C) 7855/2026

W.P.(C) 7878/2026, W.P.(C) 7911/2026, W.P.(C) 7926/2026, W.P.(C)

7512/2026, W.P.(C) 7599/2026, W.P.(C) 7607/2026, W.P.(C) 7617/2026,

W.P.(C) 7627/2026, W.P.(C) 7631/2026, W.P.(C) 7661/2026, W.P.(C)

7701/2026, W.P.(C) 7704/2026, W.P.(C) 7706/2026, W.P.(C) 7719/2026,

W.P.(C) 7938/2026, W.P.(C) 7964/2026, W.P.(C) 7968/2026, W.P.(C)

7971/2026, W.P.(C) 7737/2026, W.P.(C) 7739/2026

19. These are writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking similar prayers as in W.P.(C) 4860/2026.

20. For the reasons stated in the petitions, issue notice.

21. Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents.

22. These petitions are covered by the order/judgment passed above in

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and the order/judgment passed above in W.P.(C)

4860/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis to all these cases as well.

Consequently, the impugned refusal order(s) are set aside. The

respondents are bound by the directions contained in paragraph No.

16, herein above, and shall act accordingly.

23. At the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the name

of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 7599/2026 and W.P. (C) 7661/2026 is

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 24 of 24

corrected and shall read as “VARDHMAN TEACHER TRAINING

COLLEGE & ANR.” and “BHASKAR KANYA P G

MAHAVIDALAYA & ANR”, respectively.

24. With these directions, the present petitions are disposed of, along with

pending applications, if any.

W.P.(C) 6445/2026, W.P.(C) 6483/2026, W.P.(C) 6409/2026, W.P.(C)

6511/2026

25. These are writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking similar prayers as in W.P.(C) 4860/2026.

26. These petitions are covered by the order/judgment passed above in

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and the order/judgment passed above in W.P.(C)

4860/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis to all these cases as well.

Consequently, the impugned refusal order(s) are set aside. The

respondents are bound by the directions contained in paragraph No.

16, herein above, and shall act accordingly.

27. With these directions, the present petitions are disposed of, along with

pending applications, if any.

JASMEET SINGH, J

MAY 29, 2026 / (MS)

(corrected and released on 02.06.2026)