Kirorimal College Of Education v. National Council For Teacher Education & ANR.

$~77 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 325/2026 KIRORIMAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Gaurav Arora Adv.

versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal,Mr. Aishwarya Malhotra.

Tripta Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 09.01.2026 CM APPL. 1492/2026 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 325/2026 1.

This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- (a) quash the Refusal Order dt. 25.11.2025, whereby, the Respondent No.2 has Refused the application of the Petitioner Institution submitted for transition of its B.A. B.Ed./ B.Sc. B.Ed. course to I.T.E.P., for the academic session 2026-27;

without following the mandatory procedure; and (b) direct the Respondent No.2 to restore, reconsider & decide the aforesaid application of Petitioner Institution, submitted for transition of its B.A. B.Ed. / B.Sc. B.Ed. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

course to I.T.E.P., for the session 2026-27; within a reasonable time & in accordance with the provisions made therefor; and/or"

2.

Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that a refusal order dated 25.11.2025 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby application of the petitioner for transition of its B.A. B.ED./B.SC. B.ED. course to ITEP has been rejected. He further states that the impugned order has been passed without following the procedure laid down in Proviso to sub-Section (3)(b) of Section 14 of The National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('NCTE Act'), which provides that before passing any order under sub-Clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. It is urged that at this stage, the Petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Respondents to issue a show cause notice and give an opportunity to the Petitioner to make a representation.

3.

For the said reasons, issue notice.

4.

Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and on instructions, states that the impugned order does not reflect that opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to represent before the impugned order was passed, which is a mandate of Section 14(3)(b).

5.

It is well settled that any administrative decision entailing civil consequences must conform to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner applied on 04.10.2025 for transition of its four years B.A. B.ED./B.SC.

B.ED.

course to Integrated Teacher Education The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Programme, pursuant to NCTE Public Notice dated 12.09.2025. The application was considered by the Regional Committee, wherein a decision was taken to reject the application. Perusal of the refusal order dated 25.11.2025 does not indicate compliance of Proviso to subSection (3)(b) of Section 14 of NCTE Act. Clearly, the impugned order is in violation of the mandatory statutory provision and cannot be sustained on this short ground.

6.

In view of the above, without examining the merits of the deficiencies noted in the impugned order, the writ petition is allowed to the limited extent of setting aside the order dated 25.11.2025 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents are at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners specifying the alleged deficiencies and affording them an opportunity to submit a written representation. Upon receipt thereof, the petitioners shall file their response within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within two weeks and communicate the same to the petitioners. It is clarified that the petitioners shall remain at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies, if aggrieved by the decision so rendered.

7.

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8.

The present writ petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 9, 2026/DM The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.