High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/1703/2026

Deen Dayal Upadhyay B.Ed. College v. National Council For Teacher Education And ANR

2026-04-07Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh7 pages

$~52 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1703/2026 & CM APPL. 8234/2026 DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY B.ED. COLLEGE ....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sanjay Sharawat Sr. Adv with Mr. Ravi Kant, Mr. Mayank Manish, Mr. Vineet Upadhyay & Mr. Ayush Aanand, Advs.

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

Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Ms. Tripta Sharma, Advs

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 07.04.2026 1.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- "(a) quash the decision taken by the Respondent No.2 in its 451st meeting [Vol-II] held on 19th to 21st November 2025, whereby the Respondent No.2 has withdrawn the recognition of Petitioner Institution for running the Petitioner's B.Ed. course, in an arbitrary and illegal manner; and (b) direct the Respondent No.2 to issue order of restoration of petitioner's recognition; reflect on its official website, status of Petitioner Institution as 'recognized' for running the B.Ed. course; and communicate the said recognized status to the Petitioner Institution's Affiliating University and the State Department of Higher Education. ..."

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

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner in October, 2004 was granted recognition for running a B.Ed. Course with annual intake of 100 students. Thereafter the petitioner has been running the said institution. 3.

On 05.06.2015, the petitioner consented for 2 units of B.Ed. Course and accordingly revised Recognition Order dated 05.06.2015 issued with annual intake of 100 students from Academic Session 2016-17. 4.

The NRC issued a public notice on 30.03.2021 seeking compliance of the NCTE Regulations 2014 from the institutions to who, the revised recognition orders in terms of the said 2014 Regulations, were required to be issued.

The petitioner issued additional documents including Undertaking of Management, List of existing faculty, adequacy of area etc. Prior to the same, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 12.12.2018 in WPC No. 1311/2017 observed in paragraph 115 as under: "115. Apart from the instructional deficiency, the institute is not lacking any other deficiency and, therefore, the recommendations of the SIT are set aside and, accordingly, the institute is permitted to run two courses subject to the removal of instructional deficiencies by the next academic session." 6.

The respondents carried out inspection of the petitioner institution on 07.10.2021 under Section 13 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and thereafter in its own 451st Meeting recorded as under:

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the said decision on the ground that compliance of Section 13 of the NCTE Act has not been made in its entirety. Section 13 of the Act reads as under:- "13. Inspection.-(1) For the purpose of ascertaining whether the recognised institutions are functioning in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Council may cause inspection of any such institution, to be made by such persons as it may direct, and in such manner as may be prescribed. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

(2) The Council shall communicate to the institution the date on which inspection under sub-section (1) is to be made and the institution shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) The Council shall communicate to the said institution, its views in regard to the results of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of that institution, recommend to that institution the action to be taken as a result of such inspection.

(4) All communications to the institution under this section shall be made to the executive authority thereof, and the executive authority of the institution shall report to the Council the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purpose of implementing any such recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3)."

Mr. Rupal, learned counsel for the respondents, has handed over a counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

Ground B of the petition, categorically states that there is no compliance of Section 13(3) of the Act which requires the views of the council to be communicated to the institution with regard to the inspection report and require the opinion of the institution and also recommend to the institution the action to be taken as a result of the inspection.

10.

Admittedly, there is no response to the said averment and ground of the petition.

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

11.

To my mind, withdrawal of the recognition order has serious consequences on the petitioner institute, the staff it employs as well as the students.

12.

If Section 13 of the Act mandates its compliance in a particular manner the same needs to be done in its true letter, spirit and intent. Non-compliance of Section 13 of the Act would render the entire basis of the action of withdrawal of recognition per se illegal, being contrary to Section 13.

13.

For the said reasons, the petition succeeds and the decision taken in the 451st meeting is set aside. Even though the petitioner has not challenged the order of withdrawal of recognition but has only challenged the minutes of the 451st meeting, I am of the view that since the fountain head of the decision, i.e. minutes of 451st meeting are set aside, consequently, the decision of withdrawal of recognition is also set aside.

14.

Since the order of withdrawal of recognition has been set aside, the respondents shall issue restoration order and communicate the same to the affiliating university and the concerned State Government expeditiously and not later than 4 weeks from today. 15.

With aforesaid directions the petition is disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J APRIL 7, 2026/AS (Corrected and released on 15.04.2026) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.