High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/4860/2026

Vision College Of Teachers Training v. National Council For Teacher Education And ANR

2026-05-29Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh24 pages

$~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.

+ 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.

+ 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 1 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.

+ W.P.(C) 7771/2026 RAJASTHAN T.T. COLLEGE .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7791/2026 GANPATI MAHILA MAHAVIDHYALAYA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ 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 2 of 24

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

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7818/2026 MJRP COLLEGE OF EDUCATION .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ 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.

+ 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 3 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.

+ W.P.(C) 7911/2026 MAHATMA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL GIRLS COLLEGE .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7926/2026 ADITYA COLLEGE .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ 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 4 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.

+ W.P.(C) 6483/2026 MAA SHARDA MAHAVIDHYALAYA & ANR. .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ 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.

+ 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 5 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.

+ 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.

+ 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.

+ W.P.(C) 7607/2026 SORABH COLLEGE OF TEACHER TRAINING & ANR.

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

+ 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.

+ 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 7 of 24

Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ 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.

+ 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.

+ 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 8 of 24

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

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7704/2026 SHRI ONKAR SINGH MEMORIAL WOMENS TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7706/2026 SAMBAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ 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 9 of 24

Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7938/2026 SHRI G.D. KISSAN B.ED. COLLEGE .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7964/2026 SHRI KRISHNA TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE ....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7968/2026 SARASWATI GIRLS COLLEGE, MANOHARPUR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

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

+ W.P.(C) 7971/2026 MANAV P.G. MAHAVIDYALAYA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7737/2026 MAHARAJA AGRASEN TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 7739/2026 SHRI KANIRAM COLLEGE .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda Advs.

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

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.

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 12 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.

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.

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 13 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 twostage 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.

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.

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 15 of 24

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

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 20 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".

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 21 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 20262027. Let a copy of the inspection report also be supplied to the petitioner.

W.P.(C) 4860/2026 and connected matters Page 22 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 23 of 24

corrected and shall read as "VARDHMAN TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE & ANR."

and "BHASKAR KANYA P 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.

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