1. Appeal against order setting aside refusal of transition applications for teacher education programme under NCTE Act and Regulations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Del) 1288
2026 DHC 8548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J., TEJAS KARIA, J.
National Council For Teacher Education & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Shri Taijal B.A. B.ED. Integrated College – Respondent
LPA 718 of 2026 & CM APPLs. 62322-27 of 2026, LPA 722 of 2026 & CM APPLs. 62352-57 of 2026, LPA 724 of 2026 & CM APPLs. 62366-70 of 2026, LPA 726 of 2026 & CM APPLs. 62385-89 of 2026, LPA 728 of 2026 & CM APPLs. 62399-404 of 2026, LPA 731 of 2026 & CM APPLs. 62427-31 of 2026, LPA 732 of 2026 & CM APPLs. 62440-44 of 2026, LPA 735 of 2026 & CM APPLs. 62461-65 of 2026, LPA 736 of 2026 & CM APPLs. 62476-81 of 2026
Decided On : 30-09-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Mr. Puneet Kumar and Mr. Asra H. Rashid, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastav, Advocate.
Important Points
The court held that preliminary documentary scrutiny under Regulation 7(1) of the NCTE Regulations is a mandatory prerequisite; applications cannot bypass this stage to proceed directly to inspection under Regulation 7(7) if they are incomplete or lack requisite documents.
Subject
Education Law - Teacher Education
Act Referred
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993
NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014: R.7, R.7(1), R.7(7), R.8.1
NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014: R.7, R.7(1), R.7(7), R.8.1
Headnote
(A) Regulatory Scrutiny - Application Process - Distinction between preliminary documentary scrutiny under Regulation 7(1) and physical inspection under Regulation 7(7). Preliminary scrutiny for completeness is a mandatory prerequisite and cannot be bypassed to proceed directly to inspection. (Para 16, 17, 21)
(B) Natural Justice - Refusal of Application - Requirement to afford reasonable opportunity to rectify deficiencies or respond to adverse grounds not previously communicated before taking a final decision. (Para 22, 23)
Issues: Whether the transition applications of institutions could proceed directly to the inspection stage without first undergoing the preliminary documentary scrutiny under Regulation 7(1) of the NCTE Regulations.
(B) Natural Justice - Refusal of Application - Requirement to afford reasonable opportunity to rectify deficiencies or respond to adverse grounds not previously communicated before taking a final decision. (Para 22, 23)
Issues: Whether the transition applications of institutions could proceed directly to the inspection stage without first undergoing the preliminary documentary scrutiny under Regulation 7(1) of the NCTE Regulations.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- education law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anuj Kapoor, Nandeesh Nanda, Puneet Kumar, Asra H. Rashid
For the Respondents: Sanjay Sharawat, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastav, Amitesh Kumar, Priti Kumari, Vipasha Jain, Gaurav Arora, Shubhanshu Mishra, Mayank Manish, Ravi Kant, Vineet Upadhyay
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anuj Kapoor, Nandeesh Nanda, Puneet Kumar, Asra H. Rashid
For the Respondents: Sanjay Sharawat, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastav, Amitesh Kumar, Priti Kumari, Vipasha Jain, Gaurav Arora, Shubhanshu Mishra, Mayank Manish, Ravi Kant, Vineet Upadhyay
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued refusal without inspection was valid; Respondents argued refusal violated natural justice as grounds required inspection. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Regulation 7(1) permits rejection for incomplete applications; Regulation 7(7) requires inspection. Both stages must be followed distinctly. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. A complete application need not proceed to inspection; scrutiny under Regulation 7(1) must precede any inspection under Regulation 7(7). (Para 16 , 17 , 21 )
5. Appeals disposed of; impugned orders modified; WRC to scrutinize applications under Regulation 7(1) within two weeks, then proceed per regulations. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 )
6. Can a refusal order under the NCTE Regulations be passed without first conducting an inspection?
Yes, if the application is incomplete or not accompanied by requisite documents, it can be rejected under Regulation 7(1) without inspection. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 )
7. Does direction to set aside a refusal order automatically require the application to proceed to inspection?
No. The application must first be considered under Regulation 7(1). Only if complete shall the process under Regulation 7(7) (inspection) follow. (Para 20 , 21 )
8. Must a Regional Committee consider an application under Regulation 7(1) before directing an inspection under Regulation 7(7)?
Yes. Regulation 7(1) and Regulation 7(7) operate at distinct stages. Scrutiny under 7(1) for completeness must precede any inspection under 7(7). (Para 15 , 16 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
TEJAS KARIA, J.
INTRODUCTION
1. This batch of intra court Appeals assail the orders dated 03.07.2026, 24.06.2026, 17.06.2026, 17.06.2026, 02.07.2026, 17.06.2026, 17.06.2026, 17.06.2026, and 03.07.2026 (“Impugned Orders”) passed in writ petitions bearing Nos. 8629/2026, 8340/2026, 8193/2026, 8197/2026, 8563/2026, 8204/2026, 8228/2026, 8219/2026, and 8632/2026 (“Writ Petitions”), filed by the respective Respondent-Institutions. Since these Appeals raise common issues, they are heard and decided by way of this Common Judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Respondents-Institutions are institutions formally recognised by the Western Regional Committee (“WRC”) of the National Council for Teacher Education (“NCTE”) for conducting four-year integrated B.A.B.Ed. / B.Sc. B.Ed. teacher education programme.
3. In 2020, the Government of India introduced the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP-2020), which, inter alia, recommended that all teacher education programmes be conducted within composite multidisciplinary institutions, requiring standalone teacher education institutions (“TEIs”) to transition into multidisciplinary higher education institutions (“HEIs”) by 2030.
4. Pursuant thereto, the NCTE initiated the process for transition of existing recognised four-year integrated B.A. B.Ed. / B.Sc. B.Ed. institutions into the Integrated Teacher Education Programme (“ITEP”). In furtherance thereof, the NCTE issued successive Public Notices dated 05.02.2024, 06.05.2025, 25.08.2025 and 12.09.2025 (“Public Notices”), prescribing the eligibility conditions, regulatory framework and timelines governing such transition.
5. Following the issuance of the Public Notices, the Respondent- Institutions submitted online applications seeking transition of their existing four-year integrated B.A. B.Ed. / B.Sc. B.Ed. programmes into ITEP for the Academic Session 2026-27 (“Transition Applications”). The Transition Applications were thereafter scrutinized by the WRC in accordance with the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (“NCTE Act”), the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (“NCTE Regulations”), as amended, and the applicable Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”), and other guidelines governing transition into ITEP.
6. Upon such scrutiny under Regulation 7 of the NCTE Regulations and the applicable SOP, the WRC noticed several deficiencies and non- compliances and issued preliminary Show Cause Notices to the Respondent- Institutions, calling upon the Respondent-Institutions to remove the said deficiencies and furnish the requisite statutory documents and compliances within 21 days.
7. The Respondent-Institutions thereafter submitted their replies to the Show Cause Notices. The WRC subsequently issued Final Show Cause Notices after preliminary scrutiny, calling upon the Respondent-Institutions to remove the listed deficiencies and furnish requisite statutory compliances and documents on the portal. Upon examination of the online replies, representations, and uploaded documents submitted by the Respondent- Institutions, the WRC concluded that the Respondent-Institutions had failed to satisfy multiple threshold statutory and regulatory prerequisites.
8. Consequent to the decision of the WRC, Refusal Orders dated 12.05.2026, 15.04.2026, 24.04.2026, 10.04.2026, 30.04.2026 (“Refusal Orders”) were issued to the respective Respondent-Institutions under the NCTE Act, rejecting their respective Transition Applications.
9. Aggrieved by the Refusal Orders, the Respondent-Institutions instituted Writ Petitions challenging the Refusal Orders and seeking, inter alia, directions to the NCTE to conduct an inspection of the Respondent-Institutions.
10. Vide the Impugned Orders, the Writ Petitions were allowed, and the Refusal Orders were set aside, with a direction to the NCTE to conduct an inspection of the Respondent-Institutions and thereafter complete the show cause and adjudication process within the prescribed timeframe.
11.
