SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Nyapathy Vijay, J
ABDULKALAM D.EL.ED COLLEGE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
W.P.Nos.6329, 6405, 6426, 6482, 6484 & 6775 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijay Mathukumilli
For the Respondents: GP for School Education, Venna Hemanth Kumar

Derecognition of educational institutions under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, without issuing a show-cause notice is illegal; the authority must provide an opportunity for explanation and pass a reasoned order.

Headnote:The matter pertains to the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, specifically Section 14 and Section 17. An educational institution was derecognized via proceedings dated 05.10.2021 without the issuance of a prior notice. The court noted that similar orders for other institutions had been set aside in previous litigations, and this position was confirmed by the Division Bench. The primary issue is whether the derecognition of the institution without notice is sustainable in law. The court reasoned that since the petitioners are similarly situated to those in previous batches where the orders were set aside, the same relief must be granted, emphasizing that derecognition requires the issuance of a fresh show-cause notice and the passing of a reasoned order after considering the explanation. The impugned Order dated 05.10.2021 is hereby set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of the challenge against derecognition without notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the timeliness of the writ petition and laches. (Para 4 , 5)
3. requirement of show-cause notice and reasoned orders for derecognition. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. setting aside the impugned order and directing procedural compliance. (Para 9)

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in treating the Petitioner institution as derecognized pursuant to proceedings F.No.NCTE-Reg/018/119/2021 -Regulation Section- SRC/AP/128711 dated 05-10-2021 (in which the Petitioner is shown at Serial No. 229) as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and consequently set aside the said impugned proceedings insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, in the light of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court and the Division Bench, and direct the Respondents to issue fresh show cause notice, if so advised, and proceed strictly in accordance with Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant an interim order suspending the operation and implementation of the impugned proceedings bearing F. No. NCTE- Reg/018/119/2021-Regulation Section-SRC/AP/128711 dated 05-10-2021, in so far as the present Petitioner institution shown at Serial No. 229 in the said impugned proceedings is concerned, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

The Court made the following order:

COMMON ORDER:

Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in this batch of Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. To appreciate the lis involved in these petitions, W.P. No. 6329 of 2026 is treated as the lead case, and the facts therein are being adverted to.

W.P.No.6329 of 2026

2. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.3 in treating the Petitioner’s Institution as derecognized pursuant to the proceedings in F.No.NCTE- Reg/018/119/2021-ReglationsSection-SRC/AP/128711, dated 05.10.2021, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The Petitioner’s Institution was initially granted recognition under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the NCTE Act, 1993’) for conducting the Diploma in Education (D.Ed) course in accordance with the statutory mandate. While so, the impugned Proceedings dated 05.10.2021 were issued by Respondent No. 3, derecognizing several institutes across the country under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, without issuing any notice. Questioning the same, several Writ Petitions, vide W.P. No. 7002 of 2022 and batch, were filed before this Court. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petitions by way of a Common Order dated 15.11.2022, setting aside the proceedings issued by Respondent No. 3. The said Common Order was confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 426 of 2025 on 04.08.2025. It is stated that the Petitioner did not file a Writ Petition challenging the order issued by Respondent No. 3 in derecognizing the Petitioner’s Institution at the earliest point of time, as the Petitioner’s Institution was under the impression that setting aside the orders passed by Respondent No. 3 in one of the Writ Petitions would accrue to the benefit of all the institutions similarly situated. Subsequently, the Petitioner’s Institution was informed that the Petitioner should challenge the orders passed by Respondent No. 3 in derecognizing the Petitioner’s Institution independently. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that, though there is a delay in filing the Writ Petition, the delay is only to the advantage o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top