$~133

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 366/2026 & CM APPL. 1782/2026

RAJASTHAN SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN MAHAVIDYALAYA

& ANR.

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti

Kumari Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi,

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026

1. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order quashing the refusal order dated 14.11.2025 issued by

Western Regional Committee (WRC) of NCTE; and/or

b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order directing Respondents to process application for conversion of existing recognition of B.A.B.Ed/B.Sc.B.Ed to Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP) with consequential direction to issue conversion-recognition order

of ITEP course; and/or

c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or

order or direction to respondents to display the name of petitioner institution in the list/category of recognised institutions for conducting ITEP program on their website and toinformaffiliating Universityas wellas Departmentof Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan enabling participation in the counselling & admission process for the academic year

2026-27 and subsequent years;”

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel accepts notice for the Respondents.

4. This order is being passed in view of a similar order dated 24.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 19758/2025, covering the present issue. Based upon the said order and using the same reasons and expressions, this order is being passed.

5. The challenge in the present writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Western Regional Committee, whereby the petitioners’ application dated 05.10.2025 seeking transition of the existing B.A. B.Ed./B.Sc. B.Ed. programme to the Integrated Teacher Education Programme (“I.T.E.P.”) for the academic session 2026-27 was declined under Sections 14/15(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (“NCTE Act”).

6. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned decision has been rendered in breach of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the proviso to Section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, which obligates the Regional Committee to afford a reasonable opportunity to the institution to make a written representation prior to refusal of recognition. It is further stated that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to grant such opportunity by issuance of a show cause notice.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the petition is not maintainable as the impugned order does not state “refusal” of recognition.Anapplicationwhichisincompleteornotaccompaniedby requisite documents is liable to be rejected summarily under Regulation 7(1) and (2) of the National Council of Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, whereas refusal of recognition under Regulation 7(3) is attracted only in cases involving furnishing of false information or concealment of material facts having a bearing on the decision-making process. It is argued that the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 only notes deficiencies in the Petitioners’ application, including failure to establish that it is a multidisciplinary institution and failure to apply under the merger/collaboration category as per NCTE guidelines. The decision, therefore, constitutes a rejection and not a refusal, obviating the requirement of granting an opportunity of written representation under Section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. The submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 14.11.2