Disposed¶19

Hilzar Borden Education Centre Thru. Authorized Signatory Gaurav Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2026WRIC/1065/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NCTE recognition withdrawal; 441st meeting Northern Regional Committee; 899 institutions; Section 18 NCTE Act 1993 statutory appeal objection; Article 226 writ maintainability; PAR Performance Appraisal Report upload; public notice portal; parity with similarly situated institutions; Delhi High Court Writ-C No.5369 of 2025 Teachers Training College Mirzas 15.12.2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Subhash Vidyarthi J.; petition disposed 23.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be given an opportunity like other similarly situated institutions to upload information/documents (PAR) whenever opposite party no.3 issues a public notice and opens its portal. ¶19

Hilzar Borden Education Centre Thru. Authorized… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1065 of 2026

¶3

Hilzar Borden Education Centre Thru. Authorized Signatory Gaurav Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Pratap Singh, Shubhangi Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anagh Misra

¶9

Court No. - 17

¶10

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sandeep Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Anagh Misra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3-National Council for Teachers Education and perused the records.

¶12

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of a decision taken in 441st meeting of Northern Regional Committee of National Council of Teachers Education for withdrawal of recognition granted to 899 institutions, including the petitioner.

¶13

The learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and in view of the availability of statutory remedy the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶14

In response to the preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is confining his submission to the extent that the High Court of Delhi has decided numerous similar writ petitions, the leading writ petition being Writ-

¶15

WRIC No. 1065 of 2026

¶16

¶17

C No.5369 of 2025: Teachers Training College Mirzas Vs. National Council for Teachers Education and another, decided on 15.12.2025, which records a decision taken by Council apprising its Member Secretary to issue an appropriate public notice to be uploaded on the website of NCTE giving opportunity to the institutions whose recognition has been cancelled to upload their PAR (Performance Appraisal Report) so as to seek continuance of the recognition. The petitioner seeks an equal opportunity with other similarly situated institutions when the opposite party no.3 issues a public notice and opens its portal.

¶18

The learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has no objection against this limited submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed off by providing that whenever the opposite party no.3 issues a public notice and opens the portal for uploading of information/documents, the petitioner will also be given an opportunity like other similarly situated institutions.

¶20

February 23, 2026

¶21

Ram.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hilzar Borden Education Centre Thru. Authorized Signatory Gaurav Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hilzar Borden Education Centre Thru. Authorized Signatory Gaurav Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Rizwana Begam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 9 Others

U.P. Expressway Industrial Development Authority Thru.Chief Executive Officer Lucknow vs the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Resettlement Authority Lko. and 5 Others

U.P. Expressway Industrial Development Authority Thru.Chief Executive Officer Lucknow vs the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Resettlement Authority Lko. and 5 Others

U.P. Expressway Industrial Development Auth. Thru. Chief Executive Officer Lko. vs Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Auth. Lko. and 4 Others

Durga Prasad and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Supply Lko. and 4 Others