Maa Bandhui Devraj Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9169/2024, C.M. APPL. 37507/2024 MAA BANDHUI DEVRAJ MAHAVIDYALAYA & ANR.

¶4

.....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs. versus

¶5

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tamim Qadri, Mr. Saahil Gupta, Mr. Diwas Kumar, Advs. Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Ms. Tripta Sharma, Advs. for NCTE

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 20.03.2026

¶7

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayers :-

¶8

“a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order quashing & setting aside the withdrawal order dated 07.10.2023 issued by NRC withdrawing recognition of B.Ed. course of Petitioner Institution and also order dated 12.04.2024 passed by Appellate Authority of NCTE; and/or b) issue direction/order of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order directing the respondents to issue the restoration order in respect of B.Ed. course (2 Basic Units)

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/03/2026 at 13:12:22

¶11

of the Petitioner Institution with consequential direction to issue the Revised Recognition Order and correct the status of Petitioner Institution as a recognized Institution for 2 basic units (100 seats) on their website and to inform the Affiliating University & the Department of Higher Education, Government of U.P. enabling the petitioner to conduct the B.Ed. course with 2 basic units (100 seats); and/or…”

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are old institutions duly recognized by the Northern Regional Committee (“ NRC ”) from 2011. After the coming up of NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (“ NCTE Regulations, 2014 ”) the norms of B.Ed. Courses changed and consequently, the respondent vide letter dated 24.12.2014 issued guidelines for the existing institutions. The petitioners were required to give an affidavit confirming its acceptance to the adherence NCTE Regulations, 2014 and to give an undertaking to fulfil the revised norms.

¶13

The petitioners submitted two affidavits in this regard. However, only one affidavit was received by respondent No. 2. Despite receiving the affidavit, the impugned orders dated 07.10.2023 by the respondent No. 2 and the appellate authority’s order dated 12.04.2024, confirming the order dated 07.10.2023, were passed.

¶14

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the petitioners will submit a fresh affidavit.

¶15

Mr. Rupal, learned counsel for the respondents, states that respondent No. 2 will give a fresh hearing to the petitioners in this regard.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/03/2026 at 13:12:22

¶18

In this regard, Paragraph No. 7 the order dated 30.07.2021, passed in W.P.(C) 7260/2021 holds relevance and reads as under:

¶19

“7. As several petitions for substantially similar relief are being filed in this Court, it is further directed that, whenever a withdrawal order is challenged by an institution (either by way of appeal or by way of writ proceedings) and the matter is remanded to the concerned regional committee, the regional committee will issue an order of restoration of recognition in favour of the institution, pending reconsideration of the withdrawal order. Although the Appellate Committee of the NCTE would be well advised to expressly quash the original order of the concerned regional committee while remanding the matter, the position in law is that the order automatically stands quashed. The institution is, therefore, entitled to the benefits of recognition until a fresh withdrawal order is passed. The order of restoration of recognition should be issued within two weeks of the order of remand being communicated to the regional committee, or upon request of the concerned institution. This streamlined procedure would obviate the multiplicity of litigation which is being witnessed at present. Neither the concerned institutions nor the NCTE should be put to the burden of filing or defending proceedings before the Court for this purpose.”

¶20

In the view of the above, since the matter is being remanded to the NRC, the NRC shall issue an order of restoration of recognition in

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/03/2026 at 13:12:22

¶23

favour of the petitioners, pending reconsideration of the withdrawal order.

¶24

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶25

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶26

MARCH 20, 2026/sp

¶27

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/03/2026 at 13:12:22

Maa Bandhui Devraj Mahavidyalaya & Anr. v. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maa Bandhui Devraj Mahavidyalaya & Anr. v. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

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

Staff Selection Commission and Anr. Vs Mandeep

Chandra Farms and Nursery Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

G. S. Sodhi Vs NTPC Ltd. and Anr.

Suman Anand Vs Punjab National Bank (Obc)

Shilpy International Vs Commissioner of Vat & Anr.

Shri Digamber Jain Mahila Ashram Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

Negina Noori and Anr. Vs Union of India

Shri Satiram Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training

Shri Sidh Shani Dham Welfare Association Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Sh. Ram Phal and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Satish Chander and Ors. Vs Government of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Rupa Saket Vs University Grants Commission & Anr.

Vidyawati Chaturvedi Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Ors.