Disposed

Vidyawati Chaturvedi Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Member Secretary and Anr.

Delhi HC8 May 2026CONT.CAS(C)/828/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with directions in W.P.(C) 2633/2020 to consider the petitioner's representation on merits regarding B.Ed intake reduction. The Court found the WRC rejected the representation only on a technical ground, held this to be wilful disobedience, set aside the decision and directed fresh consideration on merits with hearing within two weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vidyawati Chaturvedi Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Vs Ms… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 08.05.2026

¶4

- CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026

¶5

VIDYAWATI CHATURVEDI SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Ms. Ritu Kumari, Mr. Keshav Sharma, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

MS. SUKHGEET KAUR, MEMBER SECRETARY AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶10

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )

¶11

CM APPL.31182/2026 (Exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026

¶15

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience/ non-compliance of the directions contained in the order 20.03.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2633/2020.

¶16

The petitioner was granted recognition vide an order dated 12.09.2008 by the Western Regional Committee (WRC) of NCTE/respondent no.2 for running a B.Ed course with an annual intake of 100 seats. Following a series of regulatory actions, including a withdrawal of recognition in 2017, the concerned appellate authority before which the said withdrawal was challenged by the petitioner remanded the matter back to respondent

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026 Page 1 of 6

¶19

Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Da te:0 8.05.2026 16:02:21

¶20

no.2/WRC for fresh consideration.

¶21

Pursuant thereto, the respondent no.2 restored the petitioner’s recognition on 09.07.2018, but reduced the intake from 100 seats to 50 seats. This reduction was based on the allegation that two faculty members lacked the required NET qualification as per the extant regulations.

¶22

The said decision to reduce intake by the WRC came to be appealed by the petitioner before the concerned appellate authority. However, the said appeal came to be dismissed vide an order dated 15.05.2019.

¶23

Consequently, the petitioner challenged the said reduction by way of W.P.(C) 2633/2020. On 20.03.2026, the following order came to be passed by the Court:-

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026 Page 2 of 6

¶26

Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Da te:0 8.05.2026 16:02:21

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Da te:0 8.05.2026 16:02:21

¶28

CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026 Page 3 of 6

¶29

It transpires during the course of hearing that the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected during the final Minutes of the 457^th Meeting of the Western Regional Committee (WRC)/respondent no.2 held between 20^th and 22^nd April, 2026 only for the reason that the petitioner had not submitted a fresh application in online mode in the prescribed format, along with the prescribed processing fee. The operative portion of the decision taken is as under:-

¶30

CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026 Page 4 of 6

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Da te:0 8.05.2026 16:02:21

¶33

Clearly, the respondent no.2/WRC has not considered the application of the petitioner on merits and has sought to reject the same only on a technical ground that the petitioner has failed to submit a fresh application in online mode in the prescribed format. The same ex facie results in wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 20.03.2026. In terms thereof, the respondent no.2 was mandated to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits. It was also implicit that an opportunity of hearing would be provided to the petitioner before taking the requisite decision. Paragraph-7 of the order dated 20.03.2026 goes on to clarify that an opportunity would be afforded to the petitioner to provide any document/ fulfil any additional requirement, so as to rectify any shortcoming.

¶34

In the circumstances, the decision taken during the final Minutes of the 457^th meeting of the Western Regional Committee (WRC) held between 20^th and 22^nd April, 2026 qua the petitioner is set aside, being in wilful

¶35

CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026 Page 5 of 6

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Da te:0 8.05.2026 16:02:21

¶38

disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 20.03.2026. It is agreed that the matter shall be considered afresh by the respondent no.2/Western Regional Committee (WRC) on merits and in accordance with law in line with the extant policy of the NCTE. An opportunity of hearing shall also be given to the petitioner.

¶39

Let the said exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two weeks from today.

¶40

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶41

Order dasti.

¶42

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶43

MAY 8, 2026/ uk

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026 Page 6 of 6

¶46

Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Da te:0 8.05.2026 16:02:21

Vidyawati Chaturvedi Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Member Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vidyawati Chaturvedi Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Member Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushant Anand Vs Neha Luthra

Sangeeta Aggarwal Vs Anuja Trivedi & Anr.

Jaskirat Singh Sethi Vs Pekhna Sethi

Brilltech Engineers Private Limited Vs Bharti Singh

The Shreeyans Educational Society Vs Shri Ashok Kumar and Anr.

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Garuda Urban Remedies Ltd. & Ors.

Ajaneesh Kumar Vs Bobby Luthra Sinha

Pramod Kumar Vs Alok Sharma

Sushant Anand Vs Neha Luthra

Ms.Karnika Khandelwal, Represented by Abhinav Khandelwal and Hema Pandey Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ram Shanker Saini Vs Union of India & Ors.

Era Infra Engineering Limited Vs M/S Haridwar Highways Project Limited & Anr.

M/S. Padam Exports Vs Shri Rajesh Agrawal & Anr.

Shyam Babu Vs Annu & Anr.