Royal College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education (Ncte Src)

ROYAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION A UNIT OF ROYAL CONCORDE EDUCATION TRUST, HAVING ITS REG. OFF @ CHALLAKERE, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BANASAWADI, OUTER RING ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 043. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI S/O SIDDARAMAIAH.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. AKASH B SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION (NCTE SRC) G-7, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE

¶15

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION (NCTE) G-7, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. M.VINOD KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50109 WP No. 36056 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN ITS 461^ST MEETING HELD ON 26^TH AND 27^TH MAY, 2025 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04/10/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-B THEREBY CONFIRMING THE EARLIER WITHDRAWAL ORDER DATED 23/05/2018, VIDE ANNEXURE-C WHICH HAS BEEN ALREADY QUASHED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND DIRECTED THE PETITIONER TO FILE AFRESH APPLICATION FOR TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMME(S) THROUGH ONLINE PORTAL WHEN THE NCTE INVITES, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Sri.Vinod Kumar M, learned counsel accepts notice for

¶25

the respondents.

¶26

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

I. Quash the impugned order passed by the Respondents in its 461^st meeting held on 26^th & 27^th May, 2025 without considering the representation of the petitioner dated 04.10.2024 vide AnnexureB, thereby confirming the earlier withdrawal order dated 23.05.2018 vide Annexure-C, which has been already quashed by this Hon'ble Court and directed the petitioner to file afresh application for Teacher Education Programme(s) through online portal when the NCTE invites, vide Annexure-A.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50109 WP No. 36056 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

II. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.10.2024 produced at AnnexureB seeking to reconsider the order of recognition in accordance with law, without reference to the withdrawal order dated 23.05.2018 produced at Annexure-C.

¶32

III. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶34

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner could not submit a reply to the show-cause notice issued by the respondents, who proceeded to pass the impugned order withdrawing the recognition granted in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that due to various administrative reasons and ill-health of the persons in-charge of the affairs of the petitioner's institution, the petitioner could not file appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50109 WP No. 36056 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

challenging the impugned order and as such, the present petition may be disposed of condoning the delay by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

Though several contentions have been urged by the petitioner in support of his claim, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that its inability and omission to submit a reply to the show-cause notice as well as to prefer an appeal against the impugned order within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority by issuing further directions in this regard.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:50109 WP No. 36056 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

In the result, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The petition is disposed of.

¶47

(ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 before the appropriate Appellate Authority.

¶48

(iii) If the petitioner files such an appeal before the appropriate authority within a period of Eight (8) weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall condone the delay on the part of the petitioner in filing such an appeal and dispose off the appeal on merits and in accordance with law.

¶49

(iv) Immediately upon the petitioner filing such an appeal, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50109 WP No. 36056 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

(v) It is made clear that the present order is passed in the peculiar/special/unique facts and circumstances of the instant case and this order shall not be treated as precedent nor shall it carry as precedential value for any purpose or whatsoever.

¶53

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶54

DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Royal College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education (Ncte Src)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education (Ncte Src)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Shri. Ameerul Sheeraz, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M R Jewels Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Nelannne Maheshwarappa Mohan Vs Chief Commissioner

Smt M Manjula Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax