HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10128/2025 Rajasthan Shikshak Prashikshan Vidyapeeth, Shahpura Bagh, Amer Road, Jaipur Through Its Secretary Dr. Raj Kumar Joshi Son Of Late Sh. Moti Lal Joshi, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Shahpura Bagh, Amer Road, Jaipur- Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. National Council For Teacher Education, G-7 Sector- 10 Dwarka New Delhi - 110075, Through Its Member Secretary. 2. Northern Regional Committee, National Council For Teacher Education, G-7 Sector- 10 Dwarka New Delhi - 110075, Through Its Regional Director. 3. Western Regional Committee, National Council For Teacher Education, G-7 Sector- 10 Dwarka New Delhi - 110075, Through Its Regional Director ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the National Council for Teacher Education (for short ‘NCTE’), by which the recognition of the petitioner institution has been withdrawn. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a Shiksha Shastri Course, for which permission was granted vide file No.RJ-34. Counsel submits (2 of 4) [CW-10128/2025] that on account of certain technicalities, the said permission/recognition order was withdrawn, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal. Counsel submits that the said appeal was allowed and recognition order of the petitioner was restored, but this time a new file bearing No.RJ-486 was allotted to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner submitted desired documents of Performance Appraisal Report (for short ‘PAR’), but those documents were not considered and giving the reference of the earlier file No.RJ-34 indicating therein that the desired PAR were not submitted, hence, the recognition of the petitioner has been withdrawn by the NCTE vide order dated 29.05.2025. Counsel submits that there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner in submitting the desired documents i.e. PAR etc., but the same were not considered, hence, the order passed by the NCTE is not sustainable. 3. Counsel submits that even a representation was submitted by the petitioner before the authorities, but the same was not considered and the order impugned has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order impugned is appealable under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education, Act 1993 (for short, ‘NCTE Act’) before the Statutory Appellate Authority and without availing the said remedy, the petitioner cannot (3 of 4) [CW-10128/2025] approach this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by this Court in the case of Gurukul Education Society and Anr. vs. National Council for Teacher Education and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11356/2025 and order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Madras High Court in the case of Vinayaga Education College vs. The Regional Director and Another while deciding Writ Petition No.21828/2025. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected on this count alone. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Without going into the merits of the case and controversy involved in this petition, but looking to the fact that the order impugned is appealable under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, and without availing the said alternative statutory remedy, the same cannot be assailed before this Court straightaway bypassing the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that a direction be issued to the NCTE to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner which was not decided by them prior to passing of the order impugned. 9. Considering the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned (4 of 4) [CW-10128/2025] by way of filing one more application, requesting them to decide the representation. 10. In case, such application is submitted with the proof of submission of representation before the authorities concerned, it is expected from the NCTE to decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 11. Needless to observe that the NCTE would be at liberty to decide the representation, strictly in accordance with law, as this Court has not issued any direction/order to decide the representation in a particular way. The representation would be decided by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/21