SADGURU INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION v. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
CW/17937/2025 · 2025-11-25
Anuroop Singhi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 48178 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 48178 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:47617] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17937/2025 Sadguru Institute Of Professional Education, Sanganer, Jaipur Through Its Secretary Ram Prakash Sharma Son Of Late Shri Ram Gopal Sharma Aged About 61 Years Resident Of 14/70, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus
1. The National Council For Teacher Education, Through Its Chairman, Hans Bhawan, Wing-Ii, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
2. Western Regional Committee, National Council For Teacher Education, Through Its Regional Director, G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
3. The Commissioner, Commissionerate, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Block-Iv, Dr. Radhakrishna Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur-302015.
4. Vardhman Mahavir Open University, Kota, P.t.e.t.-2025, Rawatbhata Road, Kota-324010 Through Its Co-Ordinator.
5. The Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, Jln Marg, Talvandi, Rajasthan University Campus, Jaipur-302004. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav Mr. Vishivas Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order 25/11/2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the withdrawal order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is contrary to law and facts on record, more particularly for the reasons that once the NRC vide its letter dated 14.01.2019 has arrived at the finding that no further action is required in respect of the complaint so
[2025:RJ-JP:47617] (2 of 4) [CW-17937/2025] made against the petitioner, there was no occasion for WRC to subsequently initiate further action in the matter and arrive at a conclusion so as to direct withdrawal of recognition of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the
order dated 30.09.2025 is appealable under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act of 1993’), he would withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file the said appeal. However, as in pursuance to the said withdrawal order passed by NCTE dated 30.09.2025, Office of the Coordinator, P.T.E.T. 2025 vide its communication dated 09.11.2025, has sought explanation from the petitioner as to why in pursuance to the said withdrawal of recognition its students be not shifted to other college and that too in the middle of the session, petitioner deserves to be protected. Learned counsel also submits that Section 17 of the Act of 1993 itself protects the petitioner in such circumstances as it provides that any order withdrawing or refusing recognition shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session. Section 17 of the Act of 1993 is reproduced below:-
“17. Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof.—(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing:
[2025:RJ-JP:47617] (3 of 4) [CW-17937/2025] Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution: Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. (2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-section (1),— (a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and (b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information.
(3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. (4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:47617] (4 of 4) [CW-17937/2025] As the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file appeal against the
order dated 30.09.2025 under Section 18 of the Act of 1993, the Court refrains from traveling into merits of the matter. However, it is directed that if the petitioner avails the remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 1993, the protection as available to the petitioner in terms of Section 17, more particularly the second proviso to the same would be applicable. Accordingly, with the above direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. It is needless to say that the respondents would duly adhere to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1993.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J DANISH USMANI /07