$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17764/2025 & CM APPL. 73409/2025 DODA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND ANR ....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vishant Singh, Mr. Pranav Goyal and Ms. Mreeganka Goyal, Advs. versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION .....Respondent Through: Mr Mohinder Rupal Adv Mr Hardik Rupal Adv Ms Aishwarya Malhotra Adv Ms Tripta Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 09.07.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the ex-parte order/decision dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Respondent in the statutory appeal preferred under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993; B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing that the Petitioner’s institution be permitted to participate in the on-going counselling/admission process for the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2025-2027, subject to the final outcome of the present petition; C. Grant interim relief staying the operation and effect of the 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 16/07/2026 at 11:54:53 impugned ex-parte order dated 24.06.2025 during the pendency of these proceedings. ...” 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a private institute/college running a B.Ed Course. The petitioners made an application for recognition with the respondent for B.Ed Course for the academic session 2025-26 and onwards. 3. The said permission was refused by the Northern Regional Committee. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Committee of the NCTE. 4. As per Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the appeal was dismissed without hearing the petitioner. The same was due to the fact that the notice of hearing was sent to the wrong e-mail ID of the petitioner. 5. The condition under Regulation 8(4)(i) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, for grant of recognition is as under:- (i) The institution or society sponsoring the institution is in possession of required land on the date of application; (ii) The land is free from all encumbrances; (iii) The land is on ownership basis or on government lease for a period of not less than 30 years. However, where the state laws permit a maximum lease period of less than 30 years, then that law shall prevail. 6. Since the petitioner’s land is on a 21 year private lease, the recognition has been refused. 7. My attention has been drawn to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in W.P(C) 29553/2018 titled Dr R P Memorial Degree College v. State of UP thru Education Department. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- 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 16/07/2026 at 11:54:53 “The intent of the scope of Section 14 and 15 of the Act is clearly discernible in the language used in section 14 and 15 of the Act. The Act aims to promote systematic education for teachers training and thus seeks to achieve a socio beneficial effect on the society. The Council is bound under the statute to promote the systematic education amongst the teachers and thus is duty bound to act in furtherance of the object sought to be achieved. The regulatory mechanism and the powers conferred on the Council, in terms of the Section 32(1) and in terms of the Regulations as framed, clearly cannot be inconsistent with the objects sought to be achieved. The prescription of lease from 'Government' or 'Government institutions’ alone clearly does not seem to achieve the objects sought to be promoted under the Act. There is no rational nexus as to how a 'Government' lease for thirty years suits the cause better than a registered lease for a period of ninety years (as is the case in the present writ). Although there is no challenge to the vires of Regulation 8(4), this court is of the view that the prescriptions of having the land as prescribed in Regulation 8(4) served a valid purpose, however the prescription of having a land on 'Government' lease or on a lease from 'Government institutions', appears to be arbitrary and to save it from it being declared ultra vires, the same has to be read down to hold that the registered lease for more than thirty years which is validly recognized lease under the Transfer of Property Act has to be held to be an adequate 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 16/07/2026 at 11:54:53 compliance of the requirements as prescribed under the Regulation 8(4)(i) of the Regulations 2014.” 8. In this view of the matter, since the Regulation 8(4)(i) has been read down, I am of the view that the appellate committee must give the petitioner institute another hearing and decide the same in accordance with extant rules and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. 9. Additionally, the appellate committee shall also keep in mind that the petitioner institute is intending to run a college in Doda, which has only one private B.Ed college for two districts, namely, Doda and Ramban. 10. The needful shall be done expeditiously and not later than 4 weeks from today. 11. The email of the petitioner is dodacollegeofeducationdoda@gmail.com. 12. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioners will be free to approach to this Court. 13. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 9, 2026/AS 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 16/07/2026 at 11:54:53