1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4165 of 2025 1 - Kanti Darshan Educational And Computer Training Institute A Society Having Its Registration No. 4305 Through- Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Jaiswal S/o S.L. Jaiswal Aged 42 Years Director, Kanti- Darshan College, Somni, District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). R/o House No. 15/4, Radhika Nagar, Supela, Bhilai District- Durg ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through- Secretary, Department Of School Education And Literacy, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2 - National Council Teacher Education Through- Its Chairperson, National Council For Teacher Education, G-7, Sector-10. Dwarka, Near Metro Station, New Delhi. 3 - Regional Director Western Regional Committee, National Council For Teacher Education, G-7, Sector-10 Dwarka Near Metro Station, New Delhi. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition with liberty to pursue his application with respect to submission of PAR for Academic Sessions 2021–22 and 2022–23, in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that the present petition is not maintainable against the Union of India as the relief sought pertains to academic/administrative matters falling within the domain of NCTE, which is the competent statutory authority. It is further submitted that the Department of School Education and Literacy has only a supervisory and policy role and does not deal with recognition, approval, or processing of PAR of teacher education institutions. It is submitted that the issues raised involve factual verification and consideration of applications, which fall within the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the applicable regulations. Therefore, no specific direction is warranted against Respondent No. 1 and the matter may be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that NCTE is a statutory body under the NCTE Act, 1993 and all matters relating to recognition and approval of teacher education institutions are governed by statutory regulations and prescribed procedure. It is 3 submitted that the petitioner’s grievance regarding PAR for Academic Sessions 2021–22 and 2022–23 is an administrative matter to be considered by the competent Regional Committee as per applicable norms. It is further submitted that the petitioner may complete/rectify deficiencies, if any, and the application shall be considered in accordance with law. No illegality is attributable to Respondent No. 2, and the competent authority shall decide the matter independently. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the authorities concerned are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the authorities shall be at liberty to take a decision independently in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 10 days. 5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha