$~152 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010127522026 + W.P.(C) 4221/2026 & CM APPL. 20572/2026 GD RUNGTA COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Vipasha Jain, Ms. Priti Kumari, Advs. versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :- “(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order quashing & setting aside refusal order dated 27.10.2025 of Western Regional Committee rejecting petitioner’s application for ITEP course and also order dated 25.02.2026 passed by Appellate Authority of NCTE; and/or (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14 order direction to respondents to process/decide petitioner’s application for grant of recognition of ITEP course in time bound manner; …” 2. Although notice has been issued in the present matter on 01.04.2026, but no reply has been filed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner No. 1 (“petitioner institute”) is an old institution established by the petitioner No. 2 Society, which was granted recognition for running various Teacher Education Courses such as B.Ed, D.El.Ed, M.Ed, etc., by the respondent No. 2 namely Western Regional Committee (“WRC”). 4. Pursuant to public notice dated 06.05.2025, the petitioner institute submitted an application dated 27.05.2025 seeking recognition for the Integrated Teacher Education Program (“ITEP”) course. However, without carrying out any inspection and after a preliminary scrutiny, WRC issued a show cause notice dated 06.08.2025. The principal of the petitioner institute submitted a reply by an email dated 14.08.2025 to said show cause notice within the stipulated time of 15 days. However, without considering the said reply, WRC issued a final show cause notice dated 30.09.2025, recording in its paragraph No. 4 that no reply was submitted by the petitioner institute within the prescribed time limit. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner institute submitted its online pointwise reply to the final show cause notice, but WRC, vide its impugned refusal order dated 27.10.2025, has refused the petitioners application for recognition for ITEP course. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner institute filed a statutory 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14 appeal before the appellate authority under section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 but the appellate authority also vide its order dated 25.02.2026 rejected the appeal of the petitioner institute and affirmed the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by WRC. 7. The grievance of petitioners is that the principal of the petitioner institute submitted its reply to first show cause notice within stipulated time and reply to the final show cause notice was also duly submitted through the portal, but without any consideration of the said replies, the impugned refusal order dated 27.10.2025 has been passed by the WRC. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the reply in respect of first show cause notice which is attached as Annexure P-13 to the petition, and particularly the e-mail dated 14.08.2025, by which the said reply to first show cause notice was submitted to WRC. 9. My attention has also been drawn to the reply in respect of final show cause notice which is attached as Annexure P-15 to petition. 10. It is further submitted by Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that a detailed Memorandum of Appeal was filed before the appellate authority giving pointwise explanation in respect of deficiencies shown in the impugned refusal order, but the appellate authority did not even chose to advert to any of the submissions made before the appellate authority. 11. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel, has also drawn my attention to the grounds mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of impugned refusal order 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14 dated 27.10.2025 to contend that ground No. (ii) stated in paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 27.10.2025, pertaining to the website of the petitioner institute, can be raised by the Regional Committee only after issuance of Letter of Intent (LoI) under Regulation No. 7(13) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (“NCTE Regulations”) and prior thereto. 12. Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposes the matter and submits that the impugned orders do not require any interference by this Court as the petitioner institute was duly given opportunity to demonstrate before the appeal authority regarding the fulfilment of norms pertaining to land and built-up area requirements, but they could not demonstrate availability of the same before the appellate authority. 13. He further objects on the grounds that the appeal committee has given a finding on the documents submitted by the petitioner institute in point (i) of the impugned order of the appellate authority and the same may be considered to uphold the decision of refusal. 14. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 15. The impugned refusal order dated 27.10.2025 is important and the same 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14 16. A perusal of the aforesaid impugned order dated 27.10.2025 shows that, except stating in paragraph No. 4 that “reply submitted by the TEI/HEI was considered by Regional Committee on 16.09.2025 in Meeting No. 436th Part-II” and also in paragraph No. 6 that “reply submitted by the TEI/HEI was considered by Regional Committee on 13.10.2025 in Meeting No. 438th”, there are no reasons provided by Regional Committee. Once reply to show cause notice is submitted, it is incumbent upon the Regional Committee to consider reply and documents submitted by the petitioner institute. 17. Further, from a perusal of documents placed on record, it is clear that while issuing final show cause notice dated 30.09.2025, WRC recorded in paragraph No. 4 that “no reply has been submitted by your TEI/HEI within the prescribed time limit” whereas in paragraph No. 4 of impugned refusal order, it is recorded that reply submitted by TEI/HEI was considered by Regional Committee on 16.09.2025 in meeting no. 436th Part-II. The aforesaid observations of WRC are apparently conflicting and show complete non-application of mind. 18. Further, in terms of Regulation No. 7(14) of NCTE Regulation, an institution is required to launch its website with hyperlink to the Council & corresponding Regional Office websites, soon after the receipt of Letter of Intent (LoI) from the Regional Committee under Regulation No. 7(13). Therefore, WRC was not justified in raising ground No. (ii) in the paragraph No. 6 of the impugned refusal order dated 27.10.2025 at a stage where inspection of the petitioner institute has not been carried out. 19. It is to be noted that another ground raised in the impugned refusal 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14 order dated 27.10.2025 is that “The sufficiency of built-up area for proposed ITEP (6 units in total) cannot be ascertained”. While issuing notice in the matter on 01.04.2026, the respondents were directed that their reply shall also be accompanied by an inspection report. However, it has been pointed out by Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, that till date no inspection has been carried out. 20. In view of the above, as the respondents also did not take into account and consider the replies to the first show cause notice and final show cause notice submitted by the petitioners which was duly received by WRC, in my opinion, the impugned refusal order dated 27.10.2025 issued by WRC has been passed in haste and also in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it cannot be sustained. 21. Further, a perusal of the impugned order of the appellate authority also shows that the submissions made by petitioner in its Memorandum of Appeal before the appellate authority have not been considered and therefore, in my opinion, the impugned order of the appellate authority dated 25.02.2026 cannot be sustained. 22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed by WRC along with the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by appellate authority of NCTE are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the WRC to inspect the petitioner institute within a period of four weeks from today. The WRC will also provide copy of inspection report to petitioner. 23. After inspection, the WRC shall further process the petitioner’s application in accordance with law and the standard operating 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14 procedure. If any further information and clarification is required, the WRC shall inform the petitioner’s accordingly and the petitioner’s shall reply to the same. 24. Accordingly, the WRC shall take final decision taking into account the replies and documents submitted by the petitioner’s and pass a speaking order deciding the petitioners application for ITEP course within a period of three months from today. 25. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with pending applications, if any. JASMEET SINGH, J AUGUST 7, 2026/sp 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 19/08/2026 at 12:25:14