$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010389332026 + W.P.(C) 12097/2026 & CM APPL. 56132/2026 BABA NARAYAN DAS PG COLLEGE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishant Singh, Ms. Mreeganka Goyal and Mr. Pranav Goyal, Advs. versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 20.08.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing/setting aside the impugned Refusal Order dated 27.01.2026 (F.No. NCTE/WRC/2627202510033592/RAJASTHAN/2025/REJ C/1801) issued by Respondent/NCTE; II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to issue a show cause notice to the Petitioners specifying the alleged 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 29/08/2026 at 15:51:26 deficiencies and granting the Petitioners a reasonable opportunity of written representation, and thereafter to process/reconsider Petitioner application dated 04.10.2025 for transition from B.A.B.Ed./B.Sc.B.Ed. to ITEP in accordance with law, in a time-bound manner ; III. Pass such ad-interim ex-parte orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, as prayed for in the accompanying application for interim relief; and...” 2. For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice. 3. Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 4. This order is being passed in view of a similar order dated 17.04.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 5101/2026, covering the present issue. Based upon the said order and using the same reasons and expressions, this order is being passed. 5. The challenge in the present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Western Regional Committee, whereby the petitioner’s application dated 04.10.2025 seeking transition of the existing B.A.B.Ed./B.Sc. B.Ed. programme to the Integrated Teacher Education Programme (“I.T.E.P.”) for the academic session 2026-27 was declined under Sections 14/15(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (“NCTE Act”). 6. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned decision has been rendered in breach of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the proviso to Section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, which obligates the Regional Committee to afford a 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 29/08/2026 at 15:51:26 reasonable opportunity to the institution to make a written representation prior to refusal of recognition. It is further stated that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent to grant such opportunity by issuance of a show cause notice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent states that the petition is not maintainable as the impugned order does not state “refusal” of recognition. Additionally, an application which is incomplete or unaccompanied by requisite documents is liable to be rejected summarily under Regulation 7(1) and (2) of the National Council of Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, whereas refusal of recognition under Regulation 7(3) is attracted only in cases involving furnishing of false information or concealment of material facts having a bearing on the decision-making process. 8. It is argued that the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 only notes deficiencies in the petitioner’s application, including failure to establish that it is a multidisciplinary institution and failure to apply under the merger/collaboration category as per NCTE guidelines. The decision, therefore, constitutes a rejection and not a refusal, obviating the requirement of granting an opportunity of written representation under Section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. I am of the view that the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent cannot be accepted. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 shows that the decision is founded on alleged deficiencies and shortcomings attributed to the petitioner. Furthermore, the order expressly invokes Sections 14/15(3)(b) and Section 17(4) of 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 29/08/2026 at 15:51:26 the NCTE Act and records a denial of transition to the I.T.E.P. course. Once such deficiencies form the basis of denial, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that no opportunity was required to be afforded to the petitioners to explain or remedy the same. It is well settled that any administrative decision entailing civil consequences must conform to the principles of natural justice. 11. The impugned order does not disclose compliance with the proviso to Section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, which mandates that before recognition is refused, the concerned institution must be given a reasonable opportunity to make a written representation. Denial of transition from an existing recognised course attracts this requirement. The absence of such opportunity renders the impugned decision unsustainable in law. 12. The attempted distinction drawn by the respondent between “rejection” and “refusal” under Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 2014 is of no assistance. Regulation 7 prescribes the procedure for processing applications: Regulation 7(1) provides for rejection of incomplete applications, Regulation 7(2) enumerates cases of summary rejection, while Regulation 7(3) contemplates refusal where false information or concealment of facts is involved. The present case may fall under Regulation 7(1) and not Regulation 7(3); however, this procedural distinction is irrelevant for the purposes of Section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act. 13. The proviso to Section 14(3)(b) mandates that before refusing recognition, the Regional Committee must afford the institution a reasonable opportunity to make a written representation.This 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 29/08/2026 at 15:51:26 requirement equally applies where a recognised institution seeks transition to new courses. Clause (b) is attracted when the institution is found not to satisfy the requirements under Clause (a), including adequacy of infrastructure, finances, and staff. The expression “refusing” in Section 14(3)(b) cannot be equated with “refusal” in Regulation 7(3). Accordingly, the contention that no opportunity of representation was required is wholly misconceived and is rejected. 14. The reliance placed by the respondent on Clauses 6(iii) and 12 of the Public Notice dated 12.09.2025 as the source of power to summarily reject the application is equally untenable. An executive order or circular cannot override or operate in derogation of a statutory provision. Where the statute expressly mandates compliance with principles of natural justice, any executive order or circular to the contrary must yield to the statute. 15. In view of the above, without examining the merits of the deficiencies noted in the impugned order, the writ petition is allowed to the limited extent of setting aside the order dated 27.01.2026 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent is at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, specifying the alleged deficiencies and affording them an opportunity to submit a written representation.Upon receipt thereof, the petitioner shall file their response within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the respondent shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within two weeks and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is clarified that the petitioner shall remain at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies, if aggrieved by the decision so rendered. 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 29/08/2026 at 15:51:26 16. The present writ petition is disposed of, along with pending applications, if any. JASMEET SINGH, J AUGUST 20, 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 29/08/2026 at 15:51:26