2026:HHC:36034 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12284 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.13047 of 2026 Decided on: 25th August, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.12284 of 2025 Bhartiya Education Society and another …..Petitioners Versus National Council for Teacher Education and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.13047 of 2026 Bhartiya Education Society and another …..Petitioners Versus National Council for Teacher Education and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Upasana Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners in both the matters. Mr. B. Nandan Vashista, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2 in both the matters. Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.3 in CWP No.12284 of 2025 and for respondents No.3 & 4 in CWP No.13047 of 2026. Mr. Chander Shekhar Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4- HPBOSE in CWP No.12284 of 2025. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:36034 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.21719 of 2026 in CWP No.12284 of 2025 Pursuant to the order dated 24.08.2026 passed in this application, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent No.4-H.P. Board of School Education has placed on record instructions. In terms of the instructions, the petitioners were granted affiliation for running D.El.Ed. course, academic session 2025-26 in view of interim order dated 29.07.2025 passed in this writ petition; There was no explicit permission/order of this Court for academic session 2026-28. For this reason, affiliation was not granted to the petitioners. In view of interim order dated 29.07.2025 passed in the main writ petition, the respondents were directed under order dated 31.07.2026 passed in CWP No.13047 of 2026 to allow the petitioners to participate in the counselling process for admission to B.Ed. course for academic session 2026-27. Interim order dated 29.07.2025, thus, has been extended for the academic session 2026-27 under interim order dated 31.07.2026 passed in CWP No.13047 of 2026. Hence, there shall be a direction to respondent No.4 to take appropriate steps forthwith for including the names of the petitioners in the list of Colleges 3 2026:HHC:36034 eligible for D.El.Ed. Course for the session 2026-27 (course 2026-28) and to provisionally allow them to participate in the counselling. Ordered accordingly. The application stands disposed of. CWP Nos.12284 of 2025 and 13047 of 2026 2. Both these writ petitions originally stem from the decision taken by respondents No.1 and 2 in terms of Agenda Item No.3 of Annexure P-10 (in CWP No.12284 of 2025), wherein following decision was taken:- “Hence, the Committee decided that the recognition granted to the institution for offering B.Ed. D.El.Ed and B.P.Ed course be withdrawn under Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 with effect from the end of academic session next following the date of communication of withdrawal order and the institution shall not be entitled to admit the students from the academic session 2025-2026.” Operation of the above decision was stayed vide order dated 29.07.2025 passed in CWP No.12284 of 2025 as under:- “CWP No.12284 of 2025 Notice. Mr. B. Nandan Vasishta and Ms. Ranjana Pathania, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 3, respectively. As prayed for, reply be filed, within a period of six weeks. List thereafter. CMP No.18072 of 2025 Notice in above terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents appended with the petition. He referred to the show cause notices issued to the petitioner and last thereof was issued on 12.10.2023, copy whereof is 4 2026:HHC:36034 appended with the petition as Annexure P-8. He further submitted that though reply thereto was submitted by the petitioner forthwith in terms of Annexure P-9 on 02.12.2023, yet the impugned order has been passed by the Authorities, not only after more than 1½ years but on the verge of the counselling, which is to take place for admitting students for the academic session 2025-26 in near future. He thus submitted that the act of the respondents is hit by legal mala-fides, as the timing of the passing of the order is highly suspicious. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 submitted that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has got a statutory remedy to assail the order. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, this court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner indeed has the right to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, for the reason that there indeed is a serious suspicion with regard to the timing of the passing of the impugned order. Despite opportunity granted to the learned counsel for the respondents he could not satisfactorily explain as to why the impugned order was passed in the month of May, 2025, despite the fact that last show cause notice was issued as far back as in the month of October, 2023 and reply thereto was filed by the petitioner in the month of December, 2023. Therefore, as the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case and further as balance of convenience is also in his favour because if the operation of the impugned order is not stayed, the petitioner will suffer from irreparable loss as it would not be in a position of admit students, the operation of Annexure P-10, Agenda Items No.3, as far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby stayed. However, it is clarified that in case, any students are admitted in the courses being run by the petitioner for the academic session 2025-26 then they shall be expressly informed that there admission will abide by the outcome of this writ petition. Respondents No.1 & 2 shall forthwith act on the stay order granted by this Court and shall take steps to intimate the public that this Court has stayed the impugned order.” 5 2026:HHC:36034 3. Since the respondents did not extend the benefit of afore-extracted interim order for academic session 2026-27, the petitioners instituted CWP No.13047 of 2026. The new writ petition, in essence, was based upon the same grievance, against the same order, but for the academic session 2026-27. Interim protection was granted to the petitioners in the new writ petition as well vide order dated 31.07.2026 as under:- “Notice. Mr. B. Nandan Vasishta and Ms. Archna Dutt, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondents No. 3 & 4, respectively. 2. Petitioner’s request to allow it to participate in the B.Ed counselling for the academic session 2026- 27, has not been accepted by respondent No.3, primarily on the ground that interim relief was granted to the petitioner in CWP No.12284 of 2025 only for the academic session 2025-26. 3. It appears that respondent No.1 on 10.07.2025 withdrew the recognition granted to the petitioner- institute for offering B.Ed. D.El. Ed. and B.P. Ed. Course under Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (the Act in short) with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted CWP No. 12284 of 2025, wherein vide order dated 29.07.2025, operation of aforesaid order passed by respondent No.1, was stayed. The students admitted in the Course running by the petitioner for academic session 2025-26 were to be informed that their admissions would abide by the outcome of the writ petition. Relevant portion of the order reads as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, this court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner indeed has the right to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction 6 2026:HHC:36034 of this Court, for the reason that there indeed is a serious suspicion with regard to the timing of the passing of the impugned order. Despite opportunity granted to the learned counsel for the respondents he could not satisfactorily explain as to why the impugned order was passed in the month of May, 2025, despite the fact that last show cause notice was issued as far back as in the month of October, 2023 and reply thereto was filed by the petitioner in the month of December, 2023. Therefore, as the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case and further as balance of convenience is also in his favour because if the operation of the impugned order is not stayed, the petitioner will suffer from irreparable loss as it would not be in a position of admit students, the operation of Annexure P-10, Agenda Items No.3, as far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby stayed. However, it is clarified that in case, any students are admitted in the courses being run by the petitioner for the academic session 2025-26 then they shall be expressly informed that there admission will abide by the outcome of this writ petition. Respondents No.1 & 2 shall forthwith act on the stay order granted by this Court and shall take steps to intimate the public that this Court has stayed the impugned order.” 4. Petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that despite there being an interim order staying the withdrawal of its recognition, the name of the petitioner institute has not been reflected in the list of B.Ed Colleges for the purposes of counselling/admission to B.Ed. Courses for academic session 2026-27 (Annexure P-15); That respondent No.3 in its office letter date 25.07.2026 (Annexure P-16) has declined to accept petitioner’s representation to participate in the ongoing B.Ed. counselling process for the academic session 2026-27 for want of order of the Court/communication from the competent authority NCTE permitting participation for academic session 2026-27. 5. Since the decision of respondent No.1 withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner- 7 2026:HHC:36034 institute has already been stayed vide order dated 29.07.2025 in CWP No. 12284 of 2025, pursuant to which, students were also admitted for academic session 2025-26, there shall be a direction to the respondents to provisionally allow the petitioner to participate in the counselling process for the concerned Courses. Admission of students in the said Courses, if any, shall abide by the outcome of the writ petition. Respondent No.3 is directed to take appropriate steps forthwith for including the name of the petitioner in the list of Colleges eligible for B.Ed. Counselling by issuing requisite corrigendum etc. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks. List alongwith CWP No. 12284 of 2025.” During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, respondent No.4- H.P. Board of School Education did not allow the petitioners to admit or participate in the counselling for admission to D.El.Ed. Course. Pursuant to the order passed today in CMP No.21719 of 2026, this permission has also been provisionally granted to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the parties including learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are ad idem that statutory remedy is available to the petitioners against the basic impugned order (decision taken by respondents No.1 and 2 under Annexure P-10 in CWP No.12284 of 2025). The said statutory remedy is in form of Appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short ‘NCTE Act’). The Section reads as under:- 8 2026:HHC:36034 “18. Appeals.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under section 14 or section 15 or section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the Council within such period as may be prescribed. (2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor: Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. (3) Every appeal made under this section shall be made in such form and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and by such fees as may be prescribed. (4) The procedure for disposing of an appeal shall be such as may be prescribed: Provided that before disallowing an appeal, the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent its case. (5) The Council may confirm or reverse the order appealed against.” 5. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate and in the interest of justice to dispose of both these writ petitions reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail statutory remedy of appeal available to them under the NCTE Act, 1993 before the competent authority. Ordered accordingly. In case such remedy is availed within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be construed to be within limitation and shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. While deciding the appeal, the competent authority shall 9 2026:HHC:36034 not be influenced by the observations made in the interim orders and shall decide the matter on its own merits as per law. Till the decision of the appeal so preferred by the petitioners, the interim orders passed in both these writ petitions from time to time shall continue to be effective. However, in case the liberty granted to the petitioners under this order is not availed by them and appeal is not preferred within the timelines indicated in this order, the protection granted to the petitioners under the interim orders shall cease to have force after four weeks. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 25, 2026 Judge Mukesh