Dishant Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs. State of HP and Ors. CMP No.6883 of 2026 Item No.P-2 07.04.2026 Present: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Sr. Advocate with M/s Nand Lal Thakur, Kulwant Singh and Dikken Kumar Thakur, Advocates, for the applicants/appellants. Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Rahem Tullah, Advocate, vice Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2/University. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.04.2026, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in CWP No.3641 of 2026, titled Ayushi and Anr. Vs. State of HP and Ors., whereby the writ petition was disposed of by accepting the stand of respondent No.2-University that 100 students had been adjusted in other B.Ed. Colleges. The appeal has been filed along with the application for leave to appeal on the grounds that the present appellants were the necessary parties, however, they were not impleaded as party. However, the common case of all the counsels is that the appellants/applicants were duly represented by the Senior Counsel himself before the learned Single Judge also, though his presence was not marked in the judgment. Keeping in view the averments made and in the background of the case, as such, that at the behest of the two students out of a Batch of 100, various orders have been passed, thus we are of the opinion that the other 91 students, who are here, have a right to file the present appeal and accordingly we allow the application. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. of 2026 Appeal be registered. Apparently on account of withdrawal of the recognition by NCTE on 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-4) and the subsequent withdrawal of the affiliation by the University on 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-6), such a situation has arisen, which has forced the State to issue the communication dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-9), wherein certain directions were given in an attempt to protect the interests of the students and the letter of withdrawal was asked to be kept in abeyance by the Secretary(Education) till the final outcome of the appeal against the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the NCTE. Till the pendency of the appeal, regarding the lack of stay to be granted by the appellate body, we are informed that in view of provision of Sections 14(5) and 17(3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the discontinuation of the course on the withdrawal of the recognition in teacher education would be from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under Clause (b) of sub-Section 3. Similarly, under Clause 17(3) of the said Act, the discontinuation of the course and the cancellation of the affiliation is also to take effect from the Academic Session next following the date of communication of the said order, which fact seems not to be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that if a certain set of students do not wish to change from respondent No.3-admitting Institute, since the course is stated to be a two year course and the sessions started in September, 2025 and the first semester examination have just commenced, it would be open to the students to take their examination in the Institutes of their choice and continue with respondent No.3, if they so deem it fit. In case, they wish to opt for other Institutes as per the Notification dated 01.04.2026, which has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in her order, it is their option, since it has been mentioned that 51 students had indicated their preferences and apparently many of them are also appellants here. Accordingly, we issue notice to the respondents. Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, learned Dy. Advocate General, Mr. Rahem Tullah, Mr. Tejasvi Dogra and Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocates, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1, respondent No.2, respondent No.3 and respondents No.4 & 5, respectively. Let appropriate measures be taken by the State so that the appellants, as such, can continue with their education without being disrupted by giving their exams in various other Institutes, which are not only situated in Mandi District but also in District Kullu. Resultantly, we adjourn the case to 28.05.2025. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 07th April, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)