$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 126/2026 VIDYASTHALI TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray, Adv. versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivom Sethi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 15.01.2026 1. The matter has been put up on office note. 2. The writ petition number in paragraph No. 4 in the Order dated 07.01.2026 has wrongly been mentioned and the paragraph No. 4 reads as under: “4. This order is being passed in view of a similar order dated 24.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 19758/2026, covering the present issue. Based upon the said order and using the same reasons and expressions, this order is being passed.” 3. The said paragraph No. 4 is corrected to the extent that W.P.(C) 19758/2026 will read as W.P.(C) 19758/2025. 4. The correct paragraph No. 4 shall now read 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 20/01/2026 at 12:54:45 “4. This order is being passed in view of a similar order dated 24.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 19758/2025, covering the present issue. Based upon the said order and using the same reasons and expressions, this order is being passed.” 5. Additionally, the date of impugned order mentioned in paragraph No. 7 of the order dated 07.01.2026 is wrongly mentioned as 18.11.2025 in place of 14.11.2025. 6. The correct paragraph No. 7 shall now read as under: “7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the petition is not maintainable as the impugned order does not state “refusal” of recognition. An application which is incomplete or not accompanied 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. It is argued that the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 only notes deficiencies in the Petitioners’ 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) 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 20/01/2026 at 12:54:45 of the NCTE Act.” 7. With these directions, the office note is discharged. JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 15, 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 20/01/2026 at 12:54:45