City College Of Education & Anr. vs. National Council For Teacher Education & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the impugned refusal order dated July 19, 2026, could not be sustained and deserved to be set aside. The Court found that the final show cause notice dated June 10, 2026, merely stated that the petitioners' reply was considered without providing any specific reasoning for its rejection. Similarly, the impugned refusal order noted that the reply was considered but offered no detailed deliberation. The Court relied on its previous judgments in WP (C) 7398/2026 and WP (C) No. 4221/2026, which set aside similar refusal orders and remanded matters for reconsideration, inspection, and decision within specified timelines. Furthermore, referencing the judgment in Vision College (Supra), the Court noted that deficiencies such as shortage of teaching staff or lack of infrastructure can only be assessed after an inspection and cannot form the basis for show cause notices prior to inspection. The Court also acknowledged the Supreme Court's position on writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to process the petitioners' application for transition, conduct an inspection, and decide the application by passing a speaking order, adhering to specific timelines as laid out in the judgment, which were adapted from a Division Bench order in LPA No. 718/2026.

Facts

The petitioners, City College of Education & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging a refusal order dated July 19, 2026, issued by the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The petitioners sought the conversion of their existing recognition for a four-year integrated B.A.B.Ed. program to an Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP). The NRC had previously refused their application on November 25, 2025, without a show cause notice, which was set aside by the High Court on January 9, 2026, remanding the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity for representation. Subsequently, the NRC issued show cause notices on July 24, 2026, and June 10, 2026, to which the petitioners replied. However, the petitioners allege that their replies were not considered, and the final refusal order dated July 19, 2026, was issued without proper consideration and without conducting an inspection.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned refusal order dated July 19, 2026, passed by the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of the NCTE is liable to be quashed and set aside for non-consideration of the petitioners' replies to the show cause notices and for being based on grounds at variance with the final show cause notice. 2. Whether the NRC was obliged to conduct an inspection of the petitioner institute before passing the refusal order, as contended by the petitioners based on previous High Court judgments. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the refusal order was passed without considering their replies to the show cause notices and was based on grounds different from those stated in the final show cause notice. They further contended that the NRC failed to conduct an inspection, which is a prerequisite for rejecting an application based on deficiencies, citing judgments in Vision College of Teachers Training Vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr., Shri Jagat Narayan College & Anr. Vs. NCTE & Anr., and GD Rugnta College of Science & Technology & Anr. Vs. NCTE & Anr. They also highlighted that the principles laid down in Vision College were upheld by a Division Bench. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents (NCTE and NRC) opposed the petition, arguing that the matter required independent consideration and was not covered by the precedents cited by the petitioners. They contended that the petitioners' application was duly considered, the replies were taken into account, and the NRC was justified in passing the impugned refusal order, asserting that the order was reasoned and did not require interference.