logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 DHC 304 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Delhi
Case No : CONT.CAS(C). No. 828 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
Parties : Vidyawati Chaturvedi Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Versus Sukhgeet Kaur, Member Secretary & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Rishabh Kumar, Ritu Kumari, Keshav Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Anuj Kapoor, Shivom Sethi, Nandeesh Nanda, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 08-05-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 DHC 4076,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Order dated 12.09.2008 (recognition by Western Regional Committee of NCTE)
- Order dated 15.05.2019 (dismissal of appeal)
- Order dated 20.03.2026 (directions of this Court)
- CM APPL.31182/2026 (Exemption)
- CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026
- W.P.(C) 2633/2020

2. Catch Words:
- Wilful disobedience
- Non‑compliance
- Recognition
- Intake reduction
- Technical ground
- Opportunity of hearing
- Consideration on merits

3. Summary:
The petitioner, whose B.Ed programme recognition was reduced from 100 to 50 seats by the Western Regional Committee (WRC) of NCTE, challenged the reduction in W.P.(C) 2633/2020. The Court, on 20 March 2026, directed the WRC to consider the petitioner’s representation on merits and provide a hearing. The WRC later rejected the representation on the technical ground of non‑submission of a fresh online application. The Court held this to be wilful disobedience of its earlier directions and set aside the WRC’s decision. It ordered the WRC to re‑examine the petition afresh, on merits, within two weeks, and to afford a hearing. The petition is therefore disposed of in the terms ordered.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Oral)

CM APPL.31182/2026 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CONT.CAS(C) 828/2026

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience/ non-compliance of the directions contained in the order 20.03.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2633/2020.

4. The petitioner was granted recognition vide an order dated 12.09.2008 by the Western Regional Committee (WRC) of NCTE/respondent no.2 for running a B.Ed course with an annual intake of 100 seats. Following a series of regulatory actions, including a withdrawal of recognition in 2017, the concerned appellate authority before which the said withdrawal was challenged by the petitioner remanded the matter back to respondent no.2/WRC for fresh consideration.

5. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no.2 restored the petitioner's recognition on 09.07.2018, but reduced the intake from 100 seats to 50 seats. This reduction was based on the allegation that two faculty members lacked the required NET qualification as per the extant regulations.

6. The said decision to reduce intake by the WRC came to be appealed by the petitioner before the concerned appellate authority. However, the said appeal came to be dismissed vide an order dated 15.05.2019.

7. Consequently, the petitioner challenged the said reduction by way of W.P.(C) 2633/2020. On 20.03.2026, the following order came to be passed by the Court:-







8. It transpires during the course of hearing that the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected during the final Minutes of the 457th Meeting of the Western Regional Committee (WRC)/respondent no.2 held between 20th and 22nd April, 2026 only for the reason that the petitioner had not submitted a fresh application in online mode in the prescribed format, along with the prescribed processing fee. The operative portion of the decision taken is as under:-



9. Clearly, the respondent no.2/WRC has not considered the application of the petitioner on merits and has sought to reject the same only on a technical ground that the petitioner has failed to submit a fresh application in online mode in the prescribed format. The same ex facie results in wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 20.03.2026. In terms thereof, the respondent no.2 was mandated to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits. It was also implicit that an opportunity of hearing would be provided to the petitioner before taking the requisite decision. Paragraph-7 of the order dated 20.03.2026 goes on to clarify that an opportunity would be afforded to the petitioner to provide any document/ fulfil any additional requirement, so as to rectify any shortcoming.

10. In the circumstances, the decision taken during the final Minutes of the 457th meeting of the Western Regional Committee (WRC) held between 20th and 22nd April, 2026 qua the petitioner is set aside, being in wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 20.03.2026. It is agreed that the matter shall be considered afresh by the respondent no.2/Western Regional Committee (WRC) on merits and in accordance with law in line with the extant policy of the NCTE. An opportunity of hearing shall also be given to the petitioner.

11. Let the said exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two weeks from today.

12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

13. Order dasti.
 
  CDJLawJournal