(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the proceedings dated 13.01.2026 issued by the 4th respondent, to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the 4th respondent to condone the shortfall in my attendance and permit me to appear for the B.Ed Practical Examination and pass such further or other orders.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a direction in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated 13.01.2026 issued by the 4th respondent and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 4th respondent to condone the shortfall in attendance and to permit the petitioner to appear for the B.Ed Practical Examination and for other orders.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it is the case of the petitioner that currently she is undergoing B.Ed course for the academic period 2024 – 2026. While so, the petitioner had to undergo the teaching practice internship for a minimum number of days 78 days at the 5th respondent – School, from 20.08.2025 to 23.12.2025.

3. It is stated that on account of termination of pregnancy leading to further complications, the petitioner was advised of absolute rest. On account of which, she could do the teaching practice internship only for 46 days and there is a shortfall of 32 days out of 78 days. When she approached the respondents for writing the practical examination, the order impugned in this Writ Petition was passed stating that she was not granted permission to write the examinations. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) should have been added as mandatory party and this apart as prescribed, 90 % of attendance would be required, which comes to 78 days, whereas the petitioner has only 46 days (58.97 %). In view of the mandatory attendance requirement, the petitioner cannot be permitted to write the practical examination.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

6. In the normal course, this Court would have permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to implead the NCTE as a party and thereafter passed the final orders. However, the practical examination commencing on 28.01.2026 and there is only one working day in between. In view of the extreme circumstances, the order is passed in the absence of the NCTE.

7. I have gone through the material records of the case. The petitioner is a very meritorious candidate all along and her academic record is 86 % aggregate even at the time of admission to B.Ed. The petitioner pleads that she is passionate about teaching. This apart, the entire medical records leading to the termination of pregnancy and the complications thereafter arose to the petitioner is placed on record. Thus, considering the disadvantage of a woman candidate arising out of the need for the women to manage the motherhood as well as her career and considering the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Vandana Kandari Vs. University of Delhi1 with reference to the non insistence of a minimum attendance for a Law course by considering the latest National Education Policy, whereunder it has been held that as far as possible attempt should be made to make alternative arrangements enabling the students to fulfill the criteria rather than jeopardizing their career itself, I am of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, considering the extreme medical conditions of the petitioner, this is a fit case where the Court can exercise the discretion by directing the respondents instead of stopping the petitioner from writing the practical examination, the petitioner shall appear for the said examination and after completion of practical examination and thereafter during the study leave or sooner thereafter the petitioner shall complete the remaining days of trial teaching in the same school as may be directed by the respondents and fulfill the criteria. The NCTE shall condone this irregularity of undergoing the part of trial teaching practice post practical examination and during the course of the other examinations.

8. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms,                                   (i) The impugned order dated 13.01.2026 issued by the 4th respondent shall stand set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to write the practical examination scheduled to be held on 28.01.2026 without insisting for the successful completion of 78 days of trial teaching;                                   (ii) The petitioner is directed to undergo the balance mandatory period of trial teaching or such days as may be permissible at the earliest as may be directed by the respondents and fulfill the criteria;                                 (iii) The authorities shall act upon the web copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy;                                  (iv) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.