NCTE Cannot Blame Colleges for Its Own Delay | Kerala HC Slams Inefficiency and Directs Recognition for 2025–26 Academic Year
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar. Singh directed the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to treat the Recognition Order dated 01.05.2025 as applicable for the Academic Year 2025-26. The Court held that the delay in issuing the recognition order was entirely attributable to the NCTE and not to the petitioner-institution, which had complied with all procedural and statutory requirements within the stipulated timelines. In light of this, the Court ordered the inclusion of the petitioner college in the list of eligible institutions for student admission under the Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP) for the academic year 2025-26. This direction followed a detailed examination of the procedural timeline laid down by the Supreme Court in Maa Vaishnoo Devi Mahila Mahavidyala v. State of UP, (2013) 2 SCC 617, and a review of the application process followed by the NCTE. Noting that the statutory timeline had not been observed, the Court concluded that institutions that comply with regulatory norms must not suffer due to administrative inefficiency.
The petitioner, Majilis Arts and Science College (Autonomous), located in Puramannur, Malappuram, is a recognised minority institution affiliated with the University of Calicut. The institution offers multiple undergraduate and postgraduate programs and holds an 'A' grade accreditation by NAAC. With the introduction of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the regulatory framework governing teacher education underwent significant changes. These changes included amendments to the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014.
On 22.10.2021, NCTE issued amended regulations under Section 32 of the NCTE Act, 1993, which included norms for establishing and operating teacher education institutions. In pursuance of these changes, a public notice dated 05.02.2024 was released inviting applications from eligible colleges for the four-year Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP) beginning from the academic year 2025-26.
The petitioner-college submitted its application for recognition under ITEP on 18.05.2024, which was within the timeline specified by NCTE. The petitioner received a show cause notice pointing out deficiencies in the application on 16.10.2024. As per the Supreme Court’s directive in Maa Vaishnoo Devi Mahila Mahavidyala, the NCTE is required to issue such notices within 45 days of application receipt. In this case, the delay amounted to more than three months.
Despite this delay, the petitioner responded promptly and submitted the required documents within the prescribed period. A virtual inspection of the institution was conducted, and a Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 03.04.2025 under Regulation 7(13) of the NCTE Regulations 2014. The LOI clearly stipulated that the college was to submit faculty details, host a website as per clause 7(14), and establish endowment and reserve funds in accordance with clause 7(16).
The petitioner submitted all required materials well within the specified 60-day period. However, the final recognition order issued by NCTE dated 01.05.2025 designated approval for the academic year 2026-27, rather than 2025-26. The petitioner challenged this designation through the present writ petition, contending that the delay in processing its application was solely the fault of the NCTE and not attributable to any lapse on its part.
The petitioner relied upon the procedural schedule outlined in Maa Vaishnoo Devi Mahila Mahavidyala, which mandates specific timelines for each stage of the recognition and affiliation process. These include submission of applications between 1st September and 1st October, issuance of deficiency communications within 45 days, removal of deficiencies within 60 days, and formal recognition orders by 3rd March of the succeeding year.
In response, the NCTE stated that it had received 87 new applications and 39 transition applications under ITEP. Due to administrative and scheduling delays, the petitioner’s application was not considered during the 441st to 443rd meetings of the Southern Regional Committee (SRC). The first show cause notice was finally issued on 16.10.2024, and the petitioner responded on 29.10.2024. Subsequent delays were attributed to the Regional Director being on medical leave and other administrative bottlenecks. The final recognition was granted only after the 458th SRC meeting.
Justice D. K. Singh recorded that "the petitioner made an application for approval and recognition of the said course for the academic year 2025-2026 and made the application on 18.05.2024, which is well within time as per the schedule prescribed by the NCTE." The Court further noted, "the NCTE is obliged to issue notice on the application within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the application (Paragraph 87 of the said judgment)."
It was further observed, "Thus, the notice to the petitioner regarding the defect was issued after a delay of 3 and 12 months instead of a notice within period of 45 days." The affidavit filed on behalf of the NCTE was found lacking in explanation: "The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent's counsel does not explain in any manner about the inordinate delay in issuing the show cause notice."
The Court categorically stated, "The NCTE itself has violated the time schedule as prescribed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in 'Maa Vaishnoo Devi Mahila Mahavidyala (supra)'" and that such delay led to consequential delays in recognition. With regard to the letter of intent, the Court stated, "Though, as per the judgment, the last date for approval is 03.03.2025, but the letter of intent was also issued on 03.04.2025, violating the date of 03.03.2025."
Justice Singh held that the petitioner "was not responsible at all for this inordinate delay of 3 and 12 months in issuing the notice" and questioned how the Council could justify issuing a recognition order for 2026-27 despite the LOI indicating 2025-26.
In assessing the affidavits filed, the Court stated, "The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the NCTE falls short of the requisite details and the consequences if there is a delay on the part of the NCTE." The bench asked whether an institution can be penalised due to the NCTE's failure to adhere to a Supreme Court-mandated timeline.
The Court concluded, "When the first respondent/ NCTE itself has not adhered to the timeline prescribed... the NCTE cannot put the blame on the petitioner College for no fault of theirs." It also noted that "the letter of intent was issued for the Academic Year 2025-26, and the Final Recognition has been issued for the Academic Year 2026-27, which also defies any logic and reason."
Further, the Court criticised the inefficiency in the functioning of NCTE: "Statutory bodies are required to be governed effectively and efficiently... if they are not being governed effectively and efficiently, the Colleges which are seeking recognition and affiliation cannot be made to suffer."
The Court issued the following final directive:
"In view thereof, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned Recognition Order dated 01.05.2025 in Ext.P12 is to be treated for the Academic Year 2025-26, and the petitioner College is directed to be included in the eligible list of the Institutions for allotment of students for taking admission for ITEP for the Academic Year 2025-26."
The Court further directed that "All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters stand closed. No order as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Smt. Nisha George, Senior Advocate Sri. George Poonthottam, and Smt. Kavya Varma M. M.
For the Respondents: Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, Standing Counsel for NCTE
Case Title: The Secretary Cum Manager, Majilis Arts and Science College v. NCTE and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:41303
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17822 OF 2025
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
[Read/Download order]
