Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Mvr Institute Of Teacher Training vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
APHC010594292025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3460]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 30978/2025
Between:
1. MVR INSTITUTE OF TEACHER TRAINING,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, SRI. M.
VENKATA RAMANA REDDY K.NO. 50, PLOT NO. 19-9-
3E/5, TIRUPATI HEAD POST OFFICE, 19TH STREET,
TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH –
517501,
…PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION TULLURU,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY SECRETARY (APPEAL) G-7, SECTOR-10,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075.
3. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION,
SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED
2
BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, G-7, SECTOR-10,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075
4. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF SCHOOL EDUCATION VENKATADRI TOWERS, OPP
DGP OFFICE BESIDE HAPPY RESORTS, ATMAKUR
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA
PRADESH
…RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue an appropriate
Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent,
Appellate Authority, National Council for Teacher Education, New
Delhi in passing the impugned order dated 16-09-2025 in Appeal
No. 89-160/E366530/2025, confirming the order dated 24-01-
2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent, Southern Regional
Committee, NCTE, withdrawing the recognition granted to the
Petitioner- Institution for conducting D.EI.Ed. course, as arbitrary,
illegal, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India, and contrary to the settled principles of law
governing condonation of delay and further ignoring particularly
the medical disability and chronic ailment suffered by the
Correspondent which caused the delay in filing the appeal justice
and consequently set aside the impugned appellate order dated
16.09.2025, passed by the 2nd Respondent, and passIA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to suspend the
operation of the impugned order dated 16-09-2025 passed by the
2nd Respondent, Appellate Authority, NOTE, and direct the said
3authority to reconsider the appeal afresh by affording due
opportunity to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the
Respondents 1 and 4 to forthwith grant affiliation to the Petitioner
institution as per the proposals submitted by the Petitioner on 04-
12-2020, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of
justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VIJAYA KUMAR SATA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
3. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
COUNSEL)The Court made the following:
4
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.30978 of 2025
O R DE R:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated
16.09.2025 in Appeal No.89-160/ E366530/2025 confirming the
order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent-Southern
Regional Committee, NCTE, withdrawing the recognition granted
to the Petitioner-Institution for conducting D.Ei.Ed., course as
arbitrary and illegal.
2. The facts leading to filing of this case are as follows:
The Petitioner is an Educational Institution offering
D.Ei.Ed., course to the students and recognition was issued by
the NCTE on 03.03.2015. While so, a show cause notice dated
18.08.2022 was issued under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, stating
that the Petitioner had failed to submit GIS location of the
Institution, status of the Performance Appraisal Report in
compliance of notice dated 29.09.2021. The Petitioner-Institution
was called upon to supply land documents, Land Use Certificate
issued by the competent authority, non-encumbrance certificate,
approved building plan, site plan etc. As there was no response
5from the Petitioner, a final show cause notice dated 16.09.2022
was issued. Thereafter, the order withdrawing the recognition
under Section 17 of the NCTE Act was passed on 24.01.2023.
As the Petitioner was unaware of the show cause notices referred
above and the consequential order, filed Appeal under Section 18
of the NCTE Act, before Respondent No.2 with a delay of more
than two (2) years and the Appeal was dismissed on the ground
of delay vide impugned order dated 16.09.2025. Hence, the
present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Counter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3,
wherein it is stated that the time frame for filing Appeal under
Section 18 of the NCTE Act, is 90 days and the Appeal was filed
with a delay of more than two (2) years. It is further stated that
though the deponent contended that he was suffering chronic
health problem (Prostate Disease since three years), no medical
certificate was filed to substantiate the same.
4. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar Sata, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education.
6
5. The short question that falls for consideration is, whether
there are reasonable grounds for this Court to interfere with the
order of appeal.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of memo filed on 23.02.2026,
it is stated that the deponent i.e. the Correspondent of Petitioner-
Institution was suffering from chronic health problem which
rendered him incapable to file an Appeal within the time. It is also
submitted that the deponent’s wife also met with an accident in
2023 and was injured and could not actively attend to file Appeal
within the time specified. Photographs and medical records were
filed to support the plea of health condition. Apart from that, the
delay in filing the Appeal against the order of de-recognition
under Section 17 of the NCTE Act is only to the loss on
Petitioners and no third party rights would be created in the
interregnum.
7. In the absence of any third party rights, a liberal view could
have been taken by the Appellate Authority more so when the
reason for issuance of show cause notices were only a regulatory
requirement.
7
8. While dealing with a similar fact scenario, Hon’ble Supreme
Court in A.B.Govardhan v. P.Ragothaman1 held as under:
37. In Collector (LA) v. Katiji, the Court noted that it had
been adopting a justifiably liberal approach in condoning
delay and that “justice on merits” is to be preferred as
against what “scuttles a decision on merits”. Albeit, while
reversing an order of the High Court therein condoning
delay, principles to guide the consideration of an application
for condonation of delay were culled out in Esha
Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy. One of the
factors taken note of therein was that substantial justice is
paramount.
38. In N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India, a Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court at Nagpur considered, though in the
context of delay vis-à-vis Article 226 of the Constitution, the
decision in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District
Board, Bhojpur, and held that :
“22. … The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the
High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time
as such, but the test is whether by reason of delay there is
such negligence on the part of the petitioner, so as to infer
that he has given up his claim or whether before the
petitioner has moved the writ court, the rights of the third
parties have come into being which should not be allowed to
be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the
delay.”(emphasis supplied)1
(2024) 10 SCC 613
8
39. The Bombay High Court’s eloquent statement of the
correct position in law in N.L. Abhyankar case found
approval in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder
Beig and Mool Chandra v. Union of India [Mool Chandra v.
Union of India .
9. In view of the above, the order in Appeal dated 16.09.2025
passed by the 3rd Respondent is set aside and the writ petition is
allowed. The Appellate Authority-Respondent No.2 shall examine
the Appeal of the Petitioner on merits. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 10.03.2026
KLP