MAYURI RAMESH UDALEversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                                                        902-WP-577-2026 (C).doc


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    WRIT PETITION NO.577 OF 2026

Mayuri Ramesh Udale                              …Petitioner
           Vs
The Union Of India And Others                    ...Respondents

                                  ——————
Mr. Eshan Nayak, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Kelledar, Advocate for respondent no.1-UOI.
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar with Adv. Rahul Patil, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke (Through VC) a/w. Adv. Rahul Rane, Advocate for
respondent nos. 5 & 6.
Mr. A. A. Naik, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

                                ——————

                                Coram :      R.G. AVACHAT &
                                             AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                                Date     :   20th FEBRUARY 2026.

Oral Order (Per AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J) :

1.    Heard.

2.    Mr. Nayak, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that

pursuant to the last order passed by this Court, the Petitioner has

amended the title clause as well as the prayer clause of the Petition. By

way of amendment, the Chairman, Western Regional Committee

(NCTE), has been added as a party Respondent.

adn                             1 of 8
                                                         902-WP-577-2026 (C).doc


3.      Today, Mr. Rajeshirke, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5

and 6, submits that the grievance of the Petitioner is that she had taken

admission to the B.Ed. course in National Education and completed the

first and second semesters. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits

that the course is of two years’ duration, divided into four semesters,

i.e., two semesters each year. The Petitioner completed the first year;

however, during the course she conceived and subsequently delivered a

child. Owing to these circumstances, she could not complete the course

within the stipulated period of two years. She therefore approached the

Respondents seeking relaxation of the condition prescribing the

maximum duration of the course. Since her request was not accepted by

the concerned authority, she has approached this Court. It is clarified

that the Petitioner had already been granted an extension of one year in

exceptional circumstances and now seeks a further extension of one

year.

4.      Mr. Rajeshirke submits that the Petitioner relies upon Appendix 4

of the Regulations, 2014 framed under the NCTE Act read thus :

                “Norms and Standards for bachelor of education
            programme leading to the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed)
                                   Degree
          1. Preamble
          The Bachelor of Education programme, generally known as


adn                               2 of 8
                                                           902-WP-577-2026 (C).doc


      B.Ed., is a professional course that prepares teschers for
      upper primary or middle level (classes VI-VIII), secondary
      level (classes IX-X) and senior secondary level (classes XI-
      XII). The programme shall be offered in composite
      institutions as defined in clause (b) of regularions 2.
      2. Duration and Working Days
      2.1 Duration The B.Ed. programme shall be of a duration of
      two academic years, which can be completed in a
      maximum of three years from the date of admission to the
      programme.
      2.2 Working Days
      (a) There shall be at least two hundred working days each
      year exclusive of the period of examination and admission.
      (b) The institution shall work for a minimum of thirty six
      hours in a week (five or six days), during which physical
      presence in the institution of all the teachers and student
      teachers is necessary to ensure their availability for advice,
      guidance, dialogue and consultation as and when needed,
      (c) The minimum attendance of student-teachers shall have
      to be 80% for all course work and practicum, and 90% for
      school internship.
      3. Intake, Eligibility, Admission Procedure and Fees
      3.1 Intake
      There shall be a basic unit of 50 students, with a maximum
      of two units. There shall not be more than twenty five
      students per teacher for a school subject for methods
      courses and other practical activities of the programme to
      facilitate participatory teaching and learning.
      3.2 Eligibility
      (a) Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the
      Bachelor's Degree and/or in the Master's Degree in
      Sciences/Social Sciences/ Humanity, Bachelor's in
      Engineering or Technology with specialization in Science
      and Mathematics with 55% marks or any other
      qualification equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission
      to the programme.
      (b) The reservation and relaxation for SC/ST/OBC/PWD
      and other categories shall be as per the rules of the Central
      Government/State Government, whichever is applicable.
      3.3 Admission Procedure
       Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks
      obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the
      entrance examination or any other selection process as per
      the policy of the State Government/U.T. Administration and
      the University,


adn                              3 of 8
                                                             902-WP-577-2026 (C).doc


        3.4 Fees
        The institution shall charge only such fee as prescribed by
        the affiliating body/state government concerned in
        accordance with provisions of National Council for Teacher
        Education (NCTE) (Guidelines fos regulations of nation
        foes and other fees chargeable by unaided teacher
        education institutions) Regulations, 2002, as amended from
        time to tina and shall not charge donations, capitation fee
        etc from the students.”

5.    He invites our attention to Clause 1 (Preamble), Clause 2

(Duration of the Course), and particularly Clause 12, which provides for

the power to relax the norms. For convenience, Clause 12 is reproduced

hereinbelow:

         12 Power to relax .-
         On the recommendations of State Government or Union
         Territory Administration concerned, or in cases for removal
         of any hardship caused in adhering to the provisions in
         these Regulations, keeping in view the circumstances
         peculiar to the said State or Union Territory it shall be open
         to the Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education,
         for reasons to be recorded in writing, to relax any of the
         provisions of these Regulations, in respect of any class or
         category of institutions, in the concerned state or Union
         Territory, to such an extent and subject to such conditions,
         as may be specified in the order allowing relaxation.
         However, in exceptional cases and for reasons to be
         recorded in writing, the Chairperson, National Council for
         Teacher Education shall be competent to relax provisions of
         these Regulations and the related Norms and Standards
         subject to its ratification by the Council.

6.    On the basis of the aforesaid provision, Mr. Nayak, learned

Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that considering the exceptional

circumstances of the Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (NCTE



adn                                4 of 8
                                                     902-WP-577-2026 (C).doc


authorities) as well as the University may be directed to grant

relaxation by extending the course duration by one year.

7.    Mr. Narvankar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3 –

University, submits that the University has already dealt with the

application filed by the Petitioner and clarified that the authority to

relax such norms vests with Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. He submits that

the University has recommended the Petitioner’s case to the concerned

authority and it is for such authority to take an appropriate decision.

However, Mr. Rajeshirke submits that the power to relax the time frame

does not vest with Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and relies upon Clause 12

of Appendix 4 to contend that such power lies with the University.

8.    We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

exclusively on the issue of power to relax the prescribed duration.

9.    Mr. Killedar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, has assisted

the Court by placing on record the Notification dated 28th November

2014, which defines the National Council for Teacher Education

(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations. He submits that the

power to relax, as expressed in Clause 12, refers to the norms governing

the education programme. He particularly relies upon the last portion of



adn                            5 of 8
                                                           902-WP-577-2026 (C).doc


Clause 12, which states:

         ‘”however, in exceptional cases and for reasons to be
         recorded in writing, the Chairperson, National Council for
         Teacher Education shall be competent to relax provisions of
         these Regulations and the related Norms and Standards
         subject to its ratification by the Council.”


10.   He has further invited our attention to Clauses 1 and 2 of

Appendix 4, which lay down the Norms and Standards for the Bachelor

of Education (B.Ed.) programme.

11.   He submits that these norms are framed in exercise of powers

under Section 32 of the NCTE Act and are referable to Clause 12 for the

purpose of relaxation.

12.   Mr. Nayak, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that the

Petitioner’s claim is required to be decided by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

alone and that the University has rightly recommended her case to the

said authorities.

13.   Mr. Nayak has also placed on record an order dated 28th March

2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3378 of 2023. He submits

that in similar circumstances, this Court had directed the NCTE to relax

the norms considering the peculiar facts of that case. It is not disputed

that the said order has not been challenged by the NCTE authority.



adn                               6 of 8
                                                      902-WP-577-2026 (C).doc


Upon a plain reading of Clause 12 (Power to Relax) and the Norms in

Appendix 4 of the 2014 Regulations, and considering Section 21 of the

General Clauses Act, it is evident that the authority which frames the

norms is also competent to relax the same.

14.   In view of the above discussion, we find that the power to relax

the norms in respect of extension of the duration of the education

programme, even in exceptional circumstances, vests with Respondent

Nos. 5 and 6. The University has therefore rightly recommended the

Petitioner’s proposal to the said Respondents.

15.   In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed with the

following directions:

(i)   The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 shall consider the exceptional
circumstances of the Petitioner’s case and pass an appropriate order
granting relaxation by extending the course duration by one year.

(iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one
week from today.

(iv) Respondent No. 3 – University is directed to permit the Petitioner to
submit her examination forms for Semester III and Semester IV. The
Respondent No.3 shall accept the petitioner’s exam form and shall allow
her participating in the exam.



adn                              7 of 8
                                                         902-WP-577-2026 (C).doc


(v) Considering the limited time available, Mr. Narvankar, learned
Advocate for Respondent No. 3, undertakes to inform the University
authorities to accept the Petitioner’s examination forms, the last date
whereof is 23rd February 2026.


16.     Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.


     [ AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ]                  [ R.G. AVACHAT, J. ]

1.      Subsequently, at 2.30 p.m. Mr. Rahul Rane holding for Mr. Rajeshirke
representing respondent nos. 5 and 6 on instructions submits that the
petitioner be directed to submit a comprehensive proposal directly addressed
to the Chairman of NCTE and same shall be processed as per the direction
given by this Court today morning, within a period of two weeks. He submits
that the proposal can be submitted to the chairman on its email id. He
undertakes to supply email id of the chairman, NCTE to the petitioner.

2.      The learned Advocate for the petitioner accedes to that and undertakes
to file such proposal to the Chairman to the NCTE by email by tomorrow.

3.      Accordingly, the chairman NCTE shall pass appropriate order on
extension proposal within a period of two weeks from today, and shall extend
the programe period to enable the petitioner to prosecute III and IV
Semester.



     [ AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ]                  [ R.G. AVACHAT, J. ]




adn                                8 of 8