NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Transcription

1 F.No /2010-Appeal F.No /2010-Appeal F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /02/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeals of Ch. Het Ram Johari Memorial College of Education, Fatehabad, Haryana dated 22/09/2010 were against the Orders dt. 22/06/2010 for D.Ed. course, dt. 23/06/2010 for B.Ed. basic unit and dt. 23/06/2010 for B.Ed. addl. Unit of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course, B.Ed. (basic unit) and B.Ed. (addl. Unit) on the ground The response submitted by the Institute through letter number Memo 211 and 215 dated 23 November 2009 is not satisfactory. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ch. Het Ram Johari Lal Memorial College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the institution also filed a Writ Petition No. LPA-710/2010 & CM No /2010 and LPA-711/2010 & CM No /2010 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The Hon ble High Court, vide its order dated , directed the Council to dispose of the appeal of the institution within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant institution. Accordingly, in compliance with the directions of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi, the appeal of the institution was considered and the Appellate Authority vide their order dated rejected the appeal, for the reasons recorded therein, and confirmed the WRC s order dated 22/ AND WHEREAS the institution filed writ petitions W.P (C) No.623/2011 & CM No.1321/2011, W.P (C) No.624/2011 & CM No.1322/2011 and W.P (C) No.625/2011 & CM No.1323/2011 in the Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi against the order dated passed by the NRC, Jaipur and the aforesaid order dated passed by the Council. The Hon ble High Court, vide order dated , directed the Council to depute a fresh visiting team within a period of 15 days during the working hours, but without prior intimation, to carry out inspection in the institution to check its capacity to run the three courses at the premises strictly in terms of the relevant provisions of the NCTE and the policies and guidelines framed by it. After the visit of the said visiting team, the decision on the report shall be taken by the Council within a period of ten days. In case the Council comes to the conclusion that certain deficiencies exist in the petitioner college, then the Council shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any final decision in the matter. Council shall remand the matter back to the Regional Committee for issuing restoration order in the event of their decision being in favour of the petitioner. The final decision shall be conveyed by the Council to the petitioner within a period of three days after consideration by the Council. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi also made it clear that this order will not create any precedent in such other matters.

2 AND WHEREAS in compliance with the said direction of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi, an inspection of the institution was got conducted by a fresh two-member Visiting team on The Council considered the VT report dated in its meeting held on and observed that the VT report was negative and the report pointed out that a number of deficiencies are existing in the institution. A letter No.F.No /2010-Appeal dated communicating the deficiencies and advising the institution to explain its response to the deficiencies to the Council on was issued to the institution. After giving a personal hearing and considering the written submission made by the appellant against the deficiencies as communicated by the NCTE vide letter dated , the Council vide their order dated rejected the appeal and re-iterated the earlier order dated passed by the Council on the grounds that:- as regards reply of the institution to the point (a) the Council noted that recognition of the institution for B. Ed and D.Ed. courses (now D.El.Ed.) was withdrawn by the NRC from the academic session , vide NRC s order dated Despite withdrawal of recognition from academic session , the institution made admission for D.Ed. course (now D.El.Ed.) on for the academic session , as conceded by the institution, that is, much after receipt of the withdrawal order by the institution. The plea made by the institution that students were allotted by the SCERT cannot be accepted as it was the institution which admitted the students with the effect from 10/12/2010 after the receipt of withdrawal order dated 23/06/2010. The institution should have informed the SCERT about the withdrawal of recognition of the institution immediately after receipt of the withdrawal order dated. 23/06/2010 rather than admitting the students after a period of four months in violation of the provision in Section 17 (3) of the NCTE Act, 1993, which stipulates that once the recognition of a recognized institution is withdrawn under Section 17 (1), such institution shall discontinue the course of teacher education and the concerned University or examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution. As regards reply to point (b) regarding show cause notice, the question is totally irrelevant, cannot be accepted as it was the institution which in part- II of the Inspection Proforma, which was filled in and handed over to the VT by the institution itself, it maintained that no show cause notice was served by the NCTE on the institution whereas show cause notice was in fact issued and the institution had replied to the same. In reply to para (c) the institution has admitted that it has been paying salary to the teaching staff in cash. Though the institution has claimed that it has been paying salary in cash as per norms of the State Government, no supporting document was submitted by the institution. In any case, paying salary in cash is not in conformity with the NCTE Norms. Regarding point (d) relating to submission of approved building plan dated. 02/06/2011, the explanation given by the institution was that the building plan has again been certified by the Sarpanch recently to the complete satisfaction of NCTE and as directed by the Hon ble Court, is untenable and cannot be accepted as no such direction has been given by the Hon ble High Court. The building of the institution is reported to have been completed in 2008 and no building can be constructed without obtaining approval of the building plan from the local authority concerned. The reply to point (e) is also not acceptable as an approved building plan should cover all the area including mumty and it cannot be claimed that the area in the approved building plan and the building completion certificate does not tally. Further, the covered area of mumty as given in the certificate dated of the Architect submitted by the institution is sq. mts whereas the covered area of mumty indicated in other documents earlier submitted by the institution was 80 sq. mts. Regarding point (f), the VT which conducted physical inspection of the building has indicated in its report that the second floor of the building was under construction. The photograph of the building submitted by the institution as proof of completion of the building also reveals that

3 construction of the building is not yet completed. Thus, the plea of the institution that the second floor was completed cannot be accepted. Further, the representative of the institution, during the time of presentation on 15/06/2010, conceded that the second floor of the building was not having any furniture and it was not being utilized for conducting classes. Therefore, the Council did not find any reason to disbelieve the VT, which recorded its findings after physical inspection of the building. Regarding point (g) pertaining to availability of only 15 computers for 300 students, the institution has only replied that the number of computers has not been reduced since the time of last recognition granted by the NCTE implying thereby that the observation of the VT that only fifteen computers are available, is correct. Regarding point (h) pertaining to the room size, the VT in its report has indicated that the B. Ed lecture rooms are relatively small and have insufficient furniture (30-38) for a section of fifty students. Therefore, the plea that the class rooms were adequate for fifty students cannot be accepted. The explanation furnished by the institution to point (i) relating to availability of only 100 chairs as against the strength of 300 students, that only 100 chairs were kept in the multipurpose hall for 100 students of D.Ed. (D.El.Ed) course and the remaining 200 chairs were kept in the store room is also not convincing and, therefore, cannot be accepted, particularly when 100 chairs in the multipurpose hall is not sufficient for 100 students of D.Ed. (D.El.Ed) course and faculty. The deficiencies in the Science lab, Psychology Resource Center etc. were observed by the VT after inspection by it on 03/06/2011 the reply to point (j) furnished by the institution that such irrelevant objections have never been raised by any VT cannot be accepted. Regarding point (k) relating to journals, the VT, in its report indicated that the institution has subscribed for only one journal (Anweshika) and rest of the journals were specimen copies and they do not bear college seal. Therefore, the reply of the institution that it is subscribing to 10 journals cannot be accepted. Reply to point (l) that the institution is having 8 schools for practice teaching cannot be accepted, because if that was the case, the institution could have shown the list of those 8 schools rather than showing a list of only 3 schools. Regarding reply to point (m) that the institution has been hosting faculty details of M.Ed. course as it was issued conditional recognition order under 7(9) is also not acceptable as even after more than 8 months since withdrawal of recognition of the institution, it was still hosting the particulars of M.Ed. faculty, particularly when no formal recognition for M.Ed. course was ever granted to the institution. In fact, as per the copy of NRC s order dated submitted by the institution along with its written submission, recognition for M. Ed course was refused to the institution on Further, this also shows that even when the institution was not having adequate built-up area for even the existing B.Ed. (two units) and D.El.Ed course, it had applied for recognition for additional course, that is M.Ed. course, and to obtain conditional recognition although formal recognition was not granted by the NRC. As far as reply to point (n) relating to non submission of details of the faculty recruited for B.Ed. (basic unit) B.Ed. (additional intake) and D.Ed. (now D.El.Ed) course right from the commencement of these courses, the reply of the institution that the same are available on the records of the NCTE cannot be accepted. A recognized institution is required to maintain all such records and produce the same for inspection as and when required. Clause 8 (14) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, stipulates that the institutions shall make the information or documents available to the NCTE or its authorized representative as and when required by them. The Council also noted that the allegation made by the institution in the written submission that the VT was sent by the NCTE with an ulterior motive by teaching the deficiencies only, which were never pointed out earlier, and not going into the ground facts available in the institution, as directed by the Hon ble Court, is unwarranted particularly when the VT was deputed for inspection of the institution in compliance with the specific direction of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, the Council reached the

4 conclusion that the institution contravened the provisions in the NCTE Act, 1993 and the NCTE Regulations, 2009 and even as on , when the two member Visiting Team conducted inspection of the institution in compliance with the directions of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi, the institution was not capable to run the three courses [B. Ed.(basic unit), B. Ed.(additional intake) and D. Ed.] at the premises strictly in terms of the relevant provisions of the NCTE Act and the NCTE Regulations, 2009, as revealed in the VT report dated The Council was, therefore, of the view that there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the Council s order dated , the appellant filed a W.P. NO.10906/2011 and W.P.No.5358/2011 before Hon ble High Court of Delhi and the Court vide order dated disposed of the petition inter-alia passing direction that After some arguments, Mr. Sanjay Sehrawat, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner at least would be eligible to the entitlement of grant of running of two courses out of three courses applied by it. Learned counsel submits that this statement is being made even if the Council takes into consideration the deficiencies already pointed out in the order impugned before the Court. It was made clear to the parties that this Court, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction would not be interfering with the finding of facts arrived at by the Visiting Team, based on which the Council has given its decision, unless the finding of facts are perverse, illegal or irrational. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has taken a decision that even in the teeth of the fourteen deficiencies, the petitioner, at least, would be eligible for the grant of recognition to at least two courses, therefore, to that limited extent, let the Council decide as to whether the petitioner would be eligible to the grant of recognition to any of the three courses in the teeth of the fourteen deficiencies already pointed out by the Council. The Council shall decide the matter within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. In compliance with the Court direction the case was re-considered by the Council on AND WHEREAS after giving a personal hearing to the appellant on and considering the submission made by the appellant, the Appellate Authority vide order dated rejected the 3 appeals of the institution for B.Ed., B.Ed. (Addl.) and D.Ed. course on the ground that the Council perused the point wise reply submitted by the appellant against the fourteen deficiencies as stated in the Appellate order dated and noted that:- (a) The plea of the appellant that students for D.Ed. course were allotted by the SCERT and none of the admissions was made by the management on its own, cannot be accepted because it was the institution which participated in the Counseling process, even as on , without bringing to the notice of the SCERT that recognition for the D.Ed. course was withdrawn by the NRC vide order dated It was the moral obligation of the institution to do so. Participating in the Counseling process and admitting students in December 2010, after withdrawal of recognition on , was a violation of the provision in Section 17(3) of the NCTE Act, 1993, which stipulates that once the recognition of a recognized institution was withdrawn U/s 17(1), such institution shall discontinue the course of teacher education and the concerned examining body shall cancel the affiliation of the institution. (b) The Council reiterated its earlier stand as reflected in para 5 above. (c) The Council reiterated its earlier observation as noted in para 5 above; the appellant did not submit any copy of salary register marked as Annexure I. (d) The submission that the building plan has again been certified by the Sarpanch recently for complete satisfaction of NCTE cannot be accepted because the building of the institution is reported to have been completed in the year 2008 and no building could be constructed

5 without obtaining approval of the building plan from the competent local authority concerned. Further, when the appellant was the custodian/owner of the building he was supposed to maintain and keep all the relevant records pertaining to the institution building s maps, he cannot simply take a plea that the records were available with the NCTE. As per the records available in the NRC file, the appellant submitted at various points of time to the NRC different building plans, one plan dated NIL was only for two floors for a total constructed area of sq.mt.; the other plan was also dated Nil and it was for Sq.mt. and yet another plan, also dated NIL, for Sq.mt. The appellant had been submitting building plans, mentioning different built-up area, in accordance with the need of the occasion. (e) The Council reiterated its earlier observation as stated in para 5 above. (f) The submission that the construction of the building upto 2nd floor was completed in all respects in the year 2008 cannot be accepted particularly in the light of the observation of the VT stating that second floor was under construction and also in view of the photograph submitted by the appellant in the appeal on Apparently, it looks like the appellant had super imposed on the same photo a completely constructed second floor of the building. This photograph now submitted also shows VT members who were standing in front of college building. This photograph was shown to the Council on (g) & (h) The Council reiterated their earlier observation as stated in para 5 above. (i) It was noted that the appellant did not enclose any photocopy of the bills and extracts of pages of the stock register for verification to ensure that he had indeed purchased 300 chairs. (j),(k),(l),(m)&(n) the Council while reiterating its earlier observation as stated in para 5 above, further noted that the bills submitted by the appellant for psychology lab equipment were dated after withdrawal of recognition. The Hon ble Delhi High Court vide their order dated left an option for consideration of the Council to decide whether the institution could be granted permission to offer at least two courses. Accordingly, the Council asked the petitioner on , to clearly state as to which of the three courses he wanted to offer and gave him two days to come back before the Council with a specific proposal. He came back before the Council on and pleaded that the Council should take the decision on its own. Since there was no specific proposal before the Council to consider the matter in reference to Hon ble Court directions, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not serious about launching any viable programme and therefore the proposal did not deserve to be taken seriously. The Council, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the submission made by the appellant for extending recognition to the institution. AND WHEREAS the appellant filed contempt petition (cont. (c) Nos.926/2011, 927/2011 and 931/2011) before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi and the Court vide order dated disposed of the petition and set aside the decision of the Council dated and required the Council to consider the petitioner case for eligibility and grant of recognition for B.Ed. and B.Ed. (Addl.) courses. In compliance with the Court directions the case was listed for hearing on AND WHEREAS Shri Ram Narayan Sharma, President, appeared before the Council on and requested for restoration of recognition of the institution for two courses namely B.Ed. and B.Ed.(Addl.), by considering his earlier submission(s). AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) Ch. Het Ram Johri Lal Memorial College of Education was granted recognition for D.Ed., B.Ed. and B.Ed. (Addl.) courses. The NRC vide orders dated 22/ withdrew recognition of the institution for all the 3 courses. Against which appeals were preferred and the Appellate Authority vide orders dated

6 2011 rejected the appeals inter-alia observing that the institution did not fulfill the norms to become eligible for grant of recognition with regard to built-up area as per VT record. But NRC considered the built-up area as claimed by the institution in the affidavits submitted from time to time making exaggerated claim of available built-up area. (b) that the NCTE Hqrs. caused an inspection of the institution on in compliance with the Hon ble Courts Order dated and on perusal of the report, it noted several deficiencies which were communicated to the institution, and after considering the reply to these deficiencies Council rejected the three appeals of the institution vide order dated (c) that the institution again approached the Hon ble Court claiming that it was eligible for at least two courses i.e. B.Ed. and B.Ed. (Addl.) intake. With reference to the Court directions dated , the case was reconsidered for assessing its eligibility for restoration of recognition for B.Ed. and B.Ed. (Addl.) courses. The Council decided to examine the VT report and the reply of the institution to the fourteen deficiencies which were communicated to the institution. The Council noted that the visiting team inter-alia reported that Second floor of the building is under construction; Against the built-up area mentioned in the building plan ( sq.mt.), the actual available covered area is Sq.mt; B.Ed. lecture rooms are relatively small and have insufficient furniture (30 to 38) for a section of 50 students; Multipurpose hall has just 100 chairs; Computer lab has 15 desktops, which are insufficient looking for the total strength of students; Science lab has no tables for conducting physics experiments; ET lab does not exist, it is clubbed with computer lab; Only one journal (Anweshika) has been subscribed to, specimen copies of other journals were also shown, but they bore no college seal; Psychology resource centre is not arranged properly; There was no storage facility for psychology test and equipment. (12 tests and 3 apparatus are available but entries are not made in stock register); List of 3 schools given which is grossly insufficient for 200 B.Ed. students and 100 D.Ed. students; Teachers attendance register for B.Ed. and B.Ed. (Addl.) is not shown; Salary records are not in order; B.Ed. faculty approved by the affiliating university is not qualified as none of them possess NET/Ph.D. The VT observation clearly revealed that the institution lacked adequate infrastructure and instructional facilities. Further, hosting the information on website about M.Ed. programme, even though recognition was refused to it by NRC; admitting students in D.Ed. programme even after withdrawal of recognition is a gross violation of provisions of the NCTE Act. The Supreme Court in their judgement dated passed in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2012 and SLP (c) No of 2009 of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and allied SLPs/2009 inter-alia observed under para 33 at point (ix) that Once the recognition is withdrawn u/s 17(1), the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training in teacher education and the examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation. The effect of withdrawal of the recognition is that the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to the course or training undertaken at such institution is not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University or in any educational body aided by the Central or the State Government ; submitting various building plans and building completion certificates for various area dimensions from time to time; not furnishing the B.Ed. faculty details that existed before withdrawal of recognition; above all technical manipulation of building photograph showing completed construction of second floor in presence of VT members; augmentation of equipment and facilities in the institution after inspection; the observation of the Council against the noted deficiencies as mentioned in para 7 above, clearly indicated that the institution as a whole was not deserving of restoration of recognition.

7 AND WHEREAS in view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that the institution was not eligible for restoration of recognition for B.Ed. and B.Ed. (Addl.) courses. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering Hon ble Court directions and oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that that the institution was not eligible for restoration of recognition for B.Ed. and B.Ed.(Addl.) courses. Accordingly, the appeals are rejected and NRC orders dated are re-confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby re-confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The President, Ch. Het Ram Johari Lal Memorial College of Education, VPO- Khara Kheti, On Bhattu Road, Fatehabad - -, Haryana 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar, Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana, Chandigarh