F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2011

Transcription

1 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Ch. Het Ram Johari Memorial College of Education, Fatehabad, Haryana dated 22/09/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/HR-539/2009/24132 dated 23/06/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the ground 1) the response submitted by the Institute through letter number Memo dated 23 November 2009 is not satisfactory. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ch. Het Ram Johari 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 Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, vide its order dated in LPA-710/2010 & CM No /2010 and LPA.711/2010 &CM No /2010 filed by the appellant institution, directed that the Council shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant institution. The Hon'ble High Court also directed that while hearing the appeal, the Council should not be influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the Learned Single Judge as well as the Court not granting stay order. Accordingly, in compliance with the directions of the Hon ble High Court, the appeal of the appellant institution was listed for hearing on and the institution was asked to present its case before the Council on AND WHEREAS Shri. Naresh Kumar, President and Shri. Virender Kumar, Lecturer in Education, Ch. Het Ram Johari Memorial College of Education, Fatehabad, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that (1) the reason for withdrawing recognition by the NRC was that the appellant did not allow the visiting team to conduct inspection. The first submission in this regard was that the Regional Committee is empowered to withdraw recognition of any of its recognized institution under section 17 only if it is satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or permission under subsection (3) of section 15 was granted. Thus, the sine qua non for exercising the power under that said section is the satisfaction of the NRC that there is breach

2 of any provision of the Act, rules etc. The NRC does not have power under section 17 to conduct inspection of any recognized institution; (2) vide letter dated , the NRC informed appellant that its inspection under section 17 of the NCTE Act for all the courses shall be conducted between 20th to 30th August Between those periods, the appellant had informed all the staff members to be ready with all their certificates for production before the inspection team. All the necessary documents pertaining to the institution, copies of FSR's land documents, etc as were desired by the NRC were made available during said period in the college premises. Such documents were kept in the safe custody of the management of the society at its registered office. The inspection team did not visit the institution during said period as stated in the above said letter. The inspection team visited the appellant College on i.e. after the date fixed by the NRC for inspection. There was no prior intimation in this regard. The staff of the college was not available due to some prior schedule fixed and thus the appellant told this fact to the inspection team. The inspection team was thus of the view that in view of non availability of the staff effective inspection would not take place. Thus, the inspection team did not conduct the inspection. The members of the team had conducted survey of the entire premises. The appellant has no hesitation in getting the college inspected as per law and the NCTE/NRC is free to do so at any point of time. This is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to challenge the power of the NRC to conduct inspection under section 17 of the NCTE Act. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 empowers the Regional Committees to withdraw recognition of such recognized institutions, which contravened provisions of the NCTE Act/Rules/Regulations. It provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is thus implied that while it is not mandatory for the Regional Committee of the NCTE to conduct an inspection under Section 17, there shall not be any objection to conduct an inspection if the Regional Committee, in its discretion, decides to conduct an inspection. Clause 7(1-B) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 stipulates that furnishing any wrong information or concealment of facts in the application, which may have bearing on the decision making process or decision pertaining to grant of recognition, shall result in withdrawal of recognition of the institution besides other legal action against its management. Clause 8(13) of the Regulations also stipulates that whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for a course or training programme in teacher education, the institution shall comply with the requirements laid down in its revised norms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that the application of the institution for recognition for the B.Ed. course was submitted to the NRC office on

3 The available land and built-up area indicated in the application were Sq.mt. and Sq.mts. respectively. The NRC issued a deficiency letter dated asking the institution to furnish legally valid land document, copy of approved building plan and affidavit. Alongwith its reply dated nil received in the NRC office on the institution forwarded an affidavit dated , which indicated availability of land measuring Sq.mts. and built-up area of 1647 sq. mts. The NRC issued a readiness letter for inspection to the institution on subject to production of FDR for Rs.3.00 lakh. The institution submitted its reply confirming availability of adequate infrastructure etc. and requested for deputing VT for inspection. In the meantime, another building plan showing a built-up area of Sq.mts. was also submitted by the institution. The NRC got the institution inspected on While the VT report was generally positive, it indicated that the available built-up area was 9560 Sq.ft. or 888 Sq.mts. only as against 1647 Sq.mts. claimed by the institution in the affidavit dated However, the NRC office in the agenda note placed before the NRC indicated the available built-up area as 1647 Sq.mts. based on the affidavit submitted by the institution overlooking the VT report, which indicated the available area as 9560 Sq.ft. or 888 Sq.mts. as against the requirement of 1500 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE Regulations, The NRC, in its 121st meeting held on 7-9th September, 2007 decided to grant recognition to the institution and accordingly, the institution was granted recognition vide NRC s Order dated Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint against the institution, the NRC, in its 140th meeting held on 25-26th April, 2009, decided to conduct an inspection under Section 17 of the NCTE Act. Accordingly, a two member visiting team of experts was deputed to conduct an inspection of the institution. The visiting team of experts in its letter dated informed the NRC, Jaipur that the visit schedule was decided in consultation with the Managing Committee. The VT visited the college as per the schedule on when a letter dated was handed over to the VT stating that the Managing Committee, office bearers, members and faculty were on tour programme. This was deliberate avoidance of inspection. A copy of the letter dated handed over by the College to the VT was also forwarded by the VT to the NRC. In that letter dated , the College stated that the VT visited the college on at 9.00 A.M. All the Management Committee, office bearers and faculty was on tour to Jambh Sarovar Dham, Rajasthan. So inspection was not possible in the absence of the Managing Committee and the faculty since all records and key to essential services were with the faculty. The NRC considered the matter in its 151st meeting held on 20th to 21st October, 2009 and, as per the decision taken, issued a show cause notice dated under Section 17 of the NCTE Act on the ground that although the date of inspection was decided in consultation with the Managing Committee of the institution, still the Managing Committee did not allow the VT members to inspect the instructional and infrastructural and other facilities for B.Ed. and JBT courses run by it and asked the institution to furnish written representation within 21 days before the NRC passes the order of withdrawal of recognition under Section 17 of the NCTE Act. The Institution furnished its reply to the show cause notice vide its letter No.211 dated , alongwith which it forwarded (i) a written representation (ii) a copy of report of

4 special inspection committee of the affiliating university recommending grant of extension of affiliation to the college and (iii) some photographs of the building of the college. In the written representation forwarded the college, inter-alia, alleged that action was being taken by the NRC against the college with malafide intentions and the time of inspection as given by the NRC was between and but the VT members visited the institution on when all the staff members were on tour on the occasion of Purnima at Jambh Sarovar Dham, Rajasthan. The institution emphatically denied that it lacked any of the infrastructure or instructional capacity and also stated that it was also ready for reinspection at this time. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that VT, in its letter dated stated that as per the visit schedule decided in consultation with the Managing Committee of the College, it visited the College on but a letter dated was handed over to the VT wherein it was stated that all the Managing Committee office bearers/members and faculty was on tour programme and therefore inspection was not possible. In the said letter dated of the institution it said that the visiting team visited the college on and inspection was not possible in the absence of Managing Committee and the faculty. The institution did not raise any objection in that letter that the time for inspection as informed by the NRC was between the periods of to but the VT visited the college on Therefore, the plea of the institution in the appeal that time of inspection as informed by the NRC was between and but the VT visited the College on without prior information cannot be taken at its face value. Obviously, as informed by the VT in its letter dated , it visited the college on as per the visit schedule fixed by it in consultation with the Managing Committee. Further, the institution was granted recognition for B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.Ed. additional intake vide NRC s orders dated , and , respectively. Before grant of recognition for B. Ed course, D. Ed course and B. Ed additional intake, three separate VTs conducted inspection of the institution on , and The first VT for the B.Ed course, in its report dated , indicated an available built up area of 9560 sq. ft or 888 sq.mts, the 2nd VT for the D.Ed course, in its report dated , indicated an available built up area of 8990 sq. ft or 835. Sq. mts and the 3rd VT Report dated indicated an available built up area of sq. mts or 937 sq. mts. Thus, all the 3 VTs indicated an available built up area of only around 937 sq. mts. as against the requirement of 3000 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE Norms for B.Ed. (two units) and D.Ed. courses. Thus, the institution did not fulfill the norms to become eligible for recognition in as much as the built-up area available with the institution as indicated in the VT report was inadequate even for a single course. But, the NRC office overlooked this fact and indicated the available built-up area as claimed by the institution in the affidavits submitted from time to time making exaggerated claim of available built up area, leading to grant of recognition to the institution first for the B.Ed. course, then for D.Ed. course and again for B.Ed. additional intake. In the circumstances, the Council was of the view that the institution deliberately did not allow the VT to conduct inspection of the institution on , thus, the

5 recognition of the institution was withdrawn by the NRC for valid reasons and, therefore, there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The President, Ch. Het Ram Johari Memorial College of Education, VPO-Khara Kheri, 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, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.

6 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Ch. Het Ram Johari Lal Memorial College of Education, Fatehabad, Haryana dated 22/09/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/HR-1059/2009/24046 dated 22/06/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds The response submitted by the Institute through letter number Memo 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 Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, vide its order dated in LPA-710/2010 & CM No /2010 and LPA.711/2010 &CM No /2010 filed by the appellant institution, directed that the Appeal Committee shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant institution. The Hon ble High Court also directed that while hearing the appeal, the Appeal Committee should not be influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the Learned Single Judge as well as the Court not granting stay order. Accordingly, in compliance with the directions of the Hon ble High Court, the appeal of the appellant institution was listed for hearing on and the institution was asked to present its case before the Council on AND WHEREAS Shri. Naresh Kumar, President and Shri. Virender Kumar, Lecturer in Education, Ch. Het Ram Johari Memorial College of Education, Fatehabad, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that (1) the reason for withdrawing recognition by the NRC was that the appellant did not allow the visiting team to conduct inspection. The first submission in this regard was that the Regional Committee is empowered to withdraw recognition of any of its recognized institution under section 17 only if it is satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or permission under subsection (3) of section 15 was granted. Thus, the sine qua non for exercising the power under that said section is the satisfaction of the NRC that there is breach

7 of any provision of the Act, rules etc. The NRC does not have power under section 17 to conduct inspection of any recognized institution; (2) vide letter dated , the NRC informed appellant that its inspection under section 17 of the NCTE Act for all the courses shall be conducted between 20th August to 30th August Between that period, the appellant had informed all the staff members to be ready with all their certificates for production before the inspection team. All the necessary documents pertaining to the institution, copies of land documents etc as were desired by the NRC were made available during said period in the college premises. Such documents were kept in the safe custody of the management of the society at its registered office. The inspection team did not visit the institution during said period as stated in the above said letter. The inspection team visited the appellant s college on i.e after the date fixed by NRC for inspection. There was no prior intimation in this regard. The staff of the college was not available due to some prior schedule fixed and thus the appellant told this fact to the inspection team. The inspection team was thus of the view that in view of non availability of the staff, effective inspection would not take place. Thus, the inspection team did not conduct the inspection. The members of the team had conducted survey of the entire premises. The appellant has no hesitation in getting the college inspected as per law and the NCTE/NRC is free to do so at any point of time. This is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to challenge the power of the NRC to conduct inspection under section 17 of the NCTE Act. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 empowers the Regional Committees to withdraw recognition of such recognized institutions, which contravened provisions of the NCTE Act/Rules/Regulations. It provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is thus implied that while it is not mandatory for the Regional Committee of the NCTE to conduct an inspection under Section 17, there shall not be any objection to conduct an inspection if the Regional Committee, in its discretion, decides to conduct an inspection. Clause 7(1-B) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 stipulates that furnishing any wrong information or concealment of facts in the application, which may have bearing on the decision making process or decision pertaining to grant of recognition, shall result in withdrawal of recognition of the institution besides other legal action against its management. Clause 8(13) of the Regulations also stipulates that whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for a course or training programme in teacher education, the institution shall comply with the requirements laid down in its revised norms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that the application of the institution for recognition for D.Ed. course was submitted to the NRC office on 16-

8 The available land and built-up area indicated in the application were Sq.mt. and 2253 Sq.mts. respectively. The NRC issued a deficiency letter dated asking the institution to furnish FDR for Rs. 5 lakh and affidavit on Rs. 100 stamp paper. Subsequently, another deficiency letter dated was also issued asking the institution to furnish Building Plan with resolution of the Panchayat and affidavit on Rs. 100 stamp paper. Alongwith its reply dated nil received in NRC office on , the institution forwarded a building plan, FDR and an affidavit on Rs. 100 stamp paper. The building plan indicated that the size of the plot was Sq.mts. and built-up area shown was sq.ft or 2253 sq. mts. The NRC, vide its letter dated sought further clarification pointing out that affidavit indicated built up area of 2253 sq. mts. as against requirement of 2500 sq. mts. as per NCTE norms and asking to create more space and furnish fresh affidavit and building plan. The institution furnished a reply dated nil (received in NRC office on ) forwarding therewith another building plan and an affidavit dated which indicated a built up area of sq. mts. The NRC issued a readiness letter for inspection to the institution on The NRC got the institution inspected on While the report of VT was generally positive, it indicated that the available built-up area was 8990 Sq.ft. or 835 Sq.mts. only as against Sq.mts. claimed by the institution in the affidavit dated In the mean time the institution also furnished another affidavit dated nil claiming an available built up area of sq. mts. The NRC, obviously relying on the affidavit furnished by the institution, and overlooking the VT report, which indicated the available area as 8990 sq. ft or 835 Sq.mts. as against the requirement of 1500 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE Regulations, 2005,.granted recognition to the institution vide its Order dated Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint against the institution, the NRC, in its 140th meeting held on 25-26th April, 2009, decided to conduct an inspection under Section 17 of the NCTE Act. Accordingly, a two member visiting team of experts was deputed to conduct an inspection of the institution. The visiting team of experts in its letter dated , informed the NRC, Jaipur that the visit schedule was decided in consultation with the Managing Committee. The VT visited the college as per the schedule on when a letter dated was handed over to the VT stating that the Managing Committee, office bearers, members and faculty were on tour programme. This was deliberate avoidance of inspection. A copy of the letter dated handed over by the College to the VT was also forwarded by the VT to the NRC. In that letter dated , the College stated that the VT visited the college on at 9.00 A.M. All the Management Committee, office bearers and faculty was on tour to Jambh Sarovar Dham, Rajasthan. So inspection was not possible in the absence of the Managing Committee and the faculty since all records and key to essential services were with the faculty. The NRC considered the matter in its 151st meeting held on 20th to 21st October, 2009 and, as per the decision taken, issued a show cause notice dated under Section 17 of the NCTE Act on the ground that although the date of inspection was decided in consultation with the Managing Committee of the institution, still the Managing Committee did not allow the VT members to inspect the instructional and infrastructural and other facilities for B.Ed. and JBT courses run by it and asked the institution to furnish written representation within 21 days before the NRC passes the order of

9 withdrawal of recognition under Section 17 of the NCTE Act. The Institution furnished its reply to the show cause notice vide its letter No.211 dated , alongwith which it forwarded (i) a written representation (ii) a copy of report of special inspection committee of the affiliating university recommending grant of extension of affiliation to the college and (iii) some photographs of the building of the college. In the written representation forwarded the college, inter-alia, alleged that action was being taken by the NRC against the college with malafide intentions and the time of inspection as given by the NRC was between and but the VT members visited the institution on when all the staff members were on tour on the occasion of Purnima at Jambh Sarovar Dham, Rajasthan. The institution emphatically denied that it lacked any of the infrastructure or instructional capacity and also stated that it was also ready for re-inspection at this time. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that VT, in its letter dated stated that as per the visit schedule decided in consultation with the Managing Committee of the College, it visited the College on but a letter dated was handed over to the VT wherein it was stated that all the Managing Committee office bearers/members and faculty was on tour programme and therefore inspection was not possible. In the said letter dated of the institution it said that the visiting team visited the college on and inspection was not possible in the absence of Managing Committee and the faculty. The institution did not raise any objection in that letter that the time for inspection as informed by the NRC was between the period of to but the VT visited the college on Therefore, the plea of the institution in the appeal that time of inspection as informed by the NRC was between and but the VT visited the College on without prior information cannot be taken at its face value. Obviously, as informed by the VT in its letter dated , it visited the college on as per the visit schedule fixed by it in consultation with the Managing Committee. Further, the institution was granted recognition for B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.Ed. additional intake vide NRC s orders dated , and , respectively. Before grant of recognition for B. Ed course, D. Ed course and B. Ed additional intake, three separate VTs conducted inspection of the institution on , and The first VT for B.Ed course, in its report dated , indicated an available built up area of 9560 sq. ft or 888 sq.mts, the 2nd VT for the D. Ed course, in its report dated , indicated an available built up area of 8990 sq. ft or 835. Sq. mts and the 3rd VT report dated indicated an available built up area of sq. mts or 937 sq. mts. Thus, all the 3 VTs indicated an available built up area of only around 937 sq. mts. as against the requirement of 3000 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE norms for B.Ed. (two units) and D.Ed. courses. Thus, the institution did not fulfill the norms to become eligible for recognition in as much as the built-up area available with the institution as indicated in the VT Report was inadequate even for a single course. But, the NRC office overlooked this fact and indicated the available built-up area as claimed by the institution in the affidavits submitted from time to time making exaggerated claim of available built up area, leading to grant of recognition to the institution first for B.Ed. course, then for the D.Ed. course and again for the B.Ed. additional intake.

10 In the circumstances, the Council was of the view that the institution deliberately did not allow the VT to conduct inspection of the institution on , thus, the recognition of the institution was withdrawn by the NRC for valid reasons and, therefore, there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 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, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.

11 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Ch. Het Ram Johari Lal Memorial D. College of Education, Fatehabad, Haryana dated 22/09/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/HR-1101/2010/24140 dated 23/06/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed (Addl) course on the grounds The response submitted by the Institute through letter number Memo dated 7 December 2009 is not satisfactory. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ch. Het Ram Johari Lal Memorial D. 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 Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, vide its order dated in LPA-710/2010 & CM No /2010 and LPA.711/2010 &CM No /2010 filed by the appellant institution, directed that the Appeal Committee shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant institution. The Hon ble High Court also directed that while hearing the appeal, the Appeal Committee should not be influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the Learned Single Judge as well as the Court not granting stay order. Accordingly, in compliance with the directions of the Hon ble High Court, the appeal of the appellant institution was listed for hearing on and the institution was asked to present its case before the Council on AND WHEREAS Shri. Naresh Kumar, President and Shri. Virender Kumar, Lecturer in Education, Ch. Het Ram Johari Memorial College of Education, Fatehabad, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that (1) the reason for withdrawing recognition by NRC was that the appellant did not allow the visiting team to conduct inspection. The first submission in this regard was that the Regional Committee is empowered to withdraw recognition of any of its recognized institution under section 17 only if it is satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of section 15 was granted. Thus, the sine qua non for exercising the power under that said section is the satisfaction of the NRC that there is breach of any

12 provision of the Act, rules etc. The NRC does not have power under section 17 to conduct inspection of any recognized institution; (2) vide letter dated , the NRC informed appellant that its inspection under section 17 of the NCTE Act for all the courses shall be conducted between 20th August to 30th August Between that period, the appellant had informed all the staff members to be ready with all their certificates for production before the inspection team. All the necessary documents pertaining to the institution, copies of FSR's land documents etc as were desired by the NRC were made available during said period in the college premises. Such documents were kept in the safe custody of the management of the society at its registered office. The inspection team did not visit the institution during said period as stated in the above said letter. The inspection team visited the appellant s College on i.e after the date fixed by NRC for inspection. There was no prior intimation in this regard. The staff of the college was not available due to some prior schedule fixed and thus the appellant told this fact to the inspection team. The inspection team was thus of the view that in view of non availability of the staff effective inspection would not take place. Thus, the inspection team did not conduct the inspection. The members of the team had conducted survey of the entire premises. The appellant has no hesitation in getting the college inspected as per law and the NCTE/NRC is free to do so at any point of time. This is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to challenge the power of NRC to conduct inspection under section 17 of the NCTE Act. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 empowers the Regional Committees to withdraw recognition of such recognized institutions, which contravened provisions of the NCTE Act/Rules/Regulations. It provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is thus implied that while it is not mandatory for the Regional Committee of the NCTE to conduct an inspection under Section 17, there shall not be any objection to conduct an inspection if the Regional Committee, in its discretion, decides to conduct an inspection. Clause 7(1-B) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 stipulates that furnishing any wrong information or concealment of facts in the application, which may have bearing on the decision making process or decision pertaining to grant of recognition, shall result in withdrawal of recognition of the institution besides other legal action against its management. Clause 8(13) of the Regulations also stipulates that whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for a course or training programme in teacher education, the institution shall comply with the requirements laid down in its revised norms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that the application of the institution for recognition for B.Ed. course (additional intake) was submitted to the

13 NRC office on ; columns in the application regarding built up area, details of class room etc. were kept blank. The NRC issued a deficiency letter dated asking the institution to furnish approved building plan, DD for Rs towards cost of application form, FDR for Rs. 5 lakh and affidavit on Rs. 100 stamp paper. The institution, vide its reply dated nil (received in NRC office on ), forwarded copy of building plan showing a built up area of sq. ft or sq. mts., building completion certificate dated nil from private Architect, which indicated availability of built up area of sq. mts., and FDR for Rs. 5 lakh. The NRC issued a readiness letter for inspection to the institution on subject to furnishing of mandatory disclosure form. In the meantime, another building plan showing a built-up area of Sq.mts. was also submitted by the institution. The NRC got the institution inspected on While the report of VT was generally positive, it indicated that the available built-up area was Sq.ft. or 937 Sq.mts. only as against Sq.mts. indicated by the institution in the building plan. However, the NRC office in the agenda note placed before the NRC indicated the available built-up area as Sq.mts. based on the affidavit submitted by the institution overlooking the VT report, which indicated the available area as Sq.ft. or 937 Sq.mts. as against the requirement of 3000 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE Regulations, The NRC, in its 131st meeting held on 29-31st August, 2008 decided to grant recognition to the institution and accordingly, the institution was granted recognition for B. Ed course (additional intake), vide NRC s Order dated Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint against the institution, the NRC, in its 140th meeting held on 25-26th April, 2009, decided to conduct an inspection under Section 17 of the NCTE Act. Accordingly, a two member visiting team of experts was deputed to conduct an inspection of the institution. The visiting team of experts in its letter dated , informed the NRC, Jaipur that the visit schedule was decided in consultation with the Managing Committee. The VT visited the college as per the schedule on when a letter dated was handed over to the VT stating that the Managing Committee, office bearers, members and faculty were on tour programme. This was deliberate avoidance of inspection. A copy of the letter dated handed over by the College to the VT was also forwarded by the VT to the NRC. In that letter dated , the College stated that the VT visited the college on at 9.00 A.M. All the Management Committee, office bearers and faculty was on tour to Jambh Sarovar Dham, Rajasthan. So inspection was not possible in the absence of the Managing Committee and the faculty since all records and key to essential services were with the faculty. The NRC considered the matter in its 151st meeting held on 20th to 21st October, 2009 and, as per the decision taken, issued a show cause notice dated under Section 17 of the NCTE Act on the ground that although the date of inspection was decided in consultation with the Managing Committee of the institution, still the Managing Committee did not allow the VT members to inspect the instructional and infrastructural and other facilities for B.Ed. and JBT courses run by it and asked the institution to furnish written representation within 21 days before the NRC passes the order of withdrawal of recognition under Section 17 of the NCTE Act. The Institution furnished its reply to the show cause notice vide its letter No.211 dated , alongwith which it forwarded (i) a written representation (ii) a copy of report of special inspection

14 committee of the affiliating university recommending grant of extension of affiliation to the college and (iii) some photographs of the building of the college. In the written representation forwarded the college, inter-alia, alleged that action was being taken by the NRC against the college with malafide intentions and the time of inspection as given by the NRC was between and but the VT members visited the institution on when all the staff members were on tour on the occasion of Purnima at Jambh Sarovar Dham, Rajasthan. The institution emphatically denied that it lacked any of the infrastructure or instructional capacity and also stated that it was also ready for reinspection at this time. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that VT, in its letter dated stated that as per the visit schedule decided in consultation with the Managing Committee of the College, it visited the College on but a letter dated was handed over to the VT wherein it was stated that all the Managing Committee office bearers/members and faculty was on tour programme and therefore inspection was not possible. In the said letter dated of the institution it said that the visiting team visited the college on and inspection was not possible in the absence of Managing Committee and the faculty. The institution did not raise any objection in that letter that the time for inspection as informed by the NRC was between the period of to but the VT visited the college on Therefore, the plea of the institution in the appeal that time of inspection as informed by the NRC was between and but the VT visited the College on without prior information cannot be taken at its face value. Obviously, as informed by the VT in its letter dated , it visited the college on as per the visit schedule fixed by it in consultation with the Managing Committee. Further, the institution was granted recognition for B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.Ed. additional intake vide NRC s orders dated , and , respectively. Before grant of recognition for B. Ed course, D. Ed course and B. Ed additional intake, three separate VTs conducted inspection of the institution on , and The first VT for B. Ed course, in its report dated , indicated an available built up area of 9560 sq. ft or 888 sq.mts, the 2nd VT for D. Ed course, in its report dated , indicated an available built up area of 8990 sq. ft or 835. Sq. mts and the 3rd VT Report dated indicated an available built up area of sq. mts or 937 sq. mts. Thus, all the 3 VTs indicated an available built up area of only around 937 sq. mts. as against the requirement of 3000 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE norms for B.Ed. (Two units) and D.Ed. courses. Thus, the institution did not fulfill the norms to become eligible for recognition in as much as the built-up area available with the institution as indicated in the VT Report was inadequate even for a single course. But, the NRC office overlooked this fact and indicated the available built-up area as claimed by the institution in the affidavits submitted from time to time making exaggerated claim of available built up area, leading to grant of recognition to the institution first for B.Ed. course, then for D.Ed. course and again for B.Ed. additional intake. In the circumstances, the Council was of the view that the institution deliberately did not allow the VT to conduct inspection of the institution on , thus, the

15 recognition of the institution was withdrawn by the NRC for valid reasons and, therefore, there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The President, Ch. Het Ram Johari Lal Memorial D. College of Education, VPO- Khara Kheri, 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, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.