F.No /2011 Appeal/ 5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi

Transcription

1 F.No /2011 Appeal/ 5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Abdul Kalam College of Education, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh dated 07/04/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/B.ED/ /27801 dated 23/03/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground The institution has not replied to the deficiency letters even after lapse of stipulated time of 60 days as per clause 7(1), Regulations AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Abdul Kalam College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 13/04/2011 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 Shri. L. Mohanrao, Admin. and Shri. K. Parameshwara, Director, Abdul Kalam College of Education, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that they have fulfilled six out of seven deficiencies pointed out by the SRC in their letter dated except the one relating to minority status certificate and they have enclosed the requisite documents to the memorandum of appeal. Regarding minority status certificate the appellant has submitted that the State Govt. has issued the same on AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the SRC issued a deficiency letter dated to the institution pointing out seven deficiencies which were required to be removed within 60 days and a corrigendum to that letter was also issued on , wherein it was mentioned that the time limit of 60 days is with reference to their earlier letter dated The Council also noted that the institution wrote a letter dated to the SRC about obtaining the minority status certificate, much after the expiry of time limit prescribed for removal of deficiencies and did not furnish any information about removal of other deficiencies. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that the SRC was justified in refusing grant of recognition as the appellant institution did not inform the SRC about removal of deficiencies ever after the lapse of stipulated time and in the circumstances the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit 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 is rejected and SRC s order dated is confirmed.

2 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The President, Abdul Kalam College of Education, Priyanka Educational Society, D. No. 120/B 001, Jonnalagadda, Narasaraopet,, Guntar , Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

3 F.No /2011 Appeal/ 5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi O R D E R 03/08/2011 WHEREAS the appeal of Dnyan Ganga Education Trust, Mumbai, Maharashtra dated `Nil and received on is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/WRCAPP873 /144th/2011/76131 dated 11/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.Ed. course on the ground Hard copy in triplicate of the online application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of the online application. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Dnyan Ganga Education Trust, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 25/04/2011 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 Prof. B.D. Patil, Chairman and Shri. L.M. Joshi, Principal, Dnyan Ganga Education Trust, Mumbai, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that on-line application was submitted on and the hard copy in triplicate along with proposal and demand draft of Rs. 40,050/- and Rs. 1,000/- with CD was sent on 16/09/2010 and in support thereof the necessary documents and the Indian postal receipts are enclosed. The copies of postal receipts indicate dispatch of a registered letter on and its acknowledgement by WRC on the Council noted that in the agenda for the WRC relating to this institution, it was mentioned that the institution has not submitted hard copy in triplicate of the print out of the on-line uploaded application but has submitted typed application. However in the rejection order it is mentioned that hard copy in triplicate of the on-line application is not dispatched within 7 days of submission of the on-line application. This ground is not correct as it does not reflect the position stated in the agenda and therefore the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of WRC set aside with a direction to WRC to process the matter on the basis of the facts. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and set aside WRC s order dated with direction to the WRC to process the matter on the basis of the facts. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of the WRC dated is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor

4 1. The Secretary, Dnyan Ganga Education Trust,, Kranti Nagar Road, Kandivli (East),, Mumbai , Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

5 F.No.89-84/2011 Appeal/ 5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Jagdamba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed, Maharashtra dated 15/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW03182/112168(Addl.)/110th /2008/47480 dated 04/12/2008 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (Marathi) (co-ed) course on the grounds 1) The institution was issued deficiency letter on 28/02/2006 and thereafter reminder issued on 25/08/2007 for removal of deficiencies, thereby giving an opportunity to the said applicant institution to fulfill the deficiencies in this behalf within the statutory period of 90 days as per NCTE regulations. 2) On scrutiny of original file alongwith the reply received from institution by Western Regional Committee in its 110th WRC meeting held on November 12-14, 2008 came to the conclusion that the institution has not removed the deficiencies within the period of 90 days u/s 7.4 of NCTE regulations, AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Jagdamba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/03/2011 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 Council noted that the Council did not admit the appeal filed by the institution in March 2009 on the ground that the submission was late by one month and 21 days. Aggrieved by the decision of the Council the appellant filed a writ petition No.503 of 2010 before the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and the Hon ble Court in their order dated condoned the delay on payment of Rs. 11,000/- towards cost and directed registration of the appeal preferred by the petitioner if it fulfills with other legal compliances. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present appeal dated He has also produced a copy of receipt for payment of Rs.11,000/- dated issued by the Advocates Association of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. AND WHEREAS Shri. Ravinder Negi, Secretary, Jagdamba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the Respondent erred in overlooking (i) the fact that the documents establishing eligibility of the Appellant u/s 4 of the Regulations has been already submitted to the Respondent with proposals on 31/12/2004 and 04/02/2005; (ii) the fact that the documents of establishing the preparedness of the institution to comply with the condition u/s 8 of the Regulations had been submitted by the Appellant by its proposals on 21/12/2004 and 04/02/2005; (iii) the fact that the original affidavit on Rs. 100/- Stamp Paper duly attested by Oath Commissioner stating the precise location of the land, the total area of land & building in actual possession, the details of permissions of competent authorities as to use of land & building for educational purpose; mode of possession i.e. ownership of lease, etc. had been

6 submitted by the Appellant by its proposals on 21/12/2004 and 04/02/2005; (iv) the fact that, the Appellant had already started its official website on 20th January, 2006, by name and as per the rules and Regulations of the NCTE the Appellant exhibited following details in its website: (a) Location of the institution. (b) Name of the Course with intake availability physical as well as instructional. (c) Infrastructural facilities (land, building, office, classrooms, laboratories, library). (d) Particular of proposed teaching and non-teaching staff with their photographs; (v) the fact that, because of letter dated 28th February, 2006 issued by the Respondent instructing at the foot of the letter to ignore the notice, if the documents already placed on record and therefore, precisely, since, the Appellant had already submitted all the above documents, there was no question to send it again; (vi) the fact that Respondent by its order dt. 04th December, 2008, closed the application, on the ground that the so called deficiencies have not been removed by the Appellant within 90 days as prescribed U/s 7.4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2005, which is not true and correct; (vii) the fact that, in spite of compliance by the Appellant, repetition of the conditions shows non-application of mind on part of the Respondent; (viii) the fact that the FDR No dated 30th December, 2004 of Rs. 5 lakhs submitted with proposal dated 4th February, 2005 and true copy of the FDR No dated 9th June, 2005 and true copy of the FDR No dated 09th June, 2005 of Rs. 3 lakhs were already submitted and therefore the letter dated 18th December, 2008 issued by the Respondent, is baseless and therefore the Application of the Appellant shall be restored on this ground alone; and (ix) the fact that so called reminder dated 28th August, 2007 has not been received by the Appellant and therefore the Order/communication dated 4th December, 2008 passed by the Respondent deserves to be set aside. In the letter dated the appellant stated that as he had already submitted the documents and did not reply to the WRC s letter dated He also submitted that he did not receive the reminder dated (which should be read as ). AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant has admitted that he did not reply to the WRC s letter dated on the grounds that (i) he had already sent all the required documents and (ii) the last sentence of that letter says that he may ignore that notice for the documents already placed on record. A plain reading of this sentence does not indicate that the applicant should ignore it on the face of itself in totality. The communication is to be ignored only for the documents already placed on record. It was obligatory for the applicant to send a reply and clarify the position point-wise. After all the WRC issued the letter pointing out the deficiencies only after a scrutiny of the application. the Council further noted that the WRC s subsequent letter dated , the receipt of which the appellant denies, is not a mere reminder but lists the deficiencies found on further examination. AND WHEREAS the Council taking into account all aspects of the matter has come to the conclusion that the grounds on which the WRC refused recognition are valid and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of WRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit 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 is rejected and WRC s order dated is confirmed.

7 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Joint Secretary, Jagdamba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Jai Bhavani Junior College of Education, AT. Georai,, Beed , Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

8 F.No.89-76/2011 Appeal/5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of K.S. Education College, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh dated 04/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW07223/223746/143/2010/73970 dated 20/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, (the date of indicated in the original order having been connected to read as through a corrigendum issued on ) withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground In compliance of the appeal order dated 23/08/2010 WRC considered the reply along with original documents in its 143rd meeting held on December 2010 and decided that the private lease deed is not acceptable and CLU not submitted. Hence, the recognition withdrawn vide WRC order No. WRC/APW07223/223746/130/2010/ dated 13/04/2010 stands. Now therefore, the withdrawal of the recognition stands as it is (WRC/APW07223/223746/130/2010/ dated 13/04/2010). AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, K.S. Education College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/03/2011 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 Council noted that the institution earlier preferred an appeal against the order of the WRC dated and the Council in their order dated accepted the appeal and remanded the case to WRC for re-examination of the reply submitted by the institution to the show cause notice and also in the light of the recognition granted by the WRC on the basis of the documents available on the file. The WRC accordingly considered the reply and confirmed the earlier withdrawal order on the ground that the private lease deed is not acceptable and CLU has not been submitted. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the WRC s order dated confirming their earlier decision. AND WHEREAS Dr. A.S. Tomar, Vice-President, K.S. Education College, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the recognition was granted after inspection of the premises and it was well within the knowledge of the WRC that the institution was functioning in a leased premises; the institution has been inspected by the team of affiliating body every year for grant of affiliation; a large amount of money has been invested in building the infrastructure, and the Regional Committee should have provided sufficient opportunity to remove any deficiency pointed out by the inspection committee. The appellant has also made a reference to the observations of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat that defects pointed out by the NCTE may be removed within a fixed time. In a letter dated , the appellant submitted that the college was proposed in a 30 year leased building and CLU was presented; and they have constructed a new building and wrote to WRC for shifting of the college to their own building.

9 AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the WRC has not re-examined the case taking into account all the observations made by the Council in their appellate order dated Further the grounds for withdrawal now adduced while confirming the earlier order dated are differently worded. In the circumstances the Council is of the opinion that the appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to furnish his explanation to the new grounds proposed. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of WRC set aside with direction to the WRC to issue a show cause notice to the institution specifying the new grounds and take further action thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC s order dated with a direction to WRC to WRC to issue a show cause notice to the institution specifying the new grounds and take further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of WRC is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, K.S. Education College, Guda Gudi Ka Naka, Lashkar,, Gwalior -, Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

10 F.No /2011 Appeal/5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Matri Professional College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh dated 13/05/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/WRCAPP1399/2011/76678 dated 21/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. course on the ground Hard copy of the online application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of the online application. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Matri Professional College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 16/05/2011 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 Shri. Virendra Kumar Jain, Secretary and Shri. S.K. Gandhi, Member, Matri Professional College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that they applied online on 01/10/2010 and hard copy was dispatched on 08/10/2010 as WRC, Bhopal is not receiving any document/ post by hand. They are denying for receiving the document by hand; as per Gazette Notification dated 31 August 2009 (NCTE) Physical application should be dispatched within 7 days of submission of the online application has not been clarified and as per Gazette Notification (NCTE) dt. 26/11/2010 it is clarified that physical application should be dispatched within 7 days from the date of online submission. The appellant submitted that the hard copy was sent through courier on and in support thereof produced a copy of the courier receipt from M/s. Madhur Courier Services. The appellant also produced proof of delivery of the communication in WRC s office on AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the instiution dispatched the hard copy of the application on i.e. within seven days of the submission of the on-line application and the same was received in WRC s office. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that the appeal of the institution deserved to be accepted and the order of the WRC reversed with the direction to the WRC to process the application on merit. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC s order dated with a direction to WRC to process the application on merit. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of WRC dated is reversed.

11 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, Matri Professional College, Samyak Shiksha Prasar Avam Jan Kalyan Samiti, H.NO. 23, Manwari Road,, Bhopal -, Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

12 F.No.89-98/2011 Appeal/5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Nolin Institute, Indore, Madhya Pradesh dated 19/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/WRCAPP1178/2011/ dated 24/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground Application summarily rejected as per clause 7(1-A) of NCTE Regulations 2009 as amended vide notification dated 25/11/2010 on the ground that Hard copy in triplicate of the online application is not dispatched only one set of Hard copy submitted. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Nalin Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/03/2011 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 Shri. Manish Kara, Administrator and Shri. Sarah Tiara, Chairman, Nalin Institute, Indore, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that Ram Teerath Siksha Avam Kalyan Samiti, HIG 699, Arvind Vihar Bagmugalia, P.O Bagmugalia Extension, Dist. Bhopal Pin , has applied for the D.Ed. Course in "Nalin Institute", located at Simrol, Khandwa Road, Indore (MP) on 29th Sept. on-line and also dispatched three hard copies of online application form duly completed on 30th Sept In support of his claim, the appellant submitted a copy of the courier receipt dated issued by Overnite Express. AND WHEREAS the Council noted the ground for rejection is submission of one set of hard copy of the application instead of three copies. The Council noted that the NCTE in their 28th meeting held on took a view that certain non-substantive requirements like furnishing application in triplicate should not become grounds for rejection without giving an opportunity to the applicant to remove the deficiencies. In the light of this decision, the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of the WRC reversed with a direction to the WRC to ask the appellant to submit two more copies of the application and process the case further. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and set aside WRC s order dated with direction to the WRC to ask the appellant to submit two more copies of the application and process the case further. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of the WRC dated is reversed.

13 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, Nalin Institute, Ram Teerth Shiksha Evam Kalyan Samiti, Plot No. 35/2, Simrol, PO- Simral, Tehsil- Mhou,, Indore , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

14 F.No /2010-Appeal/ 5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal D.Ed. College, Pune, Maharashtra dated 30/07/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW04183/122929/100th /CLA/2008/52491 dated 13/03/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (M) course on the grounds 1) WRC considered the case of the institution in light of letters F.No.46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sep., 2008, F.No /2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 1 October, 2008 and F.No /2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 31 October, 2008 received from Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. Course. Keeping in view of the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. Course and directions received from NCTE Hqrs., the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case and communication to this effect to be made to this institution. 2) NOW THEREFORE, as per above decision taken by WRC, the proposal of said institution is to be treated as closed, the FDRs towards Endowment Fund and Reserve Fund (in original) are returned herewith. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal D.Ed. College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/08/2010 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 Shri. Waikar Shubangi Subhash, Principal, Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal D.Ed. College, Pune, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on The appellant was specifically informed that he has been called for explaining the reasons for delay in submission of appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of the appeal was delayed by one year two months and 22 days beyond the prescribed time limit of 60 days. The appellant in his letter dated stated that they had no idea about the condition of 60 days and the delay was only due to lack of information in this regard. In the course of personal presentation the appellant submitted a letter dated in which he has stated that after getting refusal order they appealed before the Hon ble Bench of Bombay, High Court, Nagpur Bench who passed a stay order against D.Ed. colleges; after that they challenged the said decision before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India; after getting the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India dated they communicated with WRC on and as there was no response, there was delay in preferring the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the reasons adduced for delay in the two letters dated and are entirely different. While ignorance of the provisions of NCTE Rules cannot be accepted as an excuse, the appellant after writing to the WRC on

15 , chose to remain silent for more than seven months on account of reported nonresponse before filing an appeal. The Council came to the conclusion that the ground adduced for delay are not good and sufficient for condoning the delay and therefore the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay, for consideration of the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council did not accept the reasons for condonation of delay, for consideration of the appeal. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal D.Ed. College, Near Trishul Society, A/P Saswad Tal. Purandar, Pune - -, Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

16 F.No /2011-Appeal/5th Meeting/2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Siddamurthy Mallikarjuna Reddy College of Physical Education, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh dated 16/05/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/B.P.ED/2010/28092 dated 11/04/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed. course on the grounds 1) As per land document, the total land area is 4.96 acres, which is less than required land for B.P.Ed. course as per regulation. 8 acres land required for B.P.Ed. course as per the NCTE regulations. 2) The Built up area is only sq. ft. which is inadequate as per NCTE Norms. 3) Building Completion Certificate is not in proper format issued by the Competent Authority. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Siddamurthy Mallikarjuna Reddy College of Physical Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 16/05/2011 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 Shri. S. Rajamohana Reddy, Secretary, Siddamurthy Mallikarjuna Reddy College of Physical Education, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the registered sale deeds showing the society / institution is in possession of land 8.15 Acres have been submitted; proceedings of the Revenue Division Officer dated 02/06/2010 informing the total land of 8.15 Acres has been converted from agricultural to non agricultural purposes i.e. land usage certificate has been submitted; building Completion Certificate in the prescribed format was issued by the Asst. Executive Engineer, Mandal Parishad, Singarayana Konda; built up space of more than Sq. ft. which include, common area, toilets etc. was also submitted. The above indicated documents are enclosed for verification; SRC, Bangalore have not given cognizance to the relevant documents they have submitted instead they chose to reject the application without valid reasons. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the applicant with the application sent copies of four sale deeds No.618,619,620 and 621 all dated for an area of 5.43 acres, the sale deed No.620 covering two pieces of land measuring 0.47 acres and 0.40 acres. Subsequently alongwith the reply to the deficiency letter be forwarded copies of the earlier sale deeds and another sale deed No.3029 of 2010 dated for an area of 2.72 acres. If all these pieces of land are taken into consideration the total land available comes to 8.15 which is more than the required land of 8 acres. It is noted that as per the building completion certificate dated issued by the Asstt. Executive Engineer, Mandal Parishad, Singarayakonda, the built-up area comes to 16,593 Sq.ft. which is as per the requirement.

17 AND WHEREAS the Council taking into account that the applicant institution was having the requisite land of 8 acres at the time of application and as per the building completion certificate, the built-up area is adequate, the Council has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of SRC reversed with a direction to process the case further. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC s order dated with a direction to SRC to process the case further. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of SRC is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary & Correspondent, Siddamurthy Mallikarjuna Reddy College of Physical Education, Plot No A, Village- Somarajupalle, Post- Sinagarayakonda, Taluka- Sinagarayakonda,, Prakasham , Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

18 F.No /2011 Appeal/5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Venkateshwara B.P.Ed College, Medak, Andhra Pradesh dated 10/05/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/B.P.ED/2010/28418 dated 03/05/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed course on the grounds 1) The management is running B.Ed. programme which is granted only on 26/11/2007. Hence the institution has not completed three academic year as per clause 8(3) of Regulation 2009 for additional course i.e., B.P.Ed. course. 2) The institution has submitted FDRs of Rs. 5 lakhs and 3 lakhs for endowment and reserve funds (dt. 18/09/2010) respectively for one year only. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Venkateshwara B.P.Ed College, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 16/05/2011 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 Shri. A. Laxman, Management, Sri Venkateshwara B.P.Ed. College, Medak, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the B.Ed. programme for this society is sanctioned on 26/11/2007 for the academic year ; three academic years have already been completed (i.e , and ), and in addition to this is also completing (i.e. 4 years). and hence they submitted proposals to start B.P.Ed. course for the year ; and hence they are eligible as per clause 8(3) of Regulation 2009 for additional course i.e. B.P.Ed.; They also submitted that as regards FDRs for Endowment and Reserve funds, as per the instructions for filling the on-line application form, in the case of self-financed institutions, there shall be an endowment fund of Rs lakh per course per unit and a reserve fund of Rs lakh per course per unit of approved intake, in the form of a Fixed Deposit of a duration of one year in a scheduled bank. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that recognition for B.Ed. programme was granted on and Osmania University granted affiliation for the academic year , , and The appellant informed that results of the academic session were declared in August the Council also noted that as per the provisions of Clause 10 of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, in the case of self-financed institutions, there shall be endowment fund of Rs.5.00 lakh per course per unit and a reserve fund of Rs lakh per course per unit in the form of fixed deposits of a duration of one year, which shall be maintained perpetually by way of renewal of fixed deposits at intervals of every five years in case a letter of intent is issued to the institution under sub-clause 9 of Regulation 7. AND WHEREAS the Council therefore having satisfied that the institution had completed three academic years of B.Ed. course and the FDRs of one year duration are in

19 order, has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of SRC reversed with direction to SRC to process the case further. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC s order dated with a direction to SRC to process the case further. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of SRC is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, Sri Venkateshwara B.P.Ed College,, No. 1, Dubbak, Medak, Medak , Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

20 F.No /2011 Appeal/ 5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of SSBN College of Education, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh dated 20/04/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/M.ED/2010/28069 dated 11/04/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.Ed. course on the ground that the institution is running B.Ed. course and recognition order was issued only on 22/08/2008 and hence the institution has not completed three academic year as per Clause 8(3) of Regulations 2009 for additional course i.e., M.Ed. course. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, SSBN College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 25/04/2011 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 Dr. H.V. Narayana Reddy, Principal and Dr. S. Murali Mohan, Lecturer, SSBN College of Education, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the SSBN College of Education started B.Ed. course during the year ; the first batch completed and the second batch and the third batch will be completing by May 2011; S.K. University, the affiliating university granted a certificate stating that SSBN College of Education completed three academic sessions by May 2011 before the start of fourth Academic Session which is enclosed; and hence the institution becomes eligible to run M.Ed., course from the Academic year AND WHEREAS the Council noted that at the time of application for M.Ed. course on , the institution completed only two academic sessions. According to the provisions of Clause 8(3) of the NCTE Regulations 2009, an institution can apply for one basic unit of an additional course after completion of three academic sessions of the existing recognized course. Since the institution has not completed three academic sessions of B.Ed. at the time of applying for M.Ed. the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit 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 is rejected and SRC s order dated is confirmed.

21 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Correspondent, SSBN College of Education, Anantapur District National Education Trust, Plot No. 153, Village-Anantpur, Post- Anantpur, Taluka- Anantpur,, Anantpur , Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

22 F.No /2011 Appeal/5th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Alimineti Madhava Reddy Memorial College of Education, Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh dated 18/05/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/ /27987 dated 07/04/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds The institution have not shifted to permanent premises as per norms and standards and conditions mentioned in recognition order dated 08/04/2003/ not communicated the shifting of premises to the SRC and not paid the prescribed fees for shifting of premises. The SRC in its 201st meeting held on 22nd - 23rd February, 2011 considered the matter and decided to withdraw recognition to the college which failed to shift to permanent premises within the prescribed time limit of three years as per the norms, and also they had failed to respond to Show cause Notices issued by SRC, NCTE long back on 28/08/2009. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Alimineti Madhava Reddy Memorial College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/05/2011 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 Dr. S. Ramachandraiah, Secretary and Shri. S. Prabhakar Reddy, Alimineti Madhava Reddy Memorial College of Education, Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant college has shifted to its permanent premises in the month of April, 2007; till shifting to its own premises, the college imparted education in B.Ed. course in the leased premises, which were taken on long lease i.e., 30 years; as per the NCTE Regulations, the establishment of college could be either on ownership basis or on lease for a period of not less than 30 years; the appellant college has complied with the norms of NCTE regulations; the affiliating University i.e., Osmania University, every year is inspecting the permanent premises of the appellant college and on being satisfied with facilities provided by appellant college, the affiliating university is extending affiliation; the appellant college after receiving the show cause notice dated , submitted its reply on The appellant also submitted that college has complied with all the deficiencies which were pointed out by the respondent and also submitted documents as sought for by the respondent in the said show cause notice; the appellant college has already informed the respondent about shifting of the college to its permanent premise and now is ready to pay the prescribed fee for shifting of premises. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant aggrieved by the order of the SRC dated withdrawing recognition filed a writ petition No of 2011 before the Hon ble High Court of Judicatrue, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the Hon ble High Court in their order dated granted the petitioner permission to file statutory appeal with a direction that the appellate authority shall receive the appeal by treating the

23 same as an appeal filed within the limitation and dispose of the same after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The Hon ble Court also directed that till such time the impugned order dated shall remain suspended. AND WHEREAS the Council noted the appellant institution was granted recognition for B.Ed. course on with a condition that it will shift to its own premises within three years from the date of recognition. SRC issued a letter dated to the institution pointing out that it had neither shifted to permanent premises nor communicated shifting of premises and paid the prescribed free for shifting and calling for shifting for various documents and payment of inspection fee. The appellant claimed that he has sent a reply on (it should be ) and enclosed a copy. He also enclosed copies of a show cause notice dated issued by the SRC and his reply dated in which he stated that the construction of the building will be completed and the college shifted in May From the file of the SRC it is noted that the reply of the institution dated with which inter-alia a demand draft for Rs.40,000/- is reported to have been sent is not there on the file. The Council also noted that the SRC after issuing the notice dated for which a reply was called within 21 days decided in their 201st meeting held on February, 2011 to withdraw recognition on account of non-receipt of a reply and issued the order on The Council after observing that the SRC inordinately delayed action in the matter and the appellant is claiming that he had sent a reply, has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of the SRC reversed with direction to trace the reply of the institution and if not available, obtain a copy of the same with all relevant documents including fee for inspection from the appellant and take further action thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC s order dated with direction to the SRC to trace the reply of the institution and if not available, obtain a copy of the same from the appellant and take further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of the SRC dated is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Correspondent, Alimineti Madhava Reddy Memorial College of Education, Bhongir Revenue Division, Choutuppal,, Nalgonda , Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

24 F.No /2011 Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /08/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Ashok S/o Abasaheb Deshmukh (Dnyanwardhini Shikshan Prasarak Mandal), Prabhani, Maharashtra dated 09/04/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/5-6/103RD/2008/34687 dated of the Western Regional Committee, granting recognition for conducting D.Ed (M)(Co-Ed) to Dnyanwardhini Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Prabahani, Maharashtra. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ashok S/o Abasaheb Deshmukh (Dnyanwardhini Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/04/2011 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 Council noted that the appeal has been filed by Shri. Ashok, S/o Abasaheb Deshmukh in his capacity as a member of the managing Committee of Mahatama Phule Education Society. In the appeal it has been mentioned that their President who is also President of Dnyanwardhini Shikshan Pratishthan has obtained recognition for running D.Ed. course without having any infrastructure like building, classrooms, benches etc. by misleading the NCTE and without verifying the factual position. It is also mentioned that the Pratishthan has stated that they are starting the course in a rented building and showed the map of Mahatama Phule Education Society where primary and secondary schools are being run. The appellant made other submissions also about lease deed documents etc. AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that the appellant filed the appeal after obtaining an order from the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad by filing writ petition No.6709/2009. The Hon ble High Court in their order dated allowed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and directed that if an application for condonation of delay is filed, it may be considered in the light of time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the remedy of writ petition. The Hon ble High Court without expressing any direction on the merits of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal directed the appellate authority to deal with the application and appeal on merits in accordance with law. The Council noted that the appellant, alongwith the appeal, has filed an application for condonation of delay giving a number of reasons. Shri. Ashok Abasaheb Deshmuk and Shinde Ganesh Devidas Rao, Appellant, Ashok S/o Abasaheb Deshmukh (Dnyanwardhini Shikshan Prasarak Mandal), Prabhani, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on He has elaborated the details mentioned in the appeal against the grant of recognition.. AND WHEREAS Shri. Ashok Abasaheb Deshmuk and Shinde Ganesh Devidas Rao, Appellant representing the institution which was granted recognition also appeared on and submitted that recognition was properly granted. Since the appeal is in fact in the nature of a complaint, the Council, without going into the question of delay has come