F.No /2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /12/2009

Transcription

1 F.No /2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /12/2009 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Shahdev Pohariya Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya, Ballia Dist., Uttar Pradesh dated 22/09/2009 is against the Order No. F.NRC/ NCTE/F- 7/UP-3147/147th Meeting/2009/ dated 20/08/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds The deficiencies with regard to labs, computers, library titles and building completion certificate still exist. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Shahdev Pohariya Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 24/09/2009 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 was refused recognition vide NRC s order dt and it preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority vide its order dt rejected the appeal and confirmed the refusal order dt of the NRC on the grounds that the building plan furnished by institution was in respect of a 3-storey building, while the completion certificate indicated that only two floors were completed. The completion certificate did not indicate the total built-up area available. During the presentation, the appellant also admitted that only two floors were complete and the 3rd floor was under construction, which would be completed shortly. the Council also noted that the VT report dt was negative and it indicated that the institution was having inadequate facilities. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the appellate order the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad and the Court vide its judgment dt disposed the petition with the direction to the NCTE, to pass fresh order on the appeal of the petitioner, after taking into consideration the material placed on record. The Council in compliance with the court directions considered the case on by giving a personal hearing and decided to reject the appeal again vide Council s order dated on the grounds that (a) the institution was inspected on and the report mentioned that E.T. lab was having only 02 computers, science lab did not have multiple sets of apparatus and chemicals, there were no proper rooms for psychology lab and language learning lab, library did not have encyclopedia, educational journals/ periodicals; (b) that the building plan submitted to the NRC did not mention

2 Khasra No/Survey No. and indicated the total built-up area as sq. mt. in two building blocks i.e. Block A & Block B. Where as the plan annexed with the second appeal mentioned the Arazi No. 283 and the total built-up area in Block A & Block B as sq. mt. As per the submission made by the appellant Block A was with 03 floors having the built-up area of sq. mt. ( sq. mt.) and Block B was with 02 floors having a built-up area of sq. mt. ( sq. mt sq. mt.) The building completion certificate dt issued by the Gram Panchayat office did not specify the total area of the constructed building, it just mentioned construction of the building had been completed. Another completion certificate dt. NIL issued by Pradhan of Gram Panchayat office stated that the construction of the building was completed on Both the certificates did not specify Kh. No., total area and built-up area, so as to ascertain where exactly the building was constructed and what was the area and in this context the building completion certificates though issued by the competent civil authority, could not be considered as complete document due to the lacuna noted as above. Yet another completion certificate dt. NIL issued by Shri Ganeshi Associate stated that the ground and first floors of the building construction for the B. Ed course had been completed, even this certificate did not specify the total constructed area and was not an authentic one as it was issued by a private agency. However, this certificate mentioned that only 02 floors had been completed as against the proposed 03 storey plan. As per the submission made by the appellant Block A was earmarked for B. Ed and the builtup area available on the ground and first floor was only 1204 sq. mt. and when the Council pointed that this area was inadequate as against the requirement of 1500 sq. mt., he immediately stated that principal room and office room located in Block B is on sharing basis with the B. Sc programme. This was not permissible as per norms as the institution should have at least 2500 sq. mt of land where upon 1500 sq. mt. of constructed area was required. (c) further the first three bills dt submitted in proof of procurement of equipment revealed that the equipment had been added after the date of inspection. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the Council s decision dated , the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad and the court vide order dated disposed of the petition with direction that in the event the petitioner institution submits an application with requisite fee for fresh inspection, the NCTE shall conduct a fresh inspection at the earliest and the report so submitted shall be placed before the Appellate Authority for taking a final decision in the matter. The order to be passed by the appellate authority on the basis of the inspection so carried out. In compliance with the court directions dated , the Council after receiving an inspection fee of Rs.40,000/- from the institution, conducted another inspection of the institution on by a two-member team. The VT report alongwith the supporting documents therewith was placed before the appeal committee on the Council deferred its decision on that day for want of certain information from the NRC. It again considered the case in its meeting held on 25-26th November the Council on perusal of the inspection report dated and other relevant documents noted that (a) The visiting team in its report dated , inter-alia, mentioned that the institution was conducting B.Ed. with 100 intake and B.Sc. with 220 intake and it was having 2.5 acre of land and Sq.mt. of built-up area for B.Ed. course and Sq.mt. of built-up area for the B.Sc. course; and dates of entry was ambiguous in many pages of stock registers and accession register and at

3 several places the dates were not entered. (b) The building plan was for Shahdev Pohariya Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya and it should the availability of two blocks- Block `A with Sq.mt. and Block `B with Sq.mt. and, in all, it was having 2523 Sq.mt. of built-up area for conducting both the B.Ed. and B.Sc. courses. The VT has indicated the availability of sq.mt. for B.Ed. programme with 100 intake and Sq.mt. of built-up area for 220 intake of B.Sc. course. It is not feasible to conduct a B.Sc. (220 students) programme with sq.mt. of building, unless it shares the infrastructural and other facilities with B.Ed. programme, which was not permissible as per the NCTE norms. Further nonentry of dates in the stock register and accession register indicate the material has not been procured with authenticated bills. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal as the NRC had withdrawn the recognition on valid ground and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after hearing 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 the NRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Manager, Shri Shahdev Pohariya Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya, Manda, Tehsil- Rasra, Ballia Dist. -, Uttar Pradesh 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 Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

4 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /12/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Baba Kundan Rural College of Education, Ludhiana, Punjab dated 08/09/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/PB-628/EMERGENT MEETING/2010/26324 dated 05/08/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds The deficiencies communicated to the Institute through letter NRC/NCTE/PB-628/157 meeting /2010/20361 Dated 15 April 2010 still exist. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Baba Kundan Rural College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 10/09/2010 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 Dr. Rajeev Hora, Vice President and Dr. Ashish, Treasurer, Baba Kundan Rural College of Education, Ludhiana, Punjab presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the original attested photocopy of the land documents and papers concerning the society were already submitted to NCTE with File Code No. APN / PB- 628; the VT Report dated , which was signed by both the members, indicated that they had verified the land and the Society papers. The objection that there was no approach road, no toilets for boys and girls, no safe drinking water facility and no fire safety device were absolutely wrong and denied; photographs of the toilets for boys and girls, separate toilets for male and female staff, photograph of the approach road from the main gate to the college building, photograph of the refrigerator, filter and water cooler and photograph of the fire safety devices including the purchase bills as well, were enclosed with appeal. That there were no books for D.Ed. course was totally wrong and denied again. All the books were there in the library; the bills of new books purchased dated , , , , , , , , , , , , amounting to Rs. 1,79,516 were enclosed with appeal; the psychology lab was fully furnished with all the required equipments and machines. In addition to the equipments already available, the institution also purchased new tests and apparatus for the Psychology Lab. Photograph of the lab and also the list of tests available with bills were enclosed with appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that an inspection of the institution was conducted by a two member visiting team of experts on The VT report dated , inter-alia, indicated that the institution has the requisite land and rooms which meets the NCTE norms for both B.Ed.(existing) and proposed D.Ed. programmes. The VT was not shown the original land and society papers for scrutiny, the approach road from the gate to the main building was missing, there were no toilets and water facilities in the main building, fire safety devices were

5 not available in the main building, the long building had only one access and staircase, teachers were not being paid as per Govt. norms, library had good accommodation, but no new books related to D.Ed. programmes were added; even the library did not have requisite books for the B.Ed. programme, psychology lab and science lab did not have relevant materials required for the children aged 5 to 14 years, the management did not have any vision for preparation of teachers for elementary education. The VT report also indicated that the total available built-up area for the existing B.Ed. course and the proposed D.Ed. course was Sq.ft. (as against the requirement of Sq.ft. or 2500 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE norms). The NRC issued a show cause notice dated on the grounds (i) original land documents and papers concerning society were not shown to the VT members, (ii) there is no approach road, no toilets for boys and girls, no safe drinking water facility and no fire safety devise, (iii) there are no books for D.Ed. course and (iv) science lab and psychology lab were ill equipped. The institution in its reply dated (received by NRC on ) to the show cause notice denied all the allegations made regarding non-availability of approach road, safe drinking water, toilets for girls and boys, fire safety devices, etc. and forwarded attested photocopies of land document and some photographs of the building, etc. The NRC, after considering the matter in its meeting held on decided to refuse recognition for the D.Ed. course to the institution and accordingly, recognition was refused to the institution vide order dated on the ground that the deficiencies communicated in the show cause notice sill existed. It did not pass any speaking order stating as to which of the deficiency still existed and to what extent, despite the point-wise reply of the institution. In view of this, the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with the direction to the NRC for issuing a speaking order. 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 NRC s order dated with direction to the NRC for issuing a speaking order in continuation to the earlier order issued by the NRC. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the NRC dated reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Vice-President, Baba Kundan Rural College of Education, Vill - Kulliawal, Jamalpur, Ludhiana , Punjab 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 Punjab, Chandigarh.

6 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /12/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Mahendra College of Education, Mahender Garh, Haryana dated 17/05/2010 is against the Order No. 7-13/NRC/ /71273 dated 13/03/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds The NRC in its 134th meeting held on 20th -22nd November, 2008, having considered the recommendations of State Government of Haryana and contents of Hqrs. Letter No /2007/NCTE (N&S) dated and Public Notice dated by the NCTE Hqrs. and the NCTE Letter dated and after being satisfied that D.Ed./J.B.T. teachers are in surplus in the Stare of Haryana, has decided not to consider the applications of D.Ed./J.B.T. teacher training course for the academic session and close all such files. It is also decided to return all pending applications alongwith the documents to the institution concerned along with processing fees. Your file No. Hr for recognition/ permission for D.Ed course, received in the office of NRC on The application is, hereby returned alongwith documents, processing fee and Original Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs Lakh No & FDR of Rs Lakh No DD of Rs /- No AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Mahendera College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 17/05/2010 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 Mr. Mahender Singh, Chairman, Mahendra College of Education, Mahender Garh, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the State Government of Haryana has imposed a ban from whereas the institution has submitted the application to NRC on NRC Jaipur has sent the letter to State Government for its recommendation within 60 days. The time limit was expired on , which meant the institution had the recommendation of the State Government. It was further submitted that the appellant preferred single appeal on for both J.B.T programme and B.Ed programmes and enclosed D.D of Rs. 10,000/- The NCTE processed the appeal of B.Ed course and rejected the appeal, whereas it had not taken any action on the appeal of D.Ed/J.B.T. course. The appellant again submitted an appeal for D.Ed course on along with a D.D of Rs. 10,000/- against the refusal order of NRC dt and the same was not admitted by the Council an account of one year two months delay in preferring the appeal and issued a letter dt Aggrieved by the decision of the Council, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Court vide their order dated 10th September 2010 quashed the letter dt of the NCTE and remanded the matter to the Council for consideration of the matter afresh. The Council shall consider the observations of the Court- as to whether the

7 appeal against the rejection of application for recognition for.d.ed course was preferred within time or not, whether any intimation was given to the petitioner for deficiency in the said appeal and opportunity given to remove the same and whether the petitioner removed the deficiency or not. If the appeal committee decides in favour of the petitioner on all these aspects, the appeal committee to decide the appeal on merits. The appellant in reference to the above Court observations stated that he had never been asked by the NCTE to file separate appeals for D.Ed and B.Ed courses. Had it been asked he might have submitted separate appeal for D.Ed course immediately, in continuation to his joint appeal dt AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant filed an appeal against the refusal orders of NRC for B.Ed and D.Ed courses. As per the provisions of the NCTE Act he was supposed to submit two appeals separately for J.B.T and B.Ed courses enclosing DD of Rs. 10,000/- for each course. Further the appellant did not make any representation about the non-consideration of D.Ed appeal filed along with the B.Ed course, even though the appeal of B.Ed course was decided vide appellate order dt Rather he submitted a fresh appeal on for the D.Ed course and even in this appeal he did not make a reference to his joint appeal preferred at an earlier date and also the appellant was asked to submit the reasons for delay of one year two months and even in reply for delay he did not mention about the previous appeal, rather he cited the illness of his father as the ground for not preferring the appeal in time. Hence that resulted in nonadmittance of the appeal. It was however noted that Council would have asked the institution to submit separate appeals, when the appellate filed a joint appeal for the B.Ed and D.Ed courses. As this was not brought to the notice of the appellant, the Council therefore decided to admit the appeal for considering it on merit. AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the proposal was returned on account of the policy decision taken by the NCTE for not granting recognition for the D.Ed course in the State of Haryana for the academic session the Council therefore came to the conclusion that the case may be accepted with the direction to the NRC to reconsider the case on merit in the light of the Court directions.. 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 adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the NRC s order dated with direction to the NRC to reconsider the case on merit in the light of the Court directions. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Chairman, Mahendera College of Education, Majra Road, VPO-Majra Khurd,

8 Mahender Garh - -, 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. F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /12/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Pragya Bal Utthan Samiti Katangi, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh dated 21/08/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/2010/RL dated 22/03/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground Land Use Certificate is only sq. ft. which is not as per NCTE norms. The institution did not fulfill the condition as required in clause 8(7)(i) of NCTE Regulations, 2009 AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Pragya Bal Utthan Samiti Katangi (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/08/2010 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. M.B. Churasia, Secretary, Pragya Bal Utthan Samiti Katangi, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (1). The appellant purchased hect. of land in Kudan Katangi bearing Halka No. 1, Khasra no./plot no. 130 and the same has been registered at the time of application. He has submitted a diversion certificate for an area of 20,000 sq.ft and the certificate for 20,000 sq.ft was obtained according to land revenue rules. Diversion is for the land on which buildings are to be constructed only and not for the playground, parking place and tree plantation. The appellant also submitted that he has got 1,00,000 sq.ft of land and has another diversion certificate for 15,000 sq.ft of land which was also available at the time of submission of the application. He has enclosed a copy of land diversion certificate dt. 13/03/2008 for 15,000 sq.ft to the appeal.

9 AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant has enclosed to his application a land document showing that the appellant was in possession of hect. of land, and a diversion certificate for 20,000 sq.ft only or 1,858 sq.mts. as against the requirement of 2,500 Sq.mts. or 26,910 Sq.ft. of land as per the NCTE Norms The appellant however did not submit another CLU dated for sq.ft. to the WRC. The WRC has also not issued any deficiency letter before rejecting the application. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal with the direction to the WRC for further processing of the application on merit; after verifying the CLU dated for its authenticity from the issuing authority. 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 adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC s order dated with direction to the WRC for further processing of the application on merit; after verifying the CLU dated for its authenticity from the issuing authority. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Chairman, Pragya Bal Utthan Samiti Katangi, Plot No. 130, Katangi, Patan,, Jabalpur - -, 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 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /11/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS he appeal of Venus Public Education Society, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh dated 29/09/2010 is against the Order No. No. WRC/ WRCAPP113/138/2010/69827 dated 03/08/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground Approved building plan submitted by the college shows a square building with ground and two floors, whereas the videograph shows that the building is rectangular and having ground and one floor. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Venus Public Education Society (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 30/09/2010 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 Shri. Vivek Gupta, President, Venus Public Education Society, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that there was not at all any mismatch between the approved plan and videography. The building with Ground and two floors was constructed in the same shape according to the building plan of which was also proved by the completion certificate. The similarity was also proved with the relevant clip of the videography which was submitted wherein the building was visible with ground and two floors with the visiting team. The position of the existing building with ground plus two floors was also proved by the photographs of the building taken from different angles. The ground taken by the WRC that the building was square and rectangular was an after thought which was totally unlawful. The WRC did not communicate such type of objection earlier. The building was more than sufficient and fulfills the norms and standards of NCTE. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the VT report did not indicate the dimensions of the rooms as well as the total built up area available for the proposed course. The report also did not contain an essential data sheet in which the particulars with regard to land and built up area details are to be filled. It merely stated the infrastructural facilities were as per NCTE norms. Further the photographs annexed with the appeal do not confirm to the VCD available in the WRC s file. In view of this the Council came to the conclusion that an inspection of the institution may be conducted by the NCTE Hqrs. for taking a final decision in the appeal. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson

11 1. The President, Venus Public Education Society, Khasra No 1055,1056, PLOT NO PS-3 ANAND NAGAR P.O- BAHODAPUR, Gwalior -, Madhya Pradesh 2. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore PS to Chairperson F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /12/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Baba Mohan Das College of Education, Rewari, Haryana dated 22/07/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-7/NRCAPP403/158 Meeting/2010/20908 dated 29/04/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.El.Ed course on the grounds 1) The CLU has not been submitted. 2) The built up area is not sufficient to run B.Ed, D.Ed and proposed D.El.Ed. Course. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Baba Mohan Das College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/07/2010 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 Dr. S.P. Yadav, Lecturer, Baba Mohan Das College of Education, Rewari, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that while communicating the deficiencies dated , NRC had not mentioned the point of CLU. However, it was clearly brought to the notice of NRC that the institution was located in rural area, which was not falling under the area controlled by the DTPO. NOC from DTPO and the CLU from the competent authority i.e. Gram Panchayat u/s 25(g) of Haryana Panchayat Act 1994 was forwarded to NRC at the time of applying for the course in 2007 as well as while removing deficiency. The copy of NOC obtained from DTPO and Gram Panchayat were attached with the appeal; the college was in possession of 4600 sq.mtr. of covered area which was initially (during 2007) itself planned to apply for M.Ed and additional intake of B.Ed/D.Ed. But, presently the recognition of Educational courses was objected by the Haryana Govt. and the surplus area was lying unused. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that as per the NCTE Regulations, 2009, stipulated that it was mandatory for the appellant to forward alongwith the hard copy of the application, a notarized copy of CLU alongwith other essential documents and the appellant was not in possession of the CLU document as the same was obtained from DTPO on Further the building completion certificate dt , issued by the Panchayat Office does not mention the built-up area. The Council was therefore, of the view that there was no ground to accept the appeal.

12 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 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 Chairman, Baba Mohan Das College of Education, Plot No. 76,77,97,220, VPO- Motla Kalan, Rewari , 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. F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Maa Durga Management College, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh dated 22/06/2010 is against the decision of Northern Regional Committee taken in 158th meeting held from 19th to 22nd April, 2010 for rejecting the application for recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds 1) CLU is not notarized. 2) Land documents are not certified. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Maa Durga Management College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/06/2010 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. P.K. Jain, Trustee, Maa Durga Management College, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that CLU was submitted twice- once along with the application on and second time on in response to NRC letter dt NRC had not asked for at any stage the notarized copy of CLU. Thus, as asked, notarized copy of CLU and the certified copy of the land documents were obtained from the Sub-Registrar,

13 Baghpat, U.P. and self attested copy of the same was submitted to NRC. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Clause 7(1-A) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, stipulated that application submitted online but not followed by dispatch, through registered post or by hand with seven documents mentioned at (i) to (vii) of Regulation 7(1), including notarized copy of CLU issued by the Competent Authority and certified copy of registered land documents, within 7 days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected with the reasons recorded in writing. the Council also noted that the institution was not in possession of Notarized copy of CLU and certified copy of registered land documents at the time of submission of the application and, therefore, it could not fulfill the mandatory requirement of submission of notarized copy of CLU and certified copy of land document alongwith its application. The institution got the notarised copy of CLU and certified copy of land document only on and Therefore, the Council was of the view that the application of the institution was rejected by the NRC for valid reasons and, thus, there was no ground to accept the appeal. 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 was rejected and NRC s decision to reject the application was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Secretary, Maa Durga Management College, Khasra No. 165, Pilana Road, VPO-Pilana, Tehsil- Baghpat, Baghpat , Uttar Pradesh 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 Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

14 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Nalanda College of Education, Dehradun, Uttaranchal dated 09/06/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-7/UR-181/155 Meeting/2010/22770 dated 28/05/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing for recognition for conducting M.Ed course on the grounds The deficiencies communicated through letter no. F. NRC/NCTE/F-7/UR-181/153 Meeting/2009/13891 dated 18 December 2009 still exist. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Nalanda College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/06/2010 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 Dr. H.S. Nawat, President and Dr. Sarith Rawat, President, Nalanda College of Education, Dehradun, Uttaranchal presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that it was clearly mentioned in para no.-11 of page no.-9 of the registry of the land that the land was being purchased for the Nalanda college of Education, Dehradun. On the basis of the name of institution in the registry, the Ownership Certificate was issued by the Assistant Collector of Dehradun. The construction of new building of Nalanda College of Education completed and completion certificate of building constructions of Nalanda College of Education was by competent authority, MDDA on The size of class rooms in new building of Nalanda College of Education, Dehradun was 22ft. x 28ft. = 616 Sq. ft, which was more than NCTE norms i.e. 500 Sq. ft per classroom. All labs & library were well equipped as per NCTE norms. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the application of the institution for recognition of M.Ed. course was submitted on , when as per the NCTE Regulations 2007, land/building of the applicant institution should be either on ownership basis or on lease from Government/Government agencies only. An inspection of the proposed institution was conducted on The VT report dated was totally negative and it, inter-alia, indicated that the existing B.Ed. course was being run in a building taken on lease basis, the existing 2 storeyed building was small and in sufficient for even the existing B.Ed. course, the size of the class room was small, labs and library were nowhere near the NCTE norms and the VT did not find the existing building suitable for the proposed M.Ed. course. Based on the VT report, the NRC issued a show-cause notice to the institution dated on the ground (1) land was not in the name of the

15 institution, (2) the built-up area was not sufficient even for existing B.Ed. course (3) the size of the class room was small and (4) labs as well as library were ill equipped. After considering the reply furnished by the institution vide its letter dated , the NRC refused recognition to the institution for M.Ed. course. the Council also noted that the building in which the M. Ed course was proposed to be run was on lease from a private party, which was not permissible as per the NCTE Regulations, the Council was, therefore, of the view that the institution was refused recognition for M.Ed. course for valid reasons based on the inspection report and, thus, 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, Nalanda College of Education, Sector-1, D-6, Deffence Colony, Dehradun - -, Uttaranchal 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 Uttaranchal, Dehradun.

16 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Rudra Institute of Technology, Mawana, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh dated 10/06/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/NRCAPP337/153 Meeting/2010/21661 dated 10/05/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds 1) The submitted land document is not certified. 2) CLU is not notarized. 3) The building plan is not approved by competent authority. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Rudra Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 10/06/2010 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 Dr. Somendra Tomar, Charimen, Shri Rakesh, Director, Rudra Institute of Technology, Mawana, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the certified land document CLU issued by the competent the reply of deficiency letter approved building plan along with the letter of Gram Panchayat, were submitted to the NRC on in reply to the deficiency letter. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant alongwith the hard copy of the application forwarded only self attested copy of the registered land document. And in reply to the deficiency letter the institution submitted on , photocopy of the registered land documents certified by the registrar office on , but not the original certified copy. The appellant also did not submit notarized copy of `CLU to the NRC, he only submitted a photocopy of the CLU issued by the SDM office on Even the building plan submitted to the NRC was not approved by the Gram Panchayat office. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and that it should be rejected. 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 that 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 Chairman, Rudra Institute of Technology, 101, 102, For Educational work, 101, 102, Mawana Khurd,, Meerut , Uttar Pradesh

17 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 Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

18 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /12/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Zacistha Educational Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh dated 25/05/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F- 3/NRCAPP275/158Meeting/2010 dated 07/05/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, closing the file of the institution for grant of recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. course on the grounds The submitted building plan is not approved by the competent authority. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Zacistha Educational Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 25/05/2010 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 Smt. Monica Yadav, Treasurer, Zacistha Educational Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the institution is located in rural area and the building plan has been approved by the local competent authority, namely, Gram Sabha. The appellant who could not produce the original building plan has submitted the same on Though the building plan does not bear the approval of Gram Sabha, the appellant submitted a copy Gram Panchyat s approval dt for the building plan and also copies of building completion certificates from Gram Panchayat dt and from an Asst. Engineer, which is undated. The khasra / ghata number indicated in the building plan and the Gram Panchayat s approval and also in one completion is the same, i.e.686. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the building plan submitted in the appeal has been approved by Gram Panchayat Office and the Gram Panchayat office vide its letter dated gave its approval for the plan. It further noted that a copy of the building plan available in the NRC s file has also been approved by the Gram Panchayat Office. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal with direction to the NRC to consider the case for further processing on merit. 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 NRC s order dated with direction to the NRC to consider the case for further processing on merit. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the NRC dated reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.

19 (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Secretary, Zacistha Educational Institute, Vill-Rampurbehda, Post+Tehsil- Bakshi ka Talab, Lucknow , Uttar Pradesh 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 Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

20 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /12/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Baldev Shridhar Mahavidyalaya, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh dated 06/07/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/NRCAPP26/158 Meeting/2010/21654 dated 10/05/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds 1) Land documents are not certified. 2) Notarized copy of CLU is not submitted. 3) The plot no./khasra no. is not mentioned on the building plan. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Baldev Shridhar Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/07/2010 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 Sunil Kumar, Vice President, Baldev Shridhar Mahavidyalaya, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the land documents were certified by the registrar office on ; CLU was issued by SDM office on for Hect of land and the CLU was notarized on ; building plan mentioned the plot No AND WHEREAS the Council considering the submission made by the appellant noted that the deficiencies pointed out in the refusal order of WRC were not valid, as the land documents were certified, CLU was notarized and the building plan indicated the Kh. No/ Plot. No. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there was enough justification to accept the appeal with direction to the NRC to consider the case for further processing of the case on merit. 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 NRC s order dated with direction to the NRC to consider the case for further processing on merit. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the NRC dated reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary)

21 Vice-Chairperson 1. The Manager, Baldev Shridhar Mahavidyalaya, Plot No. 516,180, Vill- Bhawaraha, Post- Pandeypur Radey, Tehsil-Sadar, Ghazipur , Uttar Pradesh 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 Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

22 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi O R D E R WHEREAS The appeal of Sri Sai Shikshan Sansthan, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal dated 28/06/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F- 7/NRCAPP303/159 Meeting/2010/22035 dated 14/05/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, Refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds that 1) Registered Land document is not certified. 2) Notarized CLU is not submitted. 3) Building plan is not approved by competent authority. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Sai Shikshan Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 28/06/2010 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 Sh. Kishor Kumar Sharma, Secretary, Sri Sai Shikshan Sansthan, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal presented the case of the appellant institution on 19/08/2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the hard copies of the certified land documents were submitted by hand on and also submitted on ; notarized CLU was submitted on ; and building plan approved by competent authority was submitted on and AND WHEREAS The Council noted that a certified copy of registered land document obtained on was submitted along with the application and another certified copy obtained on was sent to the NRC on The CLU was issued only on and it is not notarized; and the building plan sent with the application is approved by President, Nagar Panchayat. However the notarized CLU which is required to be sent along with the application in accordance with the provisions of clause 7(1) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 has not been sent. In the circumstances, the Council came to the conclusion that the NRC was justified in closing the application and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of NRC 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 was rejected and NRC s order dated was confirmed.