F.No Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi O R D E R

Transcription

1 F.No Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the Council earlier on considered the appeal dated of B.P.S. College of Education, Rohtak, Haryana filed against the NRC s order dated refusing recognition for B.Ed. course and issued an order dated with the direction to the NRC for reconsidering the reply dated of the institution to the show cause notice and passing appropriate orders. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, B.P.S. College of Education, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/10/2010 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 in compliance with the directions of the Appellate Authority, the NRC reconsidered the matter and passed a speaking order dated refusing recognition on the grounds 1) The contention of the President of the Society that construction of the building is complete has been supported by a building completion Certificate on Rs Non-Judicial Stamp Paper signed by Tehsildar. The paper is not accepted. Building Completion Certificate has not been issued by the office of the Tehsildar. The proof in form of photograph that the building is complete is acceptable only to the limited extent that front elevation of the building has been completed. No documents of picture supporting the fact that door/window are now installed has been proved. 2) The revised building plan giving Chairs No. etc. may be accepted. 3) The observation of the VT that size of library and multipurpose Hall is small is still valid as the dimensions shown in the map are not actually reflected in the building, which has been physically inspected by the VT. CD clearly indicates that the library has no sitting space, and the institution has provided a separate reading room to cope up with the deficiency. Similarly the multipurpose hall is apparently very small, as it had only plastic chairs at the time of inspection and the same number is being shown in the fresh photographs of Multipurpose hall submitted now in response to the Show Cause Notice. Moreover, multipurpose hall has not been built up with a raised Dias and a Public Address System. 4) The institution did not make any efforts to develop ET and ICT Labs, the labs are still not up to the mark. The computer tables have been provided but instead of matching, separate chairs for each table, combined long benches have been kept for 2-3 computers, making it totally non-functional. This is even clear in the new photograph submitted by the institution against which the institution filed an appeal on AND WHEREAS the Appellate Authority after giving a personal hearing to the appellant, vide their order dated rejected the appeal and confirmed the NRC s refusal order dated on the ground that the inspection report of the visiting team which conducted inspection of the institution was negative. The VT report dated , inter-alia, pointed out that the building was still under construction as far as flooring was

2 concerned, no doors and window frames were there in the rooms, no electricity connection was there, psychology lab did not have psychology tests, no language lab facilities in the college, multi-purpose hall could accommodate hardly 100 students and rotten carpets were hanging on the windows and it appeared that the college management was not ready. The Council also noted that the explanations furnished by the institution in reply to the show cause notice and the explanations given in the appeal were not convincing. The Council further noted that while the approved building plan submitted by the institution to the NRC was that of a two-storey building, the photograph of the building submitted subsequently in support of its claim that building was complete with windows fixed, was that of a three storey building. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the decision of the Council the appellant filed writ petition No.2666/2011 and C.H.No.3681/2011 before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi and the Court vide order dated disposed of the petition with the direction Time and again, this Court has given direction to the respondent No.1 i.e. Appeal Committee to pass a reasoned order and not a cryptic or vague order. The instant order clearly shows that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the Appeal Committee. The Appeal Committee is a statutory authority exercising quasi judicial powers and therefore the Appeal Committee is expected to give valid reasons after carrying out a threadbare discussion at least on the main contentions raised by the petitioner in their appeal. The Appeal Committee is also expected to see whether the deficiencies pointed out by the visiting team are as per the requirements of the Act, policies and guidelines framed thereunder and do not travel beyond the same. Without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to remand the matter back to the Appeal Committee for a fresh decision after granting fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Appeal Committee shall decide the matter and pass a reasoned order on the pleas raised by the petitioner in the ground of appeal, within a period of one month from the date of this order. The appellant on submitted the Court order dated with a request to re-consider the matter. In compliance with the directions of the Hon ble Court the case was listed for hearing before the Council on AND WHEREAS Shri Dharmender, B.P.S. College of Education, Rohtak, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on At the time of hearing the appellant gave a letter dated in which he made a number of submissions regarding the availability of infrastructural and instructional facilities in reference to the rejection grounds of the appeal contained in the order dated The Council decided to undertake on the spot verification of the claims of the appellant by a Committee comprising of two members of the Appeal Committee and to take further decision thereafter on the basis of the report of the visiting team. AND WHEREAS accordingly an inspection of the institution was caused on by a team comprising two members of the Appeal Committee. The inspection team interalia reported that the institution was having 23 Kanal, 18 Marla of land. The ground and first floors of a 3 storey building were completed with 1500 sq.mt. of built up area, which was adequate for the B.Ed. programme. The institution was equipped with furniture, books and other physical facilities. In the light of this inspection report of the sub-committee, the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to the NRC for further processing of the case as per Regulations.

3 AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, inspection report of the sub-committee 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 a direction to the NRC for further processing of the case as per Regulations. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of NRC dated is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The President, B.P.S. College of Education,, VPO- Bhaini, Maharajpura, Tehsil- Meham,, Rohtak , Haryana 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar, Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.

4 F.No /2011 Appeal/ 8th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Satara, Maharashtra dated 04/05/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06770/122203(Court Case)/145th/2011/76378 dated 15/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed.(m)(co-ed) course on the grounds that 1) CLU not submitted is response of Show Cause Notice. 2) -The appeal of Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Satara, Maharashtra dated 04/05/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06770/122203(Court Case)/145th/2011/76378 dated 15/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (m) (co-ed) course on the ground CLU not submitted in response to Show Cause Notice. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/05/2011 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 Sh. Waghamare Bhimarao, Joint Secretary and Sh. Jagannath, Director, Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Satara, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that recognition to the institution was refused only on the ground that CLU had not been submitted in response to the Show Cause Notice. That paragraph 6.1 of the application for recognition nowhere, mentioned any requirement of giving CLU. It only required the title certificate in respect of the land. Therefore, the requirement of CLU is not contemplated even as per the application form. The Appellant further submitted that assuming that any such CLU was necessary, which deemed to have been granted to the Appellant Institution as per the provisions of sections 42 and 44(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, It was necessary to note that as per the provisions of sections 42 and 44(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, within the period of 90 days from the date on which the application for NA permission was made (viz. from 29th November 2010), if the application was not decided, then deemed permission would have been given. Therefore, since in this case, the application dated 29th November was not decided, therefore, on 3rd March 2011, the deemed permission was granted. A copy of the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and also application dated 29th November 2010 for NA permission were enclosed with the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) the appellant s institution submitted an application for grant of recognition of D.Ed. course to the WRC on ; inspection of the institution was caused on ; a show cause notice on the basis of the inspection report was issued to the institution on stating that Principal is not having

5 experience as per NCTE norms and multipurpose hall is not as per NCTE norms; the appellant submitted its reply vide letters dated as well as dated stating that deficiencies were removed by the appellant; WRC thereafter vide order dated decided that no further processing of the application would be done in view of the policy decision taken by the NCTE, inter-alia considering the negative recommendations of Government of Maharashtra for granting recognition to the D.Ed. institutions in the state of Maharashtra; b) that aggrieved by the decision of the WRC, the appellant filed a WP.No. 5834/2009 before the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the Court vide order dated set aside the WRC s order and remanded the matter back to NCTE for considering the matter de-novo and it will be open to the NCTE, to consider recommendation, if any, of the State Government, while taking a decision and the case of the petitioner now can be considered for the academic year When the NCTE did not take any decision in the matter, incompliance with the above Court directions, the appellant filed contempt petition No. 361/2010 before the Hon ble High Court and the Court vide order dated disposed of the petition with the observation that respondents vide letter dated asked the State Government to clarify whether the recommendations have been given by the State Government or not. Similarly by a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner to explain the deficiencies which were noticed after inspection was under taken. Since the process of denovo has already begun, in my view, it would be appropriate if the respondents are directed to decide the matter and take a decision within 8 weeks from today. c) Subsequent to the Court directions, WRC issued show cause notice afresh on on two new grounds, which were not mentioned in their earlier show cause notice dated and one of them was CLU issued by the Competent Authority to be submitted. The institution furnished its reply on stating that the application for NA permission (CLU) had already been made on to the concerned authority and requested for some time to submit CLU from Collectorate office. But WRC, without acceding to his request, refused recognition of the institution on the stated ground, against which the present appeal was filed. The appellant during the course of presentation requested for providing another opportunity in order to furnish the original CLU before the Council. the Council acceding to his request, decided to list the case on a subsequent date for hearing. AND WHEREAS Shri B.J. Waghamara, Vice-Secretary and Shri Gadhari S.D. Vice- President, Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Satara, Maharashtra again appeared before the Council on and stated that the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Satara inspected the college building and land, and submitted report on in the Collector office. As the elections of Nagar Palika in the State of Maharashtra, have been declared the concerned authority i.e. Collectors of the State Govt. are very busy in election duty. Hence, they were unable to obtain CLU document from the Authority and requested for giving 30 more days time for producing the CLU document before the NCTE. AND WHEREAS in view of the above submission made by the appellant, the Council directed the appellant to send a certified copy of the CLU document as issued by the Collectorate office on or before 31st January 2012, failing which the appeal shall stand rejected.

6 (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Joint Secretary, Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Manganga Shikshan Sanstha, Plot No. 3309, AT. Post Dahiwadi, Tal. Man,, Satara , 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.

7 F.No /2008-Appeal/8th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of James Memorial Charitable Trust's James College of Education, Kanyakumari Dist., Tamilnadu dated 09/06/2008 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/B.Ed.-AI/ /338 dated 15/04/2008 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed.-AI course on the grounds 1) The built up space for existing D.T.Ed., D.T.Ed.-Additional Intake, B.Ed. and proposed B.Ed. Additional Intake is not adequate. 2) The additional built up space is not adequate for additional intake. 3) The infrastructural and instructional facilities are not adequate both for additional intake in B.Ed. course and the existing courses. 4) The books, Lab. equipment for existing courses and B.Ed., additional intake are not adequate. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, James Memorial Charitable Trust's James College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/06/2008 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 above appeal of the institution was rejected by the Council vide order dated on the grounds that In the affidavit dated filed by the institution the available built up area claimed was 2465 sq.mt. as against the requirement of 3500 sq.mts required as per the NCTE norms for running B.Ed. and D.Ed. course (2 units) existing and the proposed and additional intake in B.Ed. Therefore at the time of inspection, the institution was not having adequate built up space as per the NCTE Norms. The Council further noted that the VT Report indicated that the size of the available classrooms was 216/207 sq.ft as against the requirement of 500 sq.ft and the size of multipurpose hall was 1300 sq.ft only as against 1500 sq.ft required. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the decision of the Council the appellant filed a W.P.No /2008 before the Hon ble High Court of Madras and the Court vide their order dated disposed of the petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and pass an order afresh in accordance with law, taking into consideration the submission and materials placed by the petitioner on record for grant of recognition. Incompliance with the Court directions the case was listed for hearing on AND WHEREAS Sh. C.R. Bruce, Administrative Officer appeared before the Council on and presented the appeal matter of the institution stating that a) the appellant had already been running 2 units of D.T.Ed. course in the name of Luise James Teacher Training Institute, and 1 unit of B.Ed. and 1 unit of M.Ed. in the name of James College of Education. It submitted an application for an additional intake in B.Ed. course to the SRC. After causing an inspection of the institution on , SRC issued a show cause notice

8 and thereafter refused recognition for additional intake in B.Ed. programme vide their order dated , against which an appeal was filed and the same got rejected vide Council s order dated on the grounds as stated therein. b) It was further submitted that the appellant was having sq.ft. of built up area for 2 units of D.T.Ed. course, sq.ft. for B.Ed. basic unit, 7643 sq.ft. for M.Ed. course and sq.ft. for the B.Ed. additional intake, which was under consideration now. And in proof, he submitted two building completion certificates dated for sq.ft. in a four storey building at RS.No. 481 of Kappiarai Village and dated for sq.ft. of built-up area in five storey building at R.S.No. 480, 481 and 498 in Kappiarai Village. And also building plans one in the name of Luise James Teacher Training Institute at R.S. No. 481 for sq.ft. and six other building plans in the name of James College of Education- at R.S. No. 480, 481 for sq.ft. at door no & 57 for 4123 sq.ft. at door no. 23/58, 23/58-1 to 6 for sq.ft. at door no /9 and 23/58-10 for sq.ft. and two more building plans without mentioning the R.S. No./door no. etc. For sq.ft. and sq.ft. c) classrooms were of 500 sq.ft. each, auditorium was of 1456 sq.ft. and another multipurpose hall was of 2343 sq.ft. size. d) the appellant established a good library for the B.Ed. original intake and also purchased additional books and journals for the additional intake before the date of inspection and also purchased more books subsequent to SRC s notice. e) the appellant again purchased more equipments over and above the norms, in reference to SRC s notice. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the Hon ble High Court vide their order dated directed the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the appeal, taking into consideration the submission and materials placed by the petitioner on record for grant of recognition. It implied that the submissions/documents available in SRC s file that were submitted by the institution for grant of recognition to the SRC should be studied. Therefore, the Council decided to examine the submissions/documents available in SRC s file. AND WHEREAS the Council perused the various documents and noted that a) as per land title certificate James Memorial Charitable Trust was in possession of 5.1 acre of land at R.S. No. 480, 481, 489, 490, 498, 499, 775 and 823. Out of 5.1 acre, 1.54 ½ acre was on ownership basis and 3.46 ½ acre of land was on lease basis. b) A building plan titled for James College of Education at R.Sy.no. 480, 481 mentioned a total built-up area of sq.ft. in a 3 storey building (P-191) at Mananvilai, Kappiarai Village. c) the appellant in an affidavit dated mentioned sq.mt. of built-up area at plot no. 480, 481. (P- 261) d) Building completion certificate issued on by the President Kappiarai Panchayat did not mention the built-up area details (P-262). e) The visiting team that visited the institution on interalia reported that 7424 sq.ft. of built-up area for existing unit of B.Ed. and 8500 sq.ft. of built-up area for the proposed additional intake and hence in total it was having only sq.ft. in the ground and first floor of a building. It also mentioned there were three class rooms of 216 sq.ft., 297 sq.ft. and 378 sq.ft. size as against the requirement of 500 sq.ft. each for a class room. Multipurpose hall was only 1300 sq.ft. as against the requirement of 1500 sq.ft. as per norms. Library was having only 3888 books. f) The appellant submitted a reply dated NIL to the SRC s show cause notice dated stating that the institution was having sq.ft. of built-up space (17610 sq.ft. for the basic unit and sq.ft. for the proposed additional intake); instructional and infrastructural facilities are made sufficient by purchasing more equipments in the physical science laboratory, psychology laboratory, Natural Science laboratory, computer lab, educational technology lab, they were having sufficient no. of books and enclosed with the reply, a list showing room wise size, a building plan at R.Sy.no. 480, 481 for sq.ft. on

9 3 floors of a building and an additional plan at R.Sy.no. 498/6 for a built-up area of sq.mt. (26389 sq.ft. ) on five floors of a building. Both the plans were titled for James College of Education. The appellant did not submit any building completion certificate in proof of having sq.ft. of built-up area. The invoice /cash bills no of P.S. Technologies dated , bill no of Shaumuga enterprise dated , bill no. 142 to 146 dated , bill no dated , bill no dated clearly indicated that additional books in the library/equipment in the labs was purchased after the date of inspection. g) The appellant in his earlier appeal dated submitted that he had already constructed sq.ft. of building sq.ft. area for D.T.Ed. (2 units) of Luise James Teacher Training Institute and sq.ft. for existing B.Ed. (basic unit), M.Ed. (basic unit) and proposed B.Ed. additional intake and enclosed with the appeal a building map of James College of Education at R.Sy.no. 480, 481 for sq.ft. of built-up area and also another plan for Luise James Teacher Training Institute for third and fourth floor, and it did not mention the R.Sy.no. as well as area details; one more plan showing the proposed construction of building for James College of Education for additional intake at R.Sy.no. 480, 481 for a total built-up area of sq.ft.; And five other plans at R.Sy.no All these five plans indicated that roof was either ACC/G.I. Sheet. The appellant did not furnish any building completion certificate in proof of having sq.ft. of built-up area even in his earlier appeal. AND WHEREAS in view of the above noted observations the Council felt that that the built-up area available at the time of inspection was inadequate to meet the requirement of the existing courses and the proposed additional intake; the deficiencies in respect of library and laboratory were made up subsequent to the issue of show cause notice only; and the appellant had been submitting different building plans claiming different built-up area and at no point of time, the appellant did produce any building completion certificate in proof of having sq.ft. of built-up area as stated in reply to the show cause notice or sq.ft. of built-up space as stated in his earlier appeal dated He had submitted to the NCTE only one building completion certificate issued on by Panchayat office which did not mention any built-up area available with the institution. The building completion certificates dated and now filed before the Council cannot be accepted as they were issued subsequent to refusal of recognition as well as rejection of appeal vide Council s order dated and that too after almost three years of rejection of appeal. The Council, therefore, came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be rejected and Council s earlier order dated rejecting the appeal is confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT reports, Hon ble Court directions and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and Council s earlier order dated rejecting the appeal is confirmed.

10 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary / Correspondent, James Memorial Charitable Trust's James College of Education, Mananvilai, Kappiyarai Post,, Kanyakumari Dist , Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.

11 F.No /2011 Appeal/8th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Janardhan Reddy College of Education, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh dated 11/07/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/ /27669 dated of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds 1) The Instructional facilities are generally inadequate and housed in small rooms. 2) All the Laboratories required to be strengthened with additional materials / equipments. 3) FDRs are not in the Joint Names. 4) The staff list yet to be formally approved by the affiliating University. 5) Instructional space & facilities are inadequate for continuance of the B.Ed., programme as per the NCTE Norms. 6) Change of Land Use Certificate not obtained / not6available. 7) Science lab is about 300 sq. ft. in size and it is rather small. 8) The size of classroom is only 450 sq. ft. as against 500 sq. ft. or 10 sq. ft. per student as per NCTE norms. 9) As per the decision of SRC notice was issued on 25/10/2010 on the above 8 points. Till date institution not submitted its written representation / documents. The committee in its 201st Meeting held on February 2011 considered the not replying/non-response by the institution to the Showcause Notice issued on 25/10/2010 and decided to withdraw recognition for B.Ed. course (APS07157) with effect from , in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed. course, if any, to complete their course. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Janardhan Reddy College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/07/2011 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 a) the affiliating body Kakatiya University vide their letter dated informed SRC that the institution was running B.Ed. course with insufficient, shabby accommodation, land and building were at different places and it recommend SRC for withdrawal of recognition of the institution. On the basis of this report, SRC issued a show cause notice, and thereafter caused an inspection of the institution U/s 17 of the NCTE Act on The institution did not facilitate the inspection and sought postponement. Subsequent to this, SRC withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated w.e.f session. b) Against the decision of the SRC, the appellant filed a W.P.No /2009 before the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the Court vide their order dated directed the appellant to prefer an appeal and on the directions of the Court the appellant preferred an appeal on c) In the meantime the NCTE caused an inspection of the institution U/s 13 of the NCTE Act on The inspection team interalia reported that (i) the institution was having only sq.mt. of land on ownership basis and 1867 sq.mt. of land was taken on lease from private party on for 33 years. The land on ownership basis was inadequate and acquiring land on lease basis from private party after 2007 Regulations was not permissible. (ii) institution was having nearly 1500 sq.mt. of built-up area, but a part of it was covered with asbestos sheets and this was not acceptable as per norms. The Council noted that the

12 inspection report U/s 13 confirmed that the institution was having inadequate land and built-up area and hence it rejected the appeal. However in reference to the Court directions, the Council made the withdrawal order effective from session. d) Aggrieved by the decision of the Council, the appellant filed a W.P.No /2010 in W.P.No /2010 before the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Court vide their order dated disposed of the petition and directed SRC to depute an inspection team on payment of Rs. 40,000/-. Accordingly an inspection of the institution was caused by the SRC on U/s 17 of the NCTE Act. On the basis of this report SRC issued a show cause notice and when the institution did not make any representation, SRC withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated w.e.f session on the show cause notice grounds itself as stated in para 1 above. e) Aggrieved by the decision of the SRC, the appellant again filed a W.P.No /11 before the Hon ble High Court and the Court vide their order dated disposed of the petition in the same terms as in the order passed in W.P. No of 2008 and batch of writ petitions dated The petitioners are granted four weeks time to file statutory appeal U/s 18 of the NCTE Act and the Appellate Authority shall receive the appeal by treating the same as an appeal filed within the limitation and dispose of the same after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. Till such time, the impugned order dated shall remain suspended. Subsequent to the Court directions the appellant preferred an appeal U/s 18 of the NCTE Act on NCTE incompliance with the Court directions listed the case for hearing on , and also on giving last and final opportunity. AND WHEREAS Shri A. Srinivas, Principal, Janardhan Reddy College of Education, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) the appellant college had already constructed rooms which were in conformity with the norms of NCTE Regulations; b) that at the time of establishment of the college, there was no requirement of taking F.D. Rs. in the joint names. Later on, in terms of the NCTE norms, subsequently introduced by the NCTE required the appellant college to take the FDRs in the joint names. The appellant is in the process of securing the FDRs in joint name; c) that the affiliating university approved the staff list; d) that the appellant college had constructed the building having a built up area of 2850 sq. mtrs., which was more than sufficient as per NCTE norms to impart education in B.Ed. programme; e) that the appellant college had submitted an application to the R.D.O. Huzurabad, Karimnagar District, for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural. The application was under process and the R.D.O. would issue change of land use certificate within one week; f) that now the appellant college extended the science LAB to fine tune with the norms of NCTE and constructed two new classes admeasuring 500 sq.ft. as per the NCTE norms. AND WHEREAS when the Council asked the appellant to clarify, why he did not respond to the SRC s show cause notice dated , he just remained silent and did not state anything. The Council noted that in all 3 inspections have been caused by the NCTE after grant of recognition i.e. on and U/s 17 of the NCTE Act and on U/s 13 of the NCTE Act. The latest inspection report dated interalia mentioned that The B.Ed. course, started in 2007, is being run in three small, separate and adjacent buildings. One of them was of two storeys and the other two were of one storey each. Together they make a built-up area of only about 8300 sq.ft.which is significantly less than the NCTE norms. The instructional facilities are generally inadequate and housed in small rooms. All the labs require to be strengthened with additional materials/equipments. Class room is of only 450 sq.ft.

13 AND WHEREAS the Council further noted specifically with regard to withdrawal grounds that a) the appellant admitted that the deficiency with regard to additional material/equipment in the laboratories had been complied with, subsequent to the inspection only. b) Science lab and Class room sizes had now been increased as per NCTE norms. c) The appellant purchased agricultural land and submitted an application to the R.D.O. Huzurabad for change of land use and it was under process. Hence use of land for education purpose was not approved by the competent authority. d) SRC vide their recognition order dated imposed a condition for conversion of FDRs of endowment fund into a joint account within one month of the receipt of the recognition order, whereas, till date the FDRs are not converted into joint operation. e) As on the date of inspection, staff list was not approved by the university. f) Towards the claim of having adequate built-up area and adequately spaced rooms, the appellant submitted in the appeal a sheet showing dimensions of various rooms & 1503 sq.mt. of built-up area and a building plan. This plan did not mention the total built-up area, as well as Sy.no./Kh.no. The claim of the appellant for having adequate built-up area and other instructional space was not acceptable specifically in the light of VT observations where it had mentioned the total built-up area as well as various room dimension and also in the absence of any building completion certificate. In addition to the above, the Council also noted that the appellant trust was in possession of 1367 Sq.mt. of land in total as per the sale deeds dated and and this was not adequate because as per norms 2500 Sq.mt. of land is required. AND WHEREAS in view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT reports, Hon ble Court directions and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC s order dated is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Correspondent/Principal, Janardhan Reddy College of Education, Grama Nava Nirmana Samithi, H.No. 4-2/A, Indiranagar, Saidapur Road, Huzurabad,, Karimnagar , 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, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

14 F.No /2011 Appeal/8th Meeting/2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Nalanda Open University, Patna, Bihar dated 25/06/2011 is against the Order No. BR-E/N-05/2008/1661 dated 17/09/2009 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course (Distance mode) on the grounds 1) The institution has not complied with the requirements as per the notice dt. 06/01/2008 and 13/03/ ) The institution submitted a Memorandum of Deed of the case Cum Agreement. As per Lease it is a rented building for a period of 36 months which is not permissible as per NCTE Norms. Certified copies of ownership/lease documents (Lease is permitted only if it is with Govt./Govt. Institution) as per para 8(/) and (8) of the regulation, 2007 has not been submitted. 3) As per affidavit submitted by the institution the land is on lease basis for a period of 3 years. Affidavit has not been submitted in prescribed format. Building taken on lease which is not as per norms. A fresh affidavit on Rs. 100/- stamp paper in prescribed format not submitted. 4) Approved building plan with plot No. Khata No. Khesera No. Built-up area from the competent state Govt. authority has not been submitted. 5) Building completion certificate with plot No. Khata No. Khesera No. Built-up area from the competent state Govt. authority has not been submitted. 6) The institution has submitted FDR of Rs. 5 lakhs for 1000 days. Fixed deposit receipt of Rs lakhs for 5 years (in original) not submitted as endowment fund. 7) The institution has submitted FDR of Rs. 3 lakhs for 1000 days is being returned herewith fixed Deposit receipt of Rs lakhs for 5 years (in original) not submitted as Reserve Fund. 8) Certificate of Registration Memorandum of Association & Bye Laws not submitted. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Nalanda Open University (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/06/2011 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 above appeal of the institution not preferred within the stipulated period of 60 days as per Appeal Rules and it was late by 1year 9 months. The Council considering the reasons submitted by the appellant vide their letter dated and further noting that the institution is a State established University decided to condone the delay and examine the matter on merit. AND WHEREAS Prof. Jitendra Singh, Vice-Chancellor, Nalanda Open University, Patna, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) the regional committee failed to take notice of the letters dated 24/03/2009 and 20/06/2009 of the Nalanda Open University sent to ERC, in which the queries of the ERC were answered; that the ERC, failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant for making and explaining and substantiating its case to the regional committee. Thereby the regional committee failed to abide by the provisions of law as contained in Section 15 of the NCTE Act 1993; that ERC did not inspect the University as communicated to the institution vide their letter dated 18/05/2009; (b) that

15 since the lesser i.e. BISCOMAUN and the lessee i.e. University, both are institutions of Government of Bihar, the building in which the University is functioning is of one of the institutions of the State Govt., the initial lease agreement was for 3 Years but as of now the building has been leased to the University for 30 Years from August 30, The University has been occupying the present premises since The lease agreement executed on 01/02/2011 be considered as continuous and uninterrupted; (c) that the fresh affidavit was submitted by the institution in prescribed Performa on Rs. 500/- stamp paper, since stamp paper for Rs. 100/- was not available; (d) that since the building is owned by a wing of the state Govt.; building completion certificates and other land documents are not required. The building which houses the University is the most prestigious building of the state. It also houses many other Govt. offices including Central Govt., Regional centre of Indira Gandhi National Open University and Banks; (e) that since the University is Govt. owned, so it does not require to submit F.D.R. worth Rs lakhs as Endowment Fund; (f) that the Regional Committee failed to appreciate that the University is a creation of a statute of the State Govt., one of the premier non formal education providing institution, having a very sound financial status, about 1,50,000 students on its rolls in different courses, adequate accommodation spread over 60,000 square feet space with a spacious library cum reading hall having about 50,000 books, adequate qualified staff, laboratory, meeting halls etc. AND WHEREAS the Council taking into consideration the submission made by the appellant, came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to the ERC to re-consider the application of the institution for D.El.Ed. distance mode programme specifically with reference to the distance education norms as notified under appendix 9 of the NCTE Regulations 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 ERC s order dated with a direction to the ERC to re-consider of the application of the institution for D.El.Ed., distance mode programme specifically with reference to the distance education norms as notified under appendix 9 of the NCTE Regulations Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of ERC dated is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Registrar, Nalanda Open University, 3rd Floor, Biscomau Bhawan, PO- G.P.O,, Patna , Bihar 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.

16 F.No /2010 Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Ratan Siksha Prasar awam Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Morena, Madhya Pradesh dated 03/12/2010 is against the Order No. F.NCTE/WRCAPP638/Rejection of Application/140th/2010/71111 dated 06/10/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. course on the ground CLU No. 22/09-10/A2 dated 26/04/2010 submitted by Institution to WRC office on 26/07/2010 was obtained after the date (06/10/2010) of submission of on line application which is contrary to clause 7(1) of NCTE Regulations AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ratan Siksha Prasar awam Samaj Kalyan Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 07/12/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the above appeal of the institution was earlier rejected by the Council vide order dated on the ground that the appellant purchased agricultural land and diversion of the agricultural land was done vide order dated of SDM Office, Morena, M.P. and that was much after the date of submission of the application. The Council further observed that as per Regulation 2009 it was mandatory for the appellant to submit a notarized copy of CLU alongwith the hard copy of the application and the appellant did not possess the land diversion certificate from agricultural purpose at the time of submission of the application. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the decision of the Council, the appellant filed a W.P.No.2486/2011 before the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior and the Court vide their order dated disposed of the petition with the directions (i) The impugned order dated (Annexure P/1) and order dated / (Annexure P/2 are quashed. (ii) The appellate authority of the National Council for Teacher Education will consider the case of the petitioner institute by taking into account the order of diversion dated and will not insist upon the fact that the diversion order was passed consequent to filing of the application for recognition. (iii) The above said exercise by the appellate authority will be concluded within a period of one month from the date of communication of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. In compliance with the Court directions the case was listed for consideration by the Council on AND WHEREAS the Secretary of Mangal College of Education appeared before the Council on and presented before the Council, the Hon ble High Court Order dated , `CLU document issued , by A.D.M., a copy of the Regd. land document and non-encumbrance certificate. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant submitted an application for grant of recognition of D.El.Ed. course on ; whereas `CLU was obtained from A.D.M. office on and it was forwarded to the WRC with reference to the WRC s

17 deficiency letter. Therefore at the time of submission of the application, the applicant s land was not diverted from the agricultural purpose. This lead to the rejection of the application by the WRC, which was confirmed by the Council vide Order The Council reconsidered the case, in compliance with the Court directions and it decided to accept the `CLU document dated However, the Council observed that the decision on this appeal matter is case specific, as the `CLU document issued on , that was much after the date of application i.e has been accepted particularly in compliance with the court directions at point No.(ii) under para 13 of the Court order. Hence this decision shall not be taken as a precedent for any other similar appeal matter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, and the Hon ble court directions, the Council concluded that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC s order dated with a direction to the WRC to further process the case on merit as per regulations. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of WRC dated is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, Ratan Siksha Prasar Awan Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Mangal College Plot No. 1543, 1551, Village and Post - Amilehda, Tehsil - Porsa,, Morena -, 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.

18 F.No /2011 Appeal/ 8th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /01/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of St. Francis B.Ed. College, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 04/07/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/ /28522 dated 09/05/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds 1) The institute has not submitted the original approved Building plan from a competent Govt. authority. 2) The latest Building Completion Certificate from the competent Government Engineer is not submitted. 3) The institute has not submitted the Land usage certificate from a competent Govt. authority. 4) Non-encumbrance Certificate from the competent Government Authorized person/ Authorities not submitted. 5) The science lab is shared with High School in the building/campus. 6) Psychology lab and Physical education department needs to be strengthened. 7) The Physical education teacher is shared with High School. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, St. Francis B.Ed. College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/07/2011 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 Bro. Jose George Malana, Managing Committee Member, St. Francis B.Ed. College, Bangalore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on The appellant during the presentation showed the Council (a) the building plan approved by Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palika; (b) land use certificate known as the conversion certificate bearing No. IN.SR.29/60-61 dated 08/05/1962 in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.22 and Sy.No.42, totally measuring to an extent of acre of land; (c) land Non-Encumbrance Certificate dated 21/06/2011 in respect of Sy.No.22, measuring 7-30 acres/guntas, and the Land Non-Encumbrance Certificate in respect of Sy.NO.42, measuring 7-10 acres/guntas. He further submitted that Science Lab. of B.Ed. was not shared with the High School in the same building. Psychology Lab and Physical Educational department were strengthened as required. There was a separate/independent Physical Education Teacher exclusively for B.Ed. course. Before granting of Annual Renewal of Affiliation, Bangalore University had been conducting inspections every year and sometimes, even two inspections during the year, including squad inspection by nine officials. After these inspections, reports were positive. AND WHEREAS when the Council asked the appellant about the latest building completion certificate for their perusal, the appellant stated that the same was not available with him and sought another date for showing the building completion certificate. The Council, acceding to the request of the institution decided to list the case on a subsequent date giving another opportunity.