NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Transcription

1 F.No /2012 Appeal/8th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /09/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Diganth Teacher Training Institute, Kolar, Karnataka dated 11/07/2012 is against the Order No. APS06051 (D.Ed)/2216 D.ED(Al)/KA/ /40443 dated 25/04/2012 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds All the deficiencies mentioned in the show cause notice still exist and the institution has not removed the deficiencies till date and has not replied to the Show Cause notice also. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Diganath Teacher Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/07/2012 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. M. Chandarshekar, Chairman, Diganth Teacher Training Institute, Kolar, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) the appellant had been running two D.Ed. institutions in the name of Diganth Teacher Training Institute, one in English medium and the other in Tamil medium. SRC granted recognition to these institutions by two separate orders dated (code No - APS022146) and dated (code No. APSO 6051). These two institutions were being run in separate buildings but in the same premises; (b) NCTE Hqrs. caused inspection of the institution U/s 13 of the NCTE Act on The inspection team was appraised about the infrastructure available with the institution for D.Ed. course in English medium; (c) SRC issued show cause notice on for both the institutes i.e. English and Tamil medium. A reply to this notice was submitted by the appellant and produced acknowledgement of SRC for having received it on Despite submission of reply, withdrawal of recognition for both institutions by the SRC is not justified. AND WHEREAS the Council taking into consideration the submission made by the appellant noted that the appellant had furnished reply to the show cause notice on However SRC s file did not contain the reply to the notice. In the circumstances, the Council concluded that there was adequate justification to remand the case to SRC to consider the show cause reply dated of the institution and for taking further decision thereafter. The institution is directed to send a copy of the reply, again to SRC. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the

2 Council concluded that there was adequate ground to remand the case to the SRC with a direction to consider the show cause reply dated of the institution and for taking further decision thereafter. The institution is directed to send a copy of the reply, again to SRC. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Diganath Teacher Training Institute, Kolar, Karnataka to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above. (Vikram Sahay) Convener 1. The Chairman, Diganath Teacher Training Institute, Hanchala Gate, Hudukula Post, Bangarpet Taluk,, Kolar , Karnataka 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 Karnataka, Bangalore.

3 F.No /2012 Appeal/8th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /09/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Government College of Teacher Education, Kannur, Kerala dated 18/05/2012 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/ /15816 dated 23/09/2009 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.Ed course on the ground The institution has not submitted Annexure-I, II and III and also the regular teaching faculty are not appointed for the proposed course. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Government College of Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/05/2012 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. Santhosh Areekkuzhiyil, Asst. Professor, Government College of Teacher Education, Kannur, Kerala presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) the college submitted application to SRC, Bangalore for permission to start M.Ed Course in December The SRC conducted an inspection on and granted conditional recognition to the institution on All the conditions except the appointment of faculty had been fulfilled at that time; (b) appointment of faculty for M.Ed programme was made by the Govt. of Kerala on 28th October, They informed the matter to the SRC Bangalore, in November, 2011 along with the copy of the appointment order. As per the direction of the SRC the translated version of the appointment order was also submitted to NCTE; (c) since few of the faculty members appointed by the Govt. of Kerala had not joined duty, as they were on FIP and on deputation, the government gave orders to appoint guest faculty against their vacancies. Accordingly fully qualified guest faculties were appointed ; (d) meanwhile they received permission from the Govt. of Kerala to admit students for M. Ed course and the Kannur University in October, 2011, allotted 25 students to the M. Ed. course, from the common rank list prepared on the basis of entrance examination conducted by the Kannur University; (e) the first semester examination of the first batch of M.Ed students was over by April, 2012 and they had been waiting for results. The Kannur University, demanded the order of unconditional recognition from NCTE for releasing their results; (f) the college sent several letters to SRC Bangalore, for issuance of unconditional recognition order. SRC on informed them that the conditional recognition granted to the M. Ed course was already withdrawn on as per Sec. 14(3)(b) of NCTE Act. 1993, and hence, as per Sec. 18 of NCTE

4 ACT, they had to prefer appeal to the Council. Thereafter, they submitted online appeal on ; (g) NCTE, New Delhi, informed them (by letter dated, ) that their appeal was late by 2 years 5 months and 28days and they were asked to give reasons for the delay in submission of the appeal within 15 days of the letter. The reason for delay was due to, non appointment of teaching faculty by the Govt. of Kerala till 28th October, 2011 ; (h) this is a college in the government sector, for students from the weaker and marginalized sections of an educationally backward region of Kerala to undergo a Post Graduated programme in Education. 99% of the students who got admission in the present batch are females. Any delay in getting the unconditional recognition from NCTE would adversely effect the future life of the meritorious students who ranked top in the entrance examination. The College is also Research Centre in Education and this research centre cannot exist without a post graduate department. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (a) SRC vide their letter dated granted conditional recognition informing the institution to make the appointment of the faculty by a duly constituted Selection Committee and submit Annexures I to III as mentioned therein. It was also mentioned in the said letter that `admission of students should not be made until unconditional order of recognition is issued by the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE; (b) SRC vide their letters dated , , , and sent reminders for furnishing faculty details. The institution in their reply letter dated requested for extension of time as the Govt. was taking necessary steps for appointment of staff. Thereafter, SRC issued few reminders dated and for compliance of the conditional letter dated of SRC. When SRC did not receive any reply from the institution, it withdrew conditional letter and refused recognition to the institution vide order dated The refusal order mentioned about appeal remedy available U/s 18 of the NCTE Act. Despite this information, the institution vide their letter dated referring to the refusal order, informed SRC that the institution had appointed faculty and admitted students during the month of November 2011 and requested for issuance of unconditional letter; (d) SRC, in response, informed the institution that their case had already been refused. AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that (a) SRC vide their conditional letter dated asked the institution to appoint faculty and submit the details thereof and subsequently issued several reminders. When the institution did not furnish the reply, SRC had rightly refused recognition to the institution vide their order dated ; (b) the appellant was aware of the refusal order and the appeal remedy mentioned therein, but he did not prefer any appeal within the stipulated period of 60 days as per Appeal Rules. The reason submitted by the appellant for the delay saying that there was delay in appointing the faculty by the Govt. and they were pursuing the matter with the SRC was not acceptable. After refusal of recognition pursuing the matter with SRC was not desired action; (c) the affiliating body- Kannur University vide their letter dated and informed the institution that the University has no objection to grant affiliation to the M.Ed. course subject to approval of NCTE. In the light of NCTE s refusal order and university s letters, admitting the students in M.Ed. course is contrary to the provision of NCTE Act and Regulations; (d) the Council further perused the faculty list submitted by the appellant for M.Ed, course and noted that it had

5 appointed one professor and four guest lecturers. Hence, the faculty was not appointed as per NCTE norms. In view of the above, the Council concluded that there was no justification to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC order dated is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convener 1. The Principal, Government College of Teacher Education, Thalassery, Kannur,, Kannur , Kerala 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 Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

6 F.No /2012 Appeal/8th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /09/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Krishnapur Teachers Training Institute, Birbhum, West Bengal dated is against the Order No. ERC/ /11/2010/5276 dated 27/09/2010 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds The multipurpose hall, built up area is not as per NCTE Regulations, Further as per VT report the building is under construction. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Krishnapur Teachers Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/07/2012 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 not preferred within the stipulated period of 60 days and it was late by 1year, 7 months and 27 days. NCTE issued notice dated requesting the appellant to appear before the Council on and explain the reasons of delay. AND WHEREAS Shri. Bibhas Ch. Adhikari, Secretary, Krishnapur Teachers Training Institute, Birbhum, West Bengal appeared before the Council on and explained the reasons of delay stating that (a) inspection of the institution for B.Ed. course was caused by ERC on Letter dated was sent by ERC for clarification of built-up area, for which they submitted the reply also; (b) in the month of September 2010 they met the then Regional Director ERC for knowing the status of their application. They were told that a problem was there regarding change of name, which would be finalized very soon and accordingly information would be provided ; (c) when they did not get any response from ERC, they wrote to the Chairperson, NCTE(Hqrs) regarding the problem of changing name and also wrote to the Regional Director ERC. They did not get response from NCTE; (d) they sent a letter on to ERC for grant of recognition of B.Ed. course and also met personally the Regional Director, ERC, who told them that their application had been rejected. They obtained refusal order under RTI Act 2005 and preferred appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) ERC vide their Order dated refused recognition to Krishnapur Teachers Training Institute for B.Ed. course. It was obvious from the submission made by the appellant that he had been pursuing the matter with regard to change of name of the institution. In fact, the NCTE Hqrs. did rectify the name of the institution in the year 2009 itself, vide their corrigendum dated (i.e from Krishnapur Primary Teachers Training Institute to Krishnapur Teachers Training Institute ); (b) the appellant sought status of the application under

7 `RTI Act only on and in reply he learnt that recognition for B.Ed course was refused by the ERC vide order dated He would have known about status of the application from NCTE website as Minutes of the meetings of ERC with case wise decision are hosted on the website. The appellant did not bother to know the status of its application either from the website or under RTI till June AND WHEREAS in view of the above, the Council concluded that the reasons adduced by the appellant for condonation of 1 year, 7 months and 27 days were not acceptable and hence it decided not to admit the appeal by condoning the delay. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby decides not to admit the appeal by condoning the delay. (Vikram Sahay) Convener 1. The Secretary, Krishnapur Teachers Training Institute, Village- Krishnapur, PO- Krishnapur,, Birbhum , West Bengal 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 West Bengal, Kolkata.

8 F.No /2012 Appeal/8th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /09/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of N.T. Degree College, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Uttar Pradesh dated 13/07/2012 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/NRCAPP-305/198TH MEETING/2012/20698 dated 14/05/2012 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the ground The institution had applied for B.Ed. course on At that time grant of recognition for B.Ed. new course in UP state was banned and the institution did not submit certificate of Minority institution issued either by the Govt. of India or State Govt. of UP to declare the institution as minority institution to determine the eligibility of the institution for further consideration of the application for B.Ed. course. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, N.T. Degree College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/07/2012 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. Yogesh Kumar Boddh, Secretary, N.T. Degree College, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the trust & its promoters are under minority category. They are followers of Bodh religion, certificate to this effect had been issued by the Tehsildar Hasanpur, Distt. J.P. Nagar on 16/02/2012. As per acknowledgement receipt copy of the respondent (125) of the National population register the promoter Mr. Yogesh Kumar has been shown as Bodh (Minority). Copy of the family register issued by the Village Panchayat showed Nagli, another promoter is categorised as Bodh. Further the National Commission for Minority Education Institutions issued certificate to the applicant institution mentioning that N.T. Degree College run by Harlal Singh Memorial Educational and Welfare Trust is a Minority Institution. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that (a) NCTE vide their Public Notice dated interalia imposed restrictions not to grant recognition to B.Ed. course for the session in the state of Uttar Pradesh. However, this restriction was not applicable in case of Minority Educational Institutions established under Article 30 of the Constitution. (b) It further noted that National Commission for Minority Educational Institution vide their certificate dated declared N.T. Degree College as Minority Institution under Section 2(9) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act This certificate was not available with the institution at

9 the time of submission of application i.e. on and it was issued after the date of refusal of recognition. As per the public notice of NCTE only Minority institutions were eligible for submission of application for grant of recognition of B.Ed course in the state of U.P. The Council, therefore, concluded that there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and NRC order dated is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convener 1. The Secretary, N.T. Degree College, Plot No. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, Street No. 1, Village- Kamanpur (Dhakka), PO- Said Nagli, Tehsil/Taluka- Hasanpur,, Jyotiba Phule Nagar , 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, 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 Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

10 F.No /2012 Appeal/8th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /09/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Pradnyalok Adhyapak Vidhyalaya, Yavatmal, Maharashtra dated 20/07/2012 is against the Order No. WRC/WRCAPP1905/161ST/2012/90381 dated 16/05/2012 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground The institution has not replied to the show cause notice. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Pradnyalok Adhyapak Vidhyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/07/2012 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. Ashwaghosh A. Thamke, P.R.O., Pradnyalok Adhyapak Vidhyalaya, Yavatmal, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) they replied to the show cause notice by Speed Post vide transaction no. EM dated 27/01/2012 (The receipt of Indian Post is attached herewith) stating that the society was in possession of land on ownership basis since Copy of 7/12 abstract and land allotment letters were sent alongwith the reply. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that WRC vide their show cause notice dated informed the appellant that the institution was not in possession of land on ownership basis. The appellant sent his representation by speed post on , well within the 30 days time limit given by WRC. However, WRC s file does not contain the reply. The Council, therefore, concluded that there was adequate justification to remand the case to the WRC for consideration of show cause notice reply and for taking further decision thereafter. The institution is directed to send a copy of reply to show cause notice again to the WRC. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council

11 concluded that there was adequate ground to remand the case to the WRC for consideration of show cause notice reply and for taking further decision thereafter. The institution is directed to send a copy of reply to the show cause notice again to the WRC. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Pradnyalok Adhyapak Vidhyalaya, Yavatmal, Maharashtra to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above. (Vikram Sahay) Convener 1. The President, Pradnyalok Adhyapak Vidhyalaya, Village+PO. Mulawa, Tehsil- Urakhed,, Yavatmal , 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.

12 F.No /2012 Appeal/8th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /09/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri R.J. Patel College of Education, Ahmedabad, Gujarat dated 06/06/2012 is against the Order No. WRC/Code No. APW04212/323415/159/2012/87819 dated 20/03/2012 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds 1) As per NCTE norms 2005 any institution seeking recognition should be in possession of required land on the date of application either on ownership basis or on lease for a period of 30 years. There is no question of any advice from NCTE/ WRC on this issue. As such the contention on the part of the institution that they are at liberty to execute lease agreements in part is not acceptable and definitely not tenable in terms of the prescribed norms. The visiting team report clearly points out that the college is running in the premises meant for commercial purposes. The classrooms do not have adequate seating capacity, multipurpose hall is not as per NCTE norms, library is ill equipped etc. On perusal of the files right from initial recognition of the college, examining of the appeal orders from NCTE New Delhi, High Court Judgments delivered from time to time, it is concluded beyond doubt that the institution has failed to make up the deficiencies so recognition be withdrawn. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri R.J. Patel College of Edcuation (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/07/2012 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 not preferred within the stipulated period of 60 days as per Appeal Rules and it was late by 16 days. The appellant submitted the reasons of delay stating that they made DD of Rs.10,000 on , but due to unawareness of `online procedure there was six days delay in filing the appeal. The Council, considering the submission made by the appellant decided to condone the delay and examine the matter on merit. AND WHEREAS Shri. Mahesh Bhai Patel, Secretary and Shri. Hitesh Bhai Patel, President, Shri R.J. Patel College of Education, Ahmedabad, Gujarat presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) WRC issued show cause notice on saying that (i) the building is on 30 years lease in three phases which is not permissible, (ii) land is not in the name of institution/trust, (iii) size of the multipurpose hall and rooms are not as per the NCTE norms, and (iv) building plan is not approved; (b) the first point

13 mentioned in the show cause notice with regard to the leased building clearly destroyed the second point mentioned in the show cause notice itself. The land was on the lease basis for 30 years as per NCTE norms, hence the second point did not survive. Measurement of each room of the institution was submitted to the WRC at the time of recognition. The visiting team that visited institution verified on the spot size of each room. Building plan was approved, B.U. permission was granted, N.A. permission was also granted. WRC was wrong in saying that there is no provision under the NCTE Act, 1993 and the lease cannot be executed in different phases. The requirement was whether the institution had necessary building as per the norms prescribed by NCTE and the appellant institution full filled this requirement by taking building on 30 years lease in three phases. WRC did not point out this deficiency at the time of granting recognition. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) WRC vide order dated granted recognition to the institution; b) State Govt. of Gujarat on the basis of Prof. A.U. Patel Committee report, forwarded a list of 129 colleges including the appellant institution which were not adhering to the NCTE norms and standards; c) WRC caused an inspection of the institution on U/s 17 of the NCTE Act, and after issuing show cause notice on , withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated on the ground of inadequate infrastructure and other facilities; d) aggrieved by the decision of NCTE, the appellant society filed `Special Civil Application No.4866/2010 before the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad and the Court vide order dated disposed of a bunch of similar petitions inter-alia directing the petitioners to remove all the defects and conform to all the norms of NCTE, by and institutions after curing all the defects, not later than by , shall intimate to the NCTE that defects have been cured and invite the inspection team to carry out inspection. e) In compliance with the Court directions WRC caused an inspection of the institution on ; and after issuing a show cause notice on withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated on the ground as stated in Para 1 above. AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the appellant did not submit explanation against the withdrawal grounds in the appeal. He rather made submission against the grounds of show cause notice. So, the Council perused the records specifically with reference to the withdrawal grounds and noted that (a) that the appellant at the time of grant of recognition submitted notarized lease agreement dated (unregistered lease agreement has no legal sanctity for claiming ownership rights on the immovable property). After grant of recognition, the appellant trust executed 3 registered lease deeds from private parties for the premises known as Porsiddhi Complex P-II, viz lease deed dated for 5750 Sq.ft. (1250 Sq.ft. on first floor and 4500 Sq.ft. on second floor and 1000 Sq.mts. play ground), dated for Sq.mts. ( Sq.mt. on first floor, Sq.mts. on second floor and Sq.mt. staircase) and dated for Sq.mts. ( Sq.mt. on first floor, sq.mts. on second floor and rest balcony, staircase etc.). Lease deeds executed for building after coming into force Regulations 2007 were not acceptable. Further the entire building including the ground floor was not in their possession, as the lease was made for first and second floors of the building only. Therefore observation of WRC that

14 the institution was not in possession of land as required under NCTE norms was valid; (b) the building plan produced in the appeal mentioned that it was for shopping complex. The Visiting team mentioned that the ground floor was given for commercial activities. The appellant in the appeal admitted that Reliance outlet was there on ground floor. All these clearly established that the institution was functioning in the premises meant for commercial purpose; (c) the appellant did not make any submission with regard to the ground that the classrooms do not have adequate seating capacity, multipurpose hall is not as per NCTE norms and the library is ill equipped. The visiting team reported that the classroom did not have required seating capacity, multipurpose hall was of 1080 Sq.ft. (45x24 ft.) and library did not have adequate no. of journals and reference books. In the light of VT observation, WRC s refusal ground was valid; (d) Hon ble High Court of Gujarat vide their Order dated , set aside the earlier withdrawal order dated of WRC, and directed the institution to make up the deficiencies by 31st December 2010 as per NCTE norms. Despite these directions, the institution failed to meet the NCTE norms. The Council, therefore, concluded that there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and WRC order dated is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convener 1. The Principal/Secretary, Shri R.J. Patel College of Edcuation, Shri Mahakali Education Trust, Prasidhdhi-11, NR. DR. Ambedkar Hall, Saraspur,, Ahmedabad , Gujarat 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 Gujarat, Gandhinagar.

15 F.No /2012 Appeal/8th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /09/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Smt. D.A. Shukla College of Education, Ahmedabad, Gujarat dated nil received in the NCTE office on is against the Order No. WRC/APW04592/323445/147/2011/77436 dated 09/04/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds 1) The society acquired land from another society on rent for 99 years. The land deed is unregistered. 2) The society has handed over the college to another society for which there is no provision in the Regulations. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Smt. D.A. Shukla College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/07/2012 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 not preferred within the stipulated period of 60 days as per Appeal Rules and it was late by 1 year and 27 days. NCTE vide their notice dated requested the appellant to explain the reasons of delay before the Council on AND WHEREAS Shri. Dharini A Shukla, Secretary and Shri. Nilesh, Member, Smt. D.A. Shukla College of Education, Ahmedabad, Gujarat appeared before the Council on and explained the reasons of delay stating that the institution s recognition was withdrawn by the WRC vide order dated In the withdrawal Order, WRC did not mention about the provision of the appeal and the time limit for preferring the appeal. Against the withdrawal order they filed W.P. No. 6482/2011 before the Hon ble High Court on and the Court issued directions to the appellant to show original documents to WRC. Trustee showed the original documents to an employee of WRC, who told that the matter would be brought to the notice of Regional Director WRC. Later, they came to know that recognition was withdrawn. The trustees in despair, remained silent for some time. In 2012 when the students were asking for admission, they filed appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) WRC vide order dated granted recognition to the institution for conducting B.Ed. course; b) State Govt. of Gujarat on the basis of Prof. A.U. Patel Committee report, forwarded a list of 129 colleges including the appellant institution which were not adhering to the NCTE norms

16 and standards; c) thereafter WRC caused an inspection of the institution on U/s 17 of the NCTE Act, and after issuing show cause notice on , withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated d) aggrieved by the decision of NCTE, the appellant society approached Hon ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad. WRC in compliance with the Court directions caused inspection of the institution at old and new premises on and After issuing show cause notice on withdrew recognition of the institution on the grounds stated in para 1 above. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (a) WRC earlier vide their Order withdrew recognition of the institution, against which an appeal was preferred, and the Council vide order dated rejected the appeal. WRC by order dated 09/04/2011 up held their earlier withdrawal order. So, the contention of the appellant that they were not aware of the appeal remedy and time limit for filing it was not acceptable; (b) the appellant stated that they approached Hon ble High Court in W.P. NO.6482/2011. They did not produce either the writ petition or the Hon ble Court directions passed in this petition. So, the claim of the appellant with regard to issuance of direction by the Court and subsequent action taken by them was not acceptable; (c) the appellant, admitted that they remained in despair and filed appeal only in July This implied that the appellant was not serious to submit appeal after knowing from WRC that the institution s recognition was withdrawn. AND WHEREAS in view of the above, the Council concluded that the reasons adduced by the appellant for condoning the delay of 1 year 27 days were not acceptable and hence it decided not to admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby decides not to admit the appeal by condoning the delay. (Vikram Sahay) Convener 1. The Principal, Smt. D.A. Shukla College of Education, Swaminarayana Society, Opp. Phoolwadi, Isanpur,, Ahmedabad , Gujarat 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 Gujarat, Gandhinagar.

17 F.No /2012 Appeal/8th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /09/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Basaveshwar D.Ed.College, Bidar, Karnataka dated 26/06/2012 is against the Order No. APSO3986/D.Ed/KA/ /42133 dated 06/06/2012 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds Original certified copy of the land documents from Govt. authority is not submitted. Land should be in the name of the Society/institution as per NCTE norms. 2) Fresh approved blue print of the building plan from competent civil authority is not submitted. As per the Copy of building plan approved by the Commissioner, City Municipality, Basavakalyan Sanctioning the permission for construction from to has elapsed & Latest approved building plan from the competent civil authority is not submitted. 3) Building completion certificate from competent Govt. authorized engineer is not submitted. 4) The built up area as mentioned in questionnaire is sq.ft. which is less than sq.ft required as per NCTE norms. As per VTR, built up area is only 6432 sq.ft. which is very much less than sq.ft. 5) Notarised land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the purpose of educational institution only is not submitted. Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer not submitted for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purposes. 6) Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund from a Nationalised Bank in joint names not submitted. 7) Seating capacity in the library is only for 10 students, which is inadequate as per NCTE norms. As per norms seating capacity should be a minimum of 50 seats. 8) No documentary proof is submitted by the institution towards providing of additional seating capacity and purchase of books and journals to the library. No. of books in the library is insufficient. 9) As per VTR, Science lab, Psychology lab, ET lab & other labs/physical Education labs are not available. The institution has admitted the same in its reply to the show cause notice. 10) Deficiency pertaining to labs, Halls and library remains as it is and the institution is stated in their reply that 6 months is required to complete the construction and building is incomplete. 11) The institution has not submitted any proof towards for not running of other programmes in the same building/premises. Running of PUC, Science, Arts, Commerce in the same building is not permissible as per NCTE norms. 12) Salary paid by cash is not as per Central/State Govt/UGC norms. 13) The institution has stated in its reply that they are not in a position to pay either State/Central/UGC pay scales to the staff. 14) The principal is not appointed with qualification as per NCTE norms. 15) Qualified lecturers are not appointed as per NCTE Norms. 16) The institution has not given any reply towards deficiency regarding the total land area mentioned in non-encumbrance certificate is not matching with Affidavit, Building plan and building completion certificate. 17) The institution has constantly violated NCTE norms all through its

18 existence and has failed to shift to its own building even after the expiry of time granted by appellate authority of NCTE. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Basaveshwar D.Ed.College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/06/2012 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. Gundappa M. Secretary, and Shri. Dhanaraj T, Director, Basaveshwar D.Ed.College, Bidar, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) certified copies of the land documents from Govt. Authority i.e. by Sub Registrar of Basavakalyan were submitted. The land is in the name of the society i.e. Basava Teerth Vidya Peeth as per NCTE norms;(b) the approved blue print of the building plan from the competent Civil Authority i.e. by concerned Town Planning Officer, and CMC Basavakalyan was submitted. The attested copy of the permission for construction by the CMC Commissioner was also submitted to the SRC within the time. The question of elapse of time period for building construction did not arise as no letter has been received from the City Municipality so far. (Original blue print of building plan and a copy of the permission for construction are enclosed ); (c) the original building completion certificate from competent Govt. authorized engineer was submitted. (Original building completion certificate is enclosed).; (d) they Completed construction of the building with sq ft. Area The concerned authorized Engineer measured plinth area of the construction and mentioned the built-up area as 8600 sq.ft. and not 6432 sq.fts. as mentioned in VT report; (e) land use certificate issued by Town planning officer in original is enclosed; (f) original FDR for Rs. 5 Lacks towards endowment fund from Nationalized Bank i.e. SBI, Mudbi in joint name are submitted; (g) adequate seating capacity in the library would be made as per norms shortly; (h) in the library at present 781 books are there and required number of additional books would be purchased and made available in the library;(i) Science lab, Psychology lab, ET Lab and Physical Education Labs would be made available. At present they are having all materials as per needs of the trainees. The same would be fulfilled as per norms;(j) if six months more time would be given they can complete remaining portion of the building; (k) no other programme was run in the building except D.Ed Course;(l) necessary arrangement would be made to pay the salary of the staff as per State Govt. norms. The Principal is appointed with MA, M/Ed qualification and having 05yrs teaching experience as per NCTE norms itself. The qualified lecturers are also appointed. The DIET Bidar has approved the staff. (Staff list duly approved by the DIET, Bidar is enclosed).(m) the total land purchased by the society is 04 Acres, out of this 02 Acres 25 Guntas land is converted for non agriculture. So, building plan and building completion certificate mentioned 02 Acres 25 Guntas of land. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (a) the institution was granted recognition by the SRC vide Order dated in rented premises with a condition to shift to own premises within 3 years of recognition; (b) the State Govt. of Karnataka

19 recommended NCTE for withdrawal of the recognition of the institution as it was lacking infrastructural, instructional facilities and staff. On the basis of these recommendations, SRC caused inspection of the institution U/s 17 of the NCTE Act on , after issuing show cause notice, it withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated Against SRC s order, the institution preferred appeal and the Appellate Authority vide their order dated restored recognition of the institution and directed it to shift to its own premises before 2nd February 2009; (c) the institution vide their letter dated made a proposal for shifting of the institution to its own premises at Khadi Zauda Muchalaub Road, Basavakalyan, Bidar (Dist.) and alongwith this letter submitted DD of R. 40,000/- towards shifting fee. Further vide letters dated and reminded SRC about inspection of its own/ new premises. Inspection of the own/ new premises of the institution was caused by SRC on 29-30th December On the basis of the inspection report SRC issued show cause notice and subsequently withdrew recognition of the institution on the grounds as stated in Para 1 above. AND WHEREAS the Council specifically with regard to withdrawal grounds noted that (a) certified copies of the registered land documents were not submitted to the SRC, but now in the appeal they are submitted; (b) the Commissioner, City Municipality gave permission for construction of the building within a year i.e to with an area of Sq.ft. on first floor ( Sq.ft. building & Sq.ft. passage) and Sq.ft. on ground floor ( Sq.ft. building & Sq.ft. passage). The appellant did not complete the construction of the building as per approved plan within the sanctioned period. This was evident from the VTR dated 29-30th December 2011, as it mentioned availability of 6432 Sq.ft. of built-up area only. The appellant admitted in the appeal that Sq.ft. of area was constructed and construction was in progress so as to provide a total built-up area of 16,000 Sq.ft. as per norms. The building completion certificate issued on by the Municipal Commissioner mentioned 8600 Sq.ft. of built-up area only. Therefore, it was established that the appellant did not complete the construction of its own building as per NCTE norms (i.e. with a built up area of 1500 sq.mt.) even after the stipulated time period (February 2009) given by the Appellate Authority; (c) the appellant admitted in the appeal that seating capacity in the rooms, books in the library and equipment in the labs would be made good/strengthened, which implied that the institution lacked instructional facilities as on the date of appeal consideration also; (d) the appellant did not produce selection committee minutes and documents pertaining to academic qualifications and teaching experience to ascertain their appointment as per NCTE norms. In view of the above, the Council concluded that there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC s order dated is confirmed.

20 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convener 1. The Correspondent, Basaveshwar D.Ed.College, Basava Teertha Vidya Peeth, Resori Building, Basavalakyan,, Bidar -, Karnataka 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 Karnataka, Bangalore.

21 F.No /2012 Appeal/8th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /09/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of College of Education, Nanded, Maharashtra dated 06/07/2012 is against the Order No. WRC/APW05998/125112/123127/160/2012/90078 dated 09/05/2012 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting M.Ed (m)(co-ed) course on the ground A clarification was sought from the institution on 03/03/2011 to which it has not replied till date. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/07/2012 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. G.S. Methe, Treasurer, College of Education, Nanded, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) a perusal of the letter/approval given by the office of Divisional Joint Director (Higher Education), Nanded, Govt. of Maharashtra clearly showed that the allegation of qualification of the teaching staff of the institution not being valid was unfounded and unsubstantiated; that after a request was made by the Appellant vide letter dated 10/12/2011 to the Jt. Director, for filling of posts for the year , the office of the Jt. Director after due consideration approved the qualification held by the teaching staff of the Appellant- Institution; (b) that the alleged letter dated 03/03/2011 seeking clarification from the appellant-institution about the teaching experience and list of staff was not received by the appellant-institution till date and therefore the question of replying to the said letter did not arise. The impugned order dated 09/05/2012 was received by the appellant only on 18/05/2012; (c) that the Appellant-institution had also submitted the list of its teaching staff alongwith their qualification to the WRC on receipt of the letter dated 25/06/2010 seeking clarification on the teaching experience of the professors. The appellant-institution has also filled the vacant post of Principal in accordance with the letter of Educational Secretary, Divisional Office, Nanded Govt. of Maharashtra and has advertised for the vacant post of associate professor in a Daily Newspaper as per Rules and Norms. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that WRC vide their letter dated informed the institution for submission of the list of staff duly approved by the University within 30 days. When the institution did not submit any reply, WRC had rightly refused recognition. the Council further observed that as per Regulations 2009, the M.Ed.