NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Transcription

1 F.No /2012 Appeal/5th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Alipurduar Ashutosh B.Ed College, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal dated 26/03/2012 is against the Order No. ERC/ (iii).22/2012/10626 dated 12/03/2012 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds 1) Certified copy of the registered land document not submitted. 2) The building plan is not signed by the Competent Authority. As per the building plan, the size of the multipurpose hall is less than NCTE norms. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Alipurduar Ashutosh B.Ed College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 28/03/2012 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. K.C. Bastia, and Shri. Gautam Dey, Secretary, Alipurduar Ashutosh B.Ed College, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) the land had been registered in the name of the college and a copy of the letter from the Sub- Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri, (who is the Appropriate authority) dt. 12/07/2011 was already submitted to the ERC. The certified copy of the land document is enclosed with the appeal; (b) the building plan submitted by the institution to the ERC was signed by the Competent Authority i.e. Pradhan & Asstt. Engineer of P.W.D., Alipurduar Sub-Division, Dist. Jalpaiguri. As per the building plan the size of Multipurpose Hall was more than 2000 sq. ft. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (a) ERC vide their show cause notice dated informed the institution that certified copy of the registered land documents issued by Additional District Sub-Registrar was not submitted; the building plan was not approved by the Competent Govt. Authority and in building plan size of multipurpose hall was less than required (2000 sq.ft); (b) the appellant vide letter dated informed ERC that they were in the process of obtaining the said documents from the Competent Authority and requested for giving some time for submitting the same; and (c) when the institution did not furnish the required documents, the ERC refused recognition on the grounds as mentioned in the show cause notice. AND WHEREAS in addition to the above, the Council noted that the appellant vide their letter dated informed West Bengal State Council of Higher Education that the institution building was under construction and requested for atleast 6 months for completing the construction work. Even in the appeal the appellant admitted that the building is not yet ready. AND WHEREAS in view of the above, the Council concluded that there was no justification to accept the appeal as the appellant did not submit the documents related to land and building plan, as required by the ERC.

2 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 ERC s order dated is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, Alipurduar Ashutosh B.Ed College, Plot No. 205, 206, 207, 208, Street No.- Volka Road, Village-Khatopara, PO- Bindipara (Salsalabari), Tehsil/Taluka- Samuktala, Town/City- Alipurduar,, Jalpaiguri , 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.

3 F.No /2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal dated of Brown College of Education, Gwalior Dist, Madhya Pradesh dated preferred against the Order No. WRC/APWO4827/223542/112th/2008/49085 dated 22/12/2008 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed (Co-Ed) course was rejected by the Council vide Order dated on the grounds the institution has taken lease of the land and building from another society which was not permissible and the lease deed was dated when lease from private parties was not permissible as per the NCTE norms. Further, the Council noted that the building plan submitted was in respect of a higher secondary school and not in respect of the proposed Brown College of Education. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Brown College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/02/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the decision of the Council the appellant approached Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in W.P. No.635/2010 and the Hon ble Court vide their Order dated disposed of the petition inter-alia observing that Admittedly, when the petitioner submitted its application i.e. on , the Regulations of 2005 were applicable and the petitioner submitted the lease deed of a private party. Hence, in our opinion, the petitioner had fulfilled the aforesaid condition. The Appellate Authority has not noticed the aforesaid legal aspect of the provision in regard to ground of deficiencies mentioned in the order of the Appellate Authority. The map submitted by the petitioner is in regard to the building of the brown College of Education. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is contrary to law and facts. Consequently, the order passed by the Appellate authority, Is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the appeal in accordance with law. In Compliance with the Court directions the case was listed for hearing on before the Council. AND WHEREAS Shri. Anurag Mohan Gupta and Shri. Ramakant Gupta, Trustees presented the case of the appellant institution on stating that (a) they submitted a notarized lease agreement alongwith the application dated WRC issued a show cause notice on inter-alia stating that lease deed was not registered. The appellant replied to WRC stating that the lease deed was registered on At the time of submission of application Regulations 2005 were in vogue and as per the Regulations lease taken from private party was permissible; (b) the appellant society acquired functional building of another society i.e. Ebnezer Shiksha Samiti (where a Ebnezer Higher Secondary School was being run). Therefore the building plan submitted in the appeal was titled for Ebnezer Higher Secondary School.

4 AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (a) the appellant alongwith the application submitted a notarized lease agreement dated between Ebnezer Shiksha Samiti and the appellant society (Shubham Swashthya and Shikshan Lok Sansthan). Regulations 2005 were in force at the time of submission of application and as per these Regulations, lease taken from private party was permissible. However, the appellant did not submit any legally valid registered lease deed. He had only submitted notarized lease agreement dated , with the application; (b) the appellant executed registered lease deed on for 30 years w.e.f Regulation 2007 were in vogue on the date of registration of lease deed and as per these Regulations lease taken from private party was not permissible. Retrospective validity cannot be given to the lease deed dated (w.e.f ) and accepted with reference to Regulations Therefore the land and building taken on lease from private party on was not acceptable as per the extant Regulations. The Council, therefore concluded that there was no justification 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) Convenor 1. The Principal, Brown College of Education, GL - 7,8, Shrasti Appartment, Kherapati Road, Gwalior Dist. -, 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.

5 F.No /2011 Appeal/3rd Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of C.R. College of Education, Mahendergarh, Haryana dated 26/09/2011 is against the Order No. HR-1741/ dated 08/03/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds 1) Land documents had not been submitted as required under clause 8(7) of Regulations ) Affidavit of Rs. 100 stamp paper on prescribed format has not been submitted as required under clause 8(8) of Regulations ) The Institution has not submitted copy of approved building plan as required under clause 8(10) of the regulations ) The Institution has not submitted permission letter from the competent authority to use the land for educational purpose as required under the clause 8(8) of regulation ) FDR of Rs. Five Lacs as endowment fund and FDR of Rs. Three lacs as Reserve fund in the name of Institution has not been submitted as required under clause 10(1) of regulations ) The Institution has not submitted application in prescribed format as required under clause 5(1) of NCTE regulation AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, C.R. College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 26/09/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. O.P. Yadav, Chairman, C.R. College of Education, Mahendergarh, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the order dated 08/03/2009 passed by NRC is bad in law for the simple reason that it did not issue any show cause notice providing opportunity for making a representation before rejecting the application of the appellant. The appellant also submitted that the NRC did not issue any deficiency letter before finally closing the file. Regulation 7 (1) of the NCTE Regulations 2007 requires the NRC to point out the deficiencies if any within the stipulated period to enable the institution to remove the same within the stipulated time frame. The appellant had submitted application on 22/07/2008 for academic session and due to inaction on the part of the NRC for substantial period and arbitrary action for the rest of the period, the Appellant has already lost three sessions namely ; and AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the filing of appeal is delayed by two years, four months and seven days beyond the prescribed time limit of 60 days. The appellant approached the Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi through WPC No.9067 of 2008 and Cont. CAS(c) 119/2010 and in latter petition the Hon ble High Court in their Order dated directed that in case appeal is filed before the Appellant Authority, the Appellate Authority shall consider the request of the petitioner and condone the delay in filing appeal.

6 AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that after a lapse of 1 year 2 months and 10 days from the Court directions, the appellant made application for condonation of delay on stating that the Chairman was admitted in Apollo Hospital, New Delhi for about two months in Sept-Nov. 2009; the doctors advised complete bed rest for quite long time; due to illness he was not aware of the Court s Order dated ; it was only in the first week of July 2011 when the Chairman discussed with his Counsel, he was appraised about the Court s Order; he got the DD prepared for filing of appeal on ; and again he was advised complete bed rest by the doctors. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant has not submitted any medical certificates advising him bed rest indicating therein the duration on different occasions. In the course of personal presentation in reply to a query as to why any other office bearer of the Society did not file an appeal during the Chairman s illness, the appellant stated that none of them was conversant with the matter. The appellant in his letter dated stated that he had not brought all the relevant papers and requested for another opportunity to submit the relevant documents. His request was acceded to. AND WHEREAS Shri. Naveen Kumar and O.P. Yadav, Member of Management again appeared before the Council on He submitted two bills issued by Fortis Hospital, Mohali dated and indicating that Shri O. P. Yadav was admitted in the hospital on and discharged on and again admitted on and discharged on He also submitted a certificate dated issued by Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, New Delhi certifying that Shri O. P. Yadav was admitted twice in that hospital from to and again from to and was advised bed rest for 6 months. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that these short spells during which Shri Yadav remained admitted in the hospitals and medical advice of 6 months bed rest do not cover the entire period of delay in the submission of appeal, which is two years, four months and seven days from the date of issue of NRC s order and 1 year 2 months and 10 days from the date of Court judgment. The Appellant s submission that he was appraised of the Court order in the first week of July 2011 and none of the office bearers were conversant with the matter cannot be considered as valid grounds for delayed appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council, in view of the above concluded that the reasons adduced by the appellant for condonation of delay of two years, four months and seven days were not acceptable and hence it decided not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, The Council hereby decides not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Principal/Correspondent, C.R. College of Education, Near Moti Cinema, Mahendergarh,, Mahendergarh -, Haryana 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

7 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.

8 F.No.89-92/2012 Appeal/5th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Chanakya Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Ahmedabad, Gujarat dated 06/01/2012 is against the Order No. WRC/323083/154/2011/82839 dated 10/11/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds 1) The institution has contravened the clause 7(d) of the NCTE Regulations Norms & Standards, ) The institution was not having land on lease for 30 years or on ownership basis at the time of application. 3) Principal not appointed till date. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Chanakya Shikshan Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/02/2012 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. Harshad Kumar A. Patel, Managing Trustee, Chanakya Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Ahmedabad, Gujarat presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) the withdrawal order was passed without hearing the representative of the Institute, despite prayer for personal hearing. As per High Court directions the institute had proceeded for purchasing land and necessary action regarding construction of building would be taken thereafter. The Hon ble Court had given six months time to make the deficiencies as per NCTE norms. Within this period it would not be possible for anybody to purchase land, convert the land, obtain approval of building plan, construct the building with necessary facilities at the new premises; (b) It was further stated that two members of appellant trust namely Harshad Patel and Rakesh G. Patel purchased the agriculture land in the year 2010 and 2011, who inturn made an application to the Competent Govt. Authority for transferring the land in the name of the trust. But as on the date of appeal consideration, land has not been transferred in the name of the trust; (c) At the time of application the appellant submitted only notarised lease deed; (d) Presently the appellant institution was being run in the same leased premises on the second floor of a multi-storey building; (e) the appellant institution appointed a Principal in the year 2003 but he did not join. Since, then, they have been making efforts for appointing a Principal, but could not find a suitable candidate.. 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 one month and 12 days. The appellant submitted the reasons for delay stating that they had already prepared the documents and made demand draft of Rs. 10,000/- on , for filing an appeal within time limit. But due to a mistake as the part of office, the same could not be submitted within the time limit. The Council considering the reasons submitted by the appellant decided to condone the delay and examine the matter on merit, as the appellant case had arisen as a result of the Gujarat Court matter.

9 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) 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 on the ground that land documents are not registered. d) aggrieved by the decision of NCTE, the appellant society filed `Special Civil Application No.6586/2009 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 AND WHEREAS the Council observed that (a) Clause 7(d) of the norms and standards of B.Ed. course stipulated that the management/institution shall, at the time of making application, have in its possession adequate land/land and building on ownership basis free from all encumbrances or on long term lease from Govt./Govt. institution; (b) the Hon ble Court vide their Order dated directed the institution to remove all the deficiencies by as per the norms and standards and Regulations of NCTE that existed as on the date of recognition. The institution was granted recognition on , hence Regulations 2002 are applicable. As per the extant Regulations the institution should have land either on ownership basis or on long term lease from Govt. The appellant has admitted that they are in the process of procuring/transferring land in the name of the trust on ownership basis and therefore the appellant failed to comply with the Hon ble Court s directions; (c) The appellant also admitted that he submitted notarized lease agreement at the time of making application. The notarized lease deed has no legal sanctity for claiming ownership rights on the immovable property, as it was not registered. Therefore first two withdrawal grounds of WRC were valid; and (d) the appellant had also admitted that the institution, had been functioning without Principal since its inception and hence the last ground of withdrawal was also valid. AND WHEREAS in view of the above the Council concluded that there was no justification to accept the appeal and the Order of the WRC dt be confirmed.. 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 s order dated is confirmed.

10 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Managing Trustee, Chanakya Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Near Shambhavi complex, Opp. Nityanandini Soc. Janta Nagar Road, Ghatlodia,, 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.

11 F.No /2012 Appeal/5th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Crystal Teachers Training Institute, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh dated 12/03/2012 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/WRCAPP1098/158/2012/86859 dated 17/02/2012 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds 1) The existing building does not match with the building plan submitted at the time of application. 2) Size of multipurpose hall is not as per the NCTE norms. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Crystal Teachers Training Institute, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/03/2012 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. Pushpendra Singh Gautam, Director and Shri. S.K. Mishra, Member, Crystal Teachers Training Institute, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) the institution submitted approved building plan at the time of application and the building of the institution was constructed as per the approved plan. The village panchayat issued completion certificate mentioning that the building was constructed as per the approved plan. At the time of inspection the VT verified this building; and (b) that the institution constructed 2000 Sq.ft. multipurpose hall (40x50=2000 sq.ft.). This hall had been shown in the approved map also. AND WHEREAS the Council noted from the visiting team report dated that (a) the figure mentioned against the `total built-up area had been obliterated with erasing fluid and another figure Sq.mt. is mentioned. Further the multipurpose hall mentioned by the VT was Sq.mt. and the hall mentioning this dimension is not shown in the map submitted by the institution. For that matter the plan does not mention dimension of any of the rooms of the building. (b) WRC did not specify in which way the existing building does not match with plan submitted at the time of application. However in the light of non-availability of area dimensions of the rooms in the building plan and also tampering noted with regard to built-up area, the Council concluded there was adequate justification in remanding the matter to the WRC for causing re-inspection of the institution after obtaining fee of Rs.40,000 from the institution. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that there was adequate ground to remand the case to the WRC for causing re-inspection of the institution after obtaining fee of Rs.40,000 from the institution.

12 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Crystal Teachers Training Institute,, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, Crystal Teachers Training Institute,, Khasra No. 66/1, Street Satai Road, Village- Guraiya, PO- Chhatarpur,, Chhatarpur , 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.

13 F.No /2011 Appeal/5th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of D.M. College of Education, Rohtak, Haryana dated NIL received in the office of NCTE on is against the Order No. F.7-13/NRC/ /71653 dated 17/03/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed/ETT/JBT course on the grounds The NRC in its 134th Meeting held on 20th- 22nd November,2008, having considered the recommendations of State Govt. of Haryana and contents of Hqtrs. letter No /2007/NCTE (N&S) date 01/10/2008 and Public Notice dated 01/10/2008 by the NCTE Hqtrs. And the NCTE letter dated 31/10/2008 and after being satisfied that D.Ed/JBT teachers are in surplus in the State of Haryana, has decided not to consider the applications of D.Ed/JBT Teacher Training course for the academic session and close all such files. It is also decided to return all pending applications along with the documents to the institution concerned along with processing fees. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, D.M. College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/11/2011 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 aggrieved by the decision of NRC, the appellant society filed W.P. No. 4072/2009 before the Hon able High court of Rajasthan at Jaipur and the Court vide order dated disposed of the petition directing that in case the petitioner files an appeal before the Appellate authority, the authority shall pass an order in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The Petitioner thereafter filed appeal which was received in the NCTE on AND WHEREAS Shri. Sukhbir, Chairman, D.M. College of Education, Rohtak, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the order of the NRC was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not sustainable in eyes of the law, as some other institutions had been granted permission in the year ; the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions required for the permission of the course; the institution was running the course since 2 years prior to the session ; the appellant would suffer irreparable loss if the permission was not granted as the appellant had invested a lot of money in the construction of the building and developing infrastructure. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of the appeal was delayed by 2 years, 5 months and 17 days beyond the permissible period of 60 days. It was even late by 2 year, 1 month and 17 days from the date of Court judgement. The appellant in his letter dated submitted that the delay was on account of controversy in the

14 management committee and the controversy was resolved, the members resigned and new members were elected and thereafter they filed the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council, therefore, concluded that the reasons adduced by the appellant for condonation of delay of two years, four months and seventeen days were not acceptable and hence it decided not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, The Council hereby decides not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The President, D.M. College of Education, Ishwar Education Society, Kharkara, Pno , 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.

15 F.No /2012 Appeal/5th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Seth Gagan Das Smriti Girls College, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh dated 22/03/2012 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/NRCAPP-465/192ND MEETING/2011/15061 dated 03/01/2012 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds The institution did not complete three academic sessions of B.Ed. course on the date of submission of application for D.El.Ed. course as required under clause 8(3) of NCTE Regulations, AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Seth Gagan Das Smriti Girls College, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/03/2012 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. Ravi Manohar Manwani, Manager and Shri. OM Prakash, Clerk, Seth Gagan Das Smriti Girls College,, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a)the appellant institution submitted application to the NRC for grant of recognition of D.El.Ed. course on The institution was having sq.mt of builtup area on 3 floors of a building and this area was more than NCTE norms. The institution removed all the deficiencies pointed by the NRC and provided all necessary infrastructural and instructional facilities. (b) With regard to the refusal ground the appellant submitted that he submitted application for B.Ed. course on When the institution did not get recognition, even after two years of submission of application for B.Ed. course, he submitted an application for D.El.Ed. course on At the time of submission of application for D.El.Ed. course, the appellant had filed an appeal with NCTE for B.Ed. course. Recognition to the B.Ed. course was granted by NRC only on Therefore on the date of submission of application for D.El.Ed. course, the institution was not having recognition for B.Ed. course, hence clause 8(3) of Regulation 2009 were not applicable. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that as per Clause 8(3) of Regulations 2009 an institution can submit application for additional course after completion of 3 academic sessions of conducting a recognized teacher training course. Eventhough, the institution did not have recognition for B.Ed. course, at the time of submission of application for D.El.Ed. course on , recognition for B.Ed. course was granted by NRC on The institution has not yet completed even one academic session of B.Ed. course. Hence, their application for D.El.Ed. course U/s 15 of the NCTE Act cannot be considered for grant of recognition unless three academic sessions of B.Ed. course have been completed as per provisions contained under Clause 8(3) of Regulations. The Council, therefore concluded that there was no justification to accept the appeal.

16 AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering 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 s order dated is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Manager., Seth Gagan Das Smriti Girls College,, Seth Gagan Das Smriti Samiti, 117/N/05, M.B.M. House Raniganj N-Block, Kakadeo, Kanpur, Kanpur , 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.

17 F.No.89-94/2012 Appeal/ 5th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Saraswathi Teacher Training Institute, Trichy, Tamilnadu dated 21/02/2012 is against the Order No. APSO3084/D.T.ED-Al/TN/ /34398 dated 22/12/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed & D.T.Ed-Al course on the grounds 1) The management is running APSO-3084-D.T.Ed & APSO-5012-D.T.Ed, in a multistorey building with ground floor + two floors. A certificate from the Government Affiliating body to the effect that no other programme is being run/shared by the institution in the same building/campus, along with the existing courses is not submitted. 2) The management has not submitted the notarized Affidavit. 3) The Building Completion Certificate from a Competent Govt. Engineer in the prescribed format is not submitted. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Saraswathi Teacher Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/02/2012 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. D. R. Dharamaraj, Correspondent, Sri Saraswathi Teacher Training Institute, Trichy, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) the appellant institution had been granted recognition by the SRC vide orders dated with effect from for basic unit and dated for additional unit of D.T.Ed. course; (b) SRC, upon request through a written representation for shifting of premises by the appellant institution, after due notice, caused composite inspection of the new premises on (c) Subsequently SRC issued show cause notice dated U/s 17 of the NCTE Act, pointing out certain irregularities/defects. The appellant sought time for compliance of the defects pointed out. Again SRC, sent final show cause notice dated The appellant institution sent a reply on removing all the defects except that of providing a certificate from the Govt. Affiliating Body to the effect that no other programme was being run/shared by the appellant institution in the same multistorey building/new campus alongwith the existing courses. Even this one point uncovered by the Appellant institution was beyond their power, as the said certificate had to be given by the Govt. Authority. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (a) the visiting team in their report dated inter-alia mentioned availability of 2638 sq.mts. of built-up area in a multistorey building exclusively for D.T.Ed. course and that no other programme was run in that building. Further the appellant in his reply dated informed SRC that they had applied to DTERT, Chennai for issuance of a Certificate mentioning that no other programme was being run in the appellant institution s building; (b) SRC vide their notices dated and informed the institution that in the affidavit, the built-up space was not mentioned and not duly filled up. The appellant in reply submitted duly filled in notarized affidavit dated on Rs.50/- stamp paper mentioning the built-up area; (c) the appellant in reply to

18 the show cause notice dated submitted building completion certificate issued on by the Executive Engineer, PWD, which mentioned detailed information about construction approval, location and floor wise built-up area etc. AND WHEREAS in view of the above, the Council concluded that there was adequate justification for restoration of the recognition to the institution subject to submission of certificate of D.T.E.R.T to the SRC. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that there was adequate justification for restoration of recognition to the institution subject to submission of certificate from DTERT to the SRC. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Sri Saraswathi Teacher Training Institute, No. 402, Pallividal Village, Samayapuram Post,, Trichy, Tamilnadu to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Correspondent, Sri Saraswathi Teacher Training Institute, No. 402, Pallividal Village, Samayapuram Post,, Trichy , 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.

19 F.No /2011 Appeal/3rd Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Swa. Dharma Shiksha Evam Samaj Kalyan Sansthan, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/WRCAPP1312/152nd/2011/ dated 10/02/2012 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground CLU not submitted. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Swa. Dharma Shiksha Evam Samaj Kalyan Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/10/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Ajay Pratap Singh Chauhan, Secretary, Swa. Dharma Shiksha Evam Samaj Kalyan Sansthan, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that CLU order dated 06/10/2009 was already submitted with the application and also sent in reply to show cause notice. It was further submitted that the appellant institution was in possession of Hect. of land (0.564 Hect. at Sy.No.99/2 and Hect. at Sy.No.99/3). The institution building was constructed on the land at these Sy.Nos. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant submitted two `CLU documentsone issued on for Sq.ft. (0.209 Hect.) of land at Sy.No.98. This document was not acceptable because, the appellant did not construct building for the proposed course on the land at Sy.no. 98. The other CLU issued on for Sq.ft. of land at Sy.No.99/2 and 99/3 and this Sq.ft. of land was diverted for education purpose much after the date of submission of application i.e. on and hence it was not acceptable. When the Council brought this to the notice of the appellant, he claimed that the rest of the land at Sy.No.99/2 and 99/3 was converted for education purpose in the year itself. However he could not show any document in support of his claim and sought another date. The Council acceding to the request of the appellant decided to list the case for hearing on a subsequent date. Accordingly the case was listed for hearing on AND WHEREAS Dr. Ajay Pratap Singh Chauhan, Secretary appeared before the Council on and showed the Council Notice Prapatr B for sq.ft. of land at Sy.No. 99/2 and 99/3 and requested for giving another opportunity for submission of CLU issued u/s 172(1) of Land Revenue Act of Madhya Pradesh. Acceding to the request of the institution the Council decided to list the case on a subsequent date. Accordingly NCTE issued a notice dated requesting the appellant to appear before the Council on for presenting their appeal matter. The appellant (Secretary of the Trust) vide their letter dated informed NCTE that he was not able to appear before the Council due to Gastro enteritis and requested for giving another opportunity.

20 AND WHEREAS the Council after considering all aspects of the matter decided that the appellant is directed to submit the CLU in respect of sq.ft land in Survey Nos. 99/2 and 99/3 stated to have been converted for educational purpose in latest by the 30th June 2012, failing which the appeal shall stand rejected. NOW THEREFORE, The Council hereby directs the appellant to submit the CLU in respect of sq.ft land in Survey Nos. 99/2 and 99/3 stated to have been converted for educational purpose in latest by the 30th June 2012, failing which the appeal shall stand rejected. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, Swa. Dharma Shiksha Evam Samaj Kalyan Sansthan, Khasra No. 98, 99/2, 99/3, Plot no. 98, Kharia Modia, PO- Bada Gaon, Tehsil- Morar,, Gwalior , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

21 F.No /2012 Appeal/ 5th Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Trident B.Ed College, Bhojpur, Bihar dated 27/02/2012 is against the Order No. ERC/ (i).13/2011/8903 dated 14/10/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, granting recognition for conducting B.Ed. course from the academic session The institution in their appeal requested for grant of recognition from the session AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Trident B.Ed College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/02/2012 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 appellant filed a writ petition No.201 of 2012 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the Hon ble Court vide their judgement dated disposed of the petition inter-alia observing that A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the respondents from the impugned order dated 14/10/2011 stating at Paragraph-8 that if the petitioner was aggrieved with the same he could prefer an appeal under section 18 of the NCTE Act. If the petitioner files such appeal within 30 days from today, considering that the impugned order was passed on 14/10/2011, the writ application filed on 19/12/2011, the time limit for preferring the Appeal being 60 days, Section 18(2) providing for condonation of delay, the appeal shall be considered and decided without going into issues of limitation. AND WHEREAS the appellant was asked to present the case before the Council on , and also on giving three opportunities as per Appeal Rules. As nobody appeared on all the occasions, the Council decided to dispose of the appeal on the basis of written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed with it and the ones available in WRC s file. AND WHEREAS the appellant in his appeal memorandum stated that (a) ERC vide letter dt informed them to remove certain deficiencies within 60 days; (b) after complying with the deficiencies, ERC took four months to inform the appellant that the institution would be inspected by a team of experts. Inspection took place after six months of communication on ; (c) after 5 months of the inspection by expert committee, ERC vide letter dt issued a letter of intent under Clause 7(9) of Regulation. Compliance of the 7(9) was fulfilled well before the stipulated time.; (d) after the compliance of 7(9), they had been issued a show cause notice on informing that there was deficiency of one more language teacher other than Hindi teacher & one Science teacher; list of teachers in the prescribed format countersigned by the affiliating university and also appointment letters of all the faculty member were not submitted to ERC. ERC in their 119th meeting held on 8th to 10th June 2011 in which without any short fall, served them show cause notice. Because of this delayed process ERC forced them to

22 commence course from academic session. whereas ERC in the same meeting had given recognition from academic session to certain other institutions. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that (a) the Regulations of the NCTE lay down the procedure in a sequential manner and stage by stage processing of applications, conduct of inspections, issue of letters of intent under Clause 7(9) and grant of formal recognition under Clause 7(11) after fulfilling all the conditions laid down for grant of recognition.(b) It is noted that the ERC followed this procedure and considered this matter in their various meetings and decided to grant recognition in their 125th meeting held on September, 2011, when it could be admissible for the academic session only. The Regional Committees grant recognition for prospective academic sessions and not retrospectively. (c) In this connection the Council noted that the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in their order dated in Civil Appeal No.104 of SLP (c) No of 2009 have directed that the recognition granted by the Regional Committee under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted under Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e., from the date of communication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be. AND WHEREAS the Council after taking into account all aspects of the matter as mentioned above came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of ERC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and ERC s order dated is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Vikram Sahay) Convenor 1. The Secretary, Trident B.Ed College, Vill/PO-Gidha, Tehsil- Bhojpur, Town/City- Arra,, Bhojpur , 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.

23 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /06/2012 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Vishwadarshini College of Education, Trivandrum, Kerala dated 14/07/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010/19542 dated 25/06/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds: 1) The total built-up area of sq.ft. is not as per NCTE norms since the institution is already having TTC course in the same building. As per NCTE norms, 3000 sq.mtrs. of built up area is required for running B.Ed. and D.Ed.(TTC) course. 2) Science lab, Psychology lab and E.T. lab are not equipped sufficiently as per NCTE norms. 3) Language learning lab is not available. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Vishwadarshini College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/07/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council rejected the appeal of the institution vide order dated on the grounds an inspection team that visited the institution on recorded that the whole building is earmarked for the proposed course and Teacher Training Institute is run separately. However the Council noted that the appellant has produced copies of two building completion certificates, which contradict each other. Whereas one certificate dt enclosed to the application indicates the total built up area as sq. mts. another also dt enclosed to the appeal indicates the total built up area as sq. mts, even though the actual figures total up to only to sq. mts. which means that the total figure seems to be tampered, the total built up area in these certificates is less than the area required as per NCTE Norms, i.e sq. mts. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the decision of the Council the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon ble High Court of the Kerala at Ernakulum and the Court vide order dated disposed of the petition with the direction to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal with the notice to the petitioner and decide the case within eight weeks of production of the certified copy of the judgement. Further the petitioner may produce the building completion certificate (Ext. p.14) before the appellate authority when the matter is reconsidered. In compliance with the court directions the case was listed for hearing on AND WHEREAS pursuant to the Court directions the Council reconsidered the case and vide order dated rejected the appeal on the grounds a) the appellant on earlier occasion produced two building completion certificates issued on the same date i.e by the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Aryanad, in favour of the society for a building, constructed in the year 2007 at Perumkulam village. Block No. 42, Sy.No. 75/5/1, 76/11, 76/1, 70/1, 71/9/1. One of the certificates indicated the availability of sq.mt. of built up area on three floors of a building( ground floor sq.mt, first floor sq.mt. and