F.No.89-58/2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010

Transcription

1 F.No.89-58/2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Amarnath College of Education, Karaikal, Pondicherry dated 18/01/2010 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/M.Ed/ /14244 dated 05/01/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting M.Ed course on the grounds 1) For Amarnath College of Education, Karaikal, the Geographical Jurisdictional University, is Pondicherry University. 2) As per recognition order dated , granted to Amarnath College of Education, Karaikal, the affiliating University is Pondicherry University. 3) In contravention of the laid down procedure for affiliation of the colleges under the University, as per the jurisdiction determined by the Union Territory of Pondicherry, the Amarnath College has got afillated to Prist University, a Deemed University in Tamilnadu. 4) Deemed University vide their reply/letter dated , the Management has failed to submit the proof in respect of powers of PRIST University that the latter can affiliate the institutions located in other states. 5) The institution has violated the NCTE Act, Rules, Regulation, Standard and Norms to the extent indicated above. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Amarnath College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/01/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. A. Dhanavathy Amman, Secretary and Dr. A. Rajan, Principal, Amarnath College of Education, Karaikal, Pondicherry presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant s institution was granted recognition for M.Ed. course vide SRC s order dated and in the order the SRC did not categorically specify that the affiliating university is Pondicherry University. The appellant tried to get affiliation from Pondicherry University and since there was delay in getting the affiliation from Pondicherry University, it approached Prist University, a Deemed University for conducting the said course under collaboration programme Distance Education under Section 3 of 1956 of UGC Act 1956 and entered into Memorandum of Understanding with Prist University to conduct M.Ed. programme. This had been done to safeguard the interest of the already admitted students in anticipation of the affiliation from Pondicherry University. As such the Prist University has the power to operate beyond its approved geographical boundaries and start off-campus centres/off-share campuses. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that SRC vide its Order dated granted recognition for M.Ed. programme with an annual intake of 25 students and a copy of this order was sent to the Registrar, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry. The University vide its letter dated approved the staff of the institution. It applied to the Pondicherry University for the affiliation, for the academic year The

2 University vide its letter dated asked the institution to submit certain documents before , failing which it may apply afresh from 1st Oct 2007 for the academic session The institution admitted students in an illegal manner, without awaiting affiliation from the Pondicherry University and this was a clear violation of the provisions of regulations as contained in the order issued by SRC. Despite corresponding with the Pondicherry University for grant of affiliation, it suddenly took a re-course and got affiliated to Prist University (Deemed University) as off-shore centre, even though the institution does not come under the territorial jurisdiction of the Prist University. Further the appellant did not submit any proof with regard to the powers of the Prist University, to affiliate institutions located in other states. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal as the SRC had withdrawn the recognition on valid ground and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Secretary, Amarnath College of Education, Kallikuppam, Thiruvettakudy, Kotucherry Commune,, Karaikal , Pondicherry 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.

3 F.No.89-79/2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Babu Banarsi Das College of Teachers, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh dated 03/02/2010 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP- 753/153rd Meeting/2009/14558 dated 06/01/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the ground The applicant institution has not submitted representation to the NRC, NCTE, Jaipur. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Babu Banarsi Das College of Teachers (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/02/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Anil Kumar Agarwal, Management Representative, Babu Banarsi Das College of Teachers, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the institution was inspected u/s 13 of the NCTE Act, on and on the basis of this report the NCTE Hqs vide its letter dated pointing out certain deficiencies, informed the institution to submit its reply. In response to this the institution submitted its reply on Thereafter it had not received any show cause notice either from the NCTE Hqs or from the NRC and hence the appellant was not given any opportunity by the NRC for making a written representation. Further the inspection report dated referred by the NRC for issuing show cause notice u/s 17 of the NCTE Act, did not pertain to the institution, as it was actually got inspected on AND WHEREAS the Council noted that NCTE Hqs. vide its letter dated communicated the deficiencies/observations made by the inspection team in its report dated , whereas the NRC issued show cause notice u/s 17 of the NCTE Act, referring some other inspection report dated This notice was apparently not received by the institution, as per the submission made by the appellant during the course of hearing of the appeal. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that the case be remanded to the NRC, for issuance of show cause notice, citing the right inspection report and observations noted therein and for further processing thereafter as per Regulations. 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 the case be remanded to the NRC, for issuance of show cause notice, citing the right inspection report and observations noted therein and for further processing thereafter as per Regulations.

4 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Babu Banarsi Das College of Teachers, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above. (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Secretary, Babu Banarsi Das College of Teachers, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

5 F.No.89-63/2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Gopal Das Memorial Educational Institute, Agra, Uttar Pradesh dated 28/01/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/NRCAPP50/2009/13599 dated 17/12/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds The institution not submitted following documents:-- 1) Application in triplicate on the prescribed format. 2) Processing fee as provided under Rule 9 of the NCTE Rules 1997 as amended from time to time. 3) FDR of Rs. 5 lac and Rs. 3 Lac 4) Certified copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority. 5) Approved building plan by the competent civil authority. 6) Notarized copy of Land Use Certificate issued by the competent authority. 7) Affidavit on the prescribed format on Rs. 100/- stamp paper duly attested by Oath Commissioner or Notary Public stating the location of land, the total area in possession, the permission of the competent authority to use the land for educational purposes and mode of possession be ownership or lease. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Gopal Das Memorial Educational Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 28/01/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Vinod Bansal, Secretary and Shri. Brij Mohan Sharma, Gopal Das Memorial Educational Institute, Agra, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was stated that the appellant submitted to the NRC, DD of Rs.40,000/- bearing No dated towards the processing fee and photocopies of FDRs towards Rs.5 lakh and Rs.3 lakh; the appellant possessed land as per norms of the NCTE and the details of the land had been filled in the application form; building plan and land use certificate are approved/issued by the competent authority. The affidavit in the prescribed form on Rs.100/-stamp duly attested by the notary about the area of land in possession and ownership is enclosed with the appeal. It was also submitted that the NRC did not give any notice to comply with the deficiency that had been noted from the application form, before rejecting the application. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant submitted a single copy of the application as against three copies as required and the photocopies of the FDRs towards Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 5 lakh. He has not submitted certified copy of the registered land document, CLU and building plan approved by the competent civic authority, affidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paper and original FDRs. It further perused the documents submitted in the appeal and noted that affidavit on Rs.100/-stamp paper was made on , after the date of rejection of the application, certificate of land use had not been obtained u/s 143 of Bhoomi Adhiniyam Act of

6 the UP Govt. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Secretary, Gopal Das Memorial Educational Institute, Nehru Enclave, Shamsabad Road, Chamrauli, Rajpur,, Agra -, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

7 F.No / Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of IP Post Graduate College, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh dated 09/12/2009 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-1722/149th Meeting/2009/16190 dated 04/02/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.Ed. course on the ground As per the NCTE norms 1 Professor, 1 Reader and 3 Lecturers are to be appointed. But the Institution has appointed 4 Lecturers. 1 Professor and 1 Reader have not been appointed. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, IP Post Graduate College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 09/12/2009 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 Dr. Vipin Garg, Principal and Dr. P.K. Mangalik, Reader, IP Post Graduate College, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that one Head of the Department in Reader Grade and 4 Lecturers i.e. total 5 faculty members got approved from the C.C.S. University, Meerut to teach M.Ed classes in the college at the time of starting the M.Ed course. As per norms of UP University Act 1973 and Govt. orders issued from time to time, there is no provision to appoint Professor and Reader in affiliated colleges. University authorities will also not approve Professor and Reader positions in the colleges. As a matter of fact, in affiliating colleges of UP state and CCS University, M.Ed course is being run in this status only. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Registrar of Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut vide his letter dated 03/10/2009 stated that as per UP University Act 1973 and Manual of UP Higher Education Service Commission, there was no provision to appoint Professor or Reader in affiliated colleges. The appointment in the colleges can be done in the category of the Lecturer or Principal only. Further the faculty list had been approved by the affiliating university. The institution was issued conditional recognition letter on 02/04/2007, to appoint qualified staff through duly constituted selection committee as per the norms of the NCTE/State Govt./affiliating university, before the commencement of the course as per regulations 13/01/2006. The institution appointed one Head of the Department and 04 lecturers following the due procedure of advertisement, selection of the candidates, obtaining approval of the university for the staff list. It has submitted the documents related to faculty profile to the NRC on 30/04/2007. The NRC in its 141st meeting held on May, 2009 decided to refuse recognition and accordingly vide its order dated 21st July, 2009 refused recognition on the ground that the list of appointed faculty as per NCTE norms has not been submitted till date. The appellant challenged the decision of the NRC dated May, 2009 before the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition no /2009 and the Court vide its order dated 21/07/2009 directed the

8 NRC to examine the documents related to faculty appointment and pass a fresh order. The NRC, incompliance of the court order examined the documents and issued a show cause notice on 22/08/2009, with a direction to the institution to submit the documents within 10 days and the institution submitted its reply to the notice on 29/08/2009. After examining the reply, the NRC refused recognition to the institution on the grounds stated at para-1. The council perused the reply dated 29/08/2009 of the institution and noted that the appointed HOD, Dr. Giriraj Kishor was not having requisite teaching experience of 10 years at the post graduate level teacher training institute. He was having teaching experience at B.Ed level, as evident from the experience certificate issued by Shri Varshaney college and Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra. Further it was noted that Dr. Sharad Kumar Agrawal presented vivavoce on the thesis towards Ph.D on 21/12/2006 and was awarded Ph.D: Dr. Subhash Chandra was NET qualified as per norms. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal, with direction to the NRC to give another three months time for appointing a qualified HOD with adequate teaching expireance as per norms and for further processing thereafter as per Regulations. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, VT Report, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was enough ground to accept the appeal and that it should be accepted. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and NRC s order dated was set aside with direction to the NRC to give another three months time for appointing a qualified HOD with adequate teaching expireance as per norms and for further processing thereafter as per Regulations. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of IP Post Graduate College, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above. (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Secretary, IP Post Graduate College, District, Bulandshahr , Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

9 F.No.89-39/2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Krishna Institute of Management, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh dated 18/01/2010 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-858/152 Meeting/2009/14574 dated 06/01/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the ground The applicant institution has not submitted representation to the NRC, NCTE, Jaipur. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Krishna Institute of Management (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 18/01/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Jagat Singh, Chairman and Shri Kawal Kumar Aggarwal, Director, Krishna Institute of Management, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant institution was granted recognition for B. Ed programme for a basic unit of 100 vide NRC s order dt The institution was inspected by a two member team on and the deficiencies reported by the team were informed through show cause notice on At the time of inspection the institution was functioning from 361, Probhat Nagar, Meerut, U.P. and thereafter the institute shifted to the own premises located at Kitnoli, Baghpat Road, Meerut. Subsequently it applied for recognition of an additional unit in B. Ed programme in the new premises and the NRC after being satisfied with the availability of the conditions as per NCTE norms, granted additional unit on 17th May 08. NRC issued show cause notice on 27th March 09, after almost an year of granting recognition for an additional unit and also after almost 3 years of inspection report dt In response to this notice the appellant submitted its reply on 20th April, Despite having submitted the reply, the NRC in its meeting held on 11-12th Dec 09 decided to withdraw the recognition on the ground that the reply to the show cause notice has not been received till date. It was also submitted that the NRC opened a new file with No.UP-2640 for the additional intake and the granted recognition, instead of processing the case of additional unit on the same file i.e. file No. UP-858 that had been opened for basic unit of B. Ed of the institution. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the NRC vide its order dt granted conditional recognition to the Krishna Institute of Management, 213, Nandan Garden, W.K. Road, Meerut, U.P. Further NRC on 5th Jan 06 issued a show cause notice, for submission of faculty profile, within 21 days. The institution vide its letter dated submitted its reply mentioning that the selected list of faculty was sent to university for its approval. And on it submitted the faculty list approved by the affiliating university. It further noted that the NRC vide its letter dated 8th March 08 detailed the institution for an inspection under section 17 of the NCTE Act, between 10-20th March 08. As, there was no such inspection report

10 available in the file of NRC, it could not be ascertained whether any inspection under section 17 was conducted or not. The NRC on 27th March 09. issued a show cause notice under section 17, on the basis of the inspection report conducted under section 13 of the NCTE Act and subsequently withdrew recognition vide its order dt. 10th Jan 10. The council also failed to ascertain whether the institution shifted to own premises with formal approval of NRC, following the required modalities under norms. It also noted that NRC processed the application of the institution for additional intake, under a different file No. UP-2640, instead of processing the case in the existing the file bearing number UP- 858 that had been opened by the NRC earlier for granting recognition to the basic unit of B. Ed. and finally granted recognition to the institution on 14th May 08. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that the case may be remanded to the NRC for examination of the case, for basic unit on the basis of their application for additional intake and the VTR conducted in the new building for additional intake, so as to take a comprechensive veiw and issue order accordingly. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal, set aside the NRC s order dated and remand the case to the NRC for examination of the case, for basic unit on the basis of their application for additional intake and the VTR conducted in the new building for additional intake, so as to take a comprechensive veiw and issue order accordingly. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Krishna Institute of Management, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above. (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Secretary, Krishna Institute of Management, Baghpat Road, Kitholi,, Meerut -, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

11 F.No /2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Kukreja Institute of Teachers Education, Dehradun, Uttaranchal dated 03/11/2009 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/UR- 113/2009/ dated 22/01/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed (Addl.) course on the grounds 1) The bills for purchasing science equipments have been submitted but the photocopy of the stock register where the purchased equipments have been entered is not submitted. 2) The bills for purchasing furniture have been submitted but the photocopy of the stock register where the purchased furniture has been entered is not submitted. 3) The faculty is not appointed through dully constituted selection committee as per NCTE norms. 4) Language learning facilities are not available. 5) The number of titles in the library is not as per NCTE norms. 6) The information as required as per NCTE Regulation, 2007 is not available on the college website. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Kukreja Institute of Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/11/2009 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 Shri Himanshu Kukreja, Secretary and Dr. Y.S. Rana, Principal, Kukreja Institute of Teachers Education, Dehradun, Uttaranchal presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant s institution had been conducting B. Ed programme since with a basic unit of 100. Further an additional unit of 100 was sanctioned in The institution was inspected under section 17 on and on the basis of this report the NRC issued show cause notice on The institution submitted its reply on along with the supporting documents. Despite this submission, the NRC had withdrawn recognition for an additional unit of B. Ed. AND WHEREAS the Council noted from VTR dt that library was having 6312 books, ET lab had 30 computers, science lab has adequate facilities and there were 15 faculty members including the principal for two units of B. Ed. It further examined bills presented in proof of procurement of the equipment/ furniture/ books and stock registers and noted that facilities in the science lab, library and language learning. Further faculty had been selected by the duly constituted selection committee, comprising subject expert nominated by the affiliating university. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to the NRC for restoration of the recognition, granted to the institution earlier. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the

12 Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse NRC s order dated with the direction to the NRC for restoration of the recognition, granted to the institution earlier. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Principal, Kukreja Institute of Teachers Education, Dharmpur Chowk, Mata Mandir Road,, Dehradun -, Uttaranchal 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun.

13 F.No /2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of R.B.D. Mahila Mahavidyalya, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh dated 21/12/2009 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-73/UP-2003/141st Meeting/ dated 25/09/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting the B.Ed course on the ground The list of appointed faculty as per NCTE norms has not been submitted till date. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, R.B.D. Mahila Mahavidyalya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/12/2009 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 Dr. B.C. Das, Lecturer and Shri Munendra Singh, Asst., R.B.D. Mahila Mahavidyalya, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the institution was issued conditional recognition on from the session Incompliance to this, the appellant selected the faculty through duly constituted selection committee on and submitted the management affidavit, individual faculty member affidavits and attested copies of Ph.D. degree & experience certificates in respect of head of the department, to the NRC on The NRC, after examining this reply, vide its letter dt asked the institution to submit individual affidavits for all the appointed faculty members along with the attested copies of certificates of experience/ qualifications. The appellant again filed its reply on The appellant vide its letters dt and also brought to the notice of the NRC about its compliance to the condition letter of recognition. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant was issued conditional recognition order on and the institution in compliance to this order appointed the faculty, following the laid down procedure i.e. after appointing the faculty the appellant filed individual affidavits of the faculty. The Council perused the documents of the faculty profile and noted that the principal and seven lecturers were qualified as per norms. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal for issuance of formal recognition order in continuation of conditional recognition order. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reversed NRC s order dated with the direction to the NRC for issuance of formal recognition order in continuation of conditional recognition order, within 15 days of issue of this order. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.

14 (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Principal, R.B.D. Mahila Mahavidyalya, Bijnor,, Bijnor , Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

15 F.No /2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Ram Doot College of Education, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh dated 21/11/2009 is against the Order No. F.NRC/F-7/UP-3290/143rd Meeting/2009/10722 dated 25/09/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the ground As per report of the VT members, the institution did not allow the VT members to inspect the institution. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ram Doot College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 30/11/2009 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 Dr. Harendra Singh, General Secretary, Ram Doot College of Education, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant vide its letter dt. 27/05/2009 had informed the NRC office not to conduct the inspection of the appellant institution for the next six months. Inspite of the request for postponement of the inspection, the NRC vide its letter dt. 02/06/2009 detailed the institution for inspection. Therefore, the appellant again requested the NRC vide its letter dt not to conduct the inspection. But, the NRC office did not pay any heed to the request of the appellant. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that appellant submitted an application in the name of Ram Doot College of Education on for B. Ed programme from the session The institution was issued letter of intent for prior to inspection on and the institution vide its letter dt gave its consent for inspection. Accordingly NRC detailed a team for causing inspection of the institution on When the team visited the institution the management informed the team that it did not want the inspection to be conducted. The team further stated that the building of the college was still to take shape and this was further strengthened by a letter dt of Gram Panchayat office that the construction of the building was not completed and it may take another six months for its completion. It was also noted that the appellant gave its consent for inspection on ; subsequent to this consent, the trust in its meeting held on resolved that the consent letter for inspection which was sent on to NCTE be treated as cancelled for six months on the pretext that in U.P. the admissions for the session were not completed, hence the session would be late by an year and it may be possible that the session would be declared as zero session by the Govt. The grounds for seeking postponement of the inspection by another six months are not valid as the institution cannot itself predict the out come of the inspection and grant of recognition from which session and resort to postponement of the inspection. The real cause for the postponement was incomplete construction of the

16 building. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Chairman, Ram Doot College of Education, VPO- Randevi,, Saharanpur -, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

17 F.No /2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Shahdev Pohariya Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya, Ballia Dist., Uttar Pradesh dated 22/09/2009 is against the Order No. F.NRC/ NCTE/F- 7/UP-3147/147th Meeting/2009/ dated 20/08/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds The deficiencies with regard to labs, computers, library titles and building completion certificate still exist. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Shahdev Pohariya Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 24/09/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Ghura Ram, Secretary and Shri Somuoonath, Member, Shri Shahdev Pohariya Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya, Ballia Dist., Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the refusal order did not specify as to which type of deficiency still existed. It was further submitted that the institution was having 10 computers earlier and after the inspection purchased 10 more computers; the library was having 3000 books and the labs were fully equipped as per norms; at the time of inspection itself, the building of the institution was complete and this may be verified from the building completion certificate. It was also submitted that the appellant was having two separate building blocks i.e. Block A and Block B. For the B. Ed course it allocated ground and first floors of Block A, measuring 1204 sq. mt. in area, but the principal room and office room located in Block B were common for both B.Sc. and B. Ed courses. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was refused recognition vide NRC s order dt and it preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority vide its order dt rejected the appeal and confirmed the refusal order dt of the NRC on the grounds that the building plan furnished by institution was in respect of a 3-storey building, while the completion certificate indicated that only two floors were completed. The completion certificate did not indicate the total built-up area available. During the presentation the appellant also admitted that only two floors were complete and the 3rd floor was under construction, which would be completed shortly. The Council also noted that the VT report dt was negative and it indicated that the institution was having inadequate facilities. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the appellate order the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad and the Court vide its judgment dt disposed the petition with the direction to the NCTE, to pass fresh orders on the appeal of the petitioner, after taking into consideration the material placed

18 on record. In compliance of the court direction the case was again listed for personal hearing on The Council further examined the documents submitted with the appeal, as well as that are available in the NRC s file and the ones presented during the course of second hearing. It noted that (a) the institution was inspected on and the report mentioned that E.T. lab was having only 02 computers, science lab did not have multiple sets of apparatus and chemicals, there were no proper rooms for psychology lab and language learning lab, library did not have encyclopedia, educational journals/ periodicals; (b) that the building plan submitted to the NRC did not mention Khasra No/Survey No. and indicated the total built-up area as sq. mt. in two building blocks i.e. Block A & Block B. where as the plan annexed with the second appeal mentioned the Arazi No. 283 and the total built-up area in Block A & Block B as sq. mt. As per the submission made by the appellant Block A was with 3 floors having a built-up area of ( sq. mt.) sq. mt. and Block B was with 2 floors having a built-up area of ( sq. mt sq. mt.) sq. mt. The building completion certificate dt issued by Gram Panchayat office did not specify the total area of the constructed building, it just mentioned construction of the building had been completed. Another completion certificate dt. NIL issued by Pradhan of Gram Panchayat office stated that the construction of the building was completed on Both the certificates did not specify Kh. No. total area and built-up area, so as to ascertain where exactly the building was constructed and what was the area and in this context the building completion certificates though issued by competent civic authority, could not be considered as complete document due to the lacuna noted as above. Yet another completion certificate dt. NIL issued by Shri Ganeshi Associate stated that Ground and first floor of the building construction for the B. Ed course had been completed, even this certificate did not specify the total constructed area and was not an authentic one as it was issued by a private agency. However, this certificate mentioned that only 2 floors had been completed as against the proposed 3 storey plan. As per the submission made by the appellant Block A was ear marked for B. Ed and the built-up area available on the ground & first floor was only 1204 sq. mt. and when the Council pointed that this area was inadequate as against the requirement of 1500 sq. mt., he immediately stated that principal room, office room located in block B is on sharing basis with B. Sc programme. This was not permissible as per norms as the institution should have at least 2500 sq. mt of land where upon 1500 sq. mt. of constructed area was required. (c) further the first three bills dt submitted in proof of procurement of equipment revealed that the equipment had been added after the date of inspection. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal as the NRC had refused the recognition on valid ground and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and the NRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.

19 (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Manager, Shri Shahdev Pohariya Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya, Manda, Tehsil- Rasra, Ballia Dist. -, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

20 F.No /2008-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sonali Public Shiksha Samiti's Sonali College, Guna, Madhya Pradesh dated 19/02/2008 is against the Order No. WRC/APW03870/222198(Co.Ed)/101st/2007/29354 dated 13/02/2008 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed(Co.Ed) course on the ground Two courses cannot be granted at a time i.e. during the same academic session. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sonali Public Shiksha Samiti's Sonali College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/02/2008 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Navneet Lamba, President and Shri Parmal Singh, Member, Sonali Public Shiksha Samiti's Sonali College, Guna, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant was filed in the NCTE Hqrs on against the WRC order dt refusing recognition for the conduct of D. Ed course. The said appeal was considered by the Council on and it was rejected vide Appellate order dt Aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal and contesting that refusal ground stated in WRC order was not applicable to the appellant, as it submitted applications for both B. Ed & D. Ed course on and hence regulations 2007 are not applicable, the appellant filed a writ petition before Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and the court vide its order dt directed the NCTE to re-decide the appeal of the petitioner by assigning the reasons on its own merits. So, the appellant made a representation in the form of appeal vide its letter dt stating that (i) The inspection team was satisfied with facilities available for both course i.e B. Ed & D. Ed. and made positive recommendation in its report. (ii) Regulation 2007 is not applicable in the case of the appellant and hence the refusal ground of WRC is invalid. (iii) sq. ft. building is constructed only for B. Ed. Accordingly the case was again placed before the Council on AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appeal was rejected vide Appellate order dt assigning the reasons (i) in the application submitted for recogniton for DT Ed course, no indication regarding the application for B Ed course was given, (ii) the building plan submitted was for Sonali Public School and not for the proposed Sonali College., (iii) In three separate affidavits dated , and by the institution, the constructed area indicated was Sq. ft, Sq. ft and 3329 Sq. Mtrs, respectively and (iv) the VT Report indicated an area of 10,100 Sq. ft. The Council thus observed that the institution was furnishing different figures of available built up area at different point of time and thus a clear picture regarding the actual built up area was not available. Further, as per Regulation 8 (2)

21 of the existing NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), 2007, in the first instance an instituion shall be considered for grant of recognition for only one course for the basic unit and therefore, there is no justification for allowing the appeal. Even if the claim of the institution that the clause 8(2) of the Regulation 2007 is not applicable, as it submitted the application prior to the notification of Regulations 2007, is acceptable, then also it was not eligible for grant of recognition to D. Ed course as specified in para 3 of the Appellate order dt AND WHEREAS the Council further considered the case in compliance to the direction of the Court. It perused the documents submitted with the initial appeal, and also the ones submitted on , along with the second appeal and the documents available in the NRC s file. It noted that- (i) The building plan submitted with NRC was for Sonali Public School, whereas the copy of the building plan submitted on with the NCTE Hqrs was for Sonali Degree College and this plan print is very faint and the area details shown in the map are illegible. Further to say that this plan is also for a Sonali Degree College but not for Sonali College of Education proposed by the appellant for conducting D.Ed programme. Also the institution did not submit building completion certificate in proof of availability of sq. ft. of built-up area as stated vide its letter dt , for the proposed programme. (ii) The appellant has been mentioning various area dimensions, in the affidavits/ letters filed before the NCTE at different times. To illustrate this, the affidavits dated , and mentioned the constructed area as 111,905 sq, ft, sq. ft. and 3329 sq. mt. respectively. Further another letter dt mentioned yet another area dimension i.e. 18,000 sq. ft. The appellant is actually not having a separate built up area and he has been mentioning different area and indiscreminately filing the affidavits with different areas. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (Hasib Ahmad) Member Secretary 1. The Secretary, Sonali Public Shiksha Samiti's Sonali College, Dubey Colony,, Guna , 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.

22 F.No /2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /04/2010 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Kanakadas D.Ed College (Sri Kalidas Education Society), Bagalkot, Karnataka dated 10/09/2009 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/D.Ed/ /14895 dated 30/07/2009 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds 1) The building of D.Ed college is not yet constructed. It is under construction. 2) The management has shown Beerashwar High School building with built up space of 2600 sq.ft for proposed D.Ed college. It is not as per regulations of NCTE. 3) The management has not procured books and equipments and also has not established Library, Science, Psychology, E.T. Labs as required for D.Ed course. 4) No exclusive infrastructural & instructional facilities for proposed D.Ed course. 5) As per regulation para 8(10) of NCTE Act 2007, the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure. No temporary structure/ asbetos roofing shall be allowed to establish D.Ed college. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Kanakadas D.Ed College (Sri Kalidas Education Society) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 14/09/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri S.A. Jiddi, President, Sri Kanakadas D.Ed College (Sri Kalidas Education Society), Bagalkot, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that construction of a separate building with a built-up area of 12,711 sq. ft. was completed when the inspection team of SRC visited the institution on ; The Beerashwar High School was being run in another separate building; The institution purchased 2000 books for the library and also adequately equipped the labs. The institution was having exclusive infrastructural and instructional facilities for the D.Ed programme. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was got inspected by the SRC on and on the basis of this report it issued show cause notice to the institution inter alia mentioning that building of D. Ed college is not yet constructed and the management showed the inspection team, the building of Beerashwar High School. The institution submitted its reply on mentioning that D. Ed college building would be completed within a month and for time being some portion of the High School building had been in use. It also filed another reply on stating that at the time of inspection, finishing and white washing of the building was in pending and now the building of D. Ed college had been completed. The SRC after considering this reply decided to cause re-inspection of the institution. Accordingly SRC vide its letter dt asked the institution to submit re-inspection fee of Rs. 40,000/- within a week, for causing re-inspection of the institution as per regulations.