NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Transcription

1 F.No.89-94/2011 Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Avvai Home Teacher Training Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu dated 19/03/2011 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/ /27403 dated 04/03/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed. and D.T.Ed. (Al) course on the ground Based on the points in the Show Cause Notice and as the reply to the show cause notice dt. 08/12/2010 is not satisfactory, the Council in its 200th meeting held on 20th -21st January 2011 decided to withdraw the recognition of the D.T.Ed- Al (APS0407) (Total 80 seats) course run by Avvai Home Teacher Training, Chennai, Tamil Nadu from the academic year , in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in D.T.Ed-AL course, if any, to complete their course. But it is made clear that the institution is debarred from any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of the order. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Avvai Home Teacher Training Institute, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/03/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Sugal Chand Jain, Chairman, Avvai Home Teacher Training Institute, Chennai, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the instituted started in 1952 is a Tamil Nadu Government aided institution; except for two academic years and ; the institute is admitting only 40 students, there is exclusive earmarking land and building in the license; the statement that the buildings are very old and required new construction does not mean that there is no exclusive building for teacher training programmes; being an aided school Rs. 1 lakh is the criteria and Government and Government aided institutions are exempled from maintaining Endowment Fund and Reserve Fund; and an agreement has been reacted by the Avvai Home Management with Thiruvannamalai Devasthanan for re-allocation of land on which Avvai Home institutions have been running. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institute was granted recognition for D.T.Ed. course on and for a total intake of 80 students and an inspection for shifting of premises was conducted on On the basis of the VT report a show cause notice dated was issued to the institute and after considering the reply of the institution dated , SRC withdrew recognition. In the course of personal presentation, the appellant clarified Government s grant-in-aid is for the salaries of two teachers only. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that as of now the institute does not have the requisite built-up area as per norms for conducting D.T.Ed. course in the premises to which it shifted, the area being only 7,200 sq.ft. as per VTR and the appellant has stated in reply to the show cause notice that built-up area as per norms will be constructed from next academic year; the building plan does not indicate any earmarking of land and buildings for various institutions; the VT report stated that in the same campus primary/high School exists in separate wings; and the exemption from maintaining Endowment and Reserve Funds does not apply to the appellant as the institution is receiving grant for the salaries of

2 two teachers only. In the circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that the grounds on which recognition was withdrawn are justified and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, VTR, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The Secretary & Correspondent, Avvai Home Teacher Training Institute,, No. 41, Besant Avenue, Adyar,, Chennai , Tamilnadu 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 Tamilnadu, Chennai.

3 F.No /2010-Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of DSR Junior College of Education, Aurangabad, Maharashtra dated 10/05/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/2010/RL-5561 dated 21/01/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.ED course on the ground The institution did not fulfill the provision of clause 8(3) of NCTE Regulations AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, DSR Junior College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 13/05/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS DSR Junior College of Education, Aurangabad, Maharashtra was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on , and also on giving last and final opportunity before the Council. as per the appeal rules. But nobody appeared before the Council on all three occasions. the Council, therefore decided to consider the question of condonation of delay on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith. AND WHEREAS in the appeal memorandum it was submitted that clause 8(3) says that there should be gap of 3 years to start a similar course while in their case the gap is more than 5 years and therefore the clause 8(3) is null and void; they have also attached NCTE permission letter of the D.Ed. course which was started from the academic year ; and the society already has its own building and fulfilling all the norms of the NCTE. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of appeal was delayed by one month and 26 days after the permissible period of 60 days. The appellant has submitted that he received the order of the WRC only on and thereafter he was in correspondence with the WRC appealing against the rejection order and as he could not get any redressal from WRC he preferred an appeal to the Council on the Council came to the conclusion that the plea of the appellant that he was appealing in the first instance to the WRC, which is not the Appellate Authority, is not a good and sufficient reason for condoning the delay in the submission of the appeal and hence the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The General Secretary, DSR Junior College of Education, Plot No.39/A, Street-, Aurangabad , Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

4 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

5 F.No.89-26/2011 Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Excel Teachers Training Institute,, Namakkal, Tamilnadu dated 18/01/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/B.ED/2010/20896 dated 01/09/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed. course on the ground The Institution was served Notice on 30/07/2009 and also Final Notice dated 01/06/2010 for which the institution did not reply to both the Notices. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Excel Teachers Training Institute, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Manoj Kumar, Administrative Officer, Excel Teachers Training Institute, Namakkal, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on , giving last and final opportunity before the Council. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant Management has not received any notice dated 30/07/2009 and Final notice dated 01/06/2010 as stated in the impugned order; the appellant institution submitted various documents for maintaining the Norms and Standards namely, (i) Original Joint Fixed Deposit receipts for Endowment and Reserve fund, (ii) Copy of Land Documents attested by Notary Public, (iii) Copy of building plan duly approved by competent authority, (iv) Copy of Building Completion Certificate, (v) Copy of land usage certificate issued by Revenue Divisional Officer of Tiruchengodu, (vi) Copy of Encumbrance Certificate (vii) The original affidavit Rs. 100/- Stamp Paper as per format, and (viii) Staff details as per format with their letter No. Trues Do Way/Excel TTI-W/2009,10 dated 03/07/2009 and submitted on 08/07/2009 and acknowledgement received from National Council for Teacher Education for submission of original fixed deposit receipt vide letter F.SRC/NCTE/ACCTS/ /534 dated 21/07/2009. AND WHEREAS the appellant who was asked to appear before the Council on requested postponement of the hearing as their Chairman and Secretary were out of station. Even today only the Administrative Officer appeared before the Council. The Council noted that the submission of the appeal was delayed by two months and 28 days after the permissible period of 60 days. The appellant has submitted that the delay was caused due to the managing trustee s hospitalization. The appellant has not given any details of hospitalization like its duration and medical certificate confirming hospitalization. The appellant also could not explain as to why some other office bearers of the Trust did not prefer the appeal within the permissible period. In the circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that there are no good and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and hence the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.

6 NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The Chairman, Excel Teachers Training Institute,, Salem Main Road, Komarapalayam,, Namakkal , Tamilnadu 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 Tamilnadu, Chennai.

7 F.No.89-25/2011 Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Excel Teachers Training Institute,, Namakkal, Tamilnadu dated 18/01/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010/20898 dated 01/09/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed. - Al course on the ground The institution was served Notice on 30/07/2009 and also Final Notice dt. 01/06/2010 for which the institution did not reply to both the Notices. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Excel Teachers Training Institute, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Manoj Kumar, Administrative Officer, Excel Teachers Training Institute, Namakkal, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on , giving last and final opportunity before the Council. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that for the respondents notice dt. 30/07/2009, the Management of the appellant had submitted the details with regard to the shifting the present site to permanent site along with the reply-cum-compliance dt. 14/08/2009 wherein the details regarding the Demand Draft, Land Documents, Building completion Certificate, Land Usage Certificate, Encumbrance Certificate, Fixed Deposit, Trust Deed and Affidavit were given; the Southern Regional Committee has failed to note these documents submitted on behalf of the appellant to the Respondent s final notice dt. 01/06/2010 the Management of the appellant had submitted the details with regard to the shifting the present site to permanent site along with the reply-cum-compliance dt. 17/06/2010, the appellant management institution is having all infrastructural & Instructional facilities and there is no demand from student to pursue D.T.Ed. for last two years. So the appellant management institution requested the respondent to maintain the status quo till they get the students for this institution; the Southern Regional Committee has failed to note these requests submitted on behalf of the appellant; as per the amended norms and standards of the NCTE, the infrastructural and instructional facilities available at the appellant college are more than required; since the appellant management submitted the reply-cumcompliance for the above two notices dt. 14/08/2009, 17/06/2010, it can be easily ascertained that no specified reason or query has been given by the respondent as to what are all the requirements as per the NCTE norms for running an Elementary Teacher Education with the intake of 100 students and what are all the infrastructural and instructional facilities available at the appellant college and comparing the both what are all the shortage. All these details have not been given in the order impugned which itself show that the Southern Regional Committee has summarily rejected the proposal of the appellant. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of the appeal was delayed by two months and 28 days after the permissible period of 60 days. The appellant has submitted that the delay was caused due to the managing trustee s hospitalization. The appellant has not given any details of hospitalization like its duration and medical

8 certificate confirming hospitalization. The appellant also could not explain as to why some other office bearers of the Trust did not prefer the appeal within the permissible period. In the circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that there are no good and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and hence the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The Chairman, Excel Teachers Training Institute,, Salem Main Road, Komarapalayam,, Namakkal , Tamilnadu 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 Tamilnadu, Chennai.

9 F.No /2009-Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Maratha Shikshan Sanstha's College of Education, Amravati Dist., Maharashtra dated 23/04/2009 is against the Order No. WRC/APWO07844/125226/123346/2008/49782 dated 16/01/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.Ed. (M)(Co-Ed) course on the ground as per clause 8(7) of NCTE regulation, no institution shall be granted recognition under these regulation unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application; the land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease from Government/Government institutions for a period of not less than 30 years; in cases where under relevant State/UT laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government/UT Administration law shall prevail; however, no building could be taken on lease for running any teacher training course; and as per affidavit No. AV submitted, the land is on lease basis, which is not valid as per NCTE norms and therefore, the application is treated as closed henceforth. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Maratha Shikshan Sanstha's College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/04/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appeal was not admitted earlier by the Council on ground of delay and the appellant aggrieved by the decision filed a writ petition No of 2010 before the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and the Hon ble High Court in their order dated , condoning the delay, restored the file of the Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the appeal on its own merits as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter the appellant who was asked to present his case did not appear on three occasions i.e. on , and also on the Council decided to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the documents submitted in the appeal and also the ones available in the relevant file of WRC. AND WHEREAS the appellant, in the appeal memorandum submitted that after receiving the refusal order from WRC, they have submitted revised affidavit that the land is in the sole possession of the Society by gift-deed; the land on which proposed S.P. College of Education (M.Ed.) is proposed to be started is in a clear title of ownership of the Maratha Shikshan Sansthan and is free from all encumbrances; and on the date of said representation, they clearly fulfilled the requirements as per the norms of NCTE. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that according to the affidavit dated submitted at the time of application the land was on registered lease from an individual, namely, Mrs. Padmatai D.Nimbhorkar for a minimum period of 30 years. The Council also noted that the revised affidavit dated indicates a different plot bearing No. 53/3, whereas the affidavit submitted along with the application indicated the plot No. as 53/1. The Council came to the conclusion that the ground on which the WRC refused recognition

10 is valid as the institution was not having land on ownership basis or on lease from Government/Government institutions at the time of applying as per NCTE Regulations and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of WRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The Secretary, Maratha Shikshan Sanstha's College of Education, Kathora Road, Pote Estate,, Amravati Dist. -, Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

11 F.No /2009-Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Raja Shri Shahu Adhyapak Vidhyalaya (D.Ed. College), dated 23/07/2009 is against the Order No.WRC/APW05620/ /110th/CVT/2008/55873 dated 27/05/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (M) (Co-Ed) course on account of negative recommendations of the State Government of Maharashtra in respect of D.Ed. course was rejected by the Council in their order F.No /2009-Appeal/A 3797 dated AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Raja Shri Shahu Adhyapak Vidhyalaya D.Ed. College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/07/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that aggrieved by the orders of the Council dated , the appellant filed a writ petition No. 8269/2009 before the Hon ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad and the Hon ble High Court in their order dated quashed and set aside the impugned order and relegated the petitioner to the Appellate Authority to consider the proposal of the petitioner afresh on its own merits and not to be solely guided by the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra State Government. The Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The Council also noted that the appellant with his letter dated forwarded a copy of the Hon ble High Court s order with a request for further processing. AND WHEREAS Sh. Patil Ramchandra Venkatrao, Joint Secretary and Sh. Hande Rajeshwar Sagram, Member, Raja Shri Shahu Adhyapak Vidhyalaya D.Ed. College presented the case of the appellant institution on In the course of personal presentation they informed that pursuant to the Hon ble High Court s order, the WRC has issued a show cause notice (dated ) to the institution and a reply thereto has been sent on The Council also found from the file of the WRC that a show cause notice to the institution was issued on AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the matter is receiving attention of the WRC has come to the conclusion that WRC may be directed to take a decision expeditiously in the light of the Hon ble High Court s direction. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby directs WRC to take a decision expeditiously in the light of the Hon ble High Court s direction. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary

12 1.. The Secretary, Raja Shri Shahu Adhyapak Vidhyalaya D.Ed. College, (Saraswati Bahuudeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha)Markhel, TQ.Degloor, Dist Nanded,, Via Karaddhed , Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

13 F.No /2011 Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of S.K. College of Education, Rohtak, Haryana dated 29/12/2009 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-7-3/HR-1677/2009/2017 dated 12/05/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground The reply submitted to the Show Cause Notice is not satisfactory. the Council noted that there was a delay of five months and 20 days in the submission of the appeal beyond the prescribed period of 60 days and the appellant s reasoning for the delay that occurred as contained in his letter dated was not accepted by the Council and the decision was conveyed through the letter dated AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, S.K. College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/05/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that aggrieved by the decision of the Council as contained in their letter dated the appellant filed a writ petition No of 2011 and CMP No. 6384/2011 before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and the Hon ble High Court in their order dated , observing that the letter of the Council is a non-speaking order as it has not given any reasons to decide the application of the appellant seeking condonation of delay, directed that the Appellate Authority shall decide the application of the appellant dated by passing a speaking and reasoned order after giving due opportunity to both the parties within a period of one month from the date of the order. AND WHEREAS Sh. R.K. Jatain, Legal Registrar, S.K. College of Education, Rohtak, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on The appellant also sent another letter dated giving additional reasons for condonation of delay. the Council noted that the appellant in his earlier letter dated has stated that (i) they decided to wait the outcome of the case filed by some of the colleges refused recognition on similar grounds before the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in WP.No. 4070/2009 and when the Hon ble Court pronounced the judgement they filed the appeal and (ii) as their College was not established, the staff left for jobs in some other institutions and they were not able to keep track of all the papers. The Council also noted that the appellant in his subsequent letter dated stated that (i) a serious rift occurred between the President of the Society and other office bearers and he absented from the meeting of the society as could be seen from the proceedings of the meeting held on ; (ii) in the general house meeting held on , the governing body was re-constituted for smooth running/opening of the institution for B.Ed.; (iii) after the election of office bearers held on , it was decided to approach the Court of law for redressal of the whole situation; and (iv) the order of the Hon ble High Court dated implies that the intervening delay stands condoned.

14 AND WHEREAS the Council after careful perusal of the Hon ble High Court s order dated found that the Hon ble Court has not condoned any delay in the submission of appeal but only directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appellant s application dated by passing a speaking and reasoned order after giving due opportunity to the parties. Adverting to reasons for delay as intimated in the appellant s letter dated the Council noted that waiting for the outcome of the Court case for filing is not justified as the refusal order clearly mentioned that an appeal can be preferred in terms of Section 18 of the NCTE Act, There is no relationship between preferring a statutory appeal and Court cases filed by some other institutions. The appellant has not mentioned the outcome of the said Court cases. There is no correlation between departure of staff and keeping track of papers maintained by the appellant society. Adverting to the submissions made in the subsequent letter of the appellant dated the Council noted that all the developments were purely internal matters of the society which took place much after the submission of appeal as well as the earlier letter dated and therefore cannot be said to have any bearing on the submission of delayed appeal. AND WHEREAS in view of the position stated above the Council came to the conclusion that the grounds adduced by the appellant for the delay in submission of appeal as contained in his letter dated and also his subsequent letter dated are not good and sufficient for condoning the delay and therefore the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The Secretary, S.K. College of Education, VPO- Bahali, Anandpur,, 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, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur , Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.

15 F.No.89-81/2011 Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Mohan Dhansira Mahavidyalaya, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh dated 11/03/2011 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-3516/174 MEETING/2010/2441 dated 18/01/2011 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds 1) The Laboratories continue to be III equipped. The CD gives photograph of a Science Lab, but then it is clearly a different lab and perhaps a Chemistry Lab of an Intermediate college. The laboratory as seen in the original CD with VT members was completely different. As such, Institution has not done anything to improve and develop its science lab. Rather by giving a false photograph of other lab they tried to mislead NRC. The requirement of science lab in a teacher training is different from the Chemistry Lab of a school. Moreover the new photograph is that of an old lab and it is not understood as to why it was not shown to the inspection team. 2) The reply is not satisfactory in respect of development of playgrounds, toilets and drinking water facilities, which continue to be the same and institution has not brought any change since the issue of the Show Cause Notice. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Mohan Dhansira Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/03/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Mohd. Saleem, Clerk, Sri Mohan Dhansira Mahavidyalaya, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the applicant institution has already given a detailed reply dated 31/08/2009 wherein NRC was informed that the laboratories are well equipped; the laboratory as seen in the CD along with the VT member is identical as shown in the original CD; the institution has already improved and developed its science lab as per the NCTE norms & regulations; because the appellant institution is ready to submit true photographs of the science lab for verifying the fact that the science lab of the appellant institution is well equipped and well maintained as per the norms & regulation of NCTE; the science lab is maintained and developed by the institution as per the requirement in teacher training institution and in this effect an affidavit was also submitted to the NRC on 20/11/2010; the deficiency regarding playground, toilets and drinking water is concerned they have already been made good, the same was communicated to the NRC vide affidavit dated 20/11/2010; the institution has established the R.O machines for safe & hygienic drinking water and the sufficient number of toilets are available with the institution. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was inspected on two occasions viz on and and issued show cause notices twice on and The institution replied to both the show cause notices. The Council noted that in reply to the show cause notice dated , the appellant with his reply dated has forwarded an affidavit, copy of library register, copies of bills for purchase of library books and CD. In the affidavit the appellant has merely stated that all the facilities are

16 available without furnishing documentary evidence in respect of laboratory facilities, computer facilities, toilet facilities, playground, etc. He also reported to have furnished a new CD which is different from the one recorded at the time of inspection. Along with the appeal he has enclosed some photographs with a representative of the institution in all of them. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that despite having been inspected twice the institution has not been able to remove the deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notices. The grounds adduced in the appeal are totally unconvincing. In the circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of NRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The Manager, Sri Mohan Dhansira Mahavidyalaya, Plot No. 339/3, 343, 342, Village - Jangal Belhar, Post - Belhar Kala, Tehsil - Menhdawal,, Sant Kabir Nagar , Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 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 /2011 Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Florida College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 21/03/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/ /20654 dated 24/08/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting M.Ed. course on the grounds 1) As per VT report and as per the data, countersigned by the Management, the Management has earmarked only 800 sq.ft. for each courses which is inadequate as per NCTE norms; 2) The Number of books in the Library is 1750 and is not adequate and 3) The built-up area as per VTR is 13,941 sq.ft only for all the three courses as against the requirement of 33,000 sq.ft. as per norms(11,000 sq.ft. for D.Ed., 16,000 sq.ft. for B.Ed. and 6,000 sq.ft. for M.Ed. course. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Florida College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/03/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Mallikarjuna, Chairman, Florida College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the respondent before passing the impugned order, had not issued by show cause notice as required under the NCTE Act and no inspection is conducted in respect of the second appellant institution; the respondent has not given an opportunity to the second appellant institution to file written representation to the respondent and to explain in the matter; the respondent passed impugned order without appreciating material facts on record; the impugned order issued to this second appellant and D.Ed. institution and M.Ed. institution is one and the same; and the irregularities found in impugned order is in respect of D.Ed. course. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of the appeal was delayed by five months beyond the prescribed period of 60 days. The appellant has submitted that the Chairman of the society who was solely looking after the affairs of the institution and well conversant with the facts of the case was abroad at the time of passing and receiving the order and the Principal was not available as he was on long leave; he returned to India only in the second week of December, 2010 and even after securing all documents he could not proceed to prefer the appeal as he was taken ill in the second week of December, He also submitted that he was suffering from bladder tumor and was treated as in patient from to in Basavanagudi Medical Centre; the doctors advised him to take complete bed rest, only in the second week of March, 2011 he was able to attend office and immediately he took steps to prefer an appeal. The appellant produced a copy of Medical Certificate dated issued by Basavanagudi Medical Centre, Bangalore which does not clearly indicate whether he was an in-patent or outpatient. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant has not indicated as to how long he was abroad, the order of withdrawal having been received on , as admitted

18 by the appellant himself and why the other office bearers of the trust could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed time with due consultation with the Chairman. Further the copy of medical certificate issued on and produced, does not establish categorically that the appellant was an in-patient from to , the period being quite long. In these circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that there are no good and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in filing appeal and therefore the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The Principal, Florida College of Education, No. 507, 509, 1 'D' Main Raod, 3rd Block, Kalyanagar, H.R.B.R, Layout,, Banglore , Karnataka 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 Karnataka, Bangalore.

19 F.No /2011 Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Florida College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 21/03/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/ /20082 dated 29/07/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course effective from on the grounds 1) As per VT report and as per the data, countersigned by Management, the Management has earmarked only 8000 sq.ft. for each courses which is inadequate as per NCTE norms; 2) The number of books in the Library is 1750 and is not adequate. 3) The built up area as per VTR is 13,941 sq.ft. only for all the three courses as against the requirement of 33,000 sq.ft. as per norms (11,000 sq.ft. for D.Ed., 16,000 sq.ft. for B.Ed. and 6,000 sq.ft. M.Ed. courses). AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Florida College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/03/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Mallikarjuna, Chairman, Florida College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the impugned order came to be passed contrary to the Show Cause Notice dated 31/10/2009; the inspection team should visited new building which is constructed by the appellants, for the purpose of running D.Ed. course; the impugned order in question came to be passed without appreciating the present situation of building; the appellants are in possession of all relevant documents in respect of new building at the time of inspection; the difficulties noted in the impugned order are incorrect and against the facts and ground realities; the respondent failed to consider that the first appellant management has taken all the steps to have its own building to run the D.Ed., B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses; a copy of the building plan is produced wherein it would appreciate the fact that the appellant has constructing three floors and each floor is consisting of square feet and same is adequate to run the second appellant institution; and without considering of this position, the impugned order came to be passed. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of the appeal was delayed by five months and 26 days beyond the prescribed period of 60 days. The appellant has submitted that the Chairman of the society who was solely looking after the affairs of the institution and well conversant with the facts of the case was abroad at the time of passing and receiving the order and the Principal was not available as he was on long leave; he returned to India only in the second week of December, 2010 and even after securing all documents he could not proceed to prefer the appeal as he was taken ill in the second week of December, He also submitted that he was suffering from bladder tumor and was treated as in patient from to in Basavanagudi Medical Centre; the doctors advised him to take complete bed rest only in the second week of March, 2011 he was able to attend office and immediately he took steps to prefer an appeal. The

20 appellant produced a copy of Medical Certificate dated issued by Basavanagudi Medical Centre, Bangalore which does not clearly indicate whether he was an in-patent or out-patient. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant has not indicated how long he was abroad, the order of withdrawal having been received on , as admitted by the appellant himself and why the other office bearers of the trust could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed time with due consultation with the Chairman. Further the copy of medical certificate issued on and produced, does not establish categorically that the appellant was an in-patient from to , the period being quite long. In these circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that there are no good and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in filing appeal and therefore the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The Chairman, Florida College of Education, No. 507, 509, 1 'D' Main Road, 3rd block, Kalyanagar, H.R. B.R, Layout,, Banglore , Karnataka 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 Karnataka, Bangalore.

21 F.No /2011 Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Florida College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 21/03/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/ /20655 dated 24/08/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds 1) As per VT report and as per the data, countersigned by the Management, the Management has earmarked only 800 sq.ft. for each courses which is inadequate as per NCTE norms. 2) The Number of books in the Library is 1750 and is not adequate. 3) The built up area as per VTR is 13,941 sq.ft only for all the three courses as against the requirement of 33,000 sq.ft. as per norms(11,000 sq.ft. for D.Ed., 16,00 sq.ft. for B.Ed. and 6,000 sq.ft. for M.Ed. course. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Florida College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/03/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Mallikarjuna, Chairman, Florida College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the respondent before passing the impugned order, had not issued any show cause notice as required under the NCTE Act and no inspection is conducted in respect of the second appellant institution; the respondent has not given, an opportunity to the second appellant institution to file written representation to the respondent and to explain in the matter; the respondent passed impugned order without appreciating material facts on record; the impugned order issued to this second appellant and D.Ed. institution and M.Ed. institution is one and the same; and the irregularities found in impugned order is in respect of D.Ed. course. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of the appeal was delayed by five months beyond the prescribed period of 60 days. The appellant has submitted that the Chairman of the society who was solely looking after the affairs of the institution and well conversant with the facts of the case was abroad at the time of passing and receiving the order and the Principal was not available as he was on long leave; he returned to India only in the second week of December, 2010 and even after securing all documents he could not proceed to prefer the appeal as he was taken ill in the second week of December, He also submitted that he was suffering from bladder tumor and was treated as in patient from to in Basavanagudi Medical Centre; the doctors advised him to take complete bed rest only in the second week of March, 2011 he was able to attend office and immediately he took steps to prefer an appeal. The appellant produced a copy of Medical Certificate dated issued by Basavanagudi Medical Centre, Bangalore which does not clearly indicate whether he was an in-patent or outpatient. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant has not indicated how long he was abroad, the order of withdrawal having been received on , as admitted by

22 the appellant himself and why the other office bearers of the trust could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed time with due consultation with the Chairman. Further the copy of medical certificate issued on and produced, does not establish categorically that the appellant was an in-patient from to , the period being quite long. In these circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that there are no good and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in filing appeal and therefore the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. (R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary 1. The Principal, Florida College of Education, No , 1 'D' Main Road, 3rd Block, Kalyanagar, H.R.B.R. Layout,, Banglore , Karnataka 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 Karnataka, Bangalore.

23 F.No /2011 Appeal/ 4th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /07/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Gyan Ganga Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh dated 26/04/2011 is against the Order No. NCTE/WRC/MP/APW01601/223267/2009/R-4057 dated 31/03/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground Built-up area is insufficient as per NCTE norms. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Gyan Ganga Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 26/04/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant aggrieved by the order of WRC dated filed a writ petition No before the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior and the Hon ble High Court in their order dated , accepting the prayer of the petitioner for permission to file an appeal and condonation of delay in the filing of appeal, condoned the delay in filing appeal and directed the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of two weeks from and the Appellate Authority may decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly the appellant filed the appeal on AND WHEREAS Sh. Shyam Sundar Yadav, Member and Sh. Ram Avtar Singh Tomar, Head Clerk, Gyan Ganga Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a conditional recognition was granted on for conducting B.Ed. with an intake of 100; a formal recognition was subsequently accorded on ; an inspection of the institution was conducted on the directions of the Hon ble High Court; a show cause notice was issued on stating that land and built-up area are inadequate as per NCTE norms; a reply to the show cause notice was duly sent; and without considering the reply in right perspective recognition was withdrawn. As regards land and built-up area, the appellant submitted that the society has a total area of hectares on which a building with a total area of 1650 sq.mt. on three floors is available, which exceeds NCTE norms. The appellant has also submitted that if some deficiency is left, he deserved to be given an opportunity to do the needful. The appellant submitted that even after refusal of recognition WRC conducted an inspection of the institution, which meant that the institution continued to be treated as a recognized one for all practical purposes. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the visiting team inspected the institution on and reported that the built-up area was 5000 sq.ft. and the building was under construction. The copies of the building plan submitted by the appellant earlier do not indicate the Khasra number, land area and built-up area. The appellant has not submitted any building completion certificate to support his claim that there is a building with a total built-up area of 1650 sq.mt. In brief the appellant has not proved availability of the requisite