NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /03/2011

Transcription

1 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /03/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh dated 10/03/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW 08107/222552/129/2008 dated of the Western Regional Committee, granting recognition for conducting D.Ed. (DE) course for 500 students only in place of 5000 seats applied for. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 10/01/2011 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 Dr. R.S. Pandey, HOD (Education), Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the Regional Committee granting recognition with annual Intake of 500 Seats Vide Order No. WRC/APW08/07/222552/129/2008/63319 dated 21/01/2010 for 500 seats in place of 5000 seat ought to have been granted by the Regional Committee; M.P. State was having 50 districts and University was having NOC from all 50 districts study centers to start the programme in all the study centers in M.P. State; In M.P. State there was large population and untrained in-service elementary teachers whereas Chhatisgarh State having 36 districts was granted recognition for D.Ed.(DE) programme with annual intake of 2500 seats. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that as per the current NCTE Regulations 2009, the basic unit prescribed for D.Ed. course through Distance mode was 500 which had already been sanctioned to the institution. The Council was, therefore, of the view that there was no ground to accept the appeal. 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 WRC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Vice Chancellor, Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University, Raja Bhoj Marg (Kolar Road),, Bhopal , 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

2 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

3 F.No /2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /03/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Mata Vaishno Devi College of Education, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh dated 25/12/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW01553/223247/140TH/2010/71702 dated 08/11/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds: 1) The building shown to the VT by the institution is not on the land for which documents were submitted by the institution with the application. The institution contravened the clause 8.9 of Regulations ) The CLU of the land for which the documents were submitted by the institution has not been submitted. The institution contravened the clause 8.6 of Regulations AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Mata Vaishno Devi College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/12/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. A.K. Singh, Principal and Shri. Praveen Dhadse, Accountant, Mata Vaishno Devi College of Education, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (i) the institution has submitted the same documents which were shown to the VT and therefore, institution has not contravened the clause 8.9 of the Regulations 2005; (ii) the institution was housed in two plots i.e. 55 & 56 of Ahmedpur, Misrod, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and thus, the building of the institution is covering both the plots meeting out the requirements of the norms of NCTE and therefore, the Institution had submitted the documents relating to both the plots; (iii) this position as is being submitted by the Institution can also be verified from the CD submitted to the VT by the Institution; (iv) the Plot No. 56 itself has a land more than 2500 sq.mt. and has the constructed area over more than 1500 sq.mt. consisting of class rooms, library, play ground etc. In this regard, the documents relating to Plot No. 56, Ahmedpur, Misrod, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh along with the CD covering the Plot No. 55 & 56 are placed on record; (v) the Institution has not contravened the clause 8.6 of Regulations 2005 and had also submitted the approved layout by the Municipal Corporation Bhopal to the Western Regional Committee, Bhopal; (vi) taking into account whole things, the Western Regional Committee, NCTE in its 103rd meeting held during April 27th - 30th, 2008 decided to permit to change the premises to new place i.e. Mata Vaishno Devi College of Education, Plot No. 55, 56, Ahmedpur, Misrod, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (vii) therefore, having granted permission to run the Institution from a particular place, the Western Regional Committee is not fair to raise objection like CLU of the land and that too after two years; (viii) be that as it may, the Institution has constructed the building in a authorized manner with prior permission/approval by the Municipal Corporation Bhopal. However, the building constructed on Plot No. 55 has recently been demolished by the Government for alignment of the public road; (ix) it appears that Western Regional

4 Committee while issuing impugned withdrawal order has treated the Institution in such a way as if it was not dealing with a Institution which was not granted permission to change the premises from old place to new place; (x) the Institution being the transfer case, stands on different footing and thus, the condition of CLU of the land, if at all required is strictly not applicable particularly when the Institution had all the way satisfied all the norms / conditions of NCTE as laid down under Regulations; (xi) the NCTE itself had observed in the formal order of recognition order dated 17/12/2006 that Institution had acquired the land for setting up the Teacher Educational Institution and had constructed the building for conducting the course on the above mentioned land; (xii) these two conditions are again being satisfied by the Institution even at the new place. However, it is also clarified that the Plot No. 55 was taken on lease by the Institution for 50 years from Lochan Nari Society who in turn taken the land from the Govt. and Plot No. 56 is owned by the Institution through its Society - Jeevan Shiksha Mandal Samiti. The appellant finally submitted that he was not given any opportunity to make up the so-called deficiencies, which is obligatory under the provisions of NCTE Act, The Council noted that the institution was granted recognition on and for functioning at Raisen, MP and later on permitted shifting to a new location in Bhopal on The report of inspection conducted under Section 17 of the NCTE Act on inter-alia stated that there is a gap between actual documents and the documents submitted by the institution to the WRC. The VTR also pointed out a number of other deficiencies relating to staff, infrastructural / instructional facilities (like inadequate classroom furniture, absence of computer lab and multipurpose room, inadequate books in the library, absence of ET lab and art room). The VTR concluded that due to lack of any kind of facilities in the college B.Ed. programme cannot be conducted in such an institution. AND WHEREAS the Council however noting, the submission of the appellant that no show cause notice was issued before withdrawing recognition came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of the WRC reversed with a direction that a show cause notice may be issued to the institution after taking into account the above observations made by the VT and the Council and necessary action taken thereafter. 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 reverse the WRC s order dated with the direction to the WRC a show cause notice may be issued to the institution after taking into account the above observations made by the VT and the Council and necessary action taken thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the WRC dated reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Principal, Mata Vaishno Devi College of Education, Plot NO. 55, 56, Ahmedpur, Misrod, Hoshangabad Road,, Bhopal -, Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

5 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.

6 F.No /2010 Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi /03/2011 O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Tauheed B.Ed. Training College, Kishanganj, Bihar dated 01/12/2010 is against the Order No. ERC/ /2010/5091 dated 24/09/2010 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds 1) In its reply dated 12th July 2010, the institution itself had agreed that it has demarcated sqm of built up area for the B.Ed college. 2) The building plan submitted by the institution purported to be for the proposed B.Ed. college has been approved in 1999 for the Higher Training Institute wherein the details about land area / built up area / plot no / Khata No / Khasra No. are not mentioned. However, the institution itself in its reply had claimed that the total area approved in the said building plan is sqm. 3) Moreover, the infrastructure mentioned in the building plan purported to be for the proposed B.Ed. College submitted by the institution alongwith its reply does not tally with the details mentioned by the VT Members. 4) The building plan submitted by the institution for the Multipurpose Hall is not approved by the competent authority. Moreover, the size of multipurpose hall mentioned in the building plan and that mentioned by the VT Members do not tally. 5) The Appellate authority vide order dated 6th Nov. 09 had stated that the institution had submitted the copy of approved building plan indicating Khasra no. proposed built up area before the Appeal whereas on perusal of the documents submitted by the institution, it is seen that the building plan submitted by the institution proposed to be for the B.Ed. college does not mention any details about land area / built up area / plot no /Khasra No. 6) The building plan submitted by the institution of Jamia Al. Bukhari Hostel is a two storeyed building plan having ground, first and second floor, whereas in the photograph of the hostel submitted alongwith the reply, it is having ground and first floor only. 7) Moreover, the said building plan has been approved in the name of society in October 1993 for the purpose of Student Hostel, whereas the land in the name of society has been registered in December ) The approval of the building plan for the hostel has been approved for holding No. 267, whereas in the land documents, affidavits submitted by the institution, application form etc. there is no mention of the said holding No. 9) The institution has submitted the building plan for the proposed B.Ed college, which is not approved by the competent authority. Moreover the built up area differs. The building plan and building completion submitted for the B.Ed College shows the built up area as 2030 sqm whereas in the reply, the institution had stated the total built up area as sqm. 10) The Appellate authority vide order dated 6th Nov. 09 had stated that the institution had submitted the certified copy of land documents to ERC, whereas the institution had submitted the land documents certified on 12th July 2010 alongwith the reply to Show Cause Notice on 19th July AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Tauheed B.Ed. Training College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 01/12/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order.

7 AND WHEREAS Shri. M.A. Rashid, Secretary, Tauheed B.Ed. Training College, Kishanganj, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that (1) the appellant in its representation dated 12/07/2010 had clearly mentioned in reply to para No. 2 that the total build up area was sqmt. and also filed the photographs of all the three buildings covering the said area of sq.mt.; (2) the appellant in its representation dated 12/07/2010 in para IV had clarified beyond any doubt that the completion certificate issued by the Municipality was having all the required details and appellant also filed a photocopy of the said completion certificate but the same was not taken in to consideration and again the same objections were raised; (3) the allegations were general in nature and without any basis; (4) the appellant was having more than required built-up area of 1500 sq.mt for the recognition of B.Ed course even if the built-up area of Hall, which was sq.mt. was excluded; (5) it was correct that Jamia Al- Bukhari Hostel was having only ground and first floor while the site plan showed ground, first and second stories but the third story of the said hostel would be constructed soon; the appellant was the owner of the said land; (6) it was not going to make any difference in the nature and use of the said land and for practical purpose it had no relevancy at all; (7) the building plan was approved by the competent authority; (8) the difference of built-up area showing 2030 sqm in building plan and sqm stated by the appellant in its representation dated 12/07/2010 was not going to change the nature of the building and built-up area, in any case, remains more than 1500 sqm required for providing recognition for a B.Ed. College; (9) certified copies of any documents could be obtained at any date and it was not going to affect the nature of the land if any other deficiency was not there in the said documents. AND WHEREAS as regards objections at Sl.No.1 & 2 regarding available built-up area, the Council noted that in its reply dated , the institution stated that it was having a total built-up area of Sq.mts. in three buildings i.e Sq.mts. in one building, Sq.mts. and Sq.mts. respectively in the other two buildings. From these details of built-up area and the photographs furnished by the institution, the Council noted that the built-up area of Sq.mts. was that of hostel block. Thus, excluding this area of hostel block, the available built-up area for the proposed B.Ed. College worked out to Sq.mts. ( Sq.mts.) as against the requirement of minimum of 1500 Sq.mts. as per NCTE norms. Regarding the objection at Sl.No.3, the explanation furnished was not satisfactory inasmuch as the institution only stated that the allegations were general in nature and without any basis. Similarly, while the institution furnished building plan showing the size of the multipurpose hall as Sq.mts., the VT in its report indicated that there were two halls with an area of Sq.mts. and 160 Sq.mts. Thus, the explanation given by the institution to the objection at Sl.No.4 that the institution was having more than 1500 Sq.mts. of built-up area without explaining the discrepancy pointed out, was also not convincing. As regard objection at Sl.No.5&10, the Council noted that these objections were not relevant as even if there was any discrepancy in the appellate order, ERC should have taken up the matter with the appellate authority rather than using the same against the institution as an objection for refusal of recognition. Regarding objections at Sl.No.6,7&8, the Council was of the view that the explanations furnished by the institution were acceptable. As already explained, the available built-up area as furnished by the institution in various documents, differ. Therefore, the explanation given by the institution in respect of objection at Sl.No.9 was not acceptable. In the circumstances, the Council was of the view that the institution did not fulfill the requirement as per the NCTE norms to become eligible for recognition for B.Ed. course and thus there was no ground to accept the appeal.

8 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 ERC s order dated was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. (S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Vice President, Tauheed B.Ed. Training College, Mahadabad, Khargra,, Kishanganj , Bihar 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.