20102/2013 (i) - ncte : national council for teacher … meeting 2013.pdfinthis office tilldate. and...

F.No 89-90/2013 Appeal/11 th Meellng-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. New Delhi - 110 00207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, U.P. dt. 20102/2013 IS

agalns! the order No. NRC/NCTE/NRCAPP-1872/208th Meellng/2012/35554 dt. 29/12/2012 ofthe NRC refusing recognition for conducting D.E.C Ed course on the grounds that (i) Institutionhas not submitted change of land use certificate issued by the competent authority as requiredin the NCTE Regulations. 2009, and (ii) the FDRs submitted by the institution do not match withthe details of FDRs mentloned in the application form.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad (hereinafter referred toas the appellant). preferred an appeal dated 01/03/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order

AND WHEREAS as per the rules, the appellant was given three opportunities to presenttheir caS2 on 30/04/2013, 27/05/2013 and 23/07/2013, but nobody appeared on all theoccasions. In the circumstances, the Council decided to proceed with the consideration of theAppeal all the baSISof the records. 3. In the appeal the appellant submitted that he did notreceive the deficiency letter.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted from the file of NRC that a deficiency letter wasIssued on 20/03/2012 pomting out four deficiencies. The appellant replied to the deficiency letteron 16-05-2012 and 18-05-2012 and forwarded copies of FDRs for Rs 5 lakhs and Rs 3 lakhsobtained from a Scheduled Bank. original bUilding plan and certified copy of registered landdocumen~. NRC Issued a show cause notice dated 28/08/2012 pointing out that original of theFDRs and notarized copy of change of land use certificate have not been submitted. Theappellant replied on 26/09/2012 and sent again the same copies of FORs from a scheduledbank, He did nol send any reply about C L.U

AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the submission of appellant that they didnot receIve the deficiency leiter is not correct as he replied the same through two leiters asstaled above, However, he did not submtt CLU and the FDRs (copies only) are not from anationalized bank as required under the Regulations. In the circumstances, the Councilconcluded that NRC was Justlfied In refUSingrecognition and therefore, the appeal deserved tobe rejected and the order of the NHC confirmed

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, Memorandum of appeal, affidavit andthe documents available on record, the Council concluded that the NRC was justified in refusingrecognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of NRC confirmed

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.

~~~/<Member Secretary

1. The Secretary, Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Plot No. 212-SA, Street No. - NA, Village-Hardasi Khera, Post Office-Chinhat, TehsillTaluka-Sadar, Town/City-Lucknow, Lucknow-227105, Uttar Pradesh2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Shawano New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar.Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh,Lucknow.

F No.89-1 00/2013 Appeal/11th Meeting-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1. Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi ~ 110 00207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of C.F. Ali D.ELEd College. Birbhum, Nalhati, W.B. dated01/03/2013 is against the Order No. ERC/7-148-11-1/2013/15801 dated 18/01/2013 of theEastern Regional Committee. refusing recognition for conducting D.EI.Ed. course on thegrounds that (i) deficiency letter was Issued on 01102/2012. Reply of the deficiency letter wasnol submitted by the instItution, (ii) in response to deficiency letter the Institution did not submitany documentary evidence in support of deficiencies communicated; (iii) show cause notice wasissued on 19/07/2012 and. (iv) no reply in response to the show cause notice has been receivedin this office till date.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, C F Ali D.EI.Ed. College. (hereinafter referred to asthe appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/03/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation, New DeIhl (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act.1993 against the said Order

AND WHEREAS Sh. Nure Alam Chaudhary, PreSIdent and Secretary, C.F. Ali O.EI.Ed.College, Blrbhum. Nalhatl, W.B presented the case of the appellant institution on 23-07-2013. Inthe appeal and during personal presentation. the appellant submitted thai they have replied tothe deficiency letter on 23/03/2012; the deplt. Of School Education, Govt. of W.8. hasconducted an inspection and was satisfied with the requirements; and they have not receivedthe show cause notice

AND WHEREAS the CouncH noted from the ERC's file thai a deficiency letter pointing outten deficiencies was issued on 01/02/2012. As that leiter was received back undelivered it wassenl again to an address at Kolkata on 29/02/2012. The appellant replied to this letter on23/03/2012 stating that an inspection was conducted by the Govt. of W.8. and the inspectionteam was satisfied fully He wanted to know if any deficiency is to be complied with. The ERCsent a show cause notice dated 19/07/2012 to the address at Birbhum. The appellant howeverclaimed that he did not receIve any show cause notice. The appellant in his earlier reply dated23/03/2012 stated that the society's address is at Kolkata. In the show cause notice it waspointed out that deficiencies pointed out by ERC have to be removed and the matter cannot beconsidered on the basis of State Govt inspection.

AND WHEREAS in view of the above position the Council concluded that matterdeserved to be remanded back to Ef~C with a direction to re-issue the Show Cause Notice atthe Kolkata address and take further action as per the Regulations.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the heanng. the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved 10 be remanded to ERC With a direction to re-issue the Show Cause Noticeat the Kolkala address and take further action as per the Regulations.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of C F Ali D.ELEd.College" Birbhum, West Bengal to the ERC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicatedabove.

~OX~W3Member Secretary

1. The Appellant, C F Ali D.EI.Ed. College" 1419, 1420, 1706, Peoples Social ServiceSociety, 1419, N, Nalhati, Nalhati Birbhum, Birbhum -731243, West Bengal2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri 8hawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapal1i,8hubaneshwar - 751012.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of West Bengal,Kolkata.

F.No.89-416/2013 Appeal/11th Meetlng-20 13NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan, Wing 11,1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi ~ 11000207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Shankar Shiv Mahavidyalaya, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh dt.13/06/2013 Is against the order No NRC/NCTE/NRCAPP-1710/213th Meetlng/2012/45525-26dated. 24/05/2013 of the NRC refusing recognition for conducting D.EI.Ed. course on the groundthat the CD submitted with Ihe VTR revealed that mosl of rooms, window have not been fixed,similarly in some rooms there is no proper flooring. furniture is of poor quality and the building isnot ready to start 0 EI Ed course

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Shankar Shiv Mahavidyalaya (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/06/2013 to the National Council forTeacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of theNCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Sh Virender Pal Singh, Manager and Sh. Anup Kumar Gautam,Member, Shri Shankar ShIV Mahavidyalaya, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of theappellant institution on 23-07-2013. In the appeal and during personal presentation theappellant submitted that he has given an affidavit to the NRC that all deficiencies as intimatedby them have been made good. there are no prescribed norms and quality standards in so foras furnIture and floonng is concerned and they are of reasonably good quality.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the NRC once refused grant of recognition to theappellant instItution on 23/07/2012 after conducting an inspection on 20/04/2012 and issuing ashow cause notice on 06/06/2012 on the ground that the appellant did not submit a reply to theshow cause notice In that refusal order a reference was made to an earlier show cause noticedt. 23/01/2012 Issued pnor to Inspection and not to the show cause notice dt. 06/06/2012. Theappellant appealed 10 the Council. FindIng that a reply dt. 15/06/2012 to the show cause noticedt. 06/06/2012 was available in the file, the Council. in their order dt. 10/10/2012 remanded thecase to NHC to consider the reply_ The NRC in their letter dl. 28/12/2012 asked the appellant todeposit Rs. 50,000/- for constituting a VT. The appellant filed a W.P. No. 3590 of 2013 beforethe Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against the contents of the said letter. Thecase of the petitioner was that NRC must take a decision on the basis of his reply and thedocuments fjled and the CD and the demand for Rs. 50,000/- for a fresh inspection was un-called for. The Hon'ble High Court in their order dl. 22/01/2013 directed that in view of theunwillingness of the petitioner for a fresh inspection, the NRC may take its own reasoneddecision in the maHer on the basis of the material available within 6 weeks from the date of filinga certified copy of their order, and communicate to the petitioner. The NRC again consideredthe matter and refused recognition in their order dt. 24/05/2013 against which the presentappeal has been flied

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the latest order does not indicate the manner inwhich the reply of the appellant dl 15/06/2012 to the show cause notice dt. 06/06/2012 wasconsidered and how they have come to the conclusion that the grounds of refusal are valid andjustified. This is not a speaking order and does not conform to the directions of the Hon'ble HighCourt. In the above circumstances the Council concluded that i.he matter deserved 10 beremanded to the NHC with a direction to examine the reply of the appellant dated 15-06-2012and issue a speaking order so as to conform to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit. andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserves to be remanded to NRC with a direction to examIne the reply of theappellant dated 15-06-2012 and issue a speaking order so as to conform to the direcliOns of theHon'ble High Court.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Shri ShankarShiv Mahavidyalaya, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action asindicated above.

0jJ8 fL.(R Jay~%{1'J

Member Secretary

1. The Manager, Shri Shankar Shiv Mahavidyalaya, 136, 137, NA, Partapur, Tundla"Firozabad - 283204, Uttar Pradesh2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaven Path, Mansarover Nagar,Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh,Lucknow.

F.No 89-94/2013 Appeal/11th Meeting-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Uhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. NeVIl Delhi - 11000207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Balaji Institute of Education and Training. Ananthapur, AP.dt 18/09/2012 IS a9alnst the Order no. SRCAPP5901D.ELED/AP/2012-13/45124 dt13108/2012 of the SRC refusing recognition for D.EI.Ed. course on the ground that theinstitution, al the time of the proposed Inspection on 08/07/2012, requested for postponement ofinspection by three months as plastering work was going on and they were about to procureinstructional material related to the academic activities of the college and whereas as per clause8(10) of the NCTE Regulations at the time of inspection the building of the institution shall becomplete in the form of the permanent structure eqUIpped with all necessary amenities

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri BaJaji Institute of Education and Training(hereinafter referred to as the appellant). preferred an appeal dated 04/03/2013 to the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education, New Deihl (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section18 of the NCTE Act. 1993 against the saId Order.

AND WHEREAS Sh. Kiran 8 EC Member, Shri Balaji Institute of Education and Training,I\nanthapur, A.P. presented the case of the appellant institution on 23.07-2013. In the appealand during personal prescnbed the appellant has submitted that while the building was notcomplete in all respects al the time of proposed inspection on 08-07-2012, they are now readyto show the building. infrastructure and instructional material to the Visiting Team. The appellantwith his letter dated 22-07-2013 enclosed a building completion certificate dated 27.8.2012 ..

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that as per the provisions of clause 8(10) of the NCTERegulations, 2009 at the time of inspection the building of the institution shall be complete in theform of a permanent structure and the applicant shall produce the original building completioncertificate issued by the competent authority. the Council noled that as per the admission of theappellant. the bUilding was nol complete on the proposed date of inspection and there was nobuilding completion certificate on that date, the Council also noted that as per the provisions ofclause 7(4) of the NCTE Hegulatlons, 2000, Inspection shall not be subject to the consent of theinstitution

AND WHEREAS in view of the position stated above the Council concluded that the SRCwas justified In refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and theorder of the SRC confirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit andalter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confinns the Order appealed against.

J"'T;: (L(R. J(Jya¥~/3,

Member Secretary

1. The Secretary, Sri Balaji Institute of Education and Training, Plot No. 206, 144, DMMRoad, Mylepalli" Ananthapur - 515144, Andhra Pradesh2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee. Jnana Sharathi Campus Road,Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad.

F.No.89-131/2013 Appeal/11th Meetlng-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawano Wing II, 1. Bahadurshah Zatar Marg, New Delhi - 110 00207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Swami Sarvanand College of Education, Gurdaspur, Punjab dt.08/03/2013 is against the Order no. F. NC/NCTE/PB-210/20lTH MEETING/2012/3S99S dt.09/01/2013 of the NHC wIthdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground thatthe college has failed to appoint a regular principal as required under the norms of NCTE forB Ed course.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent. Swami Sarvanand College of Education (hereinafterreferred to as the appellan!), preferred an appeal dated 18/03/2013 to the National Council forTeacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of theNCTE Act. 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Dr. Subhash Kumar, Member and Sh. Dinesh Shastri. Secretary. ShriSwami Sarvanand College of Education, Gurdaspur, Punjab presented the case of the appellantInstitution on 23-07-2013. In the appeal it is submitted that thE: college had an approvedPnncipal from 03/11/2006 to 31/08/2010: they advertised that post of Principal in various newspapers but the candidates who applied for the post were not approved by Guru Nanak DevUniversity as they were not as per the rules. The appellant asked for some more time to appointthe Pnncipal. In the course of personal presentation, the appellant submitted a letter dated 22-07-2013 stating that they have completed all formalities for the appointment of a principal byselecting Dr. (Mrs) Sarla Nirankan and the Vice-Chancellor, Guru Nank Dev University, Amritsarhas approved her appointment The appellant. with that letter enclosed all papers relating to Dr.Sarla Nlrankans appOlnlrnenl including an English translation of GND University's letter dated29-07-2013 approving Dr. Sarla Nirankaris appointment on permanent basis with a probation ofone year wei 12-07-2013

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the college was granted recognition forconducting L3,Ed course on 26/05/2005 and on the basis of a complaint and letter from theUniversity for taking action for withdrawal of recognition, NRC issued a show cause notice dated28/08/2012 and after considering the reply dated 22/09/2012 withdrew recognition in their orderdated 09-01-2013 effective from the end of the academic session next following the date ofcommunica\lOn of their order.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the only ground on which recognition waswllhdrawan was the appellant's failure to appoint a regular principal. the Council noted from thesubmission of the appellant that the delay in the appointment of a regular principal was due toreasons beyond their control and finally they have been able to select a principal. after followingthe procedures. whose appointment has been approved by the affiliating University. In view ofthis pOSition the Council concluded that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of theNRC reversed. Following this decision NRC may restore the recognition to the appellantInstitution

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal. affidavit andafter considenng the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of the NRC reversed with the direction torestore the recognition to the appellant institution

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.

:trI~(lMember Secretary

1. The Secretary, Swami Sarvanand College of Education, Slo Dr. Bishan Dass SharmaVPO-Gharota, Tehsil & AMP;AMP; Distt. Pathankot, Dinanagar, Gurdaspur -143531,Punjab2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar,Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Punjab,Chandigarh.

F.No.89-56712012 Appeal/11 th Meetin9-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawano Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 00207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Annal Indira Memorial College of Education, Tiruchirapalli.Tamil Nadu dated 16-05-2013 (on-line) is against the order of the SRC F No. SRCAPP18(2012-13) DAED (PA) 1 TN 12011-12/39274 dated 15-03-2012 refusin9 permission forconducting D. A. Ed course on the ground that the course applied for in the on-line application,which is mandatory. only can be considered for processing and not an off.line application forchange of the course. The refusal order also indicated that in Tamil Nadu B.Ed. course isbanned as per the public notice dated 30-07-2011.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent. Annai Indira Memorial College of Education(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/09/2012 to the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section18 of the NCTE Act. 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS the appellant aggrieved by the order of the SRC filed a writ petitIon WP(MO) No. 5057 of 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Benchand Hle Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 10-08-2012 allowed the prayer of the petitionerto withdraw the petition to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act. TheHon'ble High Court also directed that If the statutory appeal IS filed within 30 days of receipt ofcertified copy of the said order, the same be treated to have been filed within limitation anddecided in accordance with law and on merits

AND WHEREAS the appellant filed the appeal manually on 05-09-2012. The appellantwas asked on 14-09-2012 to submit the appeal on-line. The appellant replied on 17-05-2013stating that on-hne appeal was submitted on 31-08-2012 and enclosed a copy of registrationdetails. He also filed an online appeal dated 16-05~2013. Since the appellant submitted a copyof registration details of an appeal beanng the date of 31-08-2012 and it is within the time limitallowed by the Hon'ble High Court, the appeal was taken up for consideration. ShriAdrikalasamy. Co-ordinator and Shri John Kennedy, Staff, Annal Indira Memorial College ofEducation, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 23-07-2013 In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that while applying forgrant of recognition for B.Ed. course on-line on 26-09-2011, the name of the course was printederroneously as DAEd and an erratum was sent to the SRC, Banga!ore, and NCTE, New Delhi.The apellant also submitted that as theirs is a Christian religious minority institution the contentsof the public notice banning B Ed In TN are not applicable to them. The appellant. in supportof his request to allow change of the course applied for from O,AEd. to B.Ed. with his letterdated 17-05-2013 Inter alia enclosed a copy of the Council's appellate order dated 04~01~2012,wherein the appeal of Joseph Yuva College of Education, Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh forconsldenng their application for B Ed. course was accepted eventhough in the on-line~ppljcation 8 EI.Ed couse was clIcked and subsequently they clarified that B.EI.Ed. course wasnot available In Andhra Pradesh.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant applied on-line on 26-09-2011 forgrant of recognition for a course '.D.AEd. (PA)". The institution, on getting an endorsement ofthc leltcr dated 10.10.2011 written by SRC to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu seeking theirrecommendations on their application. wrote to NCTE on 20-10-2011 stating that in the on-line

application, the name of the course was erroneously selected as D AEd (PA) instead of [3. Edwhich they wanted to run They requested that SRC may be asked to amend the name of thecourse to B.Ed. They endorsed a copy of that letter to SRC also. The Institution, in their replydated 25~01-2012 to the deficiency letter issued by SRC also Informed that their requesl is forgrant of recognition to S. Ed only and there is no D.AEd. course offered in Tamil Nadu TheSRC not accepting the plea rejected the application for the reasons mentioned above. theCouncil considering all aspects of the matter concluded that the matter deserved to beremanded to the SRC with a direction to process the application for B Ed course on merits andafter examining the minority status of the institution, as per the Regulations.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal. affidavit, andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction 10 process the application for 8.Edcourse on merits and after examining the minonty status of the institution, as per theRegulations.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Annai IndiraMemorial College of Education, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu to the SRC, NCTE, fornecessary action as indicated above.

~*(1(R. Jaya)

Member Secretary

1. The Manager/Correspondent, Annai Indira Memorial College of Education, PlotlKhasraNo. 434/11,13, 14, 9,10, Plot No. 5/207, Navalur Kuttapattu, Mathukulam Village,Srirangam Taluk" Tiruchirappalli ~620009, Tamilnadu2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School EducatIon& Literacy, Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Joana Bharalhi Campus RoadNagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Sangalore ~560 072.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu,Chennai.

F.No.89-139/2013 Appeal/11th Meeting-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawano Wing II. 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 11000207108/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Ch. Ram Singh College of Education, Muzaffarnagar, UP dt.15/03/2013 is against the order no. NRCINCTEINRCAPP-2792/209th Meeting/2012/36605-606dt. 15/01/2013 of the NRC refusing recognition for conducting 0 EI.Ed course on the ground thata reply to the show cause notice dt 05/11/2012 has nol been received till date.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ch. Ram Singh College of Education (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/03/2013 to the National Council forTeacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of theNCTE Act, 1993 agamst the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shr; Bijender Kumar, Employee and Shri Vipul Kumar, Employee, Ch.Ram Singh College of Education, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. presented the case of the appellantinstitution on 23-07-2013. In the appeal and during personal presentation it is submitted that areply to the show cause notice was sent by post. The appellant however, has not shown anyprool of sendmg a reply. He has also not furnished a copy of the reply reported to have beensen!.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the file of the NRC does not contain any reply tothe show cause notice issued to the appellant. In the circumstances the Council concluded thatthe NRC was justified in refUSing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejectedand the order of Itle NRC confirmed

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit andafter conSIdering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing. the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the NRC confirmed.


!:n~Member Secretary

1. The Secretary, Ch. Ram Singh College of Education, VPO Khera Chauganwa Jansath,Tchsil.Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, Jansath. Muzaffarnagar - 251201, Uttar Pradesh2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy. Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar,Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan.'i. The Secretary. Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh.Lucknow.


Hans Bhawan. Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. New Delhi - 110 00207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Ravindra Prasad B.Ed. College, Siwan, Bihar dt. 18/03/2013 isagainst the Order no ERC/7 -150 11(ii) 4112013/16773 dl. 02/03/2013 of the ERC refusingrecognllion for conducting REd course on the grounds that (i) On line application was made bythe SocielylTrust/lnstilution on 21/12/2012; (ij) Date of dispatch of hard copy is 31/12/2012 i,e.affer 07 days and: (rll) Land document submitted by the institution is on lease basis from aprivate party.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ravindra Prasad B.Ed. College (hereinafter referredto as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/03/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Member, Ravindra Prasad B.Ed College,Slwan. BIhar presented the case at the appellant institution on 23-07-2013. In the appeaJ andduring personal presentation the appellant submitted that the date of dispatch of hard copy is24/12/2012 and the land document submitted is on registered lease basis for a period of 30years The appellant enclosed a copy of registered post receipt dt. 24/12/2012 in support of hisclaim There is over writing at date.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted from the file of ERC that ERC by a tracking reportfound that the leiter was dispatched on 31/12/2012. the Council also noted that the appellant'sclaim that the lease was Govt registered does not meet the requirement of NCTE Regulations,2009 according to which the Jease should be from Govt./Govt. Institution. In thesecircumstances, the Council concluded that the ERC was justified in refUSing recognition andtherefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the ERC confirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal at the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the ERC confirmed,


!':trk1,t>Member Secretary

1. The Secretary, Ravindra Prasad a.Ed. College, Vill.-ShaharkoJa, PO-Shaharkola ViaBasantpur, PS-Basantpur, Siwan - 841406, Bihar2_The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Bhawan. New Delhi3. ReglonaJ DIrector, Eastern Regional Commiltee. 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli,I3hubaneshwar - 751012.4 The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.

F.No.89-194/2013 Appeal/11th Meetlng-2013NA TlONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan, Wing II. 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 11000207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Guru Rachoteswhar Education Society. Haveri, Karnatakadt. 04/04/2013 is against the Order No. SRCAPP1975 (2013-14)/BEd/KA/2013-14/49878 dt.25103/2013 of the SRC refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds that (i)the society has not submitted a copy of the registered land document issued by the competentauthority indicating that the society/institution applying far the course possessed land on thedate of applications; (ii) complete print oul of on-line application is not submitted, The institutionhas only submitted 4 pages and: (iii) processing fee is submitted after the dale of on-lineapplication i.e on line application is dated 28/12/2012 and date of payment of processing fee is31/12/2012

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Guru Rachoteswhar Education Society(hereinafter referred 10 as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 08/04/2013 to the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section18 of the NCTE Act. 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shn Channabasavswamiji, President, Sri Guru RachoteswherEducation Society, Haveri, Karnataka presentation the case of the appellant institution on 23~07-2013. In the appeal and during personal presentation the appellant submitted that theyearlier enclosed only land tax register issued by Purasaba and now they are enclosing actualland document (including English version): they are now submitting hard copy of on-lineapplication. Regarding late submiSSion of processing fee, the appellant submitted theycompleted on~ljne submission at 12.06 PM on 28/12/2012, on 29/12/2012, which was Saturday,by the time they reached ICICI l3ank in the nearby district It was closed, 30/12/2012 wasSunday and they could depOSit the lee on the next workIng day i e. 31/12/2012.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant admitted that the complete hardcopy of the application is being submitted now only. He also admitted Ihat he did not enclosecopy of the registered land document with the application. The copy of land document nowfurnished is dated 22/02/2013 i.e. after the date of application. In the circumstances the Councilconcluded that the SRC was justifIed in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deservedto be rejecled and the order of the SRC confirmed

AND WHEREAS alter perusal of the documents. memoranrlum of appeal, affidavit andafter considenng the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.


~jj~~Member Secretary

1. The Chairman, Sri Guru Rachoteswhar Education Society, Savanur, 498, PresidentSGR Society Savanur, 498" Haveri District - 581118, Karnataka2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee. Jnana Sharathi Campus Road.Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka.Bangalore.

F.No.89-204/2013 Appeal111 th Meeting-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 11000207108/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Annai College of Education, Salem, Tamil Nadu dt. 08/0412013IS against the order No. SRCAPP1887(2013-2014)/BEdITN/2012-13/50338 dt. 03/04/2013 ofthe SRC refusing recognition for conducting B,Ed course on the grounds that (i) the societysubmitted pnvate lease deed dt. 06/07/2012 and did not send a copy of the registered landdocument with the online application: and Oi) the Trust again submitted gift deed which wasregistered on 28/12/2012 and which is after submission of online application dt. 26/12/2012.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent. Annai College of Education (hereinafter referred toas the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/04/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 agalnsl the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shri R Selverajan, Secretary, Annai College of Education, Salem. TamilNadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 24-07-2013. In the appeal and duringpersonal presentation the appellant submitted that as soon as they came to know that leasedeed is not permissible they registered their land as a gift deed on 28/12/2012.

AND WHEREAS ttle Council noted that as per clause 8(7) (i) of the NCTE Regulations2009, the sponsoring society or the institution should have land in its possession on the date ofapplication. In this case the date of application is 26/12/2012 and the gift deed is registered on28/12/2012. In ttle circumstances the Council concluded that SRC was justified in refusingrecognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRCconfirmed

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal. affidavit andafter considering ttle oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved 10 be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Ord~r appealed against.

~J1f.I~J)Member Secretary

1. The Manager, Annai College of Education, 154/5, Lease Land, Nangavalli, Salem-636454, Tamilnadu2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Department of School Education& Literacy, Stlastri Ghawan, New Delhi.3 Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharalhi Campus Road.Nagarabhavl. Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072.4 The Secretary, Educatton (lookIng after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu,Chennai

FNo89-208/2013 Appeal/11th Meetlng-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan, Wing II. 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. New Delhi ~ 11000207108/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Sardar Kewa! Singh Memorial Trust, Kurukshetra, Haryana dt.15/04/2013 IS against the order No. NRC/NCTE/NRCAPP-1798/211th Meeting/2013/38678 dt12/03/2013 of the NRC refusing recognition for conducting D.EI.Ed course on the grounds that(i) the reply of the show cause notice IS not satisfactory; (ii) the institution has not mentioned thecourses it is conducting in its application; (iii) the VTR states that it is running BBA, MBA andpolytechnic courses not mentioned in the application form; and (iv) the measurements physicallyverified by the VT in its report on page 5 (The class rooms) differ from the measurements in theapplication form.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Gurpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as theappellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/04/2013 to the National Council for Teacher Education,New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993against the said Order,

AND WHEREAS Shn Gurpreet Singh, Chairman, Gurpreet Singh (SKS) College ofEducation, Kurukshetra, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on 24-07-2013.In the appeal and dunng personal presentation the appellant submitted that (i) NRC refusedrecognition on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice, thereby denying an opportunityto make a representation, (ii) Land for Teacher Education course is totally separate and noother course is being run In the land demarcated for teacher education course; and (iii) the sizeof the classroom mentioned In the application form was a typographical error which may becondoned. In the course of personal presentation, the appellant submitted that he is willing toget his institution re-Inspected

AND WHEREAS the CounCil noted that the institution was inspected on 8-9 January,7.013 The measurements of the rooms/multipurpose hall given on page 5 of the VT report donot tally with those mentIoned on page 21 thereof. On page 21 the size of the multipurpose hallis shown as 208 sq It. only whereas on page 5 it is shown a 186.54 sq. mts. In the overallassessment the VT however reported that the college has ample infra structural facility to runD EJ.Ed. course

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that there are discrepancies in the measurementsmentioned in various documents and there is no clarity about running of other courses by theappellant In the circumstances Ihe Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remandedto the NRC With a dJrecl10n 10 conduct, within a month, a fresh inspection of the institution onpayment of Inspection fee by Ihe appellant and take further action as per the Regulations, TheVisiting 1earn should be asked rnler Alia to obtalO all the details of the infrastructure includingthe bUilding completion certIficate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed form andvenfy the actual posltlon regarding conduct of other courses in the campus by the appellant.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserves to be remanded to NRC with a direction to conduct, within a month, a freshinspection of the institution on payment of inspection fee by the appellant and take further action

as per the Regulations. The Visiting Team should be asked inter Alia to obtain all the details ofthe infrastructure including the building completion certificate issued by the competent authontyin the prescribed form and verify the actual position regarding conduct of other courses in thecampus by the appellant.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Gurpreet Singh,Kurukshetra, Haryana to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.

!7:.~~Member Secretary

1. The Chairman, Gurpreet Singh, Muraba No. 50, Khasra No. 22, Owner Ship, Kirmach, ,Kurukshetra - 136118, Haryana2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar,Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020. Rajasthan.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana.Chandigarh.

F No.89-206/2013 Appeal/11th Meeting-2013NATIONAL COUNCtL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 11000207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Hawabagh Womens College, Narmada Road. Jabalpur dt.08/04/2013 is against the Order No WRC/213022/177/2013/99533 dt. 09/02/2013 of the WRCwithdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed/M.Ed courses on the ground that in reply to theshow cause notice dt. 24/09/2012 (i) the institution supplied only Xerox copies of landdocuments, non~encumbrance certificate and a building completion certificate which is not evenissued by the competent authority; (ii) the institution employed teaching staff but is not payingthem according to UGC/State Govt./University norms; and (iii) M,Ed teaching staff is not as pernorms

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Hawabagh Womens College (hereinafter referred toas the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/04/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shri Rev. Persis Peters, Manager, Dr. M Upadaya. H.O. 0 and Sh. A.K.Massex, Accountant. Hawabagh Womens College, Narmada Road, Jabalpur presented thecase of the appellant InstitutIon on 24-07-2013. In the appeal the appellant has submittedexplanations to the grounds mentioned in the withdrawal order, which are the same asmentioned In the show cause notice dt. 24/09/2012 and which was replied to by the institutionon 20/10/2012

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the WRC conducted an inspection of theInstitution on 12/06/2012 under the provision of clause 8( 13) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009.which lay down that whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for a course, theinstitution shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standardimmediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. However.the revised land area related norms shall not be applicable to the existing institutions, if thesame is not possible. but the required built up area is to be increased to conform to the revisednorms. the Council further noted that the WRC issued a show cause notice dated 24-09-2012 tothe appellant instltul10n and after considering the reply of the institution to the show causenotice, WRC zeroed on the grounds listed in the refusal order. The institution in their reply to theshow cause notice and In the appeal has submitted that the college building has beenconstructed many years back (in the reply to show cause notice it is mentioned that it wasconstructed before 1951 and in the appeal it is mentioned that it was constructed 80 yearsback). The Visillng 1cam in their report mentioned that this institution is one of the oldestteacher education institution and there are several buildings for various courses. In view of thispositIon and in the context of initial recognition for B.Ed and M.Ed courses having been grantedin the year 2000 and enhancement of intake sanctioned in the year 2005, questions relating tobUilding plan. building completion certificate. diversion certificate and non-encumbrancecertiflcate at this point of time should not be relevant. However, the availability of requisite builtup area is relevant. While in the reply to the show cause notice, the appellant stated that thebuilt up area for teacher education courses was 1109 sq.mts, in the appeal the appellant hasmentioned thai the buill up area is 2628 sq.mts. there is thus a contradiction. The Visiting TeamspeCifically mentioned that the institution has less exclusive built up area for B.Ed and M.Ed

courses than required because of sharing of rooms, halls and libraries. As per the current norms2000 sq.mts of built up area is needed for B.Ed and M Ed courses

AND WHEREAS the Council also noted from the reply to the show cause notice and theexplanation in the appeal that the institution is not paying salanes to all the teaching staff onprescribed pay scales but is paying consolidated amounts. The plea of the appellant is that theyare not getting aid to meet their financial obligations and are running at a loss. According 10 theprovisions of clause 10(2) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 the academic and other staff of theinstitution shall be paid such salary as may be prescribed by the concerned Govt. or Board oraffiliating body by account payee cheque the Council also noted from the reply to the showcause notice that (i) for B.Ed. course six faculty members are employed on contractual basis ona consolidated salary of Rs. 5000/- PM and two are guest faculty on a consolidated salary of Rs.20001- PM and (iI) for M.Ed course three faculty members are not on prescribed scale of pay.The NCTE norms envisage appointment of qualified and approved teachers on regular full timebasis who should be paid salaries on prescribed scales of pay. the CouncIl considering allaspects of the matter concluded that the WRC was justified in withdrawing recognition for B.Ed.and M.Ed. courses and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the WRCconfirmed

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal. affidaVit andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the ERC confirmed


~7i£~3>Member Secretary

1. The Principal, Hawabagh Womens College, Narmada Road, Jabalpur - 482001, MadhyaPradesh2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Department of SchOOlEducation& Literacy, Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee. Manas Shawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal -462002.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh,BhopaL


Hans 8hawan. Wing II. 1. Bahadurshah Zatar Marg, New Delhi. 110 00207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Hawabagh Womens College. Narmada Road, Jabalpur dt.08/04/2013 IS against the Order No. WRC/213022/177/2013/99533 dt. 09/02/2013 of the WRCwithdrawing recognition for conducting 8.Ed/M Ed courses on the ground that in reply to theshow cause notice dt. 24/09/2012 (i) the institution supplied only Xerox copies of landdocuments, non-encumbrance certificate and a building completion certificate which is not evenissued by the competent authority; (ii) the institution employed teaching staff but is not payingthem according to UGC/Slate Govt./University norms: and (iii) M.Ed teaching staff is not as pernorms

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent. Hawabagh Womens College (hereinafter referred toas the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/04/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shri Rev. Persis Peters. Manager, Dr. M. Upadaya. H.O. 0 and Sh. A.K.Masscx, Accountant. Hawabagh Womens College, Narmada Road, Jabalpur presented thecase of the appellant Institution on 24-07-2013. In the appeal the appellant has submittedexplanations to the grounds mentioned in the withdrawal order, which are the same asmentioned in the show cause notice dt. 24/09/2012 and which was replied to by the institutionon 20/10/2012.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the WRC conducted an inspection of theInstitution on 12/06/2012 under the provision of clause 8(13) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009,which lay down that whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for a course, theinstitution shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standardImmediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. However,the revised land area related norms shall not be applicable to the existing institutions, if thesame is not possible, but the required built up area is to be increased to conform to the revisednorms. the Council further noted that the WRC issued a show cause notice dated 24-09-2012 tothe appellant institution and after conSidering the reply of the institution to the show causenotice. WRC zeroed on the grounds listed in the refusal order. The institution in their reply to theshow cause notIce and in the appeal has submitted that the college building has beenconstructed many years back (in the reply to show cause notice it is mentioned that it wasconstructed before 1951 and in the appeal it is mentioned that it was constructed 80 yearsback). The Visiting Team in their report mentioned that this institution is one of the oldestteacher education institution and there are several buildings for various courses. In view of thisposition and in the context of initial recognition for B.Ed and M Ed courses having been grantedIn the year 2000 and enhancement of intake sanctioned in the year 2005, questions relating tobUilding plan. bUIldIng completion certificate, diversion certificate and non-encumbrancecertificate at thIS point of time should not be relevant. However, the availability of requisite builtup area is relevant While in the reply to the show cause notice, the appellant stated that thebuill up area for teacher education courses was 1109 sq mts, in the appeal the appellant hasmentioned that the built up area is 2628 sq mts, there is thus a contradiction. The Visiting TeamspecifIcally mentioned that the institution has less exclusive built up area for B,Ed and M Ed

courses than required because of sharing of rooms, halls and libraries. As per the current norms2000 sq.mts of built up area is needed for B.Ed and M Ed courses

AND WHEREAS the Council also noted from the reply to the show cause notice and theexplanation in the appeal that the institution is not paYing salaries to all the teaching staff onprescribed pay scales but is paying consolidated amounts The plea of the appellant IS thaI theyare not getting aid to meet their financial obligations and are running at a loss According 10 theprovisions of clause 10(2) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 the academIC and other staff of theinstitution shall be paid such salary as may be prescribed by the concerned Govt. or Soard oraffiliating body by account payee cheque the Council also noted from the reply to the showcause notice that (i) for S.Ed course six faculty members are employed on contractual basis ona consolidated salary of Rs. 50001- PM and two are guest faculty on a consolidated salary of Rs20001- PM and (ii) for M.Ed course three faculty members are not on prescribed scale of pay.The NCTE norms envisage appointment of qualified and approved teachers on regular full timebasis who should be paid salaries on prescribed scales of pay. the Council considering allaspects of the matter concluded that the WRC was justified in withdraWing recognition for B Edand M.Ed. courses and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the WRCconfirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal. affidaVit andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the ERC confirmed


~{f(l~Member Secretary

1. The Principal, Hawabagh Womens College, Narmada Road, Jabalpur - 482001, MadhyaPradesh2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Shawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal-462002.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh,Bhopal.

F.No.89-203/2013-Appeal/11th Meeting-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 00207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Maa Omwati College of Education, Faridabad, Haryana dt.04/04/2013 IS against the Order No NRC/NCTE/NRCAPP-1860/203rd Meeting/2012/29364-67dl. 21/08/2012 of the NRC refusing recogmtion for conducting M.Ed course on the ground thatthe institution does not possess NAAC accreditation certificate (at least Grade 'B') under clause8(4) of NCTE Regulations. 2009 at the time of submission of application.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent. Maa Omwati College of Education (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/04/2013 to the National Council forTeacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of theNCTE Act 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shn Ramesh Babu, Manager and Sh. Sunil Bainsla, Admn., MaaOmwati College of Education, Fandabad, Haryana presented the case of the appellantinstitution on 24-07-2013. In the appeal and during personal presentation the appellantsubmitted that they could not submIt NAAC certificate before rejection of their application due todelay in NAAC Office The appellant has enclosed a copy of the NAAC certificate dt.05/01/2013

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that as per the provisions of clause 8(4) of the NCTERegulations, 2009 an Institution shalt be permitted to apply to a new course of M Ed. after it hasbeen accredited by the NAAC with at least a letter Grade 'B'. Since the appellant did not havethe NMC accreditation certificate on the date of application, the Council concluded that theNRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected andthe order of the NRC confirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the NRC confirmed.


~a~P(/:JMember Secretary

1 The Administrator, Maa Omwati College of Education, Kila No- 24, 01 ACRE, 15 (08Kanal), Hassanpur" Faridabad -121107, Haryana2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.3 Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaven Path, Mansarover Nagar,Near Mansarover Stadium. Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan.4. The Secretary. Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana,Chandigarh

F.No.89-61/2013 Appeal/11th Meetlng-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawan, Wing II. 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. 110 00207108/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Ralan Shikshan Prasar and Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Morena. M.Pdt. 07/02/2013 IS against Ihe Order No WRCIWRCAPP638/174/MP/2012/98329 dt. 18/12/2012of the WRC refusing recognition for conducting O.EI.Ed course on the ground that the buildingplan shows a .U' shaped bUilding. whereas the CD shows an 'L' shaped building. Also the CDshows just the Multipurpose Hall and two classrooms and not any other rooms which shouldhave various facIlities like psychology lab, science lab. language lab. library, computer lab, etc.The CO does not inspire confidence about the infrastructure as available at the time of theapplication of the institution.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent Ratan Shiksha Prasar And Samaj Kalyan Samiti(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 18/02/2013 to the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section18 of the NCTE Act. 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shn Arvind Singh Tomar, Secretary and Umesh Gautam, Member,Ratan Shlkshan Prasar and Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Morena. Madhya Pradesh presented thecase of the appellant institution on 24-07-2013. In the appeal and during personal presentationthe appellant submitted that (I) the reasons for refusal are different from those mentioned in theshow cause notice; (ii) though a 'U' shaped building plan was prepared. actual construction wascompleted in 'L' shape as the remaining part of the building assigned as administrative blockwas not constructed and the area of constructed part of the bUilding is adequate for D.EI.Ed asper NCTE norms: (iii) when they received the show cause notice, they addressed the issuesraised therein which were covered in the CD as other facilities were shown to the Visiting Teamand captured In the CD taken in their presence. In Ihe course of personal presentation, theappellant requested for a re-inspection of the institution to verify the existence of theInfraslruclural facdilles

AND WHEREAS the Council. in view of the submission of the appellant. concluded thatthe mailer deserved 10 be remanded to the WRC with a direction to conduct, within a month, afresh Inspection of the institution on payment of the processing fee by the appellant and takefurther action as per the Regulations.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit. andafter conSidering Ihe oral arguments advanced durmg the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe mailer deserved to be remanded to Ihe WRC with a direction to conduct within a month, afresh InspectIon of the institution on payment of the processing fee by the appellant and takefurther action as per the Regulations.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Ratan ShikshaPrasar And Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Morena, Madhya Pradesh to the WRC, NCTE, fornecessary action as indicated above.

c:x.~]Member Secretary

1. The Secretary, Ratan Shiksha Prasar And Samaj Kalyan Samiti, 1543, 1551, Amilhcda"Morena ~476001, Madhya Pradesh2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Shawano Shayamala Hills. Bhopal -462002.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh,Bhopal.

F No.89-219/2013-Appeal/l1th Meeting-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawan, Wing II. 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 11000207108/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Maruthi College of Education dated 10.04.2013 is against theorder No. SRCAPP1843 (2013-2014)/8 Ed(Ald.)ITN/2012-13/50249 dated 28032013 of theSRC refusing recognition for additional intake in B.Ed Course on the ground that the societysubmitted private lease deed dated 05.092005 and has not dispatched copy of registered landdocument with the online application

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent. Maruthi College of Education (hereinafter referredto as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 16/04/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shfl M Sundram, Treasurer, Maruthi College of Education, Salem,Tamil Nadu presented the case of appellant institution on 24-07-2013. In the appeal theappellant submItted that there was mistake and he IS forwarding registered land documents. Healso submilted that they have initiated for registering the documents by transferring from MaruthiEducational Trust to Maruthi College of Education as gift deed At the time of personalpresentation the appellant submitted a letter dated 21-07-2013 in which it is stated that bymistake in place of registered land documents, a copy of the lease deed was sent and theoriginal land documents are with the Indian Overseas Bank, Narasingapuram, Attur, SalemDistt With lhis leiter the appellant enclosed copies of Sale deeds in Tamil version and notarizedEnglish versions On the Tamil versions the senior Manager Indian Overseas Bank certified thatthe anginal documents are with them

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant was granted recognition for a basicUnit (100) of B Ed. on 24-10-2006. II is not known which land documents he submitted at thetime of applying for the basic unit. He might have submitted the lese deed of 2005 as lease wasalso permissible under Ihe then prevalent Regulations. Since he has now applied for additionalintake in the same institution, he has enclosed a copy of the lease deed of 2005. When he cameto know that lease IS not permisSIble under the current Regulations. he has produced the saledeed of 1995. It is seen from the sale/lease deeds that 5.37 acres out 7.45 acres in differentSurvey nos. was given on lease. The lessor and Lesse was the same mdividual.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the additional intake also will obviously be in thesame premises/land which is on lease. Further, the copies of sale deed submitted indicate thatthe land IS under mortgage to the Indian Overseas Bank. As per 2009 Regulations land shouldbe free from all encumbrances the Council therefore is of the opinion that in either case i e. asper sale deed or lease deed the land on which the additional Intake will be operated does notmeel the requirements of 2009 Regulations. In the circumstances, the Council concluded thatthe Appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal. affidavit andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatIhe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.


!7:18(;)Member Secretary

1. The Chairman, Maruthi College of Education, 491/20, 490/4A, 490/4C, Land Documents,Manivizhundan, South, Attur, Salem - 636121, Tamilnadu2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road.Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu,Chennai.


Hans Shawan, Wing II 1. Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. New Delhi - 11000207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Nairs College of Education dated 23.03.2013 is against theorder no SRCAPP1777/MEdrTN/2013-2014/49649 dated 15.032013 of the SRC refusingrecognition for conducting M Ed on the grounds that (i) single hard copy of the online applicationwas dispatched Instead of In tnplicate and (ii) the society submitted a private lease deed dated05.062003 and has nol dispatched a certified copy of registered land document with the onlineapplication.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent. NAIRS College of Education (hereinafter referred toas the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 08/04/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shri Reegan. S, Public Relation Officer, Nairs College of Education,Comblalore, Tamil Nadu presented case of the appellant institution on 24-07-2013. In theappeal and during personal presentation the appellant submitted that they have submitted threehard copies by post on 04 12.2012. He has also submitted while they submitted the lease deedof 0505,2003 With the hard copy of online application and they also executed a gift deed on0312.2012, a copy of which is enclosed to the appeal.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that in the SRC's file there is only one set of the hardcopy of the application The envelope sent by the appellant is also in the file which shows thatthe weight was 475 grams. Even the one set available in the file is quite heavy. It is not clearwhy the gift deed entered on 03.12.2012 was not sent to the SRC and private lease deed wassent. The parties to the lease deed and gift deed are the same. Also the donor and donee is oneand same person the Council therefore concluded that the SRC was justified in refusingrecognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRCconfirmed

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.


~7:.{o/J~Member Secretary

1. The Correspondent, NAIRS College of Education, IBIS F No. 177/1, 161, 178182, NairsTeachers Training Institute, 31343, Kurudampalayam, Coimbatore - 641022, Tamilnadu2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3 Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road,Nagarabhavl, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072.<1The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu.Chennai

F.No 89-211/2013 Appeal/11th Meeting-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawano Wing JI, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. New Delhi - 11000207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of 5M3 REd College, Koppal. Karnataka dated 09.04.2013 isagaInst the order No SRCAPP 1848(2013-2014)/8 Ed/KN2012-2013/4967 dated 18.03.2013 ofthe SRC refusing recognition for conducting S,Ed Course on the ground that the society has notsubmitted a copy of the registered land document issued by the Competent Authority indicatingthaI the Society/Institution applying for the course possessed land on the date of application asper para 7rl~A{i)1 NCTE Regulations 2009.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, 5M3 B Ed College (hereinafter referred to as theappellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/04/2013 to the National Council for Teacher Education,New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993against the said Order

AND WHEREAS Shri Sree Shanthamalhikarjanan Swamiji, President, SMS B,Ed.College, Kappa!, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 24~07~2013. In theappeal and during personal presentation the appellant submitted that a copy of the registeredland documents issued by Add'. DisH. Magistrate (Revenue Authority), Kodgu Distt., Karnatakadated 13 12 2007 have been submitted with the hard copy and the same document wassubmilled In 2004-2005 for recognition for D.Ed Course which was granted recognition on03 1? 2004 vldo IIPS01827.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the file of SRC contains an original certificate ofland dated 13.12.2007 issued by Add!. Dlslt. Magistrate, Kodagu. It is mentioned therein thatregistration of land took place on 09.08 2004. The appellant has not furnished a certified copy ofthe registered land documents, stated to have been regIstered in 2004. As per the provisions ofclause 7(1) (i) of the NCTE Regulations. certified copy of the registered land document is one ofthe essential documents to be submitted along with the hard copy of the on~line application. Inthe circumstances the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and,therefore. the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.

NOW THEREFORE. the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed agains'Jc ~

(R.:J;j I~Member Secretary

1.The President, SMS B.Ed College, President, Sri Aramery Kalanchery Math ArameryVillage and Post Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District, Koppal- 571218, Karnataka2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy. Shastri Shawan, New Delhi3 Regional Director. Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road,Nagarabhavi. Opp National Law School, Bangalore + 560 072.4 The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka,Bangalore

F.No.89-214/2013-Appeal/l1th Meeting-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan. Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 00207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Venkateshwara University. Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh dated09042013 is against the order No. SRCAPP209(2013-2014)/BP.Ed.lAP/2012-2013/49349dated 06032013 of the SHe refusing recognition for conducting 8.P.Ed. Course on thegrounds that (i) processIng fee was not furnished on or before the date of submission of onlineapplication (ii) hard copy in triplicate of the online application was not dispatched within 7 daysof submission of online application and (iii) the society has submitted private lease deed dated02.04.1962 and has not submitted a copy of the registered land document with the onlineapplication

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent. Sri Venkatleswara University (hereinafter referred toas the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/04/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act.1993 agaInst the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Dr M Sivasankar Reddy, Deputy Director & Co-ordinator, SriVenkaeshwara Unlversity, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh presentation case of the appellantinstitution on 24+07-2013 In the appeal, the appellant submitted that (i) as per NCTE NormsGovt. Institutions need not pay processing fee and Sri Venkateshwara University wasestabllshed in 1954 to serve the needs of Rayalaseeme region of Andhra Pradesh and (ii)copies of the online application dated 31.12.2012 and copy of leased land document weredispatched on 07.01 2013 In the course of personal presentation, the appellant submitted adocument dated 09-07-2013 In which It is mentioned that Sri Venkateshwara University is aGovt institution running with grants of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and the U.G C.: when theUniversIty was entered as a Govt. Institution in the on-line application dated 31-12-2012, theprocessing column showed 'Nil' and therefore they did nol pay the processing fee: andthereafter to be on the safe sIde they paid the processing fee on 01-01-2013 by a demand draftdrawn on Andhra Bank.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Sri Venkateshwara University is a Govt.Institution and hence exempted from paying the processing fee. the Council also noted that theappellant submitted one set of application on 07.01.2013 (the online application having beensubmitted on 31.122012) and two more copies with their letter dated 17.01.2013 received inSRC on 21.01.2013 The late submlss!on is covered by NCTE's notice dated 16.01.2013permitting submission by 21.01.2013 by the institutions mentioned in the list enclosed to thatnotice. The appellant Institution figures in that list. Regarding lease of land, the Council notedthat the land was leased by the Board of Trustee of T.T Devasthanam, Tirupati, which is a Govt.constituted body The copy of the lease deed also indicates that the Commissioner, HinduReligiOUS and Charitable Endowment. Andhra has accorded permission for the grant of thelease for 99 years. In the circumstances the lease deed submitted is acceptable.

AND WHEREAS in view of the pOSition stated above the Council concluded that thematter deserved to be remanded to the SRC for further processing of the application as per theHegulations

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit. andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing. the Council concluded thatthe matter deserved to be remanded to the SRC for further processing of the application as perthe Regulations.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of SriVenkatteswara University, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh to the SRC, NCTE, for necessaryaction as indicated above.

~J4J3Member Secretary

1. The Registrar, Sri Venkatteswara University, Chadragiri Road, 580, Tirupathi, Chittoor-517502, Andhra Pradesh2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Sharathi Campus Road.Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad.


Hans Shawan, Wing II. 1. Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. New Delhi - 11000207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Vani College of Education. Vellore. Tamil Nadu dated10042013 is against the order no SRCAPP1 929(2013-2014)/B EdfTN/201-2013/S0432 dated08.04 2013 of the SRC refusing recognition for conducting a.Ed course on the ground that thesociety has nol dIspatched copy of the registered land document issued by the competentauthorrty Indicating that the society/institution applying for the course possessed land on thedale of application withm 7 days of submiSSion of online application.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Vani College of Education (hereinafter referred toas the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/04/2013 to the National Council for TeacherEducation. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shn T. Devaraj, MA, M.Ed" Administrative Officer, Vani College ofEducation. Vellore, Tamil Nadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 24-07-2013. Inthe appeal and during personal presentation the appellant submitted that they have submittedland documents with the hard copy to SRC and received acknowledgement. The appellantalong with the appeal submitted copies of certified copies of four land sale deed documents inTamil language With copies of notarized English translations thereof.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted from the file of the SRC that even though theappellant mentIoned certified copy of land document by Sub-registrar in the list of documentsenclosed to his letter dated 28.12.2012 sent to the SRC. and received by hand on 31-12~2012no such document was enclosed In the circumstances the Council concluded that the SRC wasjustified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the orderof the SRC confirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal. affidavit andafter considenng the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.


~(1):zMember Secretary

1. The Correspondent, Vani College of Education, 603/1, 603/2, 60313A, 604/18, Own,60513, Katpadi" Vellore - 632007, Tamilnadu2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Department of School Education& Literacy. Shastn Bhawan. New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee. Jnana Bharathi Campus Road,Nagarabhavl. Opp. National Law School. Bangalore - 560 072.4 The Secretary. Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu,Chennai

FNo89-212/2013 Appeal/11th Meeling-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawan, Wing II. 1, Bahadurshah Zatar Marg. New Delhi - 110 00207/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Vivekananda College of Education, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadudaled 11-04-2013 is againsl Ihe order No APS05371/B EdITN/2012-2013/49450 dated 14-03-2013 withdrawing recognItion for conducting REd. and D.Ed course on the ground that thereply to the show cause notice is not satisfactory.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Vivekananda College of Education (hereinafterreferred 10 as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/04/2013 to the National Council forTeacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of theNCTE Act. 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Dr. M. Arumugam. Administrative Officer and Sh. G. Srinivasan,Treasurer, Vivekananda College of Education, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu presented the case ofthe appellant instItution on 24-07-2013. In the appeal, the appellant submitted explanation to thegrounds listed In the withdrawal order. the Council noted that the SRC issued three show causenotices to the appellant. the last one having been issued on 30-10-2012. the Council also notedthat the SRC after considenng the reply of the appellant dated 19~11-2012 to the show causenotice dated 30-10-2012. issued order dated 14-03-2013 withdrawing recognition.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted from the explanation furnished by the appellant to thegrounds of withdrawal that (i) original certified copy of registered land documents has not beenfurnished but only copies of two certified land documents in Tamil and notarized English versionhave been furnished. (ii) copies of two leiters dated 15-03-2012 and 05-03-2013 from TamilNadu Teachers Education University certifying the incumbent faculty members mentionedtherein are qualified to hold the respectIve posts have been enclosed; (iii) physical educationlecturer has been working on part lime basis only w,e.f. 01-03~2012 (copies of offer ofappointment and affldavil from the lecturer enclosed); (iv) only a copy of notarized land utilitycertificate (and not original) has been enclosed; (v) some explanation has been given about thesurvey numbers in CLU. Building plan and building completion certificate; (vi) lecturer in FineArts has been working on pari lime basis from 01-03-2013 (copies of offer of appointment andaffidaVIt from Ihe lecturer enclosed): (vii) no documentary proof has been furnished in support ofthe claim that lecturer In foundation course has been appointed; (viii) copies of salary statementfor the month of May, 2013 and a leiter from Pallavan Grama Bank confirming crediting thesalaries to the Individual accounts have been enclosed; and (ix) a copy of challan for EPF of theemployees uploaded on 11-07-2013 has been enclosed The appellant also submitted that asthe response for 0 T Ed course is discouraging they have written 10DTERT seeking permissionto close that course from 2013~14

AND WHEREAS the Council noted from the explanations furnished that the appellant hasnot forwarded the originals of the land documents and CLU but sent only photocopies; nodocumentary proof in support of identifying leclurer in foundation course has been furnished:and the copy of the salary statements is for the month of May 2013 i.e. after the issue of orderof Withdrawal on 14-03-2013 and nol for any months prior to WIthdrawal, there are vitalshortcomings despite three show cause notices having been given to the appellant in the past.In these circumstances the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in withdrawing

recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRCconfirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed


?1::~JMember Secretary

1. The Secretary, Vivekananda College of Education, Spelanatham, Neyvcli, , Cuddalorc -607802, Tamilnadu2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road,Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu,Chennai.

•

F.No89-127/2013 Appeal/11th Meellng-2013NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Shawano Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. New Delhi - 11000207108/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Shaheed Udham Singh College of Educatlon, Sangrur, Punjabdated 12/03/2013 IS agaInst the Order No NRC/NCTE/PB-479/209th Meeting/2012/37292dated 28101/2013 of the Northern Regional Committee, granting recognition for conductingO.EI.Ed course from the academic session 2013-14. The appellant wants recognition from theacademic session 2009-10_

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shaheed Udham Singh College of Education(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/03/2013 to the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS Shri Raowinder Singh, Chairman, Shaheed Udham Singh College ofEducation, Sangrur, Punjab presented the case of the appellant institution on 30-04-2013. In aletter dated 14-03-2013. the appellant submitted that (i) NRC initially granted recognition forconducting 0 EI Ed course under clause 7 (11) of the NCTE Regulations on 09-04-2008; (ii)NRC on 04-06-2009 informed the appellant that they did not appoint a principal; (iii) theappellant filed a C W P no 16020/2009 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,Chandigarh and the Hon'ble High Court In their order dated 22-10-2009 quashed the ordersdated 04-08-2009 and 11-09-2009 and directed admission of students in the session 2009~11;(iv) the process of admissions for the sessions 2009-11 and 2010-12 has been completed underthe directions of the Hon'ble High Court; (v) the appellant filed an appeal on 30-07-2012regarding grant of recognition which was remanded to NRC for reconsideration; (vi) thereafterNRC granted recognition on 28-01-2013 with effect from 2013-14 session; (vii) the appellantfiled a C W P no 4577/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana atChandigarh and the Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 02-03-2013 allowed filing of appealand directing (the NCTE) to decide the case within 30 days. Since the admissions were madewith the direction of the Hon'ble High Court from 2009-11 sessions, the appellant has appealedfor grant of recognition from that session instead of from 2013-14 session.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (i) the NRC, in accordance of the provisions ofclause 7 (11) of the NCTE Regulations issued a letter prior to grant of recognition dated 19.04-2009 (and not 09-04-2008 as mentioned by the appellant) to the appellant institution, subject tothe condition of appointment of qualified staff as per NCTE norms for issuance of unconditionalrecognition order. (ii) NRC finding that the principal appointed was overage refused recognitionvide their order dated 04-06-2009: (Iii) the appellant's appeal against the refusal order wasrejected by the Council in their order dated 11-09-2009; (iv) aggrieved by the order of theCouncil, the appellant filed a writ petition no, 16020/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court ofPunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 25-08-2010taking into account the submission of the petitioner that they were going to appoint a principal ofrequisite age within a week and the requisite information will be sent to NCTE, who will takeaction thereafter, directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to admit the students in themeanwhile and that order shall be subject to final order to be passed by the Hon'ble Court (v)the Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 22w10~2009 in the above petition suspended theoperation of the NRC's order dated 04-06-2009 and NCTE's order dated 11w09-2009; (vi) theNRC after considering the information about the appointment of the Principal in their order dated

12-07.2012 again refused recognition on the ground of inadequate experience of the principal:(vii) the appellant filed an appeal to the Council against the order and the Council in their orderdated 11-12-2012 remanded the matter to NRC for reconsideration of the submission of theappellant in their letter dated 13-06-2012; (viii) the NRC after reconsideration issued a formalorder dated 28-01-2013 granting recognition from the academic session 2013-20111:and (ix) theappellant aggrieved by the order of the NRC filed a CWP no 4577 of 2013 before the Hon'bleHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the Hon'ble High Court in their orderdated 02-03-2013, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of thepetition with a direction to NCTE that if an appeal is filed under Section 18 of the NCTE Actwithin one week from 02-03-2013, appellate authority shall endeavor to decide the same at anearly date and in any case within 30 days from the date of receIpt of appeal: and (ix) theappellant filed the present appeal accordingly, The crux of the appeal is that since the appellantwas permitted admission of students under the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 24-09-2010 and he admitted students from 2009-11 session and thereafter. he is entitled for grant ofrecognition from that session, the Council noted that the Hon'ble High Court order was In thecontext of the appellant's undertaking that he will appoint a principal of requisite age wllhln aweek, the information regarding which was to be given to NCTE to take further actIon Thisundertaking has not been fulfilled as could be seen from the subsequent developments leadingto refusal of recognition again on 12-07-2012, Further no final order In continuation of the orderdated 25-08-2010 has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the Council noted that theappellant institution was never granted formal unconditional recognition before the issue of theNRC's order dated 28-01-2013 granting recognition from the academiC session 2013-14 Theletter dated 19-04-2009 was only a leiter of Intent which did not mention the academiC sessionfrom which unconditional recognition will be granted Recognition order can be issued only afterthe conditions laid down In the letter of Intent are fulfilled by the institution, The conditions havenow been fulfilled by the institution and accordingly the recognition order has been Issued on28-01-2013, The appellant is not en1ltled for grant of recognition from retrospective academICsession as the recognition can be granted only after all the requirements laId down In the NCTERegulations are fulfilled

AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the institution had been allolted studentsfor admission by the State Government in compliance With the orders of the High Court Thestudents have completed the course but their result has not been declared by the examiningbody. Though recognition from retrospective date is not permissible under Regulations but inthe instant case the students were granted admission with the permission of the High Court Inthe circumstances, the Council decided to seek legal advice in the matter and deCIde the casethereafter. the Council perused on 24-07-2013 the legal adVice, which has since becomeavailable. In accordance with that advice that no college can be granted retrospectiverecognition; it can be granted only prospective recognitIon from the date the recognition isgranted and the orders of the Hon'ble High Court do not direct any retrospective recognItion, Inthe above circumstances, the Council concluded that the appeal deserved to be rejected andthe order of the NRC confirmed,

AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit andafter conSIdering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the NRC confirmed


?1Jr~JMember Secretary

1. The Appellant, Shahced Udham Singh College of Education, VPO Gurdaspura Tehsil &Amp; Distt. Sangrur, Sangrur - 148001, Punjab2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastn Bhawan, New Delhi.3 Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar,Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur • 302020, Rajasthan.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Punjab,Chandigarh.

-F.No.89-319/2013 Appeal/11th Meetin9-2013

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATIONHans Bhawan. Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. New Delhi - 110 002

01/08/2013

ORDER

WHEREAS the appeal of Alwar Teachers Training College, Alwar, Rajasthan dated08/05/2013 IS against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/RJ-1703/211 MEETING/2013/38580 dated11/03/2013 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed,course on the ground that the Institution has not submitted a reply to the Show Cause Noticedated 14/06/2010 till date.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent Alwar Teachers Training College (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 08/05/2013 to the National Council forTeacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of theNCTE Act. 1993 against the said Order.

AND WHEREAS the appellant, aggrieved by the order of the NRC field a W P no6454/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench and theHon'ble High Court in their order dated 03~05.2013, finding that the petitioner had an alternativestatutory remedy did not interfere with the NRC's order. The Hon'ble Court also directed that ifthe petitioner files an appeal, the same be disposed of within a period of 15 days of its filing.

AND WHEREAS Shri R.J. Kushwaha, Treasurer and Shri Trilok Jangid, Accountant,Alwar Teachers Training College, Alwar, Rajasthan presented the case of the appellantinstitution on 26-06-2013. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted thathe was not served with the show cause notice dated 14/06/2010 and he has all the documentsentitling recognItion. the Council noted from the file of the NRC that the show cause notice wasnot received undelivered the Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to theNRC with a direcbon to re-issue the show cause notice to the appellant and take further actionas per the Regulations.

AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that a review petition has been decided to befiled against the order of the Hon'ble High Court in view of the Appeal Rules. The Council,therefore, also decided that the communication of the decision. may be withheld till the outcomeof the review petllion. the Council was informed on 24.7.2013 that the Council filed S.B. CivilWnt Petition No. 6454/2013 and S 8 Civil Misc. Application No. 20412013 before the Hon'bleHigh Court of Judicature lor Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and the Hon'ble High Court intheir order dated 4-7.2013 dismissed the Civil Misc. Application for extension of time forcompliance of their order dl 3.5.2013. In the circumstances, the Council confirmed the decisioncontained in Para 4 above i.e. the matter be remanded to the NRC with a direction to re-issuethe show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations.

AND WHEREAS alter perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, andafter considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded thatthe appeal deserves to be remanded to NRC with a direction to re-issue the show cause noticeto the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations

lfo-n(L.(R. J(J,al \ ~ z-ol3

Member Secretary

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Alwar TeachersTraining College, Alwar, Rajasthan to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicatedabove.

1. The Treasurer, Alwar Teachers Training College, Sanjay Colony, Kush Marg, RailwayStation, Alwar" Alwar - 301001, Rajasthan2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education& Literacy, Shastri Shawan, New Delhi.3. Regional Director. Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar,Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan.4. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Rajasthan,Jaipur.

I