f.no.89-13/2011 appeal national council for teacher educationncte-india.org/appeal1/orders of 2nd...

F.No.89-13/2011 Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 26/04/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Chandrakanta Hazarika College, Dibrugarh, Assamdated 04/01/2011 is against the Order No.ERC/7-112-09.34/2010/5757 dated 18-11-2010 of the Eastern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conductingB.Ed. course on the grounds “1) Physical Education, Art, Work Experience, ITLiteracy teachers not available. 2) Hall is not available. 3) Games & sports facilitynot available. 4) Psychology lab & educational technology lab not available. 5)Facilities for language learning not available. 6) Library resources less than therequired. 7) Physical Education resources not available. 8) The college is managedby Governing body which is not registered. 9) The college is functioning for the lasteight years 2002-2010 without recognition of NCTE. 10) The infrastructural &instructional facilities are totally deficient to run the B.Ed. Course. 11) As per VTremarks the institution in violation of NCTE Regulation. 12) It is deficient for everyaspect. 13) As per the affidavit Built up area is less than the required. 14) ApprovedBuilding plan & building completion certificate not given. 15) Requisite no. ofteaching staff not qualified. 16) List of teaching staff not in prescribed format. 17)The building is in a congested residential area and area of college building isinadequate for 60 student & staff. 18) As per VT, facilities for Library, TeachingLearning Resource Centre for Science & Mathematics, Psychology resourcescentre and ICT facilities, Centre for Art & work experience do not exist. 19) Copy ofland use certificate not available. 20) Approved building plan not available. 21)The building completion certificate not available. 22) As per essential data sheet,the total built up area is 4320 Sq. ft.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Chandrakanta Hazarika College(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 12/01/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Susmit Sengupta, Principal and Sh. Prakash Gogoi,Secretary, Chandrakanta Hazarika College, Dibrugarh, Assam presented the caseof the appellant institution on 29-03-2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation, it was submitted that “Physical Education is not a part of the B.EdSyllabus of the Diburgarh University and as the appellant institution is affiliated tothat University, it follows the syllabus of the said University; however, the appellantarranges occasional Yoga and Pranayam classes for the benefit of the students byavailing the services of the experts of the Vivekananda Kendra, Dibrugarh andalso appointed a teacher for Physical Education on part-time basis for the currentsession i.e. 2010-2011; the college also appointed work experience and artsteachers on contract basis from the current session; as computer education is notoffered as an optional subject, a teacher was appointed for that purpose andthey have no objection to appoint one, if instructed to do so; (ii) they have a hall

in the first floor of the building having capacity to accommodate more than100(hundred) students and the visiting team saw the said hall and expressedsatisfaction over it; (iii) even though the college does not have a play ground of itsown, it has made necessary arrangements with a local Government school havingits own play ground by making necessary arrangements with the authorities of thesaid school who have given a certificate granting permission and that the collegeis thus utilizing the said play ground; (iv) in their written representation dated26/07/2010, they gave detailed reply to the said allegation, stating specificallytherein about the availability of all the necessary equipments as laid down inCl.No. 3.3(2) of the Norms and Standards of the NCTE in their existing psychologylaboratory and they have been making all efforts to improve the infrastructure fordeveloping and updating the laboratories; (v) regarding availability of facilities forlanguage learning in the B.Ed. syllabus, the appellant specifically stated in the saidrepresentation that there are two method papers viz., English and Assamese,pertaining to language learning in the B.Ed. syllabus on the basis of which, thestudents are taught in the College; even though the majority of the students optfor English method paper, the College also provided opportunity to the studentswho are inclined towards learning Assamese language; (vi) the respondents hasnot stated clearly in what respect the library resources are less than the requiredquantity and a list of books, periodicals, National dailies, journals andencyclopedia that are in the possession of the college library is submitted; (vii) asalready submitted Physical Education is not a part of B.Ed. Course as framed byDibrugarh University, under which the college is affiliated; (viii) it has already beensubmitted in its written representation that the Governing Bodies of the variouscolleges are approved by the Dibrugarh University only and the question ofregistration of the said body does not arise; (ix) the college was grantedrecognition by the ERC vide letter No. AS/E-22/97/5547 dated 06/03/1998 whichwas followed by the recognition granted by the ERC vide letter No. ERC/7-15/200/5547 dated 18th October 2000 for the session 1999-2000. The ERC thereafterbeing satisfied with the performance and fulfillment of the required term andconditions was pleased to issue the final recognition vide letter No.ERC/7-17/2001/517(1) dated 12/13 March 2001 and the same is at present continuingand the appellants were submitting compliance and self-appraisal reports everyyear; (x) the college is housed in a two-storey building comprising of the first floorand the ground floor having all the necessary facilities for imparting education,and the college has also qualified teachers, and the Regional Committee has notstated in what respects the college was deficient in terms of infrastructural andinstructional facilities; (xi) it has not violated any NCTE Rules and nowhere in theimpugned order any mention is made by the ERC as to what regulations theappellant had violated and therefore the said allegation is vague in nature; (xii)and the visiting team itself expressed its satisfaction regarding the manner in whichthe institution is being run and managed and offered valuable suggestion for itsfuture expansion. (xiii) the expansion of the college is still going on and once thisexpansion works will be completed, the built up area will increase; (xiv) in responseto the letter dated 14/01/2009 of ERC, it dispatched all the aforesaid documents(building plan and building completion certificate) to the office of ERC vide theirletter dated 04/11/2009; (xv) the visiting team at the time of inspection found thatall the members of the teaching staff has the required qualification as approvedby the NCTE and therefore, they expressed their satisfaction over it; the visitingteam suggested to the lecturers of the college to quality the NET/SLET examinationand as per the said suggestion the college authority has instructed the faculty

members to appear in the ensuing NET/SLET examination within the next two years;(xvi) the appellant submitted a copy of the list of their faculty members togetherwith their mark sheet and certificate in accordance with the NCTE Format; it is nottrue to say that the list of teaching staff was not in prescribed format, as the formatfor teaching staff was provided to the appellants by the members of the visitingteam and the list of teaching staff was provided to the said members in the formatwhich was provided by them to the appellants; and therefore this allegation asmade cannot stand; however, without admitting the allegation as made, theappellant submitted that incase there appears some irregularities in the format,that the same can even now be rectified; (xvii) the college is situated in an areawhich is congenial for running an educational institution being free from all sort ofdisturbances and pollution; the Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School is running as afull fledged Higher Secondary School for the last sixty years permanently at adistance of 40 meters from the college and hence, the allegation to effect thatthe college is situated in a congested area is not true; sixty students are attendingclasses very conveniently and there is no dearth of space. (xviii) they have all thenecessary facilities which are mentioned in the said clause and the member of thevisiting team themselves inspected the said facilities and expressed satisfactionover the same and hence it is not understood as to why the said allegation ismade; (xix) all the said documents were submitted to the respondents as well as tothe Visiting Team and (xx) & (xxi) the college management hereby once againsubmit the land use certificate, approved building plan and building completioncertificate; and (xxii) even though the total built up area is 4320 sq. ft., the collegeis taking up expansion work; as a result, the total built up area will increase to5639.5 sq.ft. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (i) the appellant has admitted, thoughfor different reasons, that teachers for physical education, art, work experienceand IT literacy were not available and will be appointed, if instructed (forcomputer education); (ii) no dimensions or size of the hall have been mentionedbeyond saying that there is a hall to accommodate 100 students; (iii) as the Govt.Boys Higher Secondary School, Dibrugarh has granted permission to use the playfield only on 29-11-2010, it is evident that the institution had no play field facility or isit having any games/sports equipment; (iv) apparently the equipments inphychology and educational technology labs are limited as the appellant statedthat it would be developed and updated; (v) the appellant has not statedanything about facilities for language learning; (vi) the visiting team found only1292 books, which are less than required; (vii) the appellant admitted that theGoverning Body of the college is not registered as such bodies are approved byDibrugarh University only; (viii) the college was granted provisional recognition forone year (1998-99) on 6-03-1998 and again granted recognition from 2001-2002 on13-03-2001; (ix) While the ground for rejection, namely, the infrastructural facilitiesare totally deficient is vague, the claim of the appellant is also general andindirect in as much as the academic results cannot be directly correlated to theinfrastructural facilities; (x) the ground for refusal, namely, as per VT remarks theinstitution violated the regulations of NCTE is also vague in as much as any specificviolation has not been identified; (xi) similarly another ground for refusal, namely, itis deficient in every aspect is also vague; (xii) the admission of the appellant thatexpansion of the building is going on and once it is completed, the built-up areawill increase shows that the built-up area as of now is less than the prescribedrequirement; (xiii) the appellant, alongwith his letter dated 04-11-2009, forwarded

only a certificate of partial completion of the college building and not the buildingplan as claimed. A copy of the completion certificate dated 05-01-2011 and alsothe copy of a building plan enclosed with the appeal also show that only a built-up area of 4194.50 sq.ft. is available, and there is no proof that these documentswere submitted to the visiting team; (xiv) the documents pertaining to the facultysubmitted alongwith the appeal do not contain approval letters of the Universityand affidavits of concerned individuals and the management; (xv) the appellanthas merely stated that the building is located in an area which is congenial forrunning an educational institution; and (xvi) only a copy of non-encumbrancecertificate dated 06-01-2011 has been enclosed. In view of the above analysis ofthe submissions of the appellant, the Council came to the conclusion that majordeficiencies relating to infrastructure and instructional facilities, as pointed out bythe ERC in their withdrawal order, not only exist but have also been admitted bythe appellant in many cases. Therefore, the Council considered that thewithdrawal of recognition is justified and the appeal deserved to be rejected andthe order of the ERC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand ERC’s order dated 18-11-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.

(R.P. Sisodia)Member Secretary

1. The Principal, Chandrakanta Hazarika College, Amolapatty, , Dibrugarh - 786001, Assam 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 - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Assam, Dispur.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Kisan Pratisthan Bachelors of Education, Beed,Maharashtra dated 06/12/2010 is against the Order No.WRC/APW06203/123770/139/2010/70662 dated 14-09-2010 of the WesternRegional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. (M)(co-ed) courseon the ground: “The institution did not possess land at the time of submission ofapplication.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Kisan Pratisthan Bachelors of Education(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 07/12/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Dilip Taur, Representative, Kisan Pratisthan Bachelors ofEducation, Beed, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on29-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted thatthe WRC was satisfied with the compliance of the deficiencies raised by them intheir letter dated 12/05/2010, but erroneously held that the Institution was notpossessing the land at the time of application; when WRC accepted the positionthat the appellant has complied with all the deficiencies and was also allottedland to the Institution through sale deed dated 28/05/2010, the WRC should nothave refused permission to the appellant on that ground alone; even accepting,but without admitting, the fact that the appellant Institution inadvertentlysubmitted sale deed in the name of the Secretary of the Institution at the time offiling application, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the Appellant vide saledeed dated 28/05/2010, purchased land measuring 50 acres in the name of theappellant institution and complied with the requirement of the Regulations of theNCTE; if the WRC pointed out this specific query about the possession of land atthe first instance when the proposal was submitted i.e. on 14/05/2007, theappellant could have certainly removed the same within time; since the aforesaidquery about the possession of land was not raised by the WRC for about threeyears, the appellant could not remove the same; in the intervening period of threeyears, on 27/06/2007 WRC wrote a letter to the appellant, inter-alia, asking toremove the deficiencies, however in the aforesaid letter there is no mention of thequery about the "possession of land" which meant that the WRC was satisfied withthe sale deed annexed by the appellant along with the main proposal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution earlier appealed to theCouncil against the order of the WRC dated 14-01-2009 refusing recognition on theground that the institution has not removed the deficiency within the stipulatedperiod of 90 days u/s 7(4) of NCTE Regulations, 2005. The Council in their orderdated 05-03-2010 remanded the case to WRC for causing inspection to ascertain

the infrastructure and instructional facilities. The WRC, after doing the needful andfollowing the procedure, again refused recognition against which the presentappeal has been filed. The Council noted that non-possession of land by theinstitution on the date of application, as per NCTE Regulations, was one of thedeficiencies in the show cause notice issued on 12-05-2010 and the institution, withtheir reply dated 02-06-2010, did not furnish valid land documents to the WRC. Inorder to verify the appellant’s claim about having land in favour of differentauthorities at different times, he was asked to produce the originals of thosedocuments for perusal and verification by the Council. The appellant, who soughtpermission to show them subsequently, could not bring them despite his havingappeared on 30th and 31st March, 2011. When he could not produce them, hetook the plea that all the originals are with the WRC. The Council, however, did notfind them in the WRC’s file pertaining to the appellant institution. AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the appellant could not convinceabout his having the land as per NCTE Regulations and also failed to produce theoriginal documents in support thereof, despite his having undertaken to do so ontwo consecutive days, came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to berejected and the order of WRC dated 14-09-2010 confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appealand hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected andWRC’s order dated 14-09-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Kisan Pratisthan Bachelors of Education, 618, Chankyapuri Near Nagar Road, Post - Chinchala, Wadwani, Beed - 431122, Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.



O R D E R WHEREAS The appeal of Mother Teresa Telugu Pandit College, Kadappa,Andhra Pradesh dated 23/11/2010 is against the Order No.F.SRO/NCTE/2010/20063 dated 28/07/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee,withdrawing recognition for conducting T.P.T course on the grounds “1) Thebuilding is under construction. Ground floor roofing and first floor roofing is over. 2)The material and equipment related to all the laboratories and library are dumpedin another building which is nearly 5 kms away from the premises; so the team cannot verify physically the resources mentioned in the records. As per the informationprovided, all the equipment is for both B.Ed. and TPT under the samemanagement.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Mother Teresa Telugu Pandit College(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 30/11/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. N. Subramanyam, Administrative Officer, Mother TeresaTelugu Pandit College, Kadappa, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of theappellant institution on 29-03-2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation, it was submitted that the letter of the Regional Committee dated 01-12-2008 alleged to have been sent, has not been received; the RegionalCommittee ought to have seen that the building is complete in all respects andthe classes, library and laboratories are placed in the same premises; and theallegation that the laboratories and library are dumped in another building, 5 kmsaway from the premises is totally incorrect. The appellant also submitted that theappeal could not be submitted within 60 days as the correspondent was sick andhospitalized. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of appeal was delayedby nearly two months after the permissible period of 60 days. Further, the appellantcould not explain why some other office bearer of the institution, in the interest ofthe institution, could not prepare the appeal and submit in time by obtaining theapproval of the correspondent. The appellant, while stating that thecorrespondent was ill with back pain, did not produce any supporting documents,such as medical certificates or prescription with the appeal. However, on the dayof hearing he produced a photocopy of medical certificate dated 29-03-2011certifying that the correspondent of the institution was advised rest for six monthsfrom 10-11-2010. This belated certificate does not establish that the correspondentcould not perform any duties including filing of the appeal by himself or throughany member of the society. In the circumstances, the Council came to theconclusion that the sickness/hospitalization of an individual of the society

managing the institution cannot be accepted as a good and sufficient reason forcondoning the delay in submission of appeal, and hence the delay is not to becondoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons forcondonation of delay and admit the appeal.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.

(R.P. Sisodia)

Member Secretary

1. The Correspondent, Mother Teresa Telugu Pandit College, D.No. 4/671, Gandhi Road, Proddatur, , kadapa - 516360, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Satakshi Education Institute, Sagar, Madhya Pradeshdated 28/10/2010 is against the Order No.WRCAPP757/Rejection/134th/2010/67803 dated 12/05/2010 of the WesternRegional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on thegrounds “1) Certified copy of land document not submitted. 2) CLU is not proper.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Satakshi Education Institute (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 28/10/2010 to theNational Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as theCouncil) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS as the appeal was not in the prescribed format and was notaccompanied by the requisite documents and was also delayed, the appellantwas informed about these deficiencies. The appellant, with his letter dated 21-12-2010 forwarded the appeal in the prescribed format in which he has stated that (i)land document is certified by Tehsildar, Kesli and (ii) CLU is in proper format. Asregards delay for submission of appeal, the appellant stated that, due to poor maildelivery in rural areas, the WRC’s order dated 12-05-2010 was received on 28-06-2010; and his father and former president of the Samiti fell and fractured his handand was admitted in Narmada Trauma Centre, Bhopal and his father has allpapers in his custody. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of appeal was delayedby more than three and half months after the permissible period of 60 days. Theappellant has not shown or submitted any proof regarding his father’s illness oradmission in the Trauma Centre in the form of medical certificates or prescriptions.The appellant also could not explain as to how a former President’s illness stood inthe way of functioning of the current President of the Samiti and filing appeal intime. In the circumstances, the Council came to the conclusion that there is nogood and sufficient reason for condoning the delay in the submission of appealand hence the delay is not to be condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused toaccept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for

condonation of delay and admit the appeal.


1. The Secretary, Satakshi Education Institute, 125. 59/1, Shri Siyawar Shiksha Samiti, 01, Keolari, , Sagar - 470235, 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 - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of St. Margarets D.Ed. College, Mumbai, Maharashtradated 29/12/2010 is against the Order No.WRCAPP115/D.E.C.ED/Appeal/Rejection/140th/2010/71877 dated 18/11/2010 ofthe Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.E.C.Edcourse on the grounds: “1) Certified copy of the registered land documents notsubmitted. 2) Approved building plan issued by the competent Civil Authority notsubmitted. 3) Notarized copy of change of Land Use Certificate issued by theCompetent Authority not submitted. 4) Course applied for is not clear. In the onlineapplication form the course is mentioned as D.E.C.Ed and in the covering letter &affidavit of the institution received at WRC it is mentioned as D.Ed. course.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, St. Margarets D.Ed. College (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/01/2011 to theNational Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as theCouncil) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Diana Colaco, President of the Provincial Society of Jesus& Mary and Sh. Felicia Pereira, Trustee, St. Margarets D.Ed. College, Mumbai,Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-03-2011. In theappeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that they have alreadycleared objection no. 1 indicated in the above mentioned rejection order fromNCTE, WRC, Bhopal vide appellate order no. F.No. 89-105/2010 appeal A 13576; itcould not submit the approved building plan issued by the competent civicauthority as the building is nearly 45 years old and the required documents aremisplaced and not available with them. In order to show that the building isapproved, the property tax bills have been enclosed along with fresh drawings;Notarized copy of resolution of change of land use is enclosed, and due totechnical error in typing in the online application form No. APP WRC115, thecourse applied for is mentioned as D.E.C.Ed. instead of D.Ed. English course; theyregretted error and an affidavit to the same effect has been enclosed. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the application of the institution forgrant of recognition for conducting D.Ed. course was earlier rejected by the WRCin its order dated 21-01-2010 on the ground that the institution did not fulfill therequirement of Clause 8 (7)(i) of NCTE Regulations, 2009. The appeal of theinstitution against this order was accepted by the Council finding that theinstitution fulfilled the requirement of Clause 8(7)(i) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009and in their order dated 12-04-2010 remanded the case to WRC for furtherprocessing.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that WRC issued a deficiency letter dated09-07-2010 to the appellant institution identifying four deficiencies which areentirely new and different from the ground on which the application was earlierrejected on 21-01-2010. The WRC considered the replies of the institution dated 20-08-2010 and 21-08-2010 furnished in response to deficiency letter and refusedrecognition in their order dated 18-11-2010 without issuing any show cause notice.As giving an opportunity to the institution to make a representation before passingan order is a statutory requirement and the WRC has not fulfilled this requirementby issuing a show cause notice and further the grounds for the second refusal aredifferent as mentioned above, the Council came to the conclusion that theappeal deserved to be accepted and the order of WRC dated 18-11-2011reversed with a direction to the WRC to issue a show cause notice to the institutionon the grounds stated in refusal order dated 18-11-2010 and take further actionthereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept theappeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 18-11-2010. Accordingly, the appealwas accepted and the order of WRC reversed with a direction to the WRC to issuea formal show cause notice to the institution on the grounds stated in the refusalorder and take further action thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, St. Margarets D.Ed. College, Plot No. 1507, 1508, Mirza Galib Marg, PO. Byculla,, Mumbai - 400008, Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

F.No.89-70/2011-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Arun Tiwari Smrit Mahavidyalaya (run by RajeevVikas Parishad) , Rewa, Madhya Pradesh dated 24/02/2011 is against the OrderNo. WRC/NCTEAPW07549/223761/123rd/2009/59165 dated 13/08/2009 of theWestern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course onthe grounds “1) AND WHEREAS the institution was issued deficiency letter on13/09/2008, thereby giving an opportunity to the said applicant institution to fulfillthe deficiency in this behalf within the statutory period of 90 days as per section7(1) of NCTE Regulation 2007. 2) AND WHEREAS on scrutiny of original file, WesternRegional Committee in its 123rd WRC meeting held on 28-29 July, 2009 came tothe conclusion that deficiency was not removed within stipulated time.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Arun Tiwar Smrit Mahavidyalaya (Run byRajeev Vikas Parishad) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred anappeal dated 24/02/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, NewDelhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant did not file an appealagainst the order of WRC within stipulated period of 60 days. On the other hand,he filed a writ petition No. 15907/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicatureat Jabalpur (M.P) and the Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 09-02-2011,noting that the petitioner has sought permission to withdraw the petition withliberty to file an appeal and the prayer has not been opposed by the respondentsdirected that the petitioner (i) may file an appeal against the order before theappellate authority within a period of 30 days from 09-02-2011; (ii) if any suchappeal is filed, the respondent shall consider and decide the appeal expeditiouslyas far as possible within a period of two months from the date of filing the appealand communicate the decision to the petitioner forthwith- by registered post; and(iii) in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of appellate authority, thepetitioner is free to assail the order before the appropriate forum. Eventhoughthere is no reference to the condonation of delay, following the High Court’s orderthe appeal dated 24-02-2011 has been considered by the Council on merit. AND WHEREAS Sh. Balendra Shukla, President, Arun Tiwari SmritMahavidyalaya (run by Rajeev Vikas Parishad), Rewa, Madhya Pradesh presentedthe case of the appellant institution on 29-03-2011. In the appeal and duringpersonal presentation, it was submitted that the order passed by the NCTE WesternRegional Committee, Bhopal dated 13/08/2009 does not specify the deficiencywhich was not removed by the appellant and, therefore, unless the deficiency isdisclosed by the respondent, it cannot be removed. It has also been submittedthat the appellant is now furnishing the security to the tune of Rs. 8 lakh by two

separate Bank Drafts of Rs. 3 lakh and 5 lakh which are enclosed with the appealand may be treated as part of the appeal; the security amount of Rs. 8 lakh, alongwith the approved building plan, which is filed with the appeal be considered andWestern Regional Committee, Bhopal be directed to inspect the institution forgrant of recognition as per NCTE norms; because of non recognition the institutionis not being run and the appellant is suffering huge financial loss every yeardespite the fact that the Govt. of M.P. Higher Education Department has alreadygranted ‘no objection certificate’ for running the B.Ed. College for the session 2008for 100 students; and the A.P.S. University, Rewa has also granted the affiliation inconformation with the order dated 31/05/2008 issued by Higher Education Deptt.M.P. Govt., but that is also proving fruitless for want of recognition of NCTE. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the WRC issued a letter dated 08-08-2008 to the institution pointing out eight deficiencies to be removed within 90 daysand subsequently issued another letter dated 13-09-2008 intimating that aninspection team will visit the institution and that in the meantime they shouldsubmit (i) the necessary undertaking; (ii) approved building plan; and (iii) FDRs forRs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs and send reply within seven days. The Council noted thatthe appellant institution with their letter dated 14-02-2009 (which was received inWRC on 21-02-2009) forwarded a building plan approved by Gram Panchayat(without any date) and informed that the FDRs which are in process will beforwarded soon. The appellant forwarded copies of FDRs for Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 5lakhs prepared on 03-03-2011 to the Council with his letter dated 28-03-2011. theCouncil further noted that the Clause 7(1-A) of NCTE Regulations, 2009 stipulatesthat the applications submitted on-line but not followed by dispatch throughregistered post or by hand alongwith the specified documents including approvedbuilding plan and Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs for Rs.5.00 lakh and Rs.3.00 lakh)within seven days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarilyrejected. The institution did not furnish approved building plan and FDRs for Rs.5.00lakh and Rs.3.00 lakh. Even after issue of deficiency letter, the institution also didnot furnish proper approved building plan and sought time for submission of FDRs.Thus, the institution did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of submission of theabove said documents in time. In the circumstances, the Council came to theconclusion that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of WRCconfirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appealand hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected andWRC’s order dated 13-08-2009 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. Chairman, Arun Tiwar Smrit Mahavidyalaya (Run by Rajeev Vikas Parishad) , Village Pahdiya, PO Roura, Tehsil Raipur Karchuliyan, Rewa - -, 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 - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Balaji College of Education, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadudated 14/05/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/B.Ed.-A1/2010/18378 dated13-04-2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition forconducting B.Ed(Add.) course on the grounds “1) National Assessment andAccreditation Council (NAAC) with 'B' Grade Certificate is not submitted. 2)Affidavit is not signed. 3) Institution has not completed 3 years of recognition forB.Ed. course.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Balaji College of Education(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 14/05/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. M.R. Muthumareeswaran, Advisor, Sri Balaji College ofEducation, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on29-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted thatthey have applied for NAAC accreditation before eight months and theaccreditation process is under consideration by NAAC and nowhere in the NCTERegulations it is mentioned that NAAC accreditation is required for B.Ed.(Additional Intake); as per their office copy, the affidavit is signed by the Manager& Correspondent and attested by the Notary Public; the institution received thefirst recognition for 2005-2006 vide NCTE order F.TN/SEC/SRO/NCTE/2005-2006/6325dated 23/05/2006, and commenced the first batch by 2006 itself. Also, the resultshave been published for three batches of students and hence the institution hascompleted three academic years. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that as per the provision of Clause 8(4) ofthe NCTE Regulations 2009 NAAC accreditation is necessary before applying forenhancement of intake in B.Ed. and the appellant had only applied foraccreditation which is yet to be obtained; the second page of Rs.100/- affidavit isnot signed at the appropriate place where it should be; and they have notcompleted three academic sessions of D.T.Ed. course which is essential beforeapplying for a additional course or an additional unit in the existing course (i.e.B.Ed.) as per the requirements of Clause 8(3) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009. TheCouncil also noted that the appellant has not shown any document regarding theprocess of NAAC accreditation. In these circumstances, the Council came to theconclusion that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition for B.Ed. (AdditionalIntake) and, therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRCdated 13-04-2010 confirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, theCouncil reached to the conclusion that there was no ground to accept theappeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand SRC’s order dated 13-04-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Managing Trustee, Sri Balaji College of Education, Shri Ramachandra Nagar, Cheranmahadevi, , Tirunelveli - -, Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Guru Gobind Singh College, Patna, Bihar dated20/01/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/02-67/2008/5685 dated 13/11/2010 of theEastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course onthe ground: “Your application along with enclosures is being returned herewithsince application has not been submitted (on-line) as per Regulation 2009 &subsequently amended on 23/07/2010.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Guru Gobind Singh College(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/01/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Sanjay KR Srivastava, Asst. Professor, Sri Guru Gobind SinghCollege, Patna, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-03-2011.In the appeal and during personal presentation, it has been submitted that ERCreceived the documents in triplicate on 04-10-2010 which is well within thestatutory period of seven days from the date of submission of on-line application; itwas only when the appellant enquired through person the order dated 13-10-2010returning the application was intimated and the order itself was received in the firstweek of December by post, the respondent ought to have intimated thedeficiency in the application instead of returning the same; in their letter dated 29-09-2010 forwarding the application and other documents they have urgedexemption/waiver of processing fee stating the reasons. Therefore, the letterdated 29-09-2010 also contained the intention of the institution to pay theprocessing fee, endowment fund and reserved fund if waiver/exemption is notallowed; the appellant falls within the purview of a constituent college, andtherefore should have been given some time to deposit the processing fee. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the ground on which ERC refusedrecognition is non-submission of application on-line as per the NCTE Regulations,2009 and not on non-receipt of application sent alongwith the institution’s letterdated 29-09-2010. From the copy of the application forwarded by the appellant itwas noted that it was sent on-line on 27-09-2010 at 3:14:45 P.M. and it bears the IDNo. ERCAPP564. The Council further noted that the application of the institutionwas submitted on-line and ID No. of the application was generated and this hasbeen verified from the details available on the NCTE website. The institutionhowever did not submit processing fee of Rs. 40,000/- stating that it is a Govt.institution and the same has been reflected in the on-line application. The Councilwas, therefore, of the view that there was adequate ground to accept the appealwith a direction to the ERC for further processing of the case on merit as per

Regulations. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept theappeal and reverse the ERC’s order dated 13-11-2010 with a direction to the ERCfor further processing of the case on merit as per Regulations. Accordingly, theappeal was accepted and the order of ERC reversed.

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


1. The Principal, Sri Guru Gobind Singh College, Quila Road, Patna Saheb, Po. - Jhauganj,, Patna - 800008, 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 - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Swami Dayanand College of Education, Jind,Haryana dated 23/08/2010 is against the Order No. F.7-13/NRC/2008-09 dated 17-03-2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conductingD.Ed course on the ground “The NCTE letter dated 31/10/2008 and after beingsatisfied that D.Ed/JBT teachers are in surplus in the State of Haryana, has decidednot to consider the applications of D.Ed/JBT teacher training course for theacademic session 2009-2010 and close all such files. It is also decided to return allpending applications alongwith the documents to the institution concernedalongwith processing fees.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Swami Dayanand College of Education(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 24/08/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the appellant did not appear before the Council on any ofthe three opportunities given to them i.e. on 21-12-2010, 17-02-2011 and also on 29-03-2011 to explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeal by one year sevenmonths and twenty two days. The Council therefore considered the matterregarding condonation of delay on the basis of the records. AND WHEREAS the appellant in his application dated 23-08-010 forcondonation of delay has submitted that he was trying to obtain a copy of theorder of the NRC; after coming to know that the institution’s file was closed theappellant visited the NRC a number of times and till now he has not received acopy of the order. At the same time he also stated in his application forcondonation of delay that the NRC returned the application of the appellantsometime in April, 2009 and immediately on receipt of the said application hevisited the office of NRC in the last week of April 2009 to enquire reasons for closingthe file and obtain a copy of the order itself. This is a contradictory statement. Therecords of NRC indicate that they issued their order No. F 7-13/NRC/2008-2009/71600 on 17-03-2009. Since the appellant has stated that the application wasreturned sometime in April 2009 and ‘on receipt of the said application’, he visitedNRC office, it appears that he was having the order dated 17-03-2009, but still forreasons known to himself he was trying to get another copy of the order from NRCand did not prefer an appeal in time. His statement that the NRC told him only on16-08-2010 that he can appeal on the basis of the proceedings of NRC in their134th meeting held from 20-22 November 2008 is not worth accepting. The veryfact that he has chosen not to appear before the Council on all three occasions

indicates that he is not interested in pursuing his appeal. The Council, therefore,came to the conclusion that the appellant has not given good and sufficientreasons for condonation of delay in appealing and hence the delay is notcondoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons forcondonation of delay and admit the appeal.



1. The President, Swami Dayanand College of Education, VPO- Bhambheva, Tehsil - Jind, Jind - -, Haryana 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Tirupati Balaji Public School, Bhopal, MadhyaPradesh dated 06/05/2010 is against the Order No.WRC/APW07946/223783/127st/2009/R-5312 dated 29/10/2009 of the WesternRegional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on theground “The Land ownership is not in the name of the Trust.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Tirupati Balaji Public School (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/05/2010 to theNational Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as theCouncil) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Director, Tirupati Balaji Public School,Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that theappellant college has submitted all the required documents related to point 1 to11 number of WRC’s letter under reference but WRC Bhopal rejected theapplication and did not provide an opportunity for deficiency removal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of the appeal wasdelayed by more than four months after the permissible time of 60 days. TheCouncil also noted that the appellant had stated that letter of WRC was receivedon 04-01-2010, thereafter he was in correspondence with the WRC and finallypreferred the appeal to the Council. The appellant neither showed any proof ofreceiving the WRC letter on 04-01-2010 nor for corresponding with WRC. Theappellant admitted the delay. As there are no good and sufficient reasons forcondoning the delay in submission of the appeal, the Council came to theconclusion that the delay is not to be condoned. Accordingly, the Council refusedto accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Chairman, Tirupati Balaji Public School, Sector 'M' Ayodhya Nagar Bye Pass Ayodhya Nagar, 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 - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Pandit B.D. Memorial B.Ed. College, Panna, MadhyaPradesh dated 04/06/2009 is against the Order No.NCTE/WRC/MP/APW01706/223299/2009/53669 dated 11/04/2009 of the WesternRegional Committee (WRC), refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course onthe grounds “1) Reply not received within stipulated time 2) The institution couldnot satisfy the team about the availability and appointment of staff in theinstitution 3) The built-up area and also the infrastructure inadequate”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Pandit B.D. Memorial B.Ed. College,(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/06/2009to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Bridawan Tiwari and Shri. Sanjay Shrivastava,Representatives, Pandit B.D. Memorial B.Ed. College, Panna, Madhya Pradeshpresented the case of the appellant institution on 30-03-2011. In the appeal andduring personal presentation, it was submitted that the decision of WRC to refuserecognition to the institution U/s 14 (3) (b) was wrong. The show cause notice wasnot received till date and the institution was in possession of infrastructure and builtup area as per NCTE norms. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution had applied for grant ofrecognition of B.Ed. course on 31-12-2004. In the application submitted it was inter-alia indicated that land was available in the name of the Society. The givenaddress of the institution was Amanganj, Panna, M.P. The WRC had got aninspection of the institution conducted on 19-05-2005. The VT report was totallynegative and it indicated that no such college existed at the address given,namely “In front of Range Office, Amanganj, Panna, Madhya Pradesh”. The VTreport also indicated that, with the assistance of the Forest Range Officer, theteam tried to locate the college. During the process of inspection it transpired thata few months back the house of one Shri. Ram Kumar Rajak, resident of Panna,was seen as painted in the name of above institution and that, after that whathappened was not known. As per another VT report available on the file, theinstitution was again got inspected by the WRC on 10.09.2006, that is after a periodof more than one year of the first inspection. The VT report dated 10.09.2006 wasalso negative and it indicated that the building was under construction andinfrastructure was not sufficient to conduct the B.Ed. course. Thus, two inspectionsof the institution were conducted by two separate visiting teams on 19.05.2005and 10.09.2006 respectively and both the VT reports were negative. In spite of that,a copy of the order dated 27.09.2006, purported to have been issued by WRC for

grant of recognition to the institution for B. Ed Course from the academic session2006-2007, was available on the file. The said order is not properly signed anddispatch number was also not indicated. Though the order is supposed to beaddressed to the Manager, Government of India Press, for publication in theGazette, it is not addressed to the Government of India Press either. Notes portionof the file is missing from the file and papers in the correspondence portion of thefile are kept in a disorderly manner. Prima-facie, it appears that the recognitionorder dated 27.09.2006 is not a genuine document. The Council also noted thatthe Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, vide common order dated 31-07-2008, passed in WP 6113/2008 and WP 8936/2008, had directed the apex bodyof the NCTE to find out whether the recognition of certain institutions including thePandit B.D. Memorial B. Ed College, Panna were valid as per the NCTE Act and theRegulations framed there under. In compliance with the said directions of theHon’ble High Court, the Apex Body of NCTE got an inspection of the institutionconducted on 09.01.2009. The VT report was negative, and it indicated that landdocuments were not shown to the visiting team, the documents submitted by theSociety/institution were not related to the College shown/visited by the V.T,laboratories like E. T, Science, Psychology, Computer, Work Experience were notequipped as per NCTE norms and the teaching and other non-teaching staff werenot available at the time of inspection. The apex body of NCTE accordinglyapprised the Hon’ble High Court that the institution did not deserve the status of arecognized institution. The Hon’ble High Court, vide common order dated19.02.2009, passed in WP 6146/2008 and other three matters, directed the NCTE tocommunicate the decision of refusal of recognition with liberty to the institution toprefer written representation as per the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993.Accordingly, the WRC, vide its order dated 11.04.2009 refused recognition to theinstitution on the ground that the institution did not submit reply to the show causenotice dated 28.02.2009, which was issued to them pointing out deficiencies suchas (i) the built up area and also the infrastructure were inadequate and (2) theinstitution could not satisfy the visiting team about the availability andappointment of staff in the institution. The appeal dated 04.06.2009 filed by theinstitution against the W.R.C’s order dated 28.02.2009 was promptly listed forhearing on 10.06.2009 and the institution was asked to present its case before theappeal committee on that day. However, since the institution did not appear forthe hearing on 10.06.2009, their case was listed for hearing continuously onsubsequent dates on 20.07.2009, 19.10.2009, 19.12.2009, 07.01.2010, 18.01.2010,21.07.2010, 16.08.2010 and 17.09.2010. But it did not attend any of the hearingsmentioned above. In the meantime, the institution filed a W.P.No.2114/2011 in theHon’ble High Court of M.P (Principal Seat) at Jabalpur. In the Order dated02.02.2011 of the Hon’ble High Court, it has been stated that the case of thepetitioner was that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the order of refusal,which has been pending with the Appellate Authority for the last more than oneyear and that it has not been decided upon till date (i.e.02.02.2011) and,therefore, the institute requested the Hon’ble High Court to direct the AppellateAuthority to decide the appeal expeditiously. AND WHEREAS the Hon’ble High Court then directed the Appellate Authorityto decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, as far as possible, within aperiod of 30 days from the date the institution files additional grounds of appeal. Incompliance with the said directions of the Hon’ble High Court dated 21.02.2011,the case was again listed for hearing on the next date of hearing itself i.e.

01.03.2011, and the appellant institution was contacted over phone and throughfax message advising them to appear for hearing on 01.03.2011. But, the institutionexpressed its inability to attend the hearing on 01.03.2011 also and sought anotherdate. Although the institution was advised to make a formal request in the matter,it did not do so. In spite of the fact that, as per the Appeal Rules, ordinarily onlythree chances are allowed for appearance, this particular institution was allowedseveral chances in view of the directions dated 31.07.2008 of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Judicature at Jabalpur However, the institution did not bother to respondto any of the several communications mentioned above and failed to appearbefore the Council. As stated above, it would, therefore, be seen that theAppellate Authority itself was eager to consider and dispose of the appeal, but itcould not do so because of the non-cooperation of the appellant institutioninasmuch as it did not appear before the Council even after giving it severalopportunities. While on the one hand, the delay in disposal of the appeal wascaused by the appellant institution, on the other hand, it also misled the Hon’bleHigh Court stating that the appeal was pending with the appellate authority forthe last more than one year and that it should be directed to decide the appealexpeditiously. As already stated, three inspections of the institution wereconducted by three different visiting teams of experts. The first two inspectionswere got conducted by the WRC under Section 14 of the NCTE Act on 19.05.2005and 10.09.2006 respectively, and the third inspection was got conducted by theapex body of NCTE on 09.01.2009 under Section 13 of the Act. All the three VTreports are negative. Further, while the delay in disposal of the appeal for over oneand a half years was on account of non co-operation of the institution inasmuchas it did not appear before the Council for presenting its case, even after it wasasked to do so a number of times, it also misled the Hon’ble High Court by wronglysubmitting before it that the appeal of the institution was pending before theCouncil of the NCTE for the last more than one year and requesting that the NCTEbe directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. Even when the institution wasadvised to appear before the Council on 01.03.2011 to present its case before theCouncil to enable the Council to decide the appeal in compliance with thedirection of the Hon’ble High Court of M.P at Jabalpur, the institution did notbother to respond. Obviously, it could only be inferred that the institution was tryingto delay a decision on the appeal and trying to put the blame for the delay indeciding the appeal on the Council. In the circumstances, the Council was of theview that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should berejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT reports and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and WRC’s order dated 11-04-2009 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. -, Pandit B.D. Memorial B.Ed. College, , In front of Range Office, Amanganj, Panna, , Panna - -, 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 - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

F.No.89- 553/2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sachidanand Kala, Krida & Shikshan MandalSociety, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra dated 15/06/2009 is against the Order No.WRC/APW06972/1221091/110th/2008/54438 dated 21/04/2009 of the WesternRegional Committee (WRC), rejecting the application for recognition forconducting D.Ed (M) (Girls) course and closing the file on the grounds “Theinspection of the institution was conducted on 18.10.2008 and WRC consideredthe case of the institution in the light of letters F.No.46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)/84003dt.31/10/2008 received from Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negativerecommendation received from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.EdCourse. Keeping in view of the negative recommendation received fromMaharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed Course and directions received fromNCTE Hqs, the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this caseand communication to this effect to be made to this institution. Now, therefore, asper decision taken by WRC, the proposal of said institution is to be treated asclosed”. The appeal of the institution was considered by the Council and theCouncil, vide its order dated 08.10.2009, rejected the appeal and confirmed theWRC’s order dated 21.04.2009. The institution filed a writ petition No.932/2011 in theHigh Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench against the said order.The Hon’ble High Court, vide it order dated 10.02.2011 quashed and set-aside theimpugned order and directed the Council to consider the proposal of thepetitioner afresh on its own merits in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in thecase of State of Maharashtra V/s Sant Dhyaneshwar Shikshan ShastraMahavidyalaya and shall not be solely guided by the negative recommendationreceived from the Maharashtra State Government. Accordingly, the case waslisted for hearing on 30.03.2011 and the institution was asked to again present itscase on that day. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sachidanand Kala,Krida & ShikshanMandal Society (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appealdated 15/06/2009 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. Kolhe Sandip Raosahib, Member, Sachidanand Kala,Krida & Shikshan Mandal Society, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra presented the caseof the appellant institution on 30.03.2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation, it was inter-alia submitted that the refusal made by giving merereference numbers of the letters bearing Ref. Nos. F.No.46-3/2008/NCTE

(N&S)/84003 dated 17 Sep.08 and F.No.49-27/2007/NCTE (N&S) dated 1 October,2008 and F.No.49-27/2007/NCTE (N&S) dated 31st October, 2008 issued by theMember Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi was not perfect and complete. The clearcause for refusal was not spelt out in the refusal order as no where did therespondent clarify as to what were the contents of the letters referred to in therefusal order and how did those letters affect the process of recognition in view ofnegative recommendations of State Government. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that as per the provisions in the NCTE Actand Regulations, the WRC is the competent authority to process the applicationfor recognition of teacher education courses and, in compliance with thedirection of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad, theapplication of the institution has to be considered on merits. Therefore, the Councilwas of the view that the appeal of the institution should be accepted withdirection to the WRC to consider the application on merits in compliance with thedirection of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Aurangabad Benchand take appropriate decision. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept theappeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 21-04-2009 with a direction to WRC toprocess the application of the institution on merits. Accordingly, the appeal wasaccepted and the WRC’s order dated 21.04.2009 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Sachidanand Kala,Krida & Shikshan Mandal Society, Plot No.1747, Gat No.3601, At-Parner, Tal-Parner, , Ahmednagar - 414302, Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sher Shah B.Ed. College, Rohtas, Bihar dated28/12/2010 is against the Order No. ERC/NCTE/2009/RL-2355 dated 07/12/2009 ofthe Eastern Regional Committee (ERC), refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed.course on the grounds “1) Land is on lease basis from private party which is not asper norms. 2) Notarized copy of change of land use certificate issued by thecompetent authority not submitted. 3) Approved building plan not submitted. 4)FDR of Rs. 5 Lakh”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sher Shah B.Ed. College (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/12/2010 to theNational Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as theCouncil) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the appeal of the institution to the Council against the ERC’sorder dated 07.12.2009 was filed on 29.12.2010 that is ten months and twenty ninedays after the expiry of the period of sixty days allowed for filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS Shri. Hira Kumar, Member, Sher Shah B.Ed. College, Rohtas,Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 30.03.2011. In the appealand during personal presentation, it was submitted that the document pertainingto land and the certificate for land use was submitted together with approvedbuilding plan; that the appellant obtained FDR of Rs. 5 Lakh from Canara Bank,Sasaram; that the requisite documents were being submitted in the form of paperbook along with the memorandum of appeal for consideration and grant ofrecognition. As regards delay in filing the appeal, the representative of theinstitution stated that the rejection letter dated 07.12.2009 was not received by theinstitution. It was received back in the office of the ERC undelivered and it wasagain sent to the institution on 14.06.2010. All the pages of the complete orderwere not sent this time also; rather, only the first page of the complete order wasdispatched. Remaining pages of the rejection letter were sent only on 28.10.2010and the institution filed the appeal within two months thereafter. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the rejection letter dated 07.12.2009sent to the institution was returned undelivered and the same was again sent backto the institution by the ERC vide letters dated 14.06.2010 and 28.10.2010. In view ofthe delay in ensuring delivery of the rejection letter to the institution, the Councilobserved that there was no delay on the part of the institution in filing the appeal.the Council, therefore, decided to consider the appeal on merits. The Councilnoted that the application of the institution was submitted on 30.10.2009. As perthe NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, applicable in this

case, no institution shall be granted recognition unless, on the date of application,it is in possession of required land, free from all encumbrances, either on ownershipbasis or on lease from Government/Government institutions. As per theRegulations, no building shall be taken on lease for running any teacher trainingcourse. Along wtih its application, the institution submitted a lease deed dated27.10.2009 from a private party. The lease deed executed was also between twoindividuals and not in favour of the society/institution. The institution also did notsubmit notarized copy of the CLU along with the application. During the hearing,the representative of the institution informed that it applied for CLU on 04.12.2010.The building plan submitted by the institution has not been approved by thecompetent local authority. The built -up area shown in the building plan was only771.50 sq/mts, as against the requirement of 1500 sq/mts as per the NCTE norms.The Council further noted that the FDR for Rs.5.00 lakhs submitted by the institutionwas dated 28.12.2010 that is it was prepared much after the date of submission ofthe application. After considering all the above factors, the Council was of theview that the institution did not fulfill the mandatory requirements to becomeeligible for consideration of its application and, therefore, the application of theinstitution was rejected by the ERC for valid reasons and, thus, there was noground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appealand hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’sorder dated 07-12-2009 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Sher Shah B.Ed. College, Rameshwar Ganj, Sasaram, Rohtas - 821115, 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 - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Tirupati Educational and Rural DevelopmentFoundation, Dhule, Maharashtra dated 08/06/2010 is against the Order No.WRC/APW07415/1222201/120th/DEF/2009/57056 dated 03/07/2009 of the WesternRegional Committee (WRC), refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed (M) courseon the grounds “WRC considered the case of the institution in the light of lettersF.No. 46-3/2008/NCTE (N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sep, 2008, F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE (N&S)DT. 1 Oct, 2008 and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE (N&S) dated 31 OCT, 2008 receivedfrom Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendationreceived from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. Course. Keeping in viewthe negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Government inrespect of D.Ed. course and directions received from NCTE Hqrs, the WRC decidedthat no further processing will be done in this case and communication to thiseffect to be made to the institution. “ AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Tirupati Educational and RuralDevelopment Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred anappeal dated 08/06/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, NewDelhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS The appeal of the institution against the WRC’s order dated03.07.2009 was filed by the institution on 08.06.2010 i.e. 11 months and 4 days afterexpiry of the limitation period of sixty days normally allowed for filing the appeal.The request of the institution for condoning the delay and admitting the appealwas considered by the Council and the Council, vide its order dated 19.11.2010,refused to condone the delay and admit the appeal. The institution filed a writpetition No.133 of 2011 in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at AurangabadBench. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 11.01.2011 quashed and set-aside the appellate order dated 19.11.2010 and condoned the delay in filing theappeal, subject to payment of costs amounting to Rs.21, 000/- to the library ofAdvocates in the High Court and directed the Council to consider the appeal ofthe petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits,if the costs, as aforesaid, are paid by the petitioner and receipt thereof isproduced before the Council. Accordingly, the appeal was listed for hearing on30.03.2011 and the institution was asked to present its case before the Council onthe said date. AND WHEREAS Dr. V.S.Patil, President, Shri Tirupati Educational and Rural

Development Foundation, Dhule, Maharashtra presented the case of theappellant institution on 30-03-2011. He showed the receipt in respect of paymentof the cost of Rs.21, 000/- to the library of Advocates in the High Court of Bombay,Aurangabad Bench. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the Regional Committees of the NCTEare the competent authorities as per the provisions in the NCTE Act, 1993 toprocess the application for grant of recognition for teacher education coursesand, in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay,Aurangabad Bench, the application has to be processed on merits. the Councilwas, therefore, of the view that, in the light of the directions of the High Court ofBombay, Aurangabad Bench, the appeal of the institution should be acceptedand the WRC’s order dated 03.07.2009 set-aside with direction to the WRC toprocess the application of the institution on merits and take appropriate decision. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept theappeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 03-07-2009 with a direction to WRC toprocess the application of the institution on merits. Accordingly, the appeal wasaccepted and the WRC’s order dated 03.07.2009 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, Shri Tirupati Educational and Rural Development Foundation, Ramnagar, Wadibhokar Road, Deopur, Dhule - 424002, Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of G.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya Sarvajanik Trusts,Amravati, Maharashtra dated 23/02/2011 is against the Order No.WRC/APW04371/122983/141ST/2010/72972 dated 30/12/2010 of the WesternRegional Committee (WRC), withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (M)(co-ed) course on the grounds “The land has been registered in the name of theindividual Shri Govindrao Sitaramji Tompe and not in the name of the G.S. TompeMahavidyalaya Sarvajanik Trust. It is not permissible as per NCTE norms. (Institutionhas contravened the clause - 8 (5) of NCTE Regulations, 2005 for D.Ed. Course)”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, G.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya SarvajanikTrusts (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated24/02/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the saidOrder. AND WHEREAS Dr. Shivati Vasantrao Deshmukh, Member and Shri. BhaskarKeshvrao Tompe, Secretary, G.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya Sarvajanik Trusts,Amravati, Maharashtra jointly presented the case of the appellant institution on30-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted thatthe land was very much registered in the name of G.S. Tompe MahavidyalayaSarvjanik Trust and not in the name of the individual Shri Govindrao SitaramjiTompe; the attested copy of Village Form No. 6 maintained by RevenueDepartment of Government of Maharashtra shows that the land of Survey No.10/1-A, measuring 2.36 hectors, situated at Shirajgaon Band, Taluka ChandurBazar, District Amravati, was mutated under the provisions of the MaharashtraLand Revenue Act, 1966 in the name of G.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya SarvajanikTrust. The attested copy of Village Forms No. 6, 7 and 8 A maintained by differentauthorities concerned of the Revenue Department of Government of Maharashtraalso show that the said land was mutated under the provisions of the MaharashtraLand Revenue Act, 1966 in the name of G.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya Sarvjanik Trust;the attested copy of relevant entry from the Register of Public Trust maintained bythe Assistant Charity Commissioner of Government of Maharashtra under theprovisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 also shows in Column No. 12 thatthe said land is registered in the name of G.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya SarvjanikTrust; the attested copy of the land use certificate of the Sub Divisional Office ofGovernment of Maharashtra had also permitted change of land use fromagriculture to education on the application of the Secretary of G.S. TompeMahavidyalaya Sarvjanik Trust; the photocopy of Land Title Certificate of localpracticing lawyer, Shri S.V. Takale, also certify that the said land was owned byG.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya Public Trust; the attested translation of the registeredsale deed dated 25/01/1969 also shows that the land was acquired on ownership

basis by the President of G.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya Sarvjanik Trust (Exhibit "H").The representatives of the appellant institution submitted that simply because thename of the President was mentioned, it cannot be said that the land was ownedby the President named therein and not by the Trust. They submitted thatGovernment of Maharashtra and its various departments had always held that theland belonged to G.S. Mahavidyalaya Sarvjanik Trust and not to its President.According to them, there was thus overwhelming documentary evidence fromdifferent Government offices such as Revenue Department, Registrar, Public Trustand Registration Office to the effect that the said land was and is registered in thename of G.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya Sarvjanik Trust and not in the name of anyindividual AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the sale deed dated 20-01-2009shown by the representative of the institution to the Council indicated that thepurchaser of the land was Shri. Govind Rao Sitaramji Tompe aged 75, President ofG.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya. Thus, the land was in the name of the individual andnot in the name of the institution or Trust. Therefore, the Council was of the viewthat the recognition of the institution was withdrawn by the WRC for valid reasonsand there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and WRC’s order dated 30-12-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, G.S. Tompe Mahavidyalaya Sarvajanik Trusts, Chandur Bazar, TQ. Chandur Bazar,, Amravati - , Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Jyoti Prakash Mahila B.Ed. College, Palamau,Jharkhand dated 11/02/2011 is against the Order No.F.ERC/NCTE/ERCAPP397/2010/6263 dated 24/01/2011 of the Eastern RegionalCommittee (ERC), rejecting its application for recognition for conducting B.Ed.course on the ground “The hard copy of the application of the institution has notbeen dispatched within the time limit of seven days of the submission of onlineapplication”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Jyoti Prakash Mahila B.Ed. College(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/02/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Anand Shankar, Chairman, Jyoti Prakash Mahila B.Ed.College, Palamau, Jharkhand presented the case of the appellant institution on30-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted thatas per the norms and procedure of NCTE, the institution submitted its applicationonline for grant of recognition on 25/08/2010 and hard copy of the applicationwas also sent on 27/08/2010 through registered post. Unfortunately, the saidregistered post was returned undelivered on 07/09/2010; the reason for non-delivery of the letter was indicated as ‘door closed’ on the envelope; photo copyof envelope was enclosed with the appeal. Immediately after receipt of the same,a representative of the institution rushed to the office of the ERC at Bhubaneswarand again dispatched hard copy of the application along with all necessaryenclosures and it was received in the office of the ERC on 13/09/2010, which wasnot only well within the stipulated time, but 47 (forty seven) days before the lastdate. The representative of the appellant institution submitted that the applicationof the institution did not reach the office of the ERC in time due to the reportednegligence of Post-Office concerned. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution had submitted itsapplication online on 25-08-2009 and hard copy of the application, along withnecessary documents, was dispatched through registered post on 27-08-2009. Butthe hard copy was returned to the institution undelivered by the postal authoritieswith the remarks on the envelope “the door closed”. The Council also noted that28th and 29th August, 2009 were holidays on account of Saturday and Sundayand there was no arrangement in the ERC office to receive dak on holidays, whichcould be the reason for non-delivery of the letter dated 25-08-2009 of theinstitution to the ERC, Bhubaneshwar, which was beyond the control of theinstitution. The institution again dispatched the documents to the ERC on 11-09-

2010, which was received by the ERC office on 14-09-2010. The Council was,therefore, of the view that the institution had dispatched hard copy of itsapplication, along with documents, through registered post on 27-08-2009, as perthe provision in NCTE Regulations, 2009.The postal receipt was also verified by theCouncil. The Council was of the view that there was adequate ground to acceptthe appeal with direction to the ERC to process the application on merits. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept theappeal and reverse the ERC’s order dated 24-01-2011 with direction to the ERC toprocess the application of the institution on merits. Accordingly, the appeal wasaccepted and the ERC’s order dated 24.01.2011 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Jyoti Prakash Mahila B.Ed. College, Anand Shankar Charitable Trust Nawatoli, Daltonganj,, Palamau - 822101, Jharkhand 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 - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Kumar Kalika Memorial College, Jamui, Bihar dated07/02/2011 is against the Order No. F.ERC/NCTE/ERCAPP445/2010/6280 dated25/01/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee (ERC), rejecting its application forrecognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “Copy of the registeredland documents issued by the competent authority indicating that thesociety/institution applying for recognition of teacher education course, possessedland on the date of application not submitted. The land documents are in thename of individual. The same are in the name of Jainandan Prasad Verma,Secretary, Kumari Kalika Memorial College whereas it should be in the name ofKumar Kalika Memorial College through / represented by Secretary, Sh. JainandanPrasad Verma”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Kumar Kalika Memorial College(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 14/02/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, Principal, Kumar Kalika MemorialCollege, Jamui, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 30-03-2011.In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was mentioned that originalcertified copy of gift deed No. 33 (1) dated 10/11/1955, by which the said landhad been donated to the K.K.M. College, Jamui has been submitted to the ERC;as per Bihar State Govt. rule, the land was donated in the name of the thensecretary J.N.P. Verma for establishment of K.K.M. College, Jamui. (mentioned indeed); initially the land on which college was to be established was donated inthe name of the Secretary of the college. Later on, the land was transferred in thename of the college. The land use certificate, land possession certificate and landrevenue receipts issued by the revenue officer, (Circle Officer, Jamui) wereenclosed with the appeal. The said land is in ownership of the college. Later on,the college was taken over by the State Govt. The entire asset became theproperty of the State Govt. /University for the college purpose and the collegebecame a constituent unit of the Govt. /University. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that, alongwith its application dated24.09.2010, the institution submitted a Gift Deed dated 10.11.1955 in support of itsclaim of availability of adequate land in the name of the institution. However, fromthe said Gift Deed submitted, the Council observed that the land gifted was in thename of Shri Jainandan Prasad Verma, Secretary, Kumal Kalika Memorial College.Thus, the land was actually in the name of an individual as contended by the ERC.the Council also noted that clause 8 (7) (i) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 stipulated

that no institution shall be granted recognition under the Regulations unless theinstitution or the society sponsoring the institution is in possession of required landon the date of submission of application. The land free from all encumbrancescould be either on ownership basis or on lease from Government or Governmentinstitutions for a period of not less than thirty years. As the land was in the name ofan individual and not in the name of the institution, the mandatory requirement ofclause 8 (7) (i) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 was not fulfilled by the institution inorder to become eligible for consideration for recognition by the NCTE. Therefore,the Council was of the view that recognition was refused to the institution by theERC for valid reason and, hence, 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 the hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appealand hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and theERC’s order dated 25.01.2011 confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, Kumar Kalika Memorial College, 262, Jamui,, Jamui - 811307, 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 - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Ramesh Prasad Yadav Teacher's Training College,Koderma, Jharkhand dated 29/01/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-113.6(i)1(Vol-II)/2010/58991 dated 17/12/2010 of the Eastern Regional Committee (ERC),withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) inresponse to deficiency points No. (i) and (iii), the institution mentioned in its letterthat the original documents were with the Secretary of the society, the photocopyof the documents submitted to the visiting team at the time of the inspection. Thephotocopy of the documents also submitted along with the reply. However, thesaid reply cannot be accepted as non-production of documents to NCTE or itsrepresentative leads to violation of NCTE Regulations, 2009. 2) In response todeficiency point No. (ii), the institution mentioned here that the original buildingmap approved by the competent authority is submitted to the NCTE office,Bhubaneshwar on 01/09/2008 at the time of recognition. However, the said replyof the institution cannot be accepted, as stated by the institution in para 5 of thereply that the second floor was being added, the amended building planapproved by the competent authority was not submitted to the Visiting Team andthe same is not submitted even with the reply. 3) In response to deficiency pointNo. (iv) regarding website, the institution mentioned that "the visiting team did notask for this information". However, the same is contradictory to the remarks of theVT who have stated "not shown - not prepared". 4) In response to deficiency pointNo. (v), the institution had stated that the new hall of size 2950 sq.ft is underconstruction and will be completed within a month. The institution had stated thatthe hall is also shown in the building plan. However on perusal of the same, it isseen that the same is only a sketch of the second floor, which is not approved byany authority and even signed by anyone. 5) In response to para (vi) of theNotice, the institution had stated that no other course is being run in the campusand enclosed a copy of certificate issued by DEO, Koderma in 1st April, 2009.However, the remarks of the VT regarding other CBSE classes being run in thecampus has been made while conducting inspection u/s 17 that is after issue ofthe letter by DEO. 6) In reply to para (vii) of the Notice, the institution had statedthat they are having 9083 sq/m of land and 1643 sq/m of built up area, which willbe clear from the land documents and building plan submitted. However, the VTat the time of spot inspection u/s 17 of the NCTE Act has stated that only 8000 sq.ftof built up area is earmarked for B.Ed course. 7) In support of para (viii) of theNotice, the institution had stated that the VT members were shown the library ofthe institution and also enclosed a copy of bills and accession register. However,no such documentary evidence has been submitted to show that the VT wasshown the library of the institution. Further, as per para 13.5 E of the reply submittedby the institution, the institution has stated that the seating capacity of the library is30 students, which is less than required 50% of the total students i.e. 50 students, as

per Regulations, 2009. 8) In response to para (ix) of the Notice, the institution hadstated that the society had planned to start M.Ed. course in near future and for thisone floor is being added on the second floor of the building. It has further statedthat building for B.Ed. course was completed in Feb 2009. 9) In response to para (x)of the SCN, the institution had stated that the VT did not ask for the list ofequipments and enclosed the list of equipments in Psychology & ET Lab. However,copy of Stock Register is not submitted. The said reply cannot be accepted as thisleads to violation of para 8 (14) of NCTE Regulations 2009 as stated at (B) above.10) In response to para (xi) of the SCN, the institution had stated that the VTmembers did not give any instruction for videography. The remarks of theinstitution are contradictory to the remarks of the VT members. 11) In response topara (xii) of the SCN, the institution had submitted the list of staff appointed in April2009 duly countersigned by the affiliating body. As per the NCTE Regulations, 2009,the institutions were to comply with the requirements laid down in the revisednorms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date ofeffect of the revised norms. From the perusal of the staff list submitted, it is seenthat none of the staff is qualified as per NCTE Regulations 2009. 12) In response topara (xiii) & (xiv) of the SCN, the institution had provided the list of equipmentsavailable in ET lab. Copies of Stock Register are not submitted. From the perusal ofthe list, it is seen that the institution has stated that it is having five computers in theET lab, whereas the VT has mentioned that the institution is having only onecomputer. 13) In response of para (xv) of the SCN, the institution had submitted thecopies of bills of Science and Psychology lab. However, copies of stock registerare not submitted. However, the said reply cannot be accepted as nonproduction of documents to NCTE or its representation leads to violation NCTERegulations, 2009. 14) In response to para (xvi) of the SCN, the institution hadstated that the VT did not ask for the physical education equipments and alsosubmitted the list of physical education equipments. However, copies of stockregister are not submitted. However, the said reply cannot be accepted as nonproduction of documents to NCTE or its representative leads to violation of NCTERegulations, 2009. 15) In response to para (xvii) of the reply, the institution hadstated that the building earmarked for B.Ed. is being used for B.Ed. and alsosubmitted an Affidavit to the effect. However, the remarks of the VT are on thebasis of spot verification of the institution is that "CBSE course is being run in thesame campus by the society. 16) In response to para (xviii) of the SCN, theinstitution had stated that the teaching staff was available in the institution at thetime of inspection, however, after inspection one staff had submitted hisresignation and the college is in the process of appointing the lecturer against thesaid post. The said reply of the institution is contradictory to the remarks of the VT.Further, the institution has not submitted any documentary proof viz, salary register,attendance register etc to show that the staff appointed in the institution in 2009 isstill continuing because as per the VT, the teachers are less in number as pernorms. Even the staff list submitted is approved by the affiliating body in April 2009.17) In response to para (xix) of the SCN, the institution had stated that since the ICTand Education Technology lab is desirable, it is in the process of developing thesame. 18) The institution, at the time of inspection u/s 17 of the NCTE Act, wasfound deficient in terms of infrastructural and instructional facilities and notcomplying with the requirements laid down in the NCTE Act, Rules, Regulationsand guidelines of NCTE and also the conditions stipulated in the Recognitionorders there under”.

AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ramesh Prasad Yadav Teacher's TrainingCollege (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated01/02/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the saidOrder. AND WHEREAS Shri. Deo Nath Ram, Principal, Ramesh Prasad YadavTeacher's Training College, Koderma, Jharkhand presented the case of theappellant institution on 30-03-2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation, it was submitted that as stated in the reply to the show-cause, at thetime of inspection of the visiting team, the Secretary of the college, who was inpossession of the original documents, was out of the station and, as such, thesame could not be produced to the visiting team. However, photo copies of allthe original documents were put up and shown to the VT. Besides, at no point oftime, the Regional Committee directed the appellant to produce the originalbefore it at the headquarters, although the appellant was always ready and waseven ready to produce the original documents, which are registered documents,before the appellate authority; it was stated that the statements made thereinwere not correct. Para-7 (ii) referred to in para-5 of the reply of the appellantwherein it was stated that the institution has a multi-purpose hall. The same wasshown to the visiting team and affiliating University team when they came forinspection for granting affiliation. The hall is also shown in the building plan. Asmentioned by the respondent in para-7 (ii), the appellant has not mentioned inpara-5 of its reply that new multipurpose hall was under construction. Further, inpara-9 of its reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant has stated that thebuilding of B.Ed. was already complete and one floor was being added for theproposed M.Ed. course. Since this addition was for the proposed M.Ed. course,there was no point in submitting the amended building plan either to the visitingteam or the Eastern Regional Committee. It shall be submitted along with theapplication for grant of recognition for M.Ed. course. Thus, there has beencomplete non-application of mind. In regard to reply to para-9 of the show-causenotice filed by the appellant dated 19/07/2010: the fact, on this count, iscompletely misconceived; the statements made therein were also completelywrong and misconceived. The Eastern Regional Committee was informed aboutthe website by the appellant in its reply to the show-cause notice. In fact, theappellant college had its website www.rpycollege.com from the very beginningwhen the college was established, which is proved from the fact that anadvertisement was issued by the college in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' (RanchiJagaran part) in its issue dated 07/02/2009 for appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff for the college. The website of the college was also mentioned inthe said advertisement. Copy of the said advertisement dated 07/02/2009 wasannexed with the appeal; there was a serious error of record. The appellant hadnever stated those things as mentioned in para-7 (iv) of the impugned order. Para-5 of the show-cause notice reply has already been quoted above. The originalbuilding plan showing the multipurpose hall was already submitted to the firstinspection team of the Regional Committee which inspected the college in theyear 2009, prior to grant of recognition granted to the appellant through order No.177(1) dated 05/06/2009; a wrong reporting has been made by the visiting team.As a matter of fact, no C.B.S.E. course is running in the college campus. This hasalready been certified by the District Education Officer, Koderma in his certificatedated 01/04/2009, which was submitted to the Eastern Regional Committee. The

Eastern Regional Committee did not ask for a fresh certificate. However, a freshcertificate from the District Education Officer, Koderma has been enclosed withthe appeal; reply of the appellant has been wrongly quoted. In para-13.5 E of thereply submitted by the appellant it has been stated that total sitting capacity inthe library is more than 30 students, whereas in the impugned order it has beenstated that sitting capacity of the library is 30 students. Apparently this is a seriouserror on record. At the time of establishment of the college, norms in Regulations2007 was in force, which provided for sitting capacity of at least 25% in the library.The appellant college even at that time had more than 30% sitting capacity in thelibrary. The visiting team was shown the library which has sitting capacity of 50%students; It is stated that a specific statement was made in the reply of theappellant in para-9 which clearly demonstrated that the building for the B.Ed.course was already complete and the building under construction was for theproposed M.Ed. course. The report of the inspecting team is completelymisconceived and confusing; before the first inspection by the RegionalCommittee which was made in the year 2009, i.e. before the grant of recognition,the building for the B.Ed. course was already completed which finds mention inthe first inspection report as well. Thus, the findings in the impugned order are alsocompletely non-existent. It is a fact that the building for B.Ed. course wascompleted in the year 2009. Since the building was complete in 2009 in everyrespect, recognition by Eastern Regional Committee and affiliation by VinobaBhave University was granted; a correct reply was given in para-10 of the replysubmitted by the appellant, although the visiting team did not ask for the list ofequipment; but to avoid any doubt, a list was submitted along with the reply.However, this point has not been considered at all. The stock register was notasked for. The appellant is ready to produce the original stock register at the timeof hearing of this appeal; the visiting team members did not ask for anyvideography of the building. The appellant showed full respect to the visiting teamand extended full co-operation at a very short notice. As such, the assertion of thevisiting team is not correct; the Principal and Lecturers of the college wereappointed as per the 2007 norms, which was applicable at the time of grant ofrecognition to the appellant college (June, 2009). The staff list of the college, whowere in the year 2009, had the qualifications as per the 2007 norms and the list wasduly counter-signed by the affiliating University, namely the Vinoba BhaveUniversity, Hazaribag. It does not appear from the 2009 Regulations that theseregulations would also apply to the previously appointed teachers as per the thenexisting norms as such the grounds mentioned in para-7 (xi) are completely non-applicable in the case of the appellant and is misconceived and liable to berejected. It may further be stated that even as per the 2009 Regulations, most ofthe teachers of the appellant - college are qualified and a list of the same wassubmitted as Annexure -8 to the appeal; it has wrongly been stated by the visitingteam that the college had only one computer. The details of the computers andother equipments, which were available in E.T. labs, had been given in para-13 ofthe show- cause notice reply along with the supporting documents which couldbe verified even today. The appellant is ready to produce the original stockregister at the time of hearing of this appeal, if so required by the appellateauthority. However, photo copy of the stock register of E.T. Lab was submitted withthe appeal; the visiting team did not ask for the list of apparatus of Science andPsychology lab. List of apparatus was submitted to the Eastern RegionalCommittee. Photo copy of the stock register was submitted with appeal; theobservation made in this paragraph is not correct. The position has been made

clear in para-(viii) of the appeal. The appellant again affirms that no CBSE course isbeing run in the campus; the observation made in this paragraph is not correct. Asa matter of fact, at the time of inspection of visiting team on 03/06/2010, thecollege had full strength of teaching staff. However, one teacher of the collegehas resigned and, after following due process of appointment, a lecturer hasalready been appointed. Approval of newly appointed teachers by the affiliatingUniversity is under process. Letter submitted to the University for its approval wasannexed with the appeal. At present, the college has one Principal and sevenLecturers, which is the requirement for a B.Ed. college having 100 intake. The list ofthe Principal and seven Lecturers was also annexed with the appeal. Photo copyof the attendance register of the teachers was also annexed with appeal; in thesaid para ICT Education Technology Lab is only desirable. However, the appellantcollege has already taken steps for developing the same. Photo copy of the stockregister of ICT, Education Technology lab was annexed with appeal; in view of theaforesaid statements and grounds, it was evident that the appellant institution, atthe time of inspection under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, was not deficient in termsof infrastructural and instructional facilities and complied with all the requirementswith NCTE Act, the rules and regulations prevalent at the time of inspection of thecollege and even thereafter. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993,under which recognition of the institution was withdrawn by the ERC, provides thatwhere the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representationreceived from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravenedany of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations or orders made or issuedthere under, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) ofsection 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution,for reasons to be recorded in writing. Recognition of the institution was withdrawnby the ERC vide its order dated 17.12.2010 under Section 17 of the NCTE Act aftergetting an inspection of the institution conducted on 03.06.2010. the Council alsonoted that Clause 8 (13) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 stipulates that wheneverthere are changes in the norms and standards for a course or training programmein teacher education, the institution shall comply with the requirements laid downin the revised norms and standards immediately but later than one year from thedate of effect of the revised norms. As regards the first point regarding refusal ofthe institution to show original land document and original registration certificateto the VT during inspection, the Council observed that clause 8 (14) of the NCTERegulations stipulated that the institution shall make the information or documentsavailable to the NCTE or its authorized representative as and when required bythem and failure to produce or show any of the required documents shall betreated as breach of the conditions of recognition. Therefore, the contentionmade by the ERC that the institution violated the provision in NCTE Regulations iscorrect. Even assuming that the institution was unable to produce the documentas the Secretary of the Society was not available at the time of inspection, theland document (Gift deed) dated 27.08.2008 produced before the Council couldnot be accepted as the application of the institution was submitted on 14.05.2008,when the NCTE Regulations, 2007 were in vogue and Clause 8 (7) of the saidRegulations stipulated that no institution shall be granted recognition, unless theinstitution or society sponsoring the institution was in possession of required land,free from all encumbrances, either on ownership basis or on lease fromGovernment/Government institutions, on the date of submission of application.

Along with the application, the institution submitted a private lease deed dated08.11.2007, which was not acceptable. Thus, the institution did not fulfill themandatory requirement of clause 8 (7) of the NCTE Regulations, 2007. Further, theGift deed was in respect of the same land which was already on lease through aregistered lease deed. Regarding point No.2 pertaining to building plan approvedby the competent authority, in Para 5 of its reply dated 19.07.2010, the institutionstated that the institution was having a multipurpose hall of 1600 sq. ft and thatone new hall of size 2950 sq. ft was under construction and would be completedwithin one month, and that the hall was also shown in the building plan. But, onlyan un-approved map of second floor was enclosed with the reply at page-97.Further, in Para 9 of the reply, the institution also stated that the Society hadplanned to start M.Ed. course and for that purpose one floor was being added onthe second floor of the building whereas the building completion certificateproduced showed built up area, including that of second floor, and thus, theclaim made by the institution that the second floor was under construction wascontradictory. The Council observed that the objection on website in point 3 wasnot valid as the ERC office could also verify the correctness or otherwise ofavailability of website. Regarding point No.4 pertaining to multipurpose hall, asalready stated above, the claim of the institution is contradictory and, therefore,not acceptable. Regarding point 5 pertaining to other courses, the Council notedthat the VT, in its report dated 03.06.2010, has specifically stated that though therewere separate buildings for B. Ed course and CBSE classes, CBSE classes and B. EdCourses were actually running in the same campus. Therefore, the objection isvalid and thus, the explanation of the institution cannot be accepted as true.Regarding point No.6 pertaining to earmarked area for B. Ed course, the VT, whichinspected the institution on 03.06.2010, in its report, stated that approximately 8000sq. ft. was earmarked for the B. Ed course. Thus, it was certain that the other areawas for CBSE classes. Regarding point No.7 pertaining to Library, the VT in its reportstated that library books were not shown and there was no seating capacity. Inthe reply of the institution, it has been mentioned that seating capacity was formore than 30. Therefore, obviously, there was deficiency regarding library facilities.Point No.8 regarding construction of second floor for M. Ed Course has alreadybeen covered in the observation in respect of point 2. Regarding point No.9, theVT report specifically stated that the ICT and Education Technology labs were invery poor condition and, therefore, the objection at point 9 was valid. Regardingpoint No.10 about videography, the Council noted that the VT in its report statedthat the institution was non-cooperative and in spite of insistence, no videographyof inspection was done. Further, as per clause 7 (5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009,it is incumbent on the institution, at the time of visit of the team of experts (VT), tomake arrangements for the inspection to be video graphed. Therefore, the claimof the institution that the Visiting Team members did not ask for any videographycannot be accepted. Regarding point No.11, the Council noted that if therecruitment of faculty was made prior to coming into force of the NCTERegulations, 2009 on 31.08.2009, it could not be insisted that the appointmentshould be in accordance with the Regulations, 2009. Therefore, reply to pointNo.11 was acceptable. Regarding point No.12, the VT, which physically inspectedthe institution, in its report, indicated that only one computer was available and,therefore, the explanation of the institution that five computers were availablecould not be accepted. In any case, even five computers are also inadequate for100 students. As regards points No.13 and 14, the VT in its report indicated that thelist of equipments were not submitted to it and, therefore, the argument of the

institution that VT did not ask for it and, therefore, it could not be submitted,cannot be accepted. Point No.15 has already been covered in point 5. Regardingpoint No.16, the explanation of the institution cannot be accepted in view of theobservation made by the VT in its report to the effect that teachers were less innumber as per norms. The Council observed that the objections in respect ofpoints 17 and 18 are general in nature. To sum up, the VT report dated 03.06.2010 isnegative. It, inter-alia, stated that science lab and psychology lab needed to bestrengthened and list of equipments was not provided by the institution; only onecomputer was available and no physical education equipment was shown by theinstitution; Human Resource, the instructional facilities, infrastructural facilities andequipments in the laboratory are inadequate to run the institution. In thecircumstances, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached to the conclusion that there was no ground toaccept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and ERC’s order dated 17-12-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, Ramesh Prasad Yadav Teacher's Training College, Vill. - Charadih, PO - Karma, , Koderma - , Jharkhand 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 - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sri Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaja Mahavidyalaya,Gonda, Uttar Pradesh dated 14/02/2011 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/NRCAPP193/175TH/2010/3338 dated 31/01/2011 of the Northern RegionalCommittee (NRC), refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. course on thegrounds “1) The laboratories of the institution, as shown in the fresh photographssubmitted in response to the show cause notice, continue to be deficient. 2) TheScience lab is on removable tables with no experimental table with associated sinkand drainage system. 3) Some photographs of another science lab have beenincluded in the reply to mislead NRC. 4) The furniture in computer lab, classroometc. is not appropriate. As shown in the new photograph, lab furniture comprises oflong desks and benches, which have no back support.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Chatrapati Sahuji MaharajaMahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appealdated 14/02/2011 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. Chandra Kumar, Secretary, Sri Chatrapati SahujiMaharaja Mahavidyalaya, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of theappellant institution on 30-03-2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation, it was submitted that the Northern Regional Committee, erred onfacts and law in refusing to grant recognition; that all the deficiencies pointed outvide letter dated 21/07/2010 were complied with and there was no deficiency left;that in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter may be considered in thelight of the documents and evidence furnished by the appellant and the appealbe allowed. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the NRC in its 162nd meeting held on24-27th June, 2010 considered the case and decided to issue show cause noticeon the grounds that (i) ET lab, Psychology lab and Science lab equipments weredisplayed on tables, (ii) all labs needed proper furniture, (iii) the college websitewas not developed as per NCTE norms for D.El.Ed course and (iv) number of titlesof books in the library was not as per NCTE norms for D.El.Ed course. The institutionfurnished its reply dated 21-07-2010 referring to the aforesaid decision taken by theNRC in its 162nd meeting and forwarded fresh photographs of psychology lab,science lab and ET lab and print-out of website of the college and bills regardingpurchase of books, obviously after making some improvements, and requested forgrant of recognition to the institution. The Council noted that the freshphotographs furnished by the institution confirmed the observation of the NRC to

the effect that the labs were deficient as pointed out. The Council further notedthat the bills in respect of purchase of books furnished by the institution weredated 13-07-2010, which was much after the inspection of the institution on 24-05-2010. Thus, the institution did not fulfill the requirement as per the NCTE norms as onthe date of inspection. The Council was, therefore, of the view that the recognitionof the institution was refused by the NRC for valid reasons and there was noground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached to the conclusion that there was no ground toaccept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and NRC’s order dated 31-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Manager, Sri Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaja Mahavidyalaya, Jhilahi, Mankapur,, Gondo - 271302, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of St. Xavier’s College of Education, Patna, Bihar datedis against the Order No. F.ERC/NCTE/DECAPP549/2010/6212 dated 22/01/2011 ofthe Eastern Regional Committee (ERC), refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed.(Addl.) course on the grounds “An institution can apply for one basic unit only ofan additional course or for an additional unit of the existing recognized courseafter completion of three academic sessions of the respective course, for whichthe institution shall submit application before the cut-off date prescribed forsubmission of applications in the year succeeding the completion of threeacademic sessions. Maximum intake capacity of an institution taking intoconsideration of all courses, along with additional intake, in any case, shall notexceed 300. In view of the clause 8 (3) of the above stated Regulations, asamended vide Notification No. 309 dated 26th Nov 2010, the applicationsubmitted by your institution is rejected and returned to the institution along withthe application and its enclosures”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, St. Xaviers College of Education(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 18/02/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Fr. Thomas Karthauam, Director, St. Xavier’s College ofEducation, Patna, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 30-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that aninstitution can apply for one basic unit only of an additional course or for anadditional unit of the existing recognized course after completion of threeacademic sessions before the cut-off date prescribed for submission ofapplications in the year succeeding the completion of three sessions. Maximumintake capacity of an institution, taking into consideration of all courses, along withadditional intake, in any case, shall not exceed 300. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Clause 8 (3) of Regulations 2009stipulates that an institution can apply for one basic unit only of an additionalcourse or for an additional unit of the existing recognized course after completionof three academic sessions before the cut-off date prescribed for submission ofapplications in the year succeeding the completion of three sessions. Theinstitution was granted recognition for M.Ed. course vide ERC’s order dated 05-04-2009 and, thus, the institution would complete three academic sessions only oncompletion of academic session 2011-12. Therefore, as per the aforesaid provision,the institution would become eligible for submission of application for anadditional unit of the existing recognized course only during the year 2013. The

Council was, therefore, of the view that the application of the institution for B.Ed.course (Additional Intake) was rejected by the ERC for valid reasons and, thus,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, theCouncil reached to the conclusion that there was no ground to accept theappeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected andERC’s order dated 22-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, St. Xaviers College of Education, Digha Ghat, PO - Patna,, Patna - 800011, 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 - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Vikramaditya College of Education, Bhopal,Madhya Pradesh dated 15/12/2010 is against the Order No.NCTE/WRC/MP/APW01618/223276/ 121/2009/72212 dated 02/12/2010 of theWestern Regional Committee (WRC), refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed.course on the grounds “1) Land and built up area are inadequate. 2) The Collegeis housed in a market building which is against NCTE Norms. 3) There is noearmarked space for B.Ed. Course (College runs B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.C.A. Course). 4)The Size of the class room and multipurpose hall are not as per NCTE Norms. 5)Encyclopedia, journals and reference books are inadequate. 6) ET and Languagelab is not available. 7) Only two teaching faculty was present at the time of theinspection”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Vikramaditya College of Education(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/12/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Aditya Singh Narilia, Chairman, Vikramaditya College ofEducation, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh presented the appeal case of the institutionon 30-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submittedthat land and built up area of the college was adequate as per the NCTE Normsfor the successful running of the B.Ed. Course. A certificate from the ApprovedArchitect was enclosed for confirmation of the area of the building, along with theapproved Map, to justify the size of the Class Room; as stated in the refusal orderthe college is not housed in a market building, rather it is situated at M.P. Nagar,which is one of the Education hubs of Bhopal, where most of the Colleges,Education Institutes and reputed Education Centres and Colleges are providingquality education to half of the students of the Bhopal and nearby surroundingplaces. Some of the reputed educational colleges and institutions are SuryaAcademy, Time, Fitjee, Rabs Business School, PATHFINDER, Gateway Institute,Global College, Krishna College of Civil Engineering, Career Launcher, PunjabTechnical University etc; as the appellant Society is running B.Ed. and D.Ed.College at Bhopal having building premises exclusively used for running B.Ed. andD.Ed college, and whole building is earmarked for the purpose of B.Ed. and D.Edcourses, and there is no time clash between the two courses and only ComputerLiteracy Programme is run by the Society for the vocational development of theStudents, the same is not applicable as the whole of the college building isspecifically meant for the B.Ed and D.Ed College purpose; size of the class roomand multipurpose hall area of the College is adequate as per the NCTE norms forthe successful running of the B.Ed / D.Ed Course and are meeting the criteria as

per Norms.; encyclopedias, journals and reference books are adequate as per theNorms for the B.Ed Course; copy of the bills for the same were enclosed with theappeal in support of the justification of the same; the college is having adequateET & language lab as per the Norms; copy of the bills were enclosed with theappeal in support of justification of the same; college is having sufficient numberof staff as required for the B.Ed. course as per Norms; the details of the staff alongwith their qualification and related information is already submitted with the WRC,NCTE for the purpose of the recognition. The College also follows the code 28 ofthe University for the purpose of the selection of the staff for B.Ed Course. At thetime of inspection, some of the staff was present and were taking classes in theclass room and the rest had gone for the Shramdan Programme at Bhopal Lake,proof of which was attached with the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the Hon’ble High Court of Judicatureat Jabalpur, vide common order dated 31-07-2008, passed in WP 6113/2008 andWP 8936/2008, had directed the apex body of the NCTE to find out whether therecognitions of certain institutions, including the Vikramaditya College ofEducation, was valid as per the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed there under.In compliance with the said directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the apex body ofNCTE got an inspection of the institution conducted on 12-01-2009. The VT reportdated 12/01/2009 was totally negative and it, inter- alia indicated that theinstitution was not having any land as it was housed in a market building and theavailable built-up area was only 4179 Sq.ft. common for B.Ed. D.Ed. and BCA; outof seven, only two staff members, that too without NCTE and UGC prescribedqualifications, were available; the Principal was not available; psychology andscience labs were in poor condition; ET and language labs were not available; thenumber of books were not as per NCTE norms; general environment was notconducive for teaching-learning process; no playground and sports and gamesfacilities were there; the college was not having staff members and it had poorinstructional and physical facilities. The WRC issued a show-cause notice dated 25-03-2009 on the grounds that (1) Land and built-up area was inadequate; (2) TheCollege is housed in a market building, which is against NCTE norms. (3) There is noearmarked space for B.Ed. course (College runs B.Ed., D.Ed. and BCA course). (4)The size of the classroom and multipurpose hall are not as per NCTE norms. (5)Encyclopedias, journals and reference books are inadequate. (6) ET andlanguage lab is not available. (7) Only two teaching faculty was present at thetime of inspection. The institution did not furnish any reply to the show causenotice. The WRC in its 121st meeting held on July 08-09-2009 considered the caseand, as per the decision taken therein, refused recognition to the institution U/s 17of the NCTE Act vide order dated 02-12-2010 against which the present appealunder consideration was filed by the institution. The institution maintained that ithad submitted a reply vide letter dated 29.04.2009 to the show cause noticedated 25.03.2009. A copy of the said reply dated 29.04.2009, which was forwardedalong with the appeal, claimed that the institution was having land and built-uparea which was adequate as per the NCTE norms; college was not housed in amarket building; society was running B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses at Bhopal havingbuilding premises dedicatedly used for B.Ed. and D.Ed; size of classroom, andmultipurpose hall was as per NCTE norms; encyclopedias, journals and referencebooks were adequate as per the B.Ed. norms. While the institution claimed that ithad submitted the reply to the show cause notice, no documentary evidence insupport of the claim was furnished and, therefore, the claim of the institution that it

had furnished reply to the show cause notice could not be accepted at its facevalue. AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that the institution had applied forgrant of recognition for B.Ed. course on 31-12-2004. In the application, it was statedthat land was available in the name of the Society and, to start the course, abuilding was taken on short-term lease at 282, Zone-2, M.P Nagar, Bhopal, M.P. TheWRC got an inspection of the institution conducted by a visiting team of expertson 10.07.2005. The VT report was totally negative and it indicated that the buildingwas not at all suitable for B.Ed. course and the land was purchased, but nodiversion had been effected yet. The Council further noted that, as per the papersavailable on the file, only a conditional recognition letter dated 09-08-2005 wasissued to the institution for the academic session 2005-06 only, subject to thecollege submitting the list of staff. The institution was also asked to comply with therequirement of submitting the list of faculty members duly signed by the Registrarof the affiliating University in order to issue a formal order of recognition by WRC,Bhopal. No formal order of recognition was issued by the WRC. However, therepresentative of the institution produced a copy of WRC’s order dated 03-03-2007granting formal recognition to the institution from the academic session 2005-06,which was obviously a fake order. In the circumstances, the Council was of theview that there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand WRC’s order dated 02-12-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Vikramaditya College of Education , 282 Zone - II, M.P. Nagar,, Bhopal - 462016, 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 - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Abhishek Ray Chaudhuri Teacher's Training College,South 24 Parganas, West Bengal dated 18/02/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-114(Vol.l).3/2010/6318 dated 28/01/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee,refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) The institutionhas submitted a fresh building plan which is approved by Pradhan dated10/11/2010. 2) Multipurpose hall mentioned in the VT Report i.e. 141.43 sq.mts.,which is less as per NCTE norms. 3) The mutation certificate submitted by theinstitution for the plot no. 279, plot no. 280 and plot no. 639 is issued on19/02/2010.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Abhishek Ray Chaudhuri Teacher'sTraining College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appealdated 21/02/2011 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 Sh. Amalananda Midder, Trustee and Sh. B. Chakraborty,Office Assistant, Abhishek Ray Chaudhuri Teacher's Training College, South 24Parganas, West Bengal presented the case of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that thebuilding plan was sanctioned on 24-12-2008 and the building as such wasconstructed as per approved building plan and the construction of the collegebuilding with a built up area of 1690.62 sq.mt. was completed before submission ofapplication to the Eastern Regional Committee, Bhubaneswar on 28-10-2009; theERC did not issue deficiency letter stating that the size of multipurpose hall was less,it was brought to the notice of the institution vide ERC’s show cause notice dated14-10-2010; while fulfilling the requirements, they made certain additions andalterations (internally) to come in line with requirement of the Norms andStandards of NCTE Regulations 2009; the deficiency of area regardingmultipurpose hall was made good by dismantling the partition wall betweenmultipurpose hall and adjacent faculty room; the faculty room was merged withmultipurpose hall by way of demolition of partition wall between multipurpose hall(141.43 sq.mt.) and adjacent faculty room (55.71 sq.mt.) to arrive at required areaof multipurpose hall stipulated in the Norms and Standards of NCTE Regulations2009; the drawing room was renamed as faculty room as the earlier faculty roomgot merged with multipurpose hall stated earlier. The additions and alterationswere effected to make good of the deficiency in so far area of multipurpose hall isconcerned; a building plan to give effect to such changes was submitted beforePradhan, Kamrabad Gram Panchayat, the competent authority. The Pradhan,Kamrabad Gram Panchayat, the competent authority in turn approved such

building plan on 10/11/2010 incorporating changes (internally) as sought for; thechanges in the building plan as appearing in the revised approved Plan byPradhan, Kamrabad Gram Panchayat dated 10/11/2010 is not a new one; ratherit is an amended /revised building plan of the original building plan dated24/12/2008; the original building plan dated 24/12/2008 and revised building planincorporating additions and alternations (internally) dated 10/11/2010 areannexed with appeal; the total requirement of the area of the building as perNorms and Standards of NCTE Regulations 2009 calls for 1500 sq.mt. (i.e. 16140sq.ft.), whereas the constructed area stands aggregated to 1690.62 sq.mt. (i.e.18192 sq.ft.). This demonstrates that there was no malafide intention in constructionof multipurpose hall measuring 141.43 sq.mts. (i.e. 1521.79 sq. ft.) originally and itmay not be out of place to mention that the original area of multipurpose hall fellshort of required area through oversight only; there is no denying of the fact thatthe mutation certificates for the plot No. 279, plot No. 280 and plot No. 639 wereissued on 19/02/2010; they stressed on fulfilling the mandatory requirements anddid not attach much weightage to mutation certificate as the same was notmandated; however, land use certificate issued by the Block Land & Land ReformsOfficer, Sonarpur, South 24 Parganas, Govt. of West Bengal was enclosed insteadand a copy of the same is annexed with appeal; the mutation certificate was,however, obtained on 19/02/2010 well before inspection by visiting team wasmade on 11/07/2010. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the visiting team in its report dated 09-07-2010, inter-alia, mentioned the size of multipurpose hall as 141.43 sq.mt. Theappellant also admitted during the presentation that the size of multipurpose hallwas 141.43 sq.mt. as per the approved building plan and its size was increased bymerging the adjacent faculty room only after the issue of show cause notice and,on the day of inspection, it was having a smaller multipurpose hall. It was alsoadmitted by the appellant that subsequent to the internal changes made in thebuilding, the plan was got approved by Pradhan on 10-11-2010. However, thesubmission of mutation certificate at the time of application was not a mandatoryrequirement. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that therewas no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected asincrease in the size of the multipurpose hall to 141.43 sq.mt. by merging theadjoining faculty room and approval of the modified plan by the Pradhan was gotdone only after the date of inspection. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and ERC’s order dated 28.01.2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Managing Trustee, Abhishek Ray Chaudhuri Teacher's Training College, Village - Chandpur, PO - Sonarpur,, South 24 Parganas - 700150, West Bengal

2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of West Bengal, Kolkata.

F.No.89-72/2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Baba Ram Tahal Das Vishal Mahavidyalaya,Ajamgarh, Uttar Pradesh dated 28/02/2011 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-3487/174 Meeting/2010/2504 dated 19-01-2011 of the Northern RegionalCommittee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground “Theinstitution had no proper Science and Psychology Lab and that the equipmentswere displayed on the tables has been responded by the institution with certainnew photographs and it claimed that they have organized their laboratories. Thereply is not satisfactory as the photographs again show display on tables and noattempt whatsoever has been made by the institution to develop the laboratorywith experimental labs, associated water / drainage system with sinks and almirahs/ racks to keep the consumables / chemicals and apparatus / equipments, as perrecommendations of NCTE given in its Manual on organizing Teaching LearningResources in Teacher Education Institutions.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Baba Ram Tahal Das VishalMahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appealdated 28/02/2011 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 Sh. Ramvachan, Manager and Sh. Baba Ram Tahal Das,Chairman, Ram Tahal Das Vishal Mahavidyalaya, Ajamgarh, Uttar Pradeshpresented the case of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal andduring personal presentation, it was submitted that NRC conducted an inspectionof the institution on 01-09-2009 and on the basis of this report, it issued show causenotice on 04-11-2009; the institution removed all the deficiencies communicated inthe show cause notice and submitted its report to the NRC; the NRC, instead ofgranting recognition, decided to conduct re-inspection and accordingly re-inspection of the institution was conducted on 17-06-2010. On the basis of thisinspection report it again issued a show cause notice, and for this notice theinstitution submitted its reply; the NRC after considering the institutions reply refusedrecognition vide order dated 19-01-2011. It was further submitted by the institutionthat it has proper Science and Psychology lab with all required furniture,consumables / chemicals, apparatus / equipments as per guidelines of NCTE withall facilities etc.; There is also sink with proper associated water/drainage system inthe science lab and the institution has almirah/racks in the science lab to keep theconsumables/chemicals and apparatus/equipments in proper manner; thephotographs in this regard and the bills for purchase of almirah/racks areattached with appeal.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was initially gotinspected on 01-09-2009 and the visiting team reported that the college wasrunning B.A. course also, the constructed building was not sufficient to run twodifferent courses and the facilities in the labs were inadequate; NRC issued a showcause notice on the basis of this report, and after considering the reply of theinstitution, it conducted re-inspection of the institution on 17-06-2010 and thereafterissued a show cause notice; the NRC after considering the reply submitted by theinstitution, refused recognition on the grounds stated in para 1 above. The Councilfurther perused the photographs submitted by the institution to the NRC in its replydated 06-09-2010 and noted that the grounds on which the NRC refusedrecognition to the institution were valid; the appellant in the appeal submittedaltogether a new set of photographs which showed that the labs looked better;these photographs revealed that the deficiencies pointed out in the refusal orderwere made up by the appellant only after the date of refusal of recognition. Inview of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there was nojustification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT reports and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and NRC’s order dated 19.01.2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. DURGESH KUMAR, Baba Ram Tahal Das Vishal Mahavidyalaya, Village & Post- Bharathipur, Tehsil- Mehnagar,, AJAMGARH - 276123, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Chaitanya Bahuuddeshiya Shishan Prasarak Mandal,Kolhapur, Maharashtra dated 07/02/2011 is against the Order No. F.NO.MISC/D&D/2011-2012/M.S/73857 dated 15/01/2011 of the Western RegionalCommittee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground “Yourapplication is rejected on the ground that the application is without ID and is notreflected in online submissions as essentially required, therefore, the applicationsubmitted by you is returned herewith in original with all attached documents.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Chaitanya Bahuuddeshiya ShishanPrasarak Mandal, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appealdated 07/02/2011 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 Sh. Dasharath G. Kale, Chairman and Sh. B.R. Choudhary,Superintendent, Chaitanya Bahuuddeshiya Shishan Prasarak Mandal,, Kolhapur,Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In theappeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that an on-lineapplication was filed on 25/09/2010, but at that time, the page containing detailsof payment of fee did not open due to certain server problems of NCTE Website;thereafter they submitted the proposal in physical form alongwith all the requireddocuments and a DD of Rs. 41, 000/- by speed post. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Clause 5(3) of the NCTE Regulations2009, which are applicable in this case, stipulates that the application may beessentially submitted electronically through online mode available on the websiteof NCTE alongwith the processing fee. Since the institution did not comply with thismandatory requirement, the Council was of the view that the application of theinstitution was rejected by the WRC for valid reasons and hence there was noground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appealand hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected andWRC’s order/letter dated 15.01.2011 was confirmed.

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


1. The Chairman, Chaitanya Bahuuddeshiya Shishan Prasarak Mandal,, Plot No. 2030 Street Wadi Road, Vill. - Abdul Lat Post Office Abdul Lat, Teh/Tal Shirol, City Abdul Lat,, Kolhapur - 416130, Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of CVS Krishna Murthy Theja Charities, Chittoor, AndhraPradesh dated 04/02/2011 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/NEW/AP/26528dated 28/01/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition forconducting M.Ed. course on the ground “The institution has not replied in respectof proof of dispatch within stipulated time and hence it is decided that no furtheraction is necessary and that the applications are to be rejected in terms of clause7(1-A) of Regulation 2009.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, CVS Krishna Murthy Theja Charities,(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 09/02/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. G. Srinivasa Rao, Administrative Officer, CVS KrishnaMurthy Theja Charities, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of theappellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentationit was submitted that the proposal for M.Ed. course recognition was submitted on01-10-2010 alongwith the processing fee. Thereafter hardcopy of the applicationwas submitted through professional courier on 06/10/2010. Proof of courier receiptis enclosed with the appeal. As the clarification letter of SRC was received late bythe institution, they could not furnish the reply in time. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that clause 7(1-A) of the NCTE Regulations2009 stipulates that application submitted on-line but not followed by dispatch,through registered post or by hand alongwith the specified documents withinseven days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected.The institution submitted application for recognition of M.Ed. course on-line on 01-10-2010 and claimed that the hard copy of the application alongwith the requisitedocuments was dispatched on 06-10-2010. But, the hard copy of the applicationwas received in the SRC office only on 18-10-2010. Therefore the SRC asked theinstitution to produce proof of dispatch to verify as to whether the institutiondispatched the hard copy alongwith the requisite documents through registeredpost within seven days of filing of on-line application. The institution’s reply wasreceived by the SRC only on 31-01-2011 and by then SRC in its meeting held on 20-21st January 2011 had already decided to refuse recognition. As per thedocumentary proof submitted alongwith the appeal the Council noted that thehard copy of the application was not dispatched by the institution throughregistered post as stipulated in clause 7(1-A) of NCTE Regulations 2009, butdispatched through Courier on 06-10-2010, which could not be accepted. Sincethe institution did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of clause 7(1-A) of NCTE

Regulations 2009, the Council came to the conclusion that there was nojustification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appealand that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’sorder dated 28.01.2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Correspondent, CVS Krishna Murthy Theja Charities,, Plot No- 131, Chadalawada Nagar, Village - Daminedu, Post- Settipalli, Taluka- Tirupati, , Chittoor - 517506, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of G.H. Raisoni National College Department ofEducation, Raipur, Chhatisgarh dated 31/12/2010 is against the Order No.WRC/APW00590/723023/140TH/2010/71769 dated 08/11/2010 of the WesternRegional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on theground: “Teaching staff has not been appointed. (The institution has contravenedthe clause - 4.1 of Norms & Standard of NCTE, Regulation 2007)”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, G.H. Raisoni National CollegeDepartment of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred anappeal dated 04/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, NewDelhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Dhanshree K. Dilbule, Administrator and Ms. ShashiKhuntia, OSD, G.H. Raisoni National College Department of Education, Raipur,Chhatisgarh presented the case of the appellant institution on 17-02-2011. In theappeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellantinstitution was called upon to give a written representation within 30 days, inresponse to the show cause notice; the appellant institution had tendered itswritten representation dated 21/07/2010; apart from giving explanation on theissue of building of the institution, the appellant had informed the WRC that theprocess for the appointment of teaching staff is in hand and the same is likely tobe completed within the month of October, 2010. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was granted recognitionon 3.8.2004 for conducting B.Ed. course with an intake of 200 (100 each in Hindiand English medium) in the academic session 2004-2005; an inspection wasconducted under Section 17 of the NCTE Act on 01-05-2010; a show cause noticewas issued on 02-07-2010 and on receipt of a reply dated 21-07-2010, the WRCfinding that the teaching staff has not been appointed, decided to withdrawrecognition with prospective effect. Since the institution is stated to have beenfunctioning since 2004-2005, in the course of personal presentation, the appellantwas asked to produce documents relating to appointment of faculty from time totime such as advertisements, minutes of the selection committees, approvals ofthe University, appointment letters, affidavits and documents showing payment ofsalaries etc. As the appellant was unable to produce these documents forverification of the availability of faculty members during all these years, herequested for some time to do the needful. His request was acceded to and the

appellant was given another opportunity to present the case. AND WHEREAS Sh. Dhanshree Kushal Chilbule, Office Administrative and Ms.Shashi Khuntia OSD, G.H. Raisoni National College Department of Education,Raipur, Chhatisgarh again presented the case of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011 and showed the Council the documents related to faculty selection andappointment. The documents submitted by the appellant regarding the varioussteps in the process of appointment of teaching faculty indicated that in theabsence of a duly constituted selection committee with a nominee of theaffiliating university, the management themselves made selections/appointmentof teaching staff. Further in the appeal itself the appellant has stated that theappointment of teaching staff was in process and the same was likely to becompleted within the month of October, 2010. This clearly established that theinstitution has not appointed teaching staff as per NCTE Regulations 2007 andtherefore the WRC was justified in withdrawing the recognition for conductingB.Ed. course. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that the appealdeserves to be rejected and the order of the WRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand WRC’s order dated 08-11-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, G.H. Raisoni National College Department of Education, Pagaria Complex, Near New Bus Stand,, Raipur - 492001, Chhatisgarh 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 - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Chhatisgarh, Raipur.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Loyola College of Education, Jamshedpur,Jharkhand dated 17/02/2011 is against the Order No.F.ERC/NCTE/ERCAPP794/2010/6255 dated 24/01/2011 of the Eastern RegionalCommittee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed.(Addl) course on the ground“Copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authorityindicating that the society / institution applying for recognition of teachereducation course, possessed land on the date of application not submitted. Theland documents submitted show that the land is on private lease basis, which isnot acceptable as per NCTE Regulations 2009.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Loyola College of Education (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/02/2011 to theNational Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as theCouncil) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Kuruvilla. V.S.S., Principal and Sh. Tom Perumalil SJ,Member, Loyola College of Education, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand presented thecase of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation, it was submitted that the college was started in 1976, and it wasshifted to its new campus in 1986 and the premises were taken on lease; the landmeasuring 15 acres has been in possession of the college since 1986; the NCTEgranted recognition to the college in 1997 for 60 intake and further the intake wasincreased to 100 seats in 2004; recently the college has executed a lease deed in2010 for 30 years for 11.39 acres. The land has been given by Tata Motors on lease.The status of the land was accepted by NCTE earlier while granting recognition forB.Ed. course and hence there is no ground for rejection of an applicationsubmitted for additional intake in the existing B.Ed. programme. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was granted recognitionfor conducting B.Ed. programme with 100 intake vide order dated 13-05-2004; theappellant submitted an application for an additional intake of 100 in the existingB.Ed. programme on 29-09-2010 and the Regulations 2009 are applicable in theinstant case. As per Regulation 7(1) of NCTE Regulations, 2009, no institution shallbe granted recognition unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution is inpossession of required land on the date of application either on ownership basis oron long term lease from Govt./Govt. institutions. It further noted that institution washaving land on lease from a private party i.e. Tata Motors and hence it is noteligible for sanction of additional intake in the leased premises. The Counciltherefore came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting theappeal and hence it should be rejected.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appealand hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’sorder dated 24.01.2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, Loyola College of Education, Rivar View Area, Telco,, Jamshedpur - 831004, Jharkhand 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 - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Matuk Smarak Mahavidyalaya, Ghazipur, UttarPradesh dated 23/02/2011 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-2766/175TH/2010/3438 dated 03/02/2011 of the Northern Regional Committee,refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground: “The reply is basedon bills for purchase of various items for sports, library, labs of the institution. The billshave no indication about entries made in the Stock Register. The Stock Register isitself not a valid copy of the document in existence, but has been constituted tosubmit a reply. No proof of payment of any of the bills has been submitted. Thephotographs of the Science lab clearly reveal that this lab is not organized andphotograph of another Chemistry lab of a college/school has been submitted,which is misleading.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Matuk Smarak Mahavidyalaya(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/02/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Balram Yadav, Member, Sh. H.K. Kaushik, Member and Sh.Sanjay Singh, Member Governing Council, Matuk Smarak Mahavidyalaya,Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that playgrounds were developed and equipments were purchased (photographs alongwith invoice/bill and cash receipts enclosed); library books, encyclopedia,journals, were purchased and entry was made in the accession register; sittingcapacity in the library is increased. (Photo copy of the first and last page of theaccession registers enclosed, receipt of these are enclosed); the photographs ofthe renovated and well furnished labs and lab wise equipments, purchased, itsinvoice/bills and cash receipt are enclosed; as regards the receipts of the materialpurchased are concerned, the institution is situated in remote rural area wherefirms only give invoices and the institution made the cash payments; however,when the NCTE raised this point it obtained the cash receipts and enclosed withappeal; there is no truth in the blame that the science lab photograph is that ofthe one existing in another school or college building; the Science lab has beendeveloped in the building meant for B.Ed. Course only and hence there is noquestion of misleading the NCTE or any other organization what so ever, as theirmission is to impart education and to prepare youth for teachers training. AND WHEREAS the Council perused the bills and stock/accession registersand noted that the stock registers for various laboratories do not mention the billNo. and date and further the appellant has also admitted that the stock entries

have been made only after the inspection; the bill Nos. 337, 338, 339, 369, 370, 428,429, 509, 510, 511, 754, pertaining to purchase of library books revealed that thebooks were procured in July 2010 and that was after the date of inspection. Thephotographs submitted in the appeal depicted that there is no seatingarrangement in the library; further the VTR dated 15-04-2010 was negative and itinter-alia mentioned that the institution was having inadequate infrastructure andinstructional facilities. In view of these observations the Council came to theconclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and hence itshould be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand NRC’s order dated 03.02.2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Manager, Matuk Smarak Mahavidyalaya, Darhwal, Jakhaniya, Sadat,, Ghazipur - , Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Saraswati Higher Education & Technical College,Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh dated 12/02/2011 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-2649/175TH/2010/3363 dated 02/02/2011 of the Northern RegionalCommittee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. (Addl.) course on thegrounds: “1) The institution failed to establish that it has properly equipped itsLanguage Lab. 2) The Science Lab continued to be inadequate, even in the freshpictures submitted, which shows only display of equipment and apparatus onremovable table, without having proper experimental table associated sink anddrainage arrangement.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Saraswati Higher Education & TechnicalCollege (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated14/02/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the saidOrder. AND WHEREAS Sh. Virendra Singh, Trustee Member, Saraswati HigherEducation & Technical College, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of theappellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation, it was submitted that it had sent to the NRC, the receipt bill no. 1279of Asian Scientific Industry Delhi (supplier) in which the articles procured such asMaster Console, Students units with Goose make mike, headphone with volumecontroller and class room speaker were mentioned and hence the languagelearning lab had been well equipped; that the college started w.e.f. 2004 andtherefore laboratories are well equipped with required instruments suitably placedand they are fully operational and functional; the photographs of science labshowing platform, source, sink and drainage are enclosed with the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that NRC vide its show cause notice dated09-11-2010 inter-alia informed the institution that the institution has not submittedany documents whatsoever to substantiate its claim of having proper languagelearning lab and adequate equipment in labs. The appellant vide its reply dated06-12-2010 submitted photocopy of stock register and invoices from M/s. LifeDistributors in proof of having necessary hardware and software in the languagelearning lab and list of equipment available in the science lab alongwith copies ofbills and stock register; however the photographs submitted depicted that labequipment was displayed on tables without proper facilities for conduction ofexperiments, etc. The first refusal ground of NRC does not clearly specify as to howthe appellant failed to establish for having proper language learning lab. TheCouncil further noted that the institution has been conducting B.Ed. programme

with an intake of 100 students since 2004 and obviously it need to augment certainequipment in the existing laboratories to meet the requirement of additionalintake. The VT in its report dated 14-06-2009 stated that the language learningfacilities were not proper due to lack of hardware and required software only. Inthe circumstances the Council felt that a re-inspection of the institution isinevitable in deciding the case particularly with regard to facilities available inlanguage learning and Science lab as it is a running institution and by way of thisinspection it can also be ascertained as to how it has been conducting B.Ed. witha sanctioned intake of 100 since 2004. The institution shall pay Rs. 40,000/- towardsinspection fee immediately and after receiving the payment the NRC shall causere-inspection within a month and decide the matter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advance during thehearing, the Committee reached the conclusion that there was adequate groundto accept the appeal and reverse the NRC’s order dated 02-02-2011 with adirection to the NRC cause re-inspection of the institution for ascertaining thefacilities available for the existing basic unit as well the proposed additional intakein B.Ed. course, within a month and for further decision thereafter. Accordingly, theappeal was accepted and the order of the NRC dated 02-02-2011 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Manager, Saraswati Higher Education & Technical College, Village - Gahani, Post - Ayer,, Varanasi - 221002, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Umiya Kanya Shiksha Mahavidyalaya,, Khargone,Madhya Pradesh dated 31/01/2011 is against the Order No.APW08254/225448/142/2010/72458 dated 14/12/2010 of the Western RegionalCommittee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course on the grounds: “1)The institution did not reply to the show cause notice dated 23/09/2010. 2) Theinstitution refused to get the inspection done by the VT. 3) The institution did nothave land on ownership basis at the time of application.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Umiya Kanya Shiksha Mahavidyalaya,(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 10/02/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Alka Pathak, Principal and Sh. Umiya Kanya Principal,Umiya Kanya Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Khargone, Madhya Pradesh presented thecase of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation it was submitted that 1) they replied to the WRC's show cause noticeNo. 70878 dated 23/09/2010 vide their office letter No. 393 dated 29/09/2010 byfax and the same was sent by post on 06/10/2010. Further vide letter/dispatch no.406 dated 25/10/2010, they sent photo copy of registry of land document, map ofunder construction building, NOC from panchayat; they sent the same documentsalongwith the application dated 24/10/2010 also; the institution never declined toget the inspection done by the visiting team to start D.Ed. programme, it ratherrequested for postponement of the inspection and to this effect the institutioneven sent a reply vide their letter dated 02/09/2010 to the WRC mentioning thatthe last date of admission of the students for the academic session 2010-2011 wasover and hence it cannot begin the course from the session 2010-11, so theinspection may be postponed. It was further submitted that they possessed6810.88 sq. mtrs of land at Khasra No. 255/2 in the name of the institution from thedate of submission of application for D.Ed. course and the building is constructedon 2500 sq. mts. out of above total land. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that earlier the institution was refusedrecognition by the WRC vide order dated 15-05-2009 on the ground that theinstitution had not removed the deficiencies within stipulated time, against whichthe institution preferred an appeal inter-alia claiming that the institution was inpossession of requisite land and built up area and the appellate authorityaccepted the appeal vide order dated 11-09-2009 and remanded the case to theWRC for causing an inspection of the institution for ascertaining the availability ofinfrastructure and instructional facilities; WRC incompliance with the Appellate

Authority’s directions decided to conduct the inspection of the institution andaccordingly issued a letter on 20/25-08-2010 to the institution stating thatinspection of the institution would be conducted between 25-08-2010 to 10-09-2010; the visiting team that visited the institution on 02-09-2010 reported that themanagement urged not to cause the inspection of the institution by handing overa letter dated 02-09-2010 stating that admissions for the session 2010-11 are overand requested for causing an inspection of the institution any time after 6 months.The VT observed the institution from outside and recorded that the building wasincomplete. The Council noted that the reason furnished by the institution forpostponement of the inspection was not justifiable as the inspection of theinstitution has nothing to do with the last date of admissions for the session 2010-11.It appeared that institution denied inspection for the reason that the constructionof the building was incomplete and this has been reported by the VT. It was alsonoted that the institution was not ready for an inspection even after around twoyears of submission of its application and after an year of Appellate Authority’sdecision whereby the matter was remanded to the WRC for causing inspection ofthe institution immediately. It further noted that the institution submitted anapplication on 17-12-2008 for grant of recognition of D.Ed. course and along withthe application it submitted a patta vilekh dated 25-03-2006 wherein it was statedthat the land was given for 30 years period only by the patta datha i.e. PresidentSh. Umiya Mataji Patydar Trust Mandaleshwar which means the land was on leasefrom a private party and this cannot be acceptable as per the NCTE Regulations2007 that were applicable in the instant case. In view of the above the Councilcame to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appealand hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand WRC’s order dated 14-12-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Umiya Kanya Shiksha Mahavidyalaya,, Khasra No. 255/2, Mandleshwar,, Khargone - , 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 - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Dr. Samson College of Education, Prakasham,Andhra Pradesh dated 11/02/2011 is against the Order No.F.SRO/NCTE/NEW/AP/26533 dated 28/01/2011 of the Southern RegionalCommittee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground that“The Application of institution is received in SRC on 22/11/2010 which is 48 dayslate.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Dr. Samson College of Education(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 14/02/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. M. Ravi Kumar, Clerk, Dr. Samson College of Education,Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that theinstitution submitted an online application on 29-09-2010 for B.Ed course for theacademic year 2011-2012 and the same hard copy alongwith all necessaryenclosures was sent by speed post on 04/10/2010 bearing receipt No:EN514028696lN (Indian Postal Service), Ongole, Parkasam District, Andhra Pradesh;the SRC, NCTE, Bangalore vide letter dt. 07/01/2011 mentioned that the hard copywas received by the SRC and requested for submission of proof of date ofdispatch of hard copy of application, within a week of issue of this letter; theappellant immediately submitted the proof of speed post receipt to SRCNCTE on11/01/2011 and the same was also sent by fax on No: 08023451514 and by E-mailalso; SRC rejected/returned the application on account of 48 days delay causedin receiving the hard copy. It was further submitted that there was no willful defaulton the part of the appellant in causing the delay in submission of documents tothe SRC; the postal delay is not their fault and not contrary to the law or rules;despite submission of proof of dispatch of hard copy showing that it was sent byspeed post on 04-10-2010 well within the stipulated period, the rejection of theapplication by the SRC was not justifiable. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that as per Clause 7 (I-A) of Regulations2009, the institution has to dispatch through registered post the hard copy of theapplication, alongwith essential documents within seven days of submission ofonline application; the appellant has submitted online application on 29-09-2010and thereafter forwarded hard copy of the application by speed post on 04-10-2010 that is well within the stipulated time period as prescribed under regulations2009; the appellant also showed the postal receipt as proof of dispatching thehard copy of the application on 04-10-2010 by speed post and also a letter dated

11-03-2011 issued by the postal department for its delivery in the SRC office on 11-10-2010. In view of this the Council came to the conclusion that there wasadequate justification in accepting the appeal for further processing of the caseon merit as per Regulations. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, the Committee reached the conclusion that there was adequateground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC’s order dated 28-01-2011 with adirection to the SRC for further processing of the case on merit as per Regulations.Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the SRC dated 28-01-2011 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Dr. Samson College of Education, Plot No. 778A, Street No. 2, Village - Tarlupadu, Post- Tarlupadu, Taluka - Tariupadu, , Prakasham - , Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of G.H. Raisoni National College Department ofEducation, Raipur, Chhatisgarh dated 06/01/2011 is against the Order No.WRC/APW00592/724004/140TH/2010/71796 dated 09/11/2010 of the WesternRegional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed. course onthe grounds “1) Principal has not been appointed. (Institution contravened theclause - 4 of Norms and Standard 2007) 2) Building plan has not been approved.(Institution contravened the clause - 10 of Regulation 2007)” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, G.H. Raisoni National CollegeDepartment of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred anappeal dated 07/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, NewDelhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Mr. Dhanashree K. Chilbule, Admin Officer, G.H. RaisoniNational College Department of Education, Raipur, Chhatisgarh presented thecase of the appellant institution on 15-02-2011. In the appeal it was submitted thatthe process for appointing the principal as well as conversion of land and gettingthe map sanctioned was also in progress. It was also submitted that no reason hadbeen assigned as to why the same was not acceptable to the WRC. Therepresentative of the institution sought postponement of the hearing to anotherdate to enable the institution to produce the requisite documents. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that G.H. Raisoni International University,Department of Education, Pagaria Complex, Raipur, Chhatisgarh was grantedconditional recognition for B.P.Ed. course with an intake of 100 students each inEnglish and Hindi medium for the academic year 2004-05 only vide WRC’s letterdated 26-10-2004 subject to the condition that the college would submit the list offaculty/staff approved by the Registrar of the affiliating university. Subsequently,the name of the institution was changed to G.H. Raisoni National College, JinKaushal Campus, Mathepura with affiliating university of Pt. Ravi Shankar Universityvide WRC letter dated 04-07-2005. Again the WRC vide its letter dated 01-05-2009allowed extension of recognition for the academic session 2007-08 and 2008-09. AND WHEREAS the WRC vide its letter dated 15-02-2010 informed theinstitution that a visiting team of experts would conduct inspection of the institutionU/s 17 of the NCTE Act, which empowered the Regional Committees to withdrawrecognition of an institution in case it contravened any provisions of the NCTE Actor Regulations or conditions subject to which the recognition was granted..Inspection of the institution was conducted on 30-04-2010. The VT report inter-alia

stated that the land records showed that it was on lease for 30 years but it was notup to the mark as required as per NCTE norms, the Principal and staff memberswere not approved by the University; Principal was same for B.P.Ed. and B.Ed.courses run by the same society, B.P.Ed. classes were run in separate buildingswhich were far away from B.Ed. college building, and it appears that theinstruments and facilities were not used. A show cause notice dated 02-07-2010was issued to the institution on the grounds that land deeds were not valid as perNCTE norms, Principal had not been appointed and building plan was not validand subsequently the recognition was withdrawn vide WRC order dated 09-11-2010. Since the representative of the institution was unable to produce documentsregarding appointment of faculty/staff and sought time for producing the same inthe next meeting, the Council was of the view that the case should be listed forhearing in the next meeting. Accordingly the case was again listed for hearing on31-03-2011. AND WHEREAS Sh. Dhanshree Kushal Chilbule, Office Administrative and Ms.Shashi Khuntia OSD, G.H. Raisoni National College Department of Education,Raipur, Chhatisgarh again presented the case of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011 and showed the Council the documents related to faculty selection andappointment. AND WHEREAS the documents submitted by the appellant regarding thevarious steps in the process of appointment of teaching faculty indicated that inthe absence of a duly constituted selection committee with a nominee of theaffiliating university, the management themselves made selections/appointmentof teaching staff. Further in the appeal itself the appellant has stated theappointment of Principal as well as conversion of land and getting the mapsanctioned was in progress. In the circumstances the Council came to theconclusion that the grounds on which WRC withdrew recognition are valid andtherefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of WRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand WRC’s order dated 09-11-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, G.H. Raisoni National College Department of Education, Pagaria Complex, Near New Bus Stand,, Raipur - 492001, Chhatisgarh 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 - 462002.

4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Chhatisgarh, Raipur.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of L.N. Mittal Institute, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradeshdated 31/01/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/WRCAPP566/142ND/2010/73007dated 30/12/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition forconducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds: “1) CLU not submitted with respect tokhasra No. 213/3. 2) Justification given for not getting the inspection done by theVT is not acceptable.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, L.N. Mittal Institute, (hereinafter referred toas the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 01/02/2011 to the National Councilfor Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) underSection 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Member of Society, L.N. Mittal Institute,Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted thatthe appellant society ‘Shri. Hargovind Laxminaryan Samaj Kalyan Samiti’ was inpossession of 1.146 Hect or 2.83 acre of land at Kh. No. 2-13/3 and hence theinstitution was having the requisite land area as per the NCTE Regulations 2009;‘CLU’ was granted by Town and Country Planning. Hoshangabad, vide letterdated 11/06/2008 and the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued order dated 17/12/2008with regard to diversion of land at khasra No. 213/3; the WRC constituted a visitingteam for inspection which was conducted on 27/05/2010 and the matter wasplaced before the 136th meeting of WRC which decided to re-inspect thecollege. The WRC intimated the decision of re-inspection to the college along witha letter for constitution of new Visiting team to conduct the inspection in between25/08/2010 and 10/09/2010; the college vide its letter dated 27/08/2010 intimatedthe WRC its inability to get the inspection conducted on the ground: that theChairman of the Society Shrimati Savitri Devi was old and aged about 67 yearsand the Secretary, Shri Sandeep Agarwal was injured in an accident andadmitted in Govt. Janseva Hospital, Itarsi and was advised two months bed rest byDoctor due to slip disc problem and enclosed a medical certificate dated23/08/2010 in this regard; the college replied to the show cause dated 23/10/2010stating that the college never ever refused to conduct the inspection butrequested to postpone the inspection as the office bearers were not in a positionto facilitate the inspection due to old age and health problems of Chairman andSecretary respectively; the college also enclosed with this reply a certificate issuedby the Revenue Inspector, Itarsi mentioning that the building is constructed onland bearing khasra no. 213/3 and the land has been diverted for educationalpurpose by Sub Divisional Magistrate Itarsi vide order dated 17/12/2008, and also acertificate issued by the sarpanch and archited in this regard; the college has

submitted the CLU vide its letters dated 04/11/2009, 09/04/2010 & 23/10/2010; thecollege in its reply has provided all the documentary evidences and the reason fornot accepting the justification for postponement of inspection was unacceptableto them as the WRC has already conducted the inspection once on 29/05/2010and why the college will not allow the visiting team to inspect again; the collegeonly requested to postpone the inspection in view of the health situation of theoffice bearers. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that 1) the appellant submitted anapplication for grant of recognition of D.El.Ed. course to the WRC on 30-10-2009and along with the application it submitted a CLU dated 17-12-2009 issued by SDMoffice for diversion of 1.146 Hect of land; the first paragraph of the ordermentioned the Kh. No. as 213/2 whereas at other places of the order the kh. No.was mentioned as 213/3; there is some discrepancy with regard to Kh.No. and theappellant did not submit any document issued by SDM office referring to the Kh.No. discrepancy noted in the order dated 17-02-08 issued by them; 2) aninspection of the institution was conducted on 29-05-2010 and the visiting team inits report stated that “the institution is not properly equipped to give reasonablefacilities primarily required. Institution wants to run the course in the rented building,after completion of own building the permission can be given to run the course” ;WRC would have served a show cause notice u/s 14 of the NCTE Act, on theobservation of the VT, rather it decided in its 136th meeting held on 5th to 7thJune, 2010 for re-constitution of VT and accordingly WRC issued a letter dated19/25-08-2010 to the institution informing that an inspection would be conductedbetween 25-08-2010 to 16-09-2010; 3) the visiting team that visited the institution on05-09-2010 reported that the management has written to NCTE regardingpostponement of inspection, hence the VT was not able to inspect the institutionand it attached with the report the management letters dated 05-09-2010 and 27-08-2010 and land records given by Tehsildar; 4) the Council perused the reasonssubmitted by the management vide letters dated 25-08-2010 and 05-09-2010 andnoted that the reasons offered by the institution for not facilitating the inspectionwere not justifiable because, if the Chairman and Secretary of the Society werenot in a position to be present, then any other member of the society or faculty ofthe institution (the institution had already furnished faculty affidavits to the VT on29-05-2010) would have co-operated with the VT, rather than solacing onunreasonable pretexts and requesting for conducting inspection after 2 months; 5)the suo-motu decision of WRC for re-constitution of the VT, was also not justified asthe WRC took this decision without issuing any show cause notice calling forrepresentation of the institution, on the observations of the VT report dated 29-05-2010 which was negative and it categorically mentioned that it had no building ofits own and it proposes to run in rented building. In view of the above, theCommittee came to the conclusion that there was no justification in acceptingthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand WRC’s order dated 30-12-2010 was confirmed.



1. The Secretary, L.N. Mittal Institute, Itarsi Plot No. - 213/4, Itarsi, , Hoshangabad - , 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 - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Netaji B.Ed. Training College, Mursidabad, WestBengal dated is against the Order No. ERC/7-114.6(Vol.l).12/2010/6170 dated21/01/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition forconducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1)Possession/Mutation certificate notsubmitted. 2) Notarized copy of conversion/change of land use certificate fromthe competent authority dated 19/02/2010 i.e. after the last date of submission ofapplication. 3) As per Col 4 of the Essential Data Sheet the VT mentioned the dateof original land document dated 08/07/2010, the same does not match with theland documents submitted by the institution.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Netaji B.Ed. Training College, (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/02/2011 to theNational Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as theCouncil) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Bilas Kumar Das, Secretary and Sh. S.K. Ray, Advisor, NetajiB.Ed. Training College, Mursidabad, West Bengal presented the case of theappellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation, it was submitted that they had already submitted a certificate issuedby Mahesail-1 Gram Panchayat Pradhan and the mutation certificate dated 25-01-2011 issued by Block Level and Land Reform Office is enclosed with appeal;they applied for land use certificate at the time of submission of application andCLU for using the land by Netaji B.Ed. Training College has been issued on 11-02-2010 by the competent authority; the deed of sale had been made on 21stOctober 2009, which had been registered on 22nd October 2009 and the datepointed out by the VT is wrong. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant alongwith theapplication submitted a certified copy of the registered land document dated 22-10-2009 and so, the refusal ground-3 cannot be considered as a valid one as theVT may have inadvertently mentioned the date of land document as 08-07-2010. Itfurther noted that the appellant had submitted to the ERC a certificate issued bythe Block level and Land Reform Officer stating that 2664 sq.mts. of land at plotno.1649 was in possession of Netaji B.Ed. Training College free from allencumbrances and may be used for the purpose of establishment of proposedB.Ed. college. In the light of this document, which is available in the ERC’s file at p-346, the ERC’s refusal ground that possession certificate was not submitted wasinvalid. It, however noted that the appellant had only applied for obtainingchange of land use certificate at the time of submission of the application and theB.L. and L.R. office issued a certificate of land use only on 11-02-2010 and that was

much after the date of submission of application. As per Regulations 2009, it wasmandatory for the appellant to submit a notarized copy of ‘CLU’ issued by thecompetent authority alongwith other essential documents while forwarding thehard copy of the application and the appellant could not submit the land usecertificate at the time of submission of application as stipulated under Regulations2009, as the appellant was not in possession of this certificate by that time. In viewof this, the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification inaccepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and ERC’s order dated 21-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Netaji B.Ed. Training College,, Vill. - Bhabki, PO - Mahesail,, Mursidabad - 742201, West Bengal 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of West Bengal, Kolkata.

F.No.89-69/2011 Appeal

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

26/04/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Pakuahat Educational Society, Malda, West Bengaldated 24/02/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-113.6.1(Vol-ll)/2010/60081 dated29/12/2010 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition forconducting B.Ed. course on the grounds: “1) The land document and the Affidavitof Rs. 100/- dt. 10/09/2009 does not match to each other in terms of plot nos. 2)No. of Journals not as per NCTE Norms. 3) Psycho lab not available, Psychologicaltest need to be procured. 4) As per VT remarks, only two computers are available.5) Language learning lab not available. 6) NOC of Practice teaching school notgiven. 7) Size of multipurpose hall 1682.864 Sq. ft. as against the required 2000 sq.ft8) Size of Library cum reading room is only 454.717 sq.ft. 9) No of title book in thelibrary is not given. 10) Fire security hazard not provided. 11) Internet not yetinstalled. 12) Notarized copy of change of land use certificate issued by thecompetent authority, for all plots not submitted. As per VT, CLU is only for plot 145,which is 0.73 Acre, whereas building plan shows Plot No. of the building 144, 145,147 area of which is 1.56 Acre. 13) As per the affidavit, there are more than 3 plots,site plan not submitted. 14) As per the application form, the website address of theinstitution is not mentioned. 15) Point 3 of the Affidavit is not clear. 16) Building plansubmitted is not approved by the competent civic authority.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Pakuahat Educational Society(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 24/02/2011to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Kutiswar Biswas, President and Sh. Farookh Hossein Khan,Member of Society, Pakuahat Educational Society, Malda, West Bengal presentedthe case of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and duringpersonal presentation, it was submitted that in the affidavit dt. 15/09/2009 (not dt.10/09/2009 as mentioned by the Eastern Regional Committee) it was mentionedthat both the R.S. Plot Nos - 214 (old survey) and L.R. Plot no. 145. (new survey) arefor the same land and there was no mismatch. The plot number was changed atthe time of mutation of the land in their favour. To clear the mismatch, theyattached a new affidavit dt. 14/02/2011; this fact was also clarified in their reply dt.13/10/2010 vide ref. no. PKT/24/10 against the show cause notice letter no. ER-111.01 (iii)/57/5/2010/5101 dt. 25/09/2010 of Eastern Regional Committee; it wasalso informed to ERC that they subscribed for 16 Journals out of which 8 wereeducational journals and 7 were education related journals. The detailed listsalong with copy of demand draft were enclosed with appeal; they haveconstructed the psychology lab and already purchased 16 nos of psychological

tests. These facts were also explained to the visiting team after physical inspectionof the building, the visiting team also accepted the fact at the time of visit andmentioned in the VT report that the psychology lab was available. They had noknowledge regarding the requirement of number of computers to run the B.Ed.college as there was no mention regarding the requirement of computer in theRules & Regulations of the NCTE; it purchased 10 more computers after receivingshow cause notice letter from ERC and, in total, 12 computers were available atthe time of VT visit, institution had no knowledge regarding the requirement oflanguage learning lab to run the B.Ed. college as there was no mention regardingthe requirement of language learning lab in the Rules & Regulations of NCTE;institution initiated the process for purchasing the materials for language learninglab after receiving show cause notice letter and the letter issued to the BusinessManager, Publication Deptt., National Psychological Corporation, BhagavaBhawan, 4/230, Kacheri Ghat, Agra – 282004 was attached to the appeal; thevisiting team clearly mentioned the fact that the college had made arrangementsfor practice teaching with 14 no. of schools within approachable distance in pageno. 7 of the VT report. Institution sent to ERC the NOC from all the 14 no. of schoolsfor practice teaching that at the time of VT visit, institution had no knowledgeregarding the requirement of the size of the multipurpose hall though it mentionedin the norms of NCTE. The institution accepted its fault in this regard. Institution hasnow modified the college building with the approval of the competent authorityand in the present building, the multipurpose hall is measuring 2157 sq.ft. instead of1682.864 sq.ft.; institution had no knowledge regarding the requirement of the sizeof the library-cum-reading room as it is not mentioned in the norms of NCTE. Theinstitution accepted its fault in this regard. Institution now modified the collegebuilding with the approval of the competent authority and in the present building,the library-cum-reading room was measuring 1012 sq.ft. The institution enclosedthe new approved building plan which was according to the present structure ofthe building along with the appeal; it was clearly mentioned in the reply vide ref.no. PKT/24/10 dt. 13/10/2010 against the show cause notice no. ER-111.01(iii)/57/5/2010/5101 dt. 25/09/2010 in which institution clearly mentioned this factthat it had 1024 number of title books but the ERC did not consider this point;Institution clearly mentioned in the reply dt. 13/10/2010 sent in reponse to the showcause notice that it had already installed fire safety equipments but the ERC didnot consider this point. The Video CD of the visiting team also contains the pictureof fire equipments. The video CD and photographs were enclosed alongwithappeal; Institution clearly mentioned in the reply dt. 13/10/2010 against the showcause that institution had already installed internet facility in the college but theERC did not consider this point. The proof of installation of internet was enclosedwith the appeal; the society purchased more land than required for running theB.Ed. College for future expansion. (total 1.56 acre=6,317 sq.mt.= 67,954 sq.ft.)Institution converted the plot no. L.R. 145 (R.S. 214) measuring 0.73 acres of land(2956 sq. mt. = 31,800 sq. ft.) (out of 1.56 acre of land) which was more thansufficient to run the college. Institution made a mistake in filling the onlineapplication form in which it was mentioned that the total land of 1.56 acreconsisting of plot nos 144, 147 in Jaitan Mouza, J.L. No. 103 and plot nos. 350, 366and 369 in Thinagar Mouza, J.L. No. 102 as the college land. Whereas only 0.73acre of land (consisting of plot no. 145, J.L. No. 103, Mouza Jaitan) was availablefor college purpose for which the competent authority issued CLU; institutionalready applied for the change of land use certificate (CLU) for the balance landmeasuring 0.83 acre of land to the B.L & LRO, Bamongola, Malda. This excess land

would be used as the play ground and for other recreational activities of students.The copy of the application and receipt were enclosed with appeal. Infrastructurei.e. size of rooms etc. given in the VT report and application form were same in allrespects. The VT had not raised any objection in this regard. The online applicationform contains the size of rooms in sq. mt. whereas the VT mentioned the size in sq.ft. So after conversion of sq. mt. to sq. ft., there is no mismatch. Institution modifiedsome rooms of the building after getting the show cause notice from ERC andafter doing these modifications the building plan was duly approved by thecompetent authority. The modified plan is herewith enclosed with the appeal. Thecollege is situated on plot no. 145 of J.L. No. 103, in Jaitan Mouza. Therefore, siteplan for three plots was not required any more. The site plan was enclosed with theappeal; institution accepts the mistake in this regard because it had not createdthe website at the time of online application. Now it created website and theaddress is WWW.pkesbedcollege.org. The institution, therefore, requested toconsider the matter and take a decision accordingly; this point was suitablyreplied vide ref. no. PKT/24/10 dt. 13/10/2010 against the show cause notice letterno. ER-111.01 (iii0/57/5/2010/5101 dt. 25/09/2010 which was probably not gonethrough by the learned ERC. The point no. 3 contains the information regardingownership of the land and the land is on ownership basis and not on lease hold.Institution made a mistake in not striking out the lease hold portion. For theclarification of the matter and for natural justice, a fresh affidavit on Rs. 100/-stamp paper dt. 14/02/2011 was enclosed with the appeal; the CompetentAuthority for the area in which the college is situated is the Gram PanchayatPradhan and the building plan is duly approved by the Pradhan, Pakuahat GramPanchayat. The copy of the plan approved by the pradhan, Pakuahat GramPanchayat was enclosed with the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the reason put up by the institutionwith regard to refusal ground 1 was acceptable as the land documents specifyboth R.S. plot numbers as well as L.R. plot numbers; the appellant submitted NOCof practice teaching schools to the ERC in reply to the show cause notice andhence refusal ground 6 is invalid; the VT itself recorded availability of 3001 booksand fire safety measures and hence refusal ground 9 and 10 are invalid; thebuilding plan submitted to the ERC is approved by Gram Panchayat and hencerefusal ground 16 is also invalid; when the institution submitted land documents onownership basis then ERC would not have raised the objection that point 3 of theaffidavit is not clear; though the institution submitted a CLU for 0.73 acre of landbut it mentioned in the building plan several plot numbers and the total area as1.56 acres. In view of the recordings made in the building plan the appellant needto submit CLU for all those plots that have been mentioned in the building plan orhe need to get the corrections done in the building plan mentioning a total areaof 0.73 acre only, as this area is adequate for opening of a B.Ed. college. theCouncil further noted that the appellant in its presentation has admitted that thedeficiencies with regard to number of journals, psychology lab, computers,language learning lab, size of multipurpose hall and library-cum-reading room,website address and internet facilities have been made up after the date ofinspection and subsequent to the issue of show cause notice implying that at thetime of inspection, the institution did not fulfill the NCTE Norms to become eligiblefor consideration, for recognition by NCTE. Therefore, the Council came to theconclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and hence itshould be rejected as the institution was having a number of deficiencies with

regard to infrastructural and instructional facilities at the time of inspection. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand ERC’s order dated 29-12-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Pakuahat Educational Society, Vill. - Pakuahat, PO.- Pakuahat, Malda,, Malda - 732138, West Bengal 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of West Bengal, Kolkata.

F.No.89-61/2011 Appeal

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

26/04/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Rameshwar Laxmi Mahto Teachers Training College,Samastipur, Bihar dated 17/02/2011 is against the Order No.F.ERC/NCTE/ERCAPP555/2010/6266 dated 24/01/2011 of the Eastern RegionalCommittee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground “Theinstitution has not submitted registered land documents which is an essentialrequirement as per Regulations.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Rameshwar Laxmi Mahto TeachersTraining College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appealdated 22/02/2011 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 Sh. Avdhesh Kumar, Member and Sh. Laxmi Mahto, Member,Rameshwar Laxmi Mahto Teachers Training College, Samastipur, Bihar presentedthe case of the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and duringpersonal presentation it was submitted that the appellant had earlier on 23-08-2010 applied for grant of recognition of B.Ed. course and submitted registered landdocument alongwith the application; ERC though rejected the application but itdid not return the land document; the appellant again submitted an onlineapplication on 28-09-2010 to the ERC for grant of recognition of B.Ed.course; acopy of the certified land document could not be obtained second time due tocontinued strike in Bihar state and hence requested ERC vide letter dated 27-09-2010 for considering the earlier submitted land document. It was further submittedthat as per 3rd amendment No. 309 dated 26-11-2010 of NCTE Regulations, thisrejection ground would have been taken as removable deficiency. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant made an onlineapplication on 27-09-2010 for grant of recognition of B.Ed. course; the appellantvide letter dated 27-09-2010 requested Regional Director,ERC for considering thecertified copy of the land document that had been filed on earlier occasion whenit submitted application for B.Ed. course recognition. The appellant did not submitalongwith the hard copy of the application a certified copy of registered landdocument as required under Regulations 2009 and hence the application standsliable to be rejected. Even the appellant did not submit a copy of the certifiedregistered land document in proof of its claim of having submitted such adocument in original to the ERC earlier. He has not even enclosed alongwith theapplication a copy of the registered land document. Hence ERC was right inrejecting the application under clause 7 (1-A) of Regulations 2009 and therefore

there was no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it should berejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appealand that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’sorder dated 24-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Rameshwar Laxmi Mahto Teachers Training College, Prabhu Thakur Muhalla, Ward -09, Rosera,, Samastipur - 848210, 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 - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sanctum Institution of Education & Technology,Haridwar, Uttaranchal received in this office on 14-02-2010 is against the Order No.F.NCR/NCTE/F-3/NRCAPP210/173 MEETING/2010/1307 dated 16/12/2010 of theNorthern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course onthe grounds “1) The reply dated 18/08/2010, 20/10/2010 & 26/10/2010 to the pointsof show cause notice as decided in its 163rd Meeting of the NRC were carefullyconsidered. The Institution expanded its multipurpose hall by shifting its sports, storeand music room making the total size as (24.9x7) sq. mt. 2) The Institution has notsubmitted any document to support that they further strengthened theirPsychology & Language lab. The documents are old and have already beentaken into account while making the observations that the labs not proper. 3) Thedocuments submitted by the Institution about availability of books & journals arenot acceptable as they comprised of bills from the book seller M/s Metro BooksSyndicate and it does not give any proof of procurement by way of payment ofthe bills to establish that they were actually purchased. Moreover, there is no dateon the bills and even bills are not on proper letter head of the book seller.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sanctum Institution of Education &Technology (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated14/02/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the saidOrder. AND WHEREAS Sh. Vikas Gupta, Member, Sh. Dhiraj Aggarwal, Member andSh. Govind Vikas Aggarwal, Executive-Company Authorised Person, SanctumInstitution of Education & Technology, Haridwar, Uttaranchal presented the caseof the appellant institution on 31-03-2011. In the appeal and during personalpresentation it was submitted that although NRC has not mentioned any specificground to make point number one as one of the reasons for refusing recognitionof appellant institution, however, it was learnt that the size of multipurpose hall ofthe appellant institution i.e. 1880 Sq. ft., was less than the required area i.e. 2000 Sq.ft. as per NCTE Norms & Standards, 2009. It was a matter of record that theappellant institution had never specifically been asked to make the size ofmultipurpose hall more than 2000 Sq. ft. even while issuing the show cause noticeto the institution. Now, the appellant institution extended its multipurpose hall tomake its size 2153.39 sq. ft. and it is now well in conformity of NCTE Norms, 2009. Therevised building plan of the appellant institution alongwith building completioncertificate duly approved by the gram panchayat, village-Saliyar Salapur issuedby the gram pradhan, Village are enclosed with the appeal; the psychology andlanguage learning labs of the institution were already made well equipped while

the institution was asked for the same by the NRC vide its show cause notice;photocopies of all the bills and stock register alongwith proper photographs of theLabs were already submitted to the office of NRC; however, photocopies of thebills & stock register indicating vice-versa entries of the instruments/assets along-with fresh photographs of the Labs are again enclosed with the appeal; it was veryvague statement that the bills from the reputed book seller of the city do not giveany proof of procurement/purchase of books, when the institution had alreadysubmitted photocopies of the bills and accession register to the office of NRC,while responding the show cause notice; it was also denied that there was nodate on the bills and even the bills were not on the proper letter head of the bookseller. Moreover, the certificate dated 16/12/2010 & 31/12/2010 from theconcerned book sellers establishing the books/journals were actually purchasedfrom them, are enclosed with the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant in its presentationadmitted that the size of the multipurpose hall earlier was 1880 sq.ft. and theinstitution has now increased the size of the hall to meet up the requirement ofRegulations 2009 and the increase in size of the hall was effected after the issue ofshow cause notice and at the time of inspection it was having only 1243 sq.ft. sizemultipurpose hall, as recorded by the VT in the essential data sheet; the VT alsorecorded that the plaster wok on the walls of three rooms and toilets was goingon. The Council, however, noted that VT report on the library is satisfactory and theappellant also showed proof of payment of books to the supplier “Metro Books”.The bill No. 101 dated 29-05-2010 was on letter head and it indicated 1008 titles asper enclosed list and hence refusal ground 3 was not justifiable. The Council furthernoted that the appellant was issued show cause notice on the ground that therewas no proper language learning lab and psychology lab only and it did notmention that these labs are ill equipped and need to be strengthened further. Theappellant showed the bills and placed the stock registers before the Council inproof of having adequate equipment in psychology laboratory and languagelearning material. The Council observed that there was no justification inaccepting the appeal as 1) the appellant admitted that the institution was nothaving adequate size multipurpose hall as on the date of inspection; 2) in additionto this VT also stated that plastering of the walls was going on at the time ofinspection which means that the building construction was not complete; 3) as perclause 8(10) the NCTE Regulations, 2009, at the time of inspection the building ofthe institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure on the landpossessed by it and equipped with all necessity amenities and fulfilling all suchrequirement as prescribed in the Norms and Standards. As already pointed out,the institution did not fulfill the requirement of Clause 8(10) the NCTE Regulations,2009 and therefore the Council was of the view that there was no ground toaccept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejectedand NRC’s order dated 16-12-2010 was confirmed.



1. The Secretary, Sanctum Institution of Education & Technology, Plot No. 494/3, Village - Saliyar Salapur, Post - Bhagwanpur, Tehsil - Roorkee,, Haridwar - 247667, Uttaranchal 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun.

F.No.89-1033-2010 Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Deepanshu Women's Degree College, Saharanpur,Uttar Pradesh dated 12/10/2010 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-2485/162 Meeting/2010/26253 dated 12/08/2010 of the Northern RegionalCommittee, refusing recognition for conducting BTC course on the grounds “TheInstitution has not submitted the modified building plan approved by thecompetent authority”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Deepanshu Women's Degree College(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/10/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Deepanshu Women's Degree College, Saharanpur, UttarPradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In theappeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the Institution hasalready submitted the modified building plan approved by the competentauthority. The appellant enclosed an undated building plan and a certificate fromGram Panchayat in which it is mentioned that the size of the seminar hall has beenincreased by removing an intervening wall. AND WHEREAS the Council noted from the file of the institution that thebuilding plan stated to have been sent by the appellant alongwith its letter dated24-04-2008 is not available and only an affidavit dated 24-04-2008 in which theappellant claimed that the size of seminar hall was increased to 1,700 Sq.ft. byremoving an intervening wall between two class rooms is available. In order toverify about the availability of a multi-purpose/seminar hall of the requisite size asper the norms, the Council came to the conclusion that an inspection may be gotconducted by the Hqrs. after obtaining a payment of requisite fee of Rs.40,000/-by the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the appellate orderand for further decision thereafter. AND WHEREAS the institution submitted a DD of Rs. 40, 000/- dated 08-02-2011and thereafter NCTE Hqrs. conducted an inspection of the institution on 14-03-2011. The inspection team in their report mentioned that the size of themultipurpose hall which was around 1200 sq.ft. only has been increased to 195.096sq.mt. or 2100.13 sq.ft. which is more than the requirement as per NCTE Norms. Italso submitted a copy of the approved building plan along with a certificatedated 04-08-2009 issued by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat in support ofenhancement of the size of the multipurpose hall. The report also mentioned thatthe institution was conducting B.Ed. course and it proposed for BTC course in the

same building having a built up area of 3047.12 sq.mt. In view of this report theCouncil came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification inaccepting the appeal for further processing of the case as per Regulations. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit and VT report, the Committee reached the conclusion that there wasadequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the NRC’s order dated12.08.2010 with a direction to the NRC for further processing of the case as perRegulations. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the NRCdated 12.08.2010 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Deepanshu Women's Degree College, Lal Kothi Chander Nagar, , Saharanpur - 247001, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

f.no.89-13/2011 appeal national council for teacher educationncte-india.org/appeal1/orders of 2nd...

Documents