f.no.89-1012/2010-appeal national council for teacher ...ncte-india.org/appeal1/orders_17...

F.No.89-1012/2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 23/12/2010

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of DBHPS Basaveswara College of Education, Mysore, Karnataka dated 27/09/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/20068 dated 29/07/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) The built-up-area is only 4368.2 sq.ft., which is far short of the NCTE norms of 16.000 sq.ft. 2) Sports facilities, Games facilities are not available. 3) Library is having only 800 books related to Education, which are grossly inadequate”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, DBHPS Basaveswara College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Prof. Dilip Singh, Registrar and Shri. M.L. Dakhani, Member, DBHPS Basaveswara College of Education, Mysore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the institution was running the B.Ed course in their own building exclusively constructed for the B.Ed College. It was a four floor building, which was having built up area of ground floor - 4110.75 sq.ft, first floor, second floor and third floor of 3974.75 sq.ft, each. The total built-up area was 16035 sq.ft as against the prescribed 1500 sq.mts. as per NCTE norms. Photographs and approved building plan were furnished as proof alongwith appeal. The SRC considered the built-up area of ground floor only. It could be made out just by viewing the photograph that the building could not be just 4368.2 sq.ft as mentioned by the SRC. The SRC erred in even verifying the records submitted by them. The visiting team which visited the institution was shown all the materials provided for sports activities. Further, to conduct sports activities there was an agreement with the JSS College to use its sports ground which was very near to the B.Ed College i.e., 500 mts away. The agreement letter with the JSS College to utilize their play field, permission letter and also the annual fees paid towards the agreement was also shown to the visiting team; There were 4712 books in the library. The visiting team also clearly mentioned 4712 books in the library in its report at page no.8. Whereas the SRC, NCTE concluded another imaginary number of 800 books in the library. The visiting team had mentioned that the Reference Section itself was having 800 books. Complete evidence and proof were submitted for having 4712 books in the library. The institution also submitted that the SRC passed the order withdrawing recognition of the B.Ed. course directly without providing an opportunity for making written representation in violation of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that recognition was granted to the institution vide SRC’s order dated 10-07-2000, when, as per the NCTE Regulations in vogue, no minimum land and built-up area required for B.Ed. course were specifically laid down. Subsequently, after the NCTE Regulations, 2005, which came into force from 13-01-2006, through an amendment to the Regulations dated 20-07-2006, the minimum land and built-up area required for a B.Ed. course were prescribed as 2500 sq.mts. and 1500 sq.mts, respectively. The Regulations, 2005 also prescribed that whenever there were changes in the norms, the recognized institutions should upgrade the facilities to conform to the revised norms before commencement of the new academic session after the revised norms came into force. The latest NCTE Regulations, 2009, which came into force from August 2009 also specifically laid down that the institution, shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. However, the revised land area related norms shall not be applicable to the existing institutions if the same was not possible as per Clause 8(13) of Regulations 2009. But the required built-up area shall have to be increased by them to conform to the revised norms and that such institutions not having land area as per the revised norms, shall not be allowed to expand by way of additional courses or additional intake. AND WHEREAS in the light of provisions in the NCTE Regulations as amended from time to time, the institution was required to have a minimum built-up area of 1500 Sq.mts. or 16146 Sq.ft. for running B.Ed. course. The Council noted that in pursuance of complaint received by the NCTE against the institution, the SRC, in its 191st meeting held on 20-24th April, 2010, decided to get the institution inspected under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, which empowered the Regional Committees to withdraw recognition of such recognized institutions, which contravened provisions of the NCTE Act/Rules/Regulations. It provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is thus implied that while it is not mandatory for the Regional Committee of the NCTE to conduct an inspection under Section 17, there shall not be any objection to conduct an inspection if the Regional Committee, in its discretion, decides to conduct an inspection. Accordingly, the SRC vide its letter dated 24-04-10 asked the institution to furnish filled in questionnaire alongwith requisite documents. The institution furnished the filled-in questionnaire, affidavits, etc. vide its letter dated 06-05-2010. In the filled-in questionnaire, the institution indicated that the available built-up area with the institution was 625.7 Sq.mts. or 6735 Sq.ft. In the affidavit dated 04-05-2010 furnished by the institution, it indicated that the available land and built-up area was 6736 Sq.ft. each. The visiting team, which conducted the inspection under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, in its report dated 04-06-2010 indicated that the available land and built-up area with the institution was 4910 Sq.ft. and 4368.2 Sq.ft. (excluding common area) respectively. Thus, the VT report dated 04-06-2010 also bear testimony to the claim made by the institution in the filled in questionnaire and affidavit dated 04-05-2010 that the available built-up area with the institution was 6736 Sq.ft. or 625.7 Sq.mts. only as against the requirement of minimum of 1500 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE Regulations.

When the position was pointed out to the representatives of the DBHPS, they informed the Council that the Principal of the College inadvertently furnished wrong information to the SRC and the VT and that the actual built-up area available exclusively for the B. Ed course was 16035 sq. ft., which could be verified. They also stated that it was a very old institution and the College was using the play ground of the nearby JSS College, which was permissible as per the earlier NCTE norms and standards. Regarding books in the library, the Council noted that the VT report also indicated availability of 4712 books. The Council also noted that the SRC issued the withdrawal order dated 29-07-2010 directly without issuing any show cause notice on the basis of the VTR, for making a representation by the institution as required under the provision of the NCTE Act. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with the direction to the SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and VT report after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC’s order dated 29-07-2010 with direction to the SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the SRC dated 29-07-2010 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.

(S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson

1. The Principal, DBHPS Basaveswara College of Education, Hindi Bhavan V.V. Road, K.R.Mohalla, Mysore - 270004, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of DBHPS Dr. B.D. Jatti College of Education, Belgaum, Karnataka dated 27/09/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/20175 dated 02/08/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) As per VT report and as countersigned by the institution, the total built-up-area earmarked for the course is 8,109 sq.ft.; but on calculation, the total built-up-area comes to only 4976.43 sq.ft. It is far less than NCTE norms of 16,000 sq.ft. of built-up-area. 2) As per VT report and as countersigned by the institution, three teachers are not qualified as per NCTE norms. 3) As per VT report and as countersigned by the institution, the institution is in the habit of carrying forward the shortage of admissions (unfilled seats of previous years) to the next year and is admitting more than the stipulated intake of 100 in subsequent years as and when demand increases/comes. This unacademic/commercial practice is not acceptable as per the norms”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, DBHPS Dr. B.D. Jatti College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Prof. Dilip Singh, Registrar and Shri. M.L. Dakhani, Member, DBHPS Dr. B.D. Jatti College of Education, Belgaum, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the SRC had stated that as per the VT report the built-up area was 8109 sq.ft and as per calculation it came to 4976 sq.ft. whereas, the institution was having a building consisting of three floors which was having a total built up area of 17004 sq.ft. The SRC had not bothered to verify the records. The VT report did not contain many columns to indicate the square feet area. It had limited scope of few descriptions. The built-up area needed to be calculated including the corridors and circulation area. whereas SRC was depending upon only some rooms which were specified by the visiting team. The institution submitted photographs, approved building plan and building completion certificate alongwith the appeal for verification to show that the institution was having built up area as per NCTE norms; Details of faculty was given in the Appeal. The SRC for each aspect was depending only upon the VT report. The institution was strictly adhering to the admission criteria and had been admitting only 100 students. Few students who fell short of attendance had to take up the examinations in the next academic year. As such, the students who wrote examination were more than 100. The VT members calculating the supplementary students concluded that the admissions were made over and above 100 intake sanctioned. This was not at all true. It was also submitted that the SRC passed the order dated 02-08-2010 directly withdrawing the recognition

without providing an opportunity to the institution for making written representation in violation of Section 17 of NCTE Act, 1993. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that recognition was granted to the institution vide SRC’s order dated 10-07-2000, when, as per the NCTE Regulations in vogue, no total minimum land and built-up area required for the B.Ed. course were not specifically laid down. Subsequently, after the NCTE Regulations, 2005, which came into force from 13-01-2006, through an amendment to the Regulations dated 20-07-2006, the minimum land and built-up area required for the B.Ed. course were prescribed as 2500 Sq.mts. and 1500 Sq.mts. respectively. The Regulations, 2005 also prescribed that whenever there were changes in the norms, the recognized institutions should upgrade the facilities to conform to the revised norms before commencement of the new academic session after the revised norms came into force. The latest NCTE Regulations, 2009, which came into force from August 2009 also specifically laid down that the institution, shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. However, the revised land area related norms shall not be applicable to the existing institutions if the same was not possible as per Clause 8(13) of Regulations 2009. But the required built-up area shall have to be increased by them to conform to the revised norms and that such institutions not having land area as per the revised norms, shall not be allowed to expand by way of additional courses or additional intake. AND WHEREAS in the light of provisions in the NCTE Regulations as amended from time to time, the institution was required to have a minimum built-up area of 1500 Sq.mts. or 16146 Sq.ft. for running the B.Ed. course. The Council noted that in pursuance of complaint received by the NCTE against the institution, the SRC, in its 191st meeting held on 20-24th April, 2010, decided to get the institution inspected under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, which empowered the Regional Committees to withdraw recognition of such recognized institutions, which contravened provisions of the NCTE Act/Rules/Regulations. It provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is thus implied that while it is not mandatory for the Regional Committee of the NCTE to conduct an inspection under Section 17, there shall not be any objection to conduct an inspection if the Regional Committee, in its discretion, decides to conduct an inspection. Accordingly, the SRC vide its letter dated 26-04-10 asked the institution to furnish filled in questionnaire alongwith requisite documents. The institution furnished the filled-in questionnaire, affidavits, etc. vide its letter dated 06-05-2010. In the filled-in questionnaire, the institution indicated that the available built-up area with the institution was 754.12 sq.mts. or 8117 sq.ft. In the affidavit dated 04-05-2010 furnished by the institution, it indicated that the available land and built-up area was 4895.48 sq.mts and 754.12 sq. mts. The visiting team, which conducted the inspection under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, in its report dated 01-06-2010 indicated that the available land and built-up area with the institution was 4895.48 sq.mts and 754.12 sq. mts (excluding common area) respectively. Thus, the VT report dated 01-06-2010 also bear

testimony to the claim made by the institution in the filled in questionnaire and affidavit dated 04-05-2010 that the available built-up area with the institution was 8117 sq. ft or 754.12 sq.mts. only as against the requirement of minimum of 1500 sq.mts. as per the NCTE Regulations. When the position was pointed out to the representatives of the DBHPS, they informed the Council that the Principal of the College inadvertently furnished wrong information regarding built-up area to the SRC and the VT and that the actual built-up area available exclusively for the B. Ed course was 17004 sq. ft., which could be verified. They also stated that adequate faculty was available with the institution and the institution was strictly adhering to the admission criteria, records of which could be verified. The Council also noted that the SRC issued the withdrawal order dated 02-08-2010 directly without issuing any show cause notice on the basis of the VTR, for making a representation by the institution as required under the provision of the NCTE Act. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with the direction to the SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC’s order dated 02-08-2010 direction to the SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the SRC dated 02-08-.2010 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, DBHPS Dr. B.D. Jatti College of Education, Civil Hospital Road, Ayodhya Nagar, Belgaum - 590001, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

F.No.89-1014/2010-Appeal

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

23/12/2010

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of DBHPS Dr. B.D. Jatti College of Education, Bijapur, Karnataka dated 27/09/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/20163 dated 02/08/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) As per VT report and as admitted/countersigned by the institution, the total built-up area of the building comes to 6208 sq.ft. which is far short of the NCTE norms of 16,000 sq.ft. 2) Shiksha Snatak course is also being run in the same building. 3) Psychology lab. materials need to be strengthened. There is no Language learning lab. 4) In 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic year, institutions have made admissions of 120 and 121 respectively which is more than the intake sanctioned and thus violated NCTE norms”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, DBHPS Dr. B.D. Jatti College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Prof. Dilip Singh, Registrar and Shri. M.L. Dakhani, Member, DBHPS Dr. B.D. Jatti College of Education, Bijapur, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the SRC had stated that the built-up area of the building was only 6208 sq.ft. whereas, the B.Ed College of Bijapur was one of the best colleges which was having a very big building with best of facilities and play ground attached to it. The building was having a total built-up area of 16638 sq.ft, i.e., 1546 sq.mts. The built-up area of the College was more than 1500 sq.mts specified by the NCTE Norms and Standards. Photographs, building plan and building completion certificate were furnished by the institution alongwith the appeal as proof. Further, they submitted that it could be easily made out by seeing the building that it was much bigger than the 6208 sq.ft as stated by the SRC in its order. The VT report proforma did not have many descriptions to provide the built-up area; Shiksha Snatak was a basic course in Hindi Language. There was no norms and standards prescribed by the NCTE for this course. The Course was offered as a preliminary course which could be treated as foundation course also. Hence it could be termed as additional course as prescribed by NCTE and also as per the curriculum, all the materials for Psychology Lab was provided by the institution. As per the syllabus, even taking into consideration of other Universities all over India, there were only six psychology tests prescribed. Complete Psychology Kit had been made available in the institution if there were only six tests prescribed for the psychology lab, how could an institution create seventh test. Complete infrastructure for Psychology lab with all prescribed test materials had been duly provided. The statement in this context of

the SRC was completely wrong. However, the institution had purchased one more kit of psychology lab. Further, with reference to the Language Lab, there were audio video materials with specified cassettes and CDs pertaining to Hindi Language. The audio video materials were part of day-to-day teaching-learning process. Hence it could not be termed that there was no Language Lab. The NCTE Norms and Standards had not prescribed Language Lab at all. Purchase bills of Psychology and Language Labs were enclosed with appeal for kind perusal; The VT members who visited the institution had demanded for the records of admissions. The same were produced and they informed that institution had made excess admissions. With facts and figures it was then clearly shown to them that the students who had taken examinations would also contain the supplementary students. The VT members were not ready to accept the explanation. The students of previous year who could not complete the teaching days and practicals would appear for exams in the subsequent year. The VT members termed it as excess admissions. The institution also submitted that the SRC passed the order withdrawing recognition of the B.Ed. course directly without providing an opportunity for making written representation in violation of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that recognition was granted to the institution vide SRC’s order dated 10-07-2000, when, as per the NCTE Regulations in vogue, no minimum land and built-up area required for B.Ed. course were not specifically laid down. Subsequently, after the NCTE Regulations, 2005, which came into force from 13-01-2006, through an amendment to the Regulations dated 20-07-2006, the minimum land and built-up area required for B.Ed. course were prescribed as 2500 Sq.mts. and 1500 Sq.mts. respectively. The Regulations, 2005 also prescribed that whenever there were changes in the norms, the recognized institutions should upgrade the facilities to conform to the revised norms before commencement of the new academic session after the revised norms come into force. The latest NCTE Regulations, 2009, which come into force from August 2009 also specifically laid down that the institution, shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. However, the revised land area related norms shall not be applicable to the existing institutions if the same was not possible as per Clause 8(13) of Regulations 2009. But the required built-up area shall have to be increased by them to conform to the revised norms and that such institutions not having land area as per the revised norms, shall not be allowed to expand by way of additional courses or additional intake. AND WHEREAS in the light of provisions in the NCTE Regulations as amended from time to time, the institution was required to have a minimum built-up area of 1500 Sq.mts. or 16146 Sq.ft. for running a B.Ed. course. The Council noted that in pursuance of complaint received by the NCTE against the institution, the SRC, in its 191st meeting held on 20-24th April, 2010, decided to get the institution inspected under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, which empowered the Regional Committees to withdraw recognition of such recognized institutions, which contravened provisions of the NCTE Act/Rules/Regulations. It provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under

section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is thus implied that while it is not mandatory for the Regional Committee of the NCTE to conduct an inspection under Section 17, there shall not be any objection to conduct an inspection if the Regional Committee, in its discretion, decides to conduct an inspection. Accordingly, the SRC vide its letter dated 24-04-10 asked the institution to furnish filled-in questionnaire alongwith requisite documents. The institution furnished the filled-in questionnaire, affidavits, etc. vide its letter dated 06-05-2010. In the filled-in questionnaire, the institution indicated that the available built-up area with the institution was 933.04 sq.mts. or 10043 sq.ft. In the affidavit dated 05-05-2010 furnished by the institution, it indicated that the available land and built-up area was 4092 sq. mts. and 933.04 sq. mts. The visiting team, which conducted the inspection under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, in its report dated 02-06-2010 indicated that the available land and built-up area with the institution was 4092 sq. mts. and 933.04 sq. mts. (excluding common area) respectively. Thus, the VT report dated 02-06-2010 also bear testimony to the claim made by the institution in the filled-in questionnaire and affidavit dated 05-05-2010 that the available built-up area with the institution was 10043 sq.ft. or 933.04 sq. mts. only as against the requirement of minimum of 1500 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE Regulations. When the position was pointed out to the representatives of the DBHPS, they informed the Council that the Principal of the College inadvertently furnished wrong information regarding built up area to the SRC and the VT and that the actual built up area available exclusively for the B. Ed course was 16638 sq. ft., i.e. 1546 mts. They also stated that adequate labs with equipments and facilities were available as per the NCTE norms with the institution and the institution was strictly adhering to the admission criteria, records of which could be verified. The Council also noted that the SRC issued the withdrawal order dated 02-08-2010 directly without issuing any show cause notice on the basis of the VTR, for making a representation by the institution as required under the provision of the NCTE Act. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with the direction to SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC’s order dated 02-08-2010 with the direction to SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the SRC dated 02-08-2010 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, DBHPS Dr. B.D. Jatti College of Education, Afzalpur Takke,, Bijapur - 506102, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

F.No.89-1010/2010-Appeal


23/12/2010

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of DBHPS Lal Bahadur Shastri College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 27/09/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/20171 dated 02/08/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) As per VT Report and as countersigned by the Management, the total built-up-area of the building comes to 6736 sq.ft. Which is far short of the NCTE norms of 16,000 sq.ft. 2) Language lab is not available. 3) Games and Sports facilities are not available. Corporation ground is being used. 4) As per VT report and as countersigned by the Management, two staff members do not possess requisite qualification as per NCTE norms”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, DBHPS Lal Bahadur Shastri College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Prof. Dilip Singh, Registrar and Shri. M.L. Dakhani, Member, DBHPS Lal Bahadur Shastri College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the B.Ed College was running on its own land and building at the heart of Banglore. The College was one of the oldest and also having best of facilities in terms of infrastructural and instructions. The college was having full-fledged three floor building. Anybody could make out just on view of the building about its available built-up area. Photographs and building plan were enclosed with the appeal for kind perusal. The building was having total built-up area of 16,200 sq.ft. The building comprised all the required rooms, labs, hall, etc., as specified by the NCTE Norms. These facilities were available with the institution well before the NCTE Norms stipulated built-up area for B.Ed colleges. As such, the deficiency stated by SRC was far from truth. The B.Ed College was having facilities for Language Lab. There was a complete kit available for the Language lab. The Language Lab kit had been purchased by the institution way back in the year 1997. The list of equipments along with bills and receipts were submitted as proof. The NCTE in its Norms and Standards for B.Ed courses had clearly stated that where there was scarcity of space as in the metropolitan/ hilly regions, indoor games might be provided. The norms of NCTE itself had not made mandatory of play ground for the colleges located in the metropolitan/ hilly regions. The B.Ed College was situated in the heart of the city which was just two kms away from Central Railway station and Bus Stand. The sports activities were regularly being conducted in the Corporation School ground for which permission had been taken from the Corporation. All the

faculty members including Principal at the time of inspection were qualified as per NCTE Norms. The two lecturers in respect of what objections were raised by SRC were also qualified under Regulations, 2007 as they were appointed during the Regulation, 2007 were in vogue. The NCTE revised its Regulations during 2006, 2007 and 2009. During the Regulations 2007, the candidate having a Post Graduate Degree with B.Ed was qualified for the post of Lecturer in B.Ed College, during that time, two staff members were appointed wherein SRC had raised objections. The revised Regulations were applicable for the appointments made to prospective effect and not with the retrospective effect. The SRC had mis-interpreted the norms and has made out this deficiency for withdrawal of recognition. Based on the objections raised, one Lecturer with M.A., M.Ed, Ph.D has been transferred to our B.Ed College and one Lecturer with M.A., M.Ed has been appointed by the institution. The details of staff with their testimonials and appointment orders were enclosed with appeal as proof for kind perusal. It was also submitted that the SRC had passed the order dated 02-08-2010 directly withdrawing the recognition for B.Ed. course of the institution without providing an opportunity for making written representation in violation of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Hence, the order of withdrawal of recognition passed by the SRC was illegal and arbitrary. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that recognition was granted to the institution vide SRC’s order dated 10-07-2000, when, as per the NCTE Regulations in vogue, no total minimum land and built-up area required for B.Ed. course were not specifically laid down. Subsequently, after the NCTE Regulations, 2005, which came into force from 13-01-2006, through an amendment to the Regulations dated 20-07-2006, the minimum land and built-up area required for B.Ed. course were prescribed as 2500 sq.mts. and 1500 sq.mts. respectively. The Regulations, 2005 also prescribed that whenever there were changes in the norms, the recognized institutions should upgrade the facilities to conform to the revised norms before commencement of the new academic session after the revised norms came into force. The latest NCTE Regulations, 2009, which came into force from August 2009 also specifically laid down that the institution, shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. However, the revised land area related norms shall not be applicable to the existing institutions if the same was not possible as per Clause 8(13) of Regulations 2009. But the required built-up area shall have to be increased by them to conform to the revised norms and that such institutions not having land area as per the revised norms, shall not be allowed to expand by way of additional courses or additional intake. AND WHEREAS in the light of provisions in the NCTE Regulations as amended from time to time, the institution was required to have a minimum built-up area of 1500 sq.mts. or 16146 sq.ft. for running a B.Ed. course. The Council noted that in pursuance of complaint received by the NCTE against the institution, the SRC, in its 191st meeting held on 20-24th April, 2010, decided to get the institution inspected under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, which empowered the Regional Committees to withdraw recognition of such recognized institutions, which contravened provisions of the NCTE Act/Rules/Regulations. It provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or

any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is thus implied that while it is not mandatory for the Regional Committee of the NCTE to conduct an inspection under Section 17, there shall not be any objection to conduct an inspection if the Regional Committee, in its discretion, decides to conduct an inspection. Accordingly, the SRC vide its letter dated 26-04-10 asked the institution to furnish filled-in questionnaire alongwith requisite documents. The institution furnished the filled-in questionnaire, affidavits etc. vide its letter dated 06-05-2010. In the filled-in questionnaire, the institution indicated that the available built-up area with the institution was 625.7 sq.mts. or 6735 sq.ft. In the affidavit dated 04-05-2010 furnished by the institution, it indicated that the available land and built-up area was 6736 sq.ft. each. The visiting team, which conducted the inspection under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, in its report dated 03-06-2010 indicated that the available land and built-up area with the institution was 4910 Sq.ft. and 6736 Sq.ft. (excluding common area) respectively. Thus, the VT report dated 03-06-2010 also bear testimony to the claim made by the institution in the filled-in questionnaire and affidavit dated 04-05-2010 that the available built-up area with the institution was 6736 Sq.ft. or 625.7 sq.mts. only as against the requirement of minimum of 1500 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE Regulations. When the position was pointed out to the representatives of the DBHPS, as in case of other institutions run by them they informed the Council that the Principal of the College inadvertently furnished wrong information regarding built up area to the SRC and the VT and that the actual built up area available exclusively for the B. Ed course was 16200 sq. ft. i.e. 1550 sq. mts. They also stated that adequate labs, game and Sports facilities were available as per the NCTE norms with the institution and the faculty members were qualified as per NCTE norms, as already indicated in their appeal and the records available could be verified. The Council also noted that the SRC issued the withdrawal order dated 02-08-2010 directly without issuing any show cause notice on the basis of the VTR, for making a representation by the institution as required under the provision of the NCTE Act. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with the direction to SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC’s order dated 02-08-2010 with direction to the SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the SRC dated 02-08-2010 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, DBHPS Lal Bahadur Shastri College of Education, 113/114, S.C. Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore - 560020, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of DBHPS Rajiv Gandhi College of Education, Dharwad, Karnataka dated 27/09/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/20165 dated 02/08/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) As per VT Report and as countersigned and admitted by the institution, the total built-up-area of the building comes to 7963 sq.ft. It is far short of the NCTE norm of 16,000 sq.ft. 2) As per VT Report and as admitted by the institution, one Lecturer and Principal don not possess requisite qualification and are not qualified as per NCTE norms. 3) Records were not produced to verify the quantum of admissions done by the College giving room for suspecting the credentials”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, DBHPS Rajiv Gandhi College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Prof. Dilip Singh, Registrar and Shri. M.L. Dakhani, Member, DBHPS Rajiv Gandhi College of Education, Dharwad, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the B.Ed College was in the total campus area of 3.0 acres of land which had been purchased by the Hubli-Dharwad City Corporation, Government of Karnataka in the heart of the City. The B.Ed College was having its exclusive building consisting of four floors. The built-up area of the building was ground floor-5269 sq.ft, first floor-3806 sq.ft, second floor-3806 sq.ft and third floor-3709 sq.ft. The total built-up area of the building was 16590 sq.ft i.e., 1541.26 sq.mts. The built-up area of the College was more than 1500 sq.mts specified by the NCTE norms and standards. Photographs, building plan and building completion certificate were enclosed with the appeal as proof. Further, it could easily be made out by seeing the building that it was much bigger than the 7963 sq.ft as stated by the SRC in its order. Even before NCTE prescribed 1500 sq.mts of built-up area during the year 2006, the B.Ed College was having 1500 sq.mts of built-up area from the year 1991 itself; Details of the faculty had been given in the appeal. All the records and registers were duly submitted to the visiting team. No records were hidden and there was no need for the institution to hide any documents. All records pertaining to admissions, approval of the list by University, testimonials of the students admitted were duly submitted to the visiting team. Further, records of Attendance of staff, stock registers of all the labs, accession registers of Library, Aquitance Registers etc were duly produced. It was also submitted that the SRC had passed the order dated 02-08-2010 directly withdrawing the recognition for B.Ed. course of the institution without providing an opportunity for

making written representation in violation of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Hence, the order of withdrawal of recognition passed by the SRC was illegal and arbitrary. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that recognition was granted to the institution vide SRC’s order dated 10-07-2000, when, as per the NCTE Regulations in vogue, no minimum land and built-up area required for B.Ed. course were not specifically laid down. Subsequently, after the NCTE Regulations, 2005, which come into force from 13-01-2006, through an amendment to the Regulations dated 20-07-2006, the minimum land and built-up area required for B.Ed. course were prescribed as 2500 Sq.mts. and 1500 Sq.mts. respectively. The Regulations, 2005 also prescribed that whenever there were changes in the norms, the recognized institutions should upgrade the facilities to conform to the revised norms before commencement of the new academic session after the revised norms come into force. The latest NCTE Regulations, 2009, which come into force from August 2009 also specifically laid down that the institution, shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. However, the revised land area related norms shall not be applicable to the existing institutions if the same was not possible as per Clause 8(13) of Regulations 2009. But the required built-up area shall have to be increased by them to conform to the revised norms and that such institutions not having land area as per the revised norms, shall not be allowed to expand by way of additional courses or additional intake. AND WHEREAS in the light of provisions in the NCTE Regulations as amended from time to time, the institution was required to have a minimum built-up area of 1500 Sq.mts. or 16146 Sq.ft. for running B.Ed. course. The Council noted that in pursuance of complaint received by the NCTE against the institution, the SRC, in its 191st meeting held on 20-24th April, 2010, decided to get the institution inspected under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, which empowered the Regional Committees to withdraw recognition of such recognized institutions, which contravened provisions of the NCTE Act/Rules/Regulations. It provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is thus implied that while it is not mandatory for the Regional Committee of the NCTE to conduct an inspection under Section 17, there shall not be any objection to conduct an inspection if the Regional Committee, in its discretion, decides to conduct an inspection. Accordingly, the SRC vide its letter dated 24-04-10 asked the institution to furnish filled in questionnaire alongwith requisite documents. The institution furnished the filled in questionnaire, affidavits etc. vide its letter dated 05-05-2010. In the affidavit dated 05-05-2010 furnished by the institution, it indicated that the available land and built-up area were 1595.14 sq. mts. and 1244 sq. mts, respectively. The visiting team, which conducted the inspection under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, in its report dated 02-06-2010 indicated that the available land and built-up area with the institution were17168 sq. ft or 1595 sq. mts. and 1244 sq. mts. (excluding common area), respectively. Thus, the VT report dated 02-06-2010 also bear testimony to the claim

made by the institution in the filled-in questionnaire and affidavit dated 05-05-2010 that the available built-up area with the institution was1244 sq. mts. only as against the requirement of minimum of 1500 Sq.mts. as per the NCTE Regulations. When the position was pointed out to the representatives of the DBHPS, as usual they informed the Council that the Principal of the College inadvertently furnished wrong information regarding built up area to the SRC and the VT and that the actual built up area available exclusively for the B. Ed course was 16590 sq. ft. i.e. 1541.26 sq. mts. They also stated that the faculty appointed was qualified as per the NCTE norms and all the records and registers were submitted to the VT and the institution was strictly adhering to the admission criteria, records of which could be verified. The Council also noted that the SRC issued the withdrawal order dated 02-08-2010 directly without issuing any show cause notice on the basis of the VTR, for making a representation by the institution as required under the provision of the NCTE Act. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with the direction to the SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC’s order dated 02-08-2010 with direction to the SRC for issuance of show cause notice and for further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the SRC dated 02-08-2010 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, DBHPS Rajiv Gandhi College of Education, D.C. Compound, Dharwad - 580001, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

F.No.89-892/2010-Appeal


23/12/2010

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Ojaswini Girls College, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh dated 13/07/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/2010/RL-63928 dated 29/01/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, rejecting its application for recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds that “The Institute has not submitted hard copy as required. In the clause 5(3) of NCTE, Regulations, 2009”. The appeal dated 13-07-2010 against WRC’s order dated 29-01-2010 was filed only on 14-07-2010 i.e. 3 months and sixteen days after the prescribed period of limitation of sixty days. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ojaswini Girls College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 14/07/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Sudha Malaiya, Chairperson, Ojaswini Girls College, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that Brahmi Sundari Nyas applied for starting a new D.Ed. College named Ojaswini College (Education) in prescribed performa to start New D.Ed. School, vide application ID WRCAPP456 dated 29/10/09 online and along with 2 hard copies with all relevant documents by courier to WRC, Bhopal. The applicant was waiting till date under the impression that they would be communicated about the inspection. However, when the applicant approached the regional office of NCTE on 28th June it was told that the application had been rejected on the basis of non submission of the hard copy of the online submission. This rejection was communicated to the institution but it did not receive the letter and that the site on which rejection was supposed to be placed was also not opening and was closed and, therefore, an appeal in time i.e. within 60 days could not be made. It was, therefore, requested that the delay in appeal might be condoned and manual application might be considered. AND WHEREAS the Council considered the request for condonation of delay of three months and sixteen days in filing the appeal. The Council noted that the letter dated 29-01-2010 addressed to the applicant institution conveying the decision of the Western Regional Committee of NCTE that its application was rejected alongwith reasons for rejection was dispatched through speed post. Normally, any communication/article dispatched through Speed Post/Registered Post is returned by the postal authorities to the sender if the communication/article is not delivered to the addressee. The letter dated 29-01-10 addressed to the appellant institution through speed post was not returned by the postal authorities to the sender namely the WRC, Bhopal and, therefore, it was not possible to accept the contention of the

appellant institution that it had not received the said letter because of which the delay in submission of the appeal took place. Further, the web-site of WRC was visited by many without any problem and, therefore, the plea of the institution that it was not opening, could also not be accepted. Therefore, the Council was of the view that no good and sufficient reason for delay in submission of the appeal was furnished by the institution and, thus, there was no ground to accept the request for condoning of delay and admitting the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.


1. The Chairperson, Ojaswini Girls College, Khasra No. 832, Pathariya Jat, Street No. University Road, Sagar - 470228, 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.89-1020-2010 Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Progressive Education Trust P.E.T.B.P.Ed College, Bagalkot, Karnataka dated 04/10/2010 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/19174 dated 31/05/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed course on the grounds “1) The institution is running B.A., B.Com., B.Sc & BCA i.e., all degree courses in the same building along with D.Ed. course. As per NCTE norms, Physical Education courses are not to be run with other teacher education courses/other programmes. 2) Built-up space earmarked for the proposed course is 1034 sq. mtrs. and is not sufficient for offering B.P.Ed. course as per NCTE norms”. The appeal against the SRC’s order dated 31-05-2010 was filed by the institution on 04-10-2010 i.e. two months and six days after the period of limitation of sixty days. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Progressive Education Trust P.E.T.B.P.Ed College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. S.H. Hiremath, Registrar, Progressive Education Trust P.E.T.B.P.Ed College, Bagalkot, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that Progressive Education Trust was conducting B.A., B.Com., B.Sc. & B.C.A. degree courses from 1970 in another building of the trust owned which was situated 1.5 km. away from the proposed B.P.Ed. campus. D.Ed. course only was running in that building. In the NCTE norms nowhere mentioned physical courses were not to be run with other education courses or other programmes; the institution building was having a built-up area of 2534 sq.mtrs. (27265.84 sq.ft.) which was more adequate as per the NCTE norms for conducting D.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses. As regard delay in filing the appeal, it was submitted that due to some technical reasons the Management Committee meeting was not held for the last three months and hence requested for condonation of delay in submission of appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council considered the request for condonation of delay in submission of appeal. The Council noted that the applicant institution simply stated that the delay in filing of appeal was on account of non convening of meeting of the Management Committee of the institution, which was not a good and sufficient reason for condoning the delay. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to accept the request of the institution for condoning the delay and hence the request should be rejected. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.

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


1. The Chairman, Progressive Education Trust P.E.T.B.P.Ed College, Guledgudd Badami Taluk,, Bagalkot - 587203, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sacchidanand Kala Krida & Shikshan Mandal, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra dated 07/09/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06963/123875((M)/116th/2009/53861 dated 13/04/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed.(M)(CO.ED) course on the ground “1) The institution has not removed the deficiencies with in the stipulated period of the 90 days u/s 7.4 of NCTE Regulations 2005”. The appeal against the WRC’s order dated 13-04-2009 was filed on 07-09-2010 i.e one year three months after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days for filing appeal. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sacchidanand Kala Krida & Shikshan Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 13/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Sandip Kolhe, Director, Sacchidanand Kala Krida & Shikshan Mandal, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that it was apparent from the different documents shown and filed as annexures along with the appeal by the petitioner that the petitioner was not informed at any time about the decisions taken in respect of the proposal of the petitioner nor any intimation was given to the petitioner at any time in respect of the deficiencies in the proposal, by the respondent that, the question of non compliance of the order or the removal of deficiencies would arise only on giving its due intimation to the petitioner and as such the ground that the petitioner had not remove the deficiencies within given time of 90 days did not arise in the instant matter as there was no knowledge of such deficiencies in the proposal on the part of the petitioner; The petitioner had not received any of the communication from the respondent on any of the date after filing of the proposal and as such the petitioner could not even come across with the existence of the alleged deficiencies in the proposal of the petitioner; on several dates the petitioner made communication with the respondent but it was most unfortunate that on none of the occasion the petitioner received the response from the respondent and as such there was not any fault on the part of the petitioner; it was apparent from the different documents shown and filed as annexures along with this appeal by the petitioner that the petitioner was not informed at any time about the decisions taken in respect of the proposal of the petitioner and no any intimation was given to the petitioner at any time in respect of the deficiencies in the proposal, by the respondent; that the petitioner as a last recourse utilized the provisions of the Right to Information Act and demanded the necessary information pertaining to the

proposal and then only for the first time the petitioner came across with the information vide WRC’s letter dated 17-08-2010 that the proposal was refused. Neither the delay in filing the petition was intentional nor it was due to any fault on the part of the petitioner and so the same deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of the appellant institution was that it did not receive the deficiency letter dated 18-01-2008 or the refusal order dated 13-04-2009 and that it came to know about refusal of recognition through WRC’s letter dated 17-08-2010, which was obtained under the provision of Right to Information Act. The Council also noted that the institution submitted three reminders to the WRC vide letters dated 28.05.08, 04.07.08 and 13.10.08 to which no reply was furnished by the WRC. The Council was, therefore of the view that there was adequate ground to condone the delay and consider the appeal on merit. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was considered on merit. The Council noted that important communication like deficiency letter and order of refusal of recognition etc. were required to be dispatched by registered post/speed post. But, there was no indication on the office copy of deficiency letter dated 18-01-2008 and the order of refusal of recognition dated 13-04-2009 available on the file as to whether they were dispatched through registered post/speed post. After submission of its application for recognition for B.Ed. on 28-12-2007, the institution sent three reminders dated 28-05-2008, 04-07-2008 and 13-10-2008 to the WRC informing them that the institution was not informed of the NCTE code number allotted to it and requested for allotment of the same. The said three reminders were available on the relevant file of the WRC. The Council also noted that the WRC did not send reply to the institution to any of the said three reminders. The information that the application for recognition of B.Ed. course was refused vide WRC’s order dated 13-04-2009 was communicated to the institution vide WRC’s letter dated 17-08-2010 only after the institution sought information under Right to Information Act, vide letter dated 29-07-2010. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and direct the WRC to immediately issue fresh deficiency letter through Registered Post/Speed Post. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 13-04-2009 with direction to the WRC to issue fresh deficiency letter through Registered Post/Speed Post. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the WRC dated 13-04-2009 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Sacchidanand Kala Krida & Shikshan Mandal, 1747, Parner, Panoli, 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 Udai Pratap Autonomous College, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh dated 03/06/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-7/UP-27171/141 meeting/2009/6803 dated 24/07/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed course on the ground “1) The list of appointed faculty as per NCTE norms has not been submitted till date”. The appeal against the NRC’s order dated 24-07-2009 was filed by the institution on 08-06-2010 i.e. more than eight months after expiry of the limitation of sixty days for filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Udai Pratap Autonomous College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 08/06/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Pramod Kumar Singh, Asstt. Clerk, Udai Pratap Autonomous College, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that due to uncertainly of partition between Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth and Veer Bhadur Singh Purvanchal University, affiliation process could not be done. Further, due to Strike of employees of VBS Purvanchal University, approval of faculty could not be obtained; Vide Govt. Notification No. 379/79-vi-1-09-1 (Ka) -31-2008 Lucknow dated 25/02/2008 various section were amended in UP State University 1973 (Amendment) Regulation, 2008 and all colleges in Vararasi got affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi Vidyapeeth, Vararasi. In the meanwhile, letter dated F.NRC/NCTE/F-7/UP-217/141 meeting/2009/650 dated 24 July, 2009, without any prior information was received from NCTE. As regards delay in filing the appeal by more than eight months, the institution stated that the meeting of the Governing Body of the college was delayed due to some unavoidable reason; it was held on 04-04-2010 and due to delay in the meeting, the institution could not file appeal within sixty days. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of non-convening of the meeting of the Managing Committee, which was not a good and sufficient reason for the delay of over eight months in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to condone the delay for admission of the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Principal, Udai Pratap Autonomous College, Varanasi, Varanas - 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 Veeralakshmi Educational College, Pudukottai, Tamilnadu dated 31/05/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/B.Ed/2008/6455 dated 30-10-2008 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) The building shown in building plan are different from the inspected building. 2) The library books shown were brought from other college. The land area is 20 cents and not adequate for B.Ed courses. 3) The infrastructural & instructional facilities are not adequate fro B.Ed course. 4) The management has shown building used for shopping complex also and not adequate for B.Ed course. 5) The size of class rooms and built up space are not adequate for B.Ed course”. Appeal, against SRC’s order dated 30-10-2008 was filed by the institution on 03-06-2010 i.e. one year five months after expiry of the period of sixty days for filing appeal. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Veeralakshmi Educational College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/06/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. A. Vijayakumar, Correspondent, Veeralakshmi Educational College, Pudukottai, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the visiting team inspected the temporary building premises only, whereas the institution submitted the permanent approved building plan for the NCTE along with the temporary building plan. Copies of both (temporary and permanent) building plans were enclosed with appeal; The institution was having more than 4500 books at the library. In some books, The trust seal (Arumugam Trust) was put by mistake. But all the books were purchased exclusively for Veeralakshmi College (B.Ed) only. The purchase bills were enclosed with the appeal. Also the land area was mentioned as 20 Cents (8720 sq.ft.) along with two storied building space, since the norms did not say particular about the required space as per the 2005 regulations; The infrastructural and instructional facilities were very much adequate as per the NCTE requirements. The Videograhpy taken during the visit clearly showed the equipment available along with the furniture. Inspite of that institution had purchased more materials to strengthen the labs as well as the classrooms. Copies of the purchase bills were enclosed with appeal; the temporary two storied building shown for the inspection was no way connected with the shopping complex which was on the road side ground floor. The entrances for the first and second floor were exclusively from the backside of the building, since this was a temporary building only. The permanent building which was already started construction would overcome these problems. The VCD along with the team members would show the actual passage

for the building and classrooms; there were five classrooms of more than 500 sq.ft of room size available along with the conference hall (1000 sqft.) which are very much adequate for the B.Ed course. The available space could be seen from the VCD taken along with the visiting team members; the building was partly having asbestos roof, but as per the 2005 norms it is nowhere mentioned that there should not be an asbestos building for the temporary space. This building was leased temporary building for 30 years. The documents showing the lease deed and building plan were enclosed with the appeal. As regards the delay of one year five months in filing the appeal, Shri. Vijay Kumar, Correspondent submitted that he was not well during the period from 03-10-08 to 05-05-2010 and his doctor instructed him to take rest for few more months. He was totally unconscious during this period and the doctor was giving treatment by visiting him at home everyday. After his recovery, he found that recognition to his institution was rejected and hence he preferred an appeal with a certificate from doctor for condoning the delay. AND WHEREAS the Council considered the request for condonation of delay and admission of the appeal in filing the appeal, as given by the appellant namely the Correspondent, was that he was unwell during the period from 03-10-2008 to 05-05-2010 and the doctor was giving treatment by visiting him at his residence everyday. This was not a reasonable and justifiable reason because any member of the appellant Society could have got the appeal filed when the Correspondent was unwell. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.


1. The Correspondent, Veeralakshmi Educational College, Kovelurath Road, kovilur, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai - 622301, 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 Anjali Institute of Management & Sciences, Agra, Uttar Pradesh dated 10/09/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3UP-1538/100 MEETING/2010 dated 22/06/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting NTT course on the ground “1) The Institution has not replied to the show cause notice number NCR/NCTE/F-3/UP-1538/2008/54340 dated 11 July, 2008 till date”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Anjali Institute of Management & Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 10/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Devendra Gupta, Chairman and Col. Sanjay Sitansu, Director, Anjali Institute of Management & Sciences, Agra, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that file of the appellant was closed on the ground that no representation was given to show cause notice number NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-1538/2008/54340 dated 11.7.2008, which was alleged to have been issued to the college. That it came as a rude shock to the Founder of the college of the said fact inasmuch as the college was never served with any show cause notice or the minutes of meeting dated 18-20th May, 2010; it was submitted that the appellant was never served with any notice much less any show cause notice dated 11.7.2008 as observed in the meeting held on 18-20th May, 2010; a reading of the order dated illegible would show that on 11.7.2008 a clarification letter was issued vide No. F/NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-1538/2008/54340 to the college. However, this clarification letter had been construed thereafter as a show cause notice, which in law was not permissible. It was, therefore, submitted that the entire action of the Regional Committee was an abuse of power vested in it and the same had been exercised contrary to the provisions of the Act and the regulations. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that after seeking certain clarification from the institution vide NRC’s letter dated 11-07-2008, recognition of the institution for NTT course was withdrawn after a period of nearly an year vide NRC’s order dated 22-06-2010 on the ground that the institution had not replied to the said letter dated 11-07-2008. Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, inter-alia, stipulates that no order against the recognized institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognized institution. The Council also noted that, no show cause notice as contemplated under Section 17 of the NCTE Act was issued to the institution. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and set

aside the NRC’s order dated 22-06-2010 with direction to the NRC to issue show cause notice to the institution and thereafter take appropriate decision as per the provision in the NCTE Act/Regulations. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the NRC’s order dated 22-06-2010 with direction to the NRC to issue show cause notice to the institution and thereafter take appropriate decision as per the provision in the NCTE Act. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the NRC dated 22-06-2010 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Founder-cum-Chairman, Anjali Institute of Management & Sciences, Etemadpur, Agra - 283202, 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 Ekta Mahavidyalaya, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh dated 11/10/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW04339/223514/105TH/2008/40600 dated 29/08/2008 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed (Co-Ed) course on the ground “Size of classrooms smaller than prescribed by the NCTE”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ekta Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 13/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. R.K. Tiwari, Treasurer, Ekta Mahavidyalaya, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that latter on the size of class rooms had been made as per NCTE Norms. The NCTE WRC Bhopal in its 106th meeting held on August 22-24, 2008, considered the matter of grant of recognition and decided to grant recognition under Section 7(11) of the NCTE Regulations, 2007, which was also placed on the website of the NCTE. The representative also submitted that institution was prepared for inspection and, for that purpose, it was also prepared for paying the requisite fee of Rs. 40,000. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the case of the institution was considered by the WRC in its 105th meeting held on August 11-12, 2008 when it was decided to refuse recognition to the institution on the ground that the size of the class room was smaller than that prescribed by the NCTE. Accordingly, the WRC, vide order dated 29-08-2008 refused recognition of the institution. The institution filed a writ petition No.13475 of 2009 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur against the said order, inter-alia, on the ground that in the 106th meeting of the WRC held on August 22-24, 2008, the WRC had decided to grant recognition to the institution under Section 7(11) of the NCTE Regulations, 2007. A copy of the minutes of 106th meeting placed in the website of NCTE by the WRC was also submitted by the institution. When case came up for hearing, the Counsel for the WRC submitted that there was some mistake in the 106th meeting of the WRC inasmuch as in the remark column of “Decision of WRC” the remark of some other institution was wrongly typed in the column against the name of the appellant institution. The Hon’ble High Court, vide its order dated 15-09-2010, disposed of the writ petition with the direction “ as an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file statutory appeal against the impugned order, we are inclined to entertain this petitioner and permit the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order Annexure. P.13 within a period of 30 days from today. The petitioner while filing the appeal shall be entitled

to raise all grounds which are raised in this petition including the ground on the basis of decision of respondents in its 106th meeting Annexure P.14. The petitioner may also canvas to the Appellate Authority in respect of the letter dated 11.03.2008, stated to be sent to the respondents. The Appellate Authority on filing such an appeal shall consider all the contentions of the petitioner and shall decide it expeditiously as far as possible with in a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal.” AND WHEREAS keeping in view the direction of the Hon’ble High court, the submission made by the institution in its letter dated 11.03.08 that the size of the class room was expanded and it was prepared for inspection and pay the requisite fee of Rs. 40,000 for inspection, the Council was of the view that there was adequate ground for accepting the appeal and setting aside the WRC’s order dated 29.08.2010 with direction to the WRC to get the institution inspected to verify the claim made by the institute that now the infrastructure and other facilities available with the institute was as per the requirement as per NCTE norms to become eligible for recognition by NCTE subject to the condition that the institution deposit the requisite fee of Rs. 40,000 to the WRC within 10 days of issue of this order. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 29-08-2008 with direction to the WRC to get inspection of the institution and thereafter take appropriate decision as per the provision in the NCTE Act/Regulations. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the WRC dated 29-08-2008 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Ekta Mahavidiyalaya, Ekta Shiksha Prasar Samity, Ekta Bhawan, Purana Bijawar Naka, Sagar Road, , Chhatarpur - 471001, 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 Padmawati Sewa Sansthan, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh dated 23/07/2010 is against the Order No. WRC.APP-11/ Rejection/134th/2010/67846 dated 13.05.2010 of the Western Regional Committee, rejecting its application for recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground “1) Certified copy of land document not submitted. 2) Original FDRs in respect of Endowment Fund & Reserve Fund not submitted. 3) CLU not submitted”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Padmawati Sewa Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/07/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Dharmendra Kumar, Secretary and Shri. Vijay Mishra, Member, Padmawati Sewa Sansthan, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that no letter was received by the institution through post and it was available on net very late. But after receiving the information, the reply was immediately sent to the office. If it was late, it was a delay of the postal delivery. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that clause 7(1-A) of the NCTE Regulations 2009 stipulated that application submitted online but not followed by dispatch through registered post or by hand with seven specified documents including (i) Certified copy of registered land documents issued by the competent authority (ii) notarized copy of change of land use certificate issued by the competent authority and (ii) FDRs for Rs. 5 lacs and 3 lacs, within 7 days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected. The institution did not submit certified copy of land document alongwith the application as the same was not available with it inasmuch as, during the presentation, the representative of the institution informed that the land document was pledged with the State Bank of India for taking a loan. The institution also did not submit CLU as required. The institution furnished only a photocopy of FDRs and it did not submit original FDRs. Thus, the institution did not fulfill the mandatory requirement as per clause 7(1-A) of the NCTE Regulations to become eligible for consideration for recognition by NCTE. Therefore the Council was of the view that the application of the institution was rejected by the WRC for valid reason and, thus, there was no ground to accept the appeal. The Council further noted that, as informed by the representatives of the institution during the hearing, the land was pledged with the bank and therefore the condition laid down in clause 8(7) (i) of the NCTE Regulations that the institution should possess requisite

land free from all encumbrances at the time of submission of application was also not fulfilled. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and the WRC’s order dated 13-05-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Padmawati Sewa Sansthan, Kanchan Vihar, Central Academy School Campus, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur - , 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.89-919/2010-Appeal


23/12/2010

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Prem Prayag Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh dated 22/05/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/NRCAPP378/159 Meeting/2010/21744-745 dated 11/05/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, rejecting its application for recognition for conducting D.E.C.Ed course on the grounds “1) Registered Land document is not certified. 2) Submitted building plan is not approved”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Prem Prayag Mahila Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/07/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Krishan Mohan, Chairman, Prem Prayag Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the Regional Committee, Northern Region erred in refusing to grant recognition; all the deficiencies pointed out vide letter dated 19.04.2010 were complied with and there was no deficiency. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that clause 7(1-A) of the NCTE Regulations 2009 stipulated that application submitted online but not followed by dispatch through registered post or by hand with seven specified documents including (i) Certified copy of registered land documents issued by the competent authority and (ii) approved building plan by competent civil authority, within 7 days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected. The institution did not submit certified copy of registered land documents and approved building plan alongwith the application. Thus, it did not fulfill the mandatory requirement under clause 7(1-A). The Council was, therefore, of the view that the application was rejected by the NRC for valid reasons and thus, there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and the NRC’s order dated 11-05-2010 was confirmed.

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


1. The Secretary, Prem Prayag Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Plot No. 102, G.T Road, VPO - Bhongaon, Tehsil-Bhongaon,, Mainpuri - 205262, 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 Ravi College of Education, Rangareddy, Andhra Pradesh dated 01/09/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/B.Ed/2008-2009/8098 dated 24/12/2008 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) Building which was under construction was found in the said address. 2) The owner/the concerned people of the building were not available. 3) The VT members tried to contact several times with the given phone nos. and the response was "it is not Ravi B.Ed. College". 4) A few labourers, watchman were present during the visit but they did not confirm the existing of institution. 5) The Institution has not submitted reply to the notice issued by SRC within the stipulated time of 30 days. The notice had given a clear indication that any non-reply would attract final decision by SRC without any further notice”. The appeal against the SRC’s order dated 24-12-2008 was filed by the institution on 03-09-2010 i.e. more than one year six months after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days for submission of appeal. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ravi College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. S. Chalama Reddy, Member and Dr. B.K. Satyanarayana, Member, Ravi College of Education, Rangareddy, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that construction of the College Building was nearing completion as on 27.06.07 and the finishing work was kept pending for the receipt of the final approval by the SRC Bangalore. As on date, the college building was fully constructed as per the specifications given by SRC; the members of the management committee could not meet the inspection team on 27.06.2007 unfortunately due to the sudden demise of the grand mother of the Secretary on 26.06.2007. A copy of the Death Certificate issued by the competent authority was enclosed with appeal; The Phone No. 040-24161762 given in the application belonged to the Society office and for the above stated reasons all the members of the society were absent from the office; It was true that the Management Committee did not take timely action after the receipt of the show cause notice dated 07.11.2007 due to unforeseen circumstances; the Management had purchased all the necessary equipment and material for running the laboratories, library, teaching aids, play material, computers etc. for starting the college without any delay. As regards delay of one year and six months in filing the appeal, it was submitted that the grand mother of Secretary/ Correspondent of the society who was the driving force for the establishment of the B.Ed. College, expired on 26.06.07. This had upset all the plans and, therefore, they could not contact the members of

the inspection team also in time. Some friends and well wishers advised that the death being a bad omen, they should not proceed any further at least for one year. AND WHEREAS the Council considered the request for condonation of delay and admitting the appeal. It noted that the building of the institution was still under construction as on 27.06.07, when the inspection was conducted. The death of the grand mother occurred on 26.06.07 i.e. one day before the inspection. The appeal against the SRC’s order dated 24.12.08 was filed by the institution only on 01.09.2010 i.e. one year six months after the refusal of recognition and more than two years after the death of grand mother. Thus, the reasons given by the institution for the delay of one year and six months for filing the appeal was not convincing at all. Therefore, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the reasons for condonation of delay of one year six months and admit the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.


1. The Secretary, Ravi College of Education, Jakkidinagar, Gurramguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal,, Rangareddy - 500070, 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 Shri Guru Teg Bahadur College of Education, Sangrur, Punjab dated 19/08/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-7/PB-426/143 Meeting/2009/6015 dated 10/07/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting ETT course on the ground “1) The reply of the Institution regarding conduction of inspection is not received”. The appeal against the NRC’s order dated 10-07-2009 was filed on 19-08-2010 i.e. more than ten months after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days for filing appeal. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Guru Teg Bahadur College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/08/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Hardev Singh, Chairman, Shri Guru Teg Bahadur College of Education, Sangrur, Punjab presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal, the institution simply mentioned that due to some technical, administrative and financial restraints, it was unable to reply regarding conduction of inspection in time. But its subsequent letter dated 21.09.2010 and during presentation it was submitted that the institution received the rejection letter dated 10.07.09 of the NRC but at that time the Punjab Government discontinued admission to ETT course in the whole of Punjab State and consequently the institution became disinterested. In pursuing the application. Now the Punjab and Haryana High Court, vide writ No. CWP-2196 of 2010, allowed the ETT course to self financed educational colleges and that now the college was fully prepared for inspection. AND WHEREAS the Council considered the request of the institution for condonation of delay and admitting the appeal. It noted that the reasons for the delay as furnished by the institution were not convincing. Further, as informed by the representative of the institution during the presentation, the writ petition mentioned by the institution was not filed by it. In the circumstances, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to condone the delay of more than ten months in filing the appeal and admitting the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Chairman, Shri Guru Teg Bahadur College of Education, Vill - Sehke, Post-Gowara, Tehsil-Malerkotla, Sangrur - 148023, Punjab 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 Punjab, Chandigarh.

F.No.89-984/2010-Appeal


23/12/2010

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of SSVVS Bammanajogi College, Bijapur, Karnataka dated 27/08/2010 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/19177 dated 31/05/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed course on the grounds “1) Built-up space earmarked for the proposed B.P.Ed. course is 1500 sq.ft. which is not sufficient for offering B.P.Ed. course as per NCTE norms. 2) Equipment and furniture are not available for labs. 3) The books and journals in the Library are less than the NCTE norms. 4) Total land area available is less than the NCTE norms. 5) As per VCD, Building is incomplete and a Kannada Higher Primary school is being run in the same premises”. The appeal against the SRC’s order dated 31-05-2010 was filed by the institution on 07-09-2010 i.e. one month seven days after the expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days for filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, SSVVS Bammanajogi College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 07/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. B.B. Kannolli, Secretary and Shri. S.S. Kannolli, Clerk, SSVVS Bammanajogi College, Bijapur, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 25-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the institution started the construction of new college building for conducting the one year duration B.P.Ed. course. And already the college building was completed in all the ways. The said building was two-storied and the built-up area was 1500 Sq.mtr. (about 16150 sq.ft) which was being mentioned in all the earlier correspondences with the SRC-NCTE Bangalore. The classrooms, multipurpose hall, Laboratory rooms & other pre-requisites of the college building was constructed to suit the running of B.P. Ed. course only. The SSVV Sangha had planned and constructed the building with total commitment to run the new B.P.Ed. course. And the so constructed building was as per the norms of the NCTE. The total built-up area was 1500 sq.mtr. But, while filling the application form, because of unknown mistake it had been mentioned as 1500 sq. feet; The institution was having the requisite equipments & furniture. Already the required number of books and journals were purchased. Plenty of books had been collected from the donors. The total number of books exceed 3000. Further the Management Committee was committed to enrich the library with relevant and important study materials; the availability of land for the institution was not a problem at all. The institution had mentioned the total land availability of 3.18 acres in the application and all other correspondences. Now the institution provided with total available land area of 14.39 acres (3.18 acres

bearing Survey No. 279/2A Plus 11.21 acres bearing Survey No. 272/2); before the construction of the new building the Kannada Higher Primary school was running in the rented building at Hosuru Colony of Bammanajogi Village. And now, the Kannada Higher Primary school was being shifted to the some rented building and hence the Kannada Higher Primary school was not functioning at the premises of the new building where the proposed B.P.Ed. college was planned to function. As regard delay in filing the appeal, it was submitted that the institution initially thought that it would apply afresh after removing deficiencies. But unexpectedly, ban was imposed for further BPED course on 29.07.2010 from the academic year 2011-12 and, therefore institution was not in a position to apply afresh. Hence it applied for condonation of delay and admitting the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council considered the request of the institution for condonation and admitting the appeal. It noted that the institution admitted that it did not fulfill the requirement as per the NCTE norms at the time of submission of application. Therefore, after refusal of recognition by the SRC, the institution initially thought of removing the deficiencies and applying afresh for recognition again in the next year and that the appeal was filed after a delay of one month seven days as ban for further grant of BPED course was imposed on 29.07.2010. Since the institution did not fulfill the requirements as per the provisions in the NCTE Regulations when it submitted the application as admitted by the institution, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby refuses to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.


1. The Secretary, SSVVS Bammanajogi College, 279/A, Bijapur Road, Bommanajogi, Sindagi, Bijapur - 586128, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

F.No.89-1042-2010 Appeal


23/12/2010

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Abhinav Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, Thane, Maharashtra dated 16/10/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06388/123800/139/2010/70632 dated 13/09/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed(E)(Co-Ed) course on the grounds “Lecturer (Sr. No. 7) Mr. Banjara Rijendra M. is not qualified as per the NCTE norms 2009”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Abhinav Shetkari Shikshan Manda (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. JagatKumar A.Patil-Secretary and Sh. Pravin H.Patil- Member, Abhinav Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, Thane, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a letter of intent was issued under clause 7(9) of the NCTE Regulations 2007 on 27-11-2008 prior to grant of formal recognition; after the appellant has complied with the requirements, the WRC closed the application on 15-04-2009 on the basis of the negative recommendation of the State Government of Maharashtra; the appellant filed a writ petition No. 4381/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and the Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 19-11-2009, setting aside the order dated 15-04-2009 directed the WRC for fresh consideration of the application for the academic year 2010-11; the WRC sought clarification on certain grounds and after the appellant furnished his representation on 21-05-2010, the WRC refused recognition on the ground that Sh. Banjara Rajendra M, a lecturer was not qualified as per NCTE norms 2009. In support of the appeal the appellant has submitted that the said lecturer is M.Ed. having 60% marks in B.Ed. and 56% marks in M.A examination. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that according to the provisions of NCTE Regulations 2009, a lecturer inter-alia should have M.Ed with a least 55% marks or equivalent grade and Sh. Banjara Rajendra was having only 51.5% (412 out of 800). The appellant after admitting the deficiency of the qualifications of Sh. Banjara, requested in writing, grant of time to rectify the mistake by appointing a qualified lecturer fulfilling the norms of 2009 regulations. AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the deficiency related to one lecturer only, has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of the WRC reversed with a direction that the appellant may be given a time of two months to appoint a qualified lecturer in place of Sh. Banjara and intimate WRC, who may take further action thereafter.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 13-09-2010 with direction to the WRC that the appellant may be given a time of two months to appoint a qualified lecturer in place of Sh. Banjara and intimate the WRC for taking further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and WRC’s order dated 13-09-2010 was reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Abhinav Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, Plot No. 73 & 80, Khasra No. 2,3,7 & 8, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Bldg No. 9, Abhinav Education Campus, Goddeo, Phatak Road, Bhyandar (E),, Thane - 401105, 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 BNAS Mahavidhyalaya, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh dated 20/10/2010 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-3288/165 Meeting/2010/27268 dated 08/09/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) "Keeping in the view the nature of observation of the VTR that the inspection was arranged by way of obtaining books, furniture & equipment from other institutions, the reply was not at all satisfactory. The contention of the institution that inspection team did not give any prior notice does not go to its advantage. The institution did not earmark space for B.Ed. course, VTR specifically mentioned about non-availability of accession register, hence reply that the team did not ask for it cannot be accepted. The fact that institution seriously lacks furniture in terms of its number is evident from the reply. The institution has refuted the observation of VT that it borrowed furniture from other institution namely Sri Behua Singh Kaushik Inter College has been refuted by submitting a certificate from that organization, which cannot be accepted. In view of a clear negative report of VTR, NRC came to the conclusion that the general ambience of the institution is not suited for a Teacher Training Institution." AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, BNAS Mahavidhyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Narendrapal Singh-Manager and Sh. Satyendra Kumar Singh-Deputy Manager, BNAS Mahavidhyalaya, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that it is wrong to say that books, furniture and equipment were borrowed from another institution and they were in fact purchased and evidence in the form of bills/cash receipts and stock register are enclosed; inspection was conducted without any notice and date of inspection i.e. 15-03-2010 being a gazetted holiday no employee of the institution was present; space for B.Ed was already earmarked; the VT did not ask for accession register which was available in the library; in reply to show cause notice also receipts, stock register and photographs were attached; there is no institution in Hardoi district named Sh. Behu Singh Kaushik Inter College, and one more chance may be given to remove its short comings and another inspection may be conducted for which the institution is ready to pay Rs 40,000/- as inspection fee. AND WHEREAS the Council noted from the VTR that the institution got the letter for inspection before the visit, the books in the library which on estimate (in the absence of stock/accession register) were only around 500 and which had the stamp of Mahipal Singh Mahavidyalaya, Kumaripur, Hardoi and the equipment and materials in the science lab was from Sh. Brahma Singh Kushwaha Inter-College,

adjacent to B.N.A.S. Mahavidyalaya, no facilities existed in E.T, Psychology, computer lab and language labs and B.A course is being run in the same building and no demarcated area for B.A and B.Ed courses was shown. The Council further noted that the reply of the institution to the show cause notice vis-à-vis the report of VT was duly considered by the NRC. The submissions made by the appellant contradicting the specific negative on the spot observations of the VTR are not tenable. In the appeal the appellant has given the name of a college i.e. Behu Singh Kaushik Inter College whereas the VTR mentioned the name of Sh. Brahma Singh Kushwaha Inter College. The appellant’s request for another inspection to remove its shortcomings itself is an admission of the grounds on which recognition was refused. AND WHEREAS the Council taking all aspects of the matter into consideration has come to the conclusion that the NRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of NRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC’s order dated 08-09-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Manager, BNAS Mahavidhyalaya, VPO- Mahari, Tehsil- Sandila,, Hardoi - 241001, 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 J.S.J.V. Educational Trust, Cuddalore , Tamilnadu dated 06/10/2010 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/2010/21089 dated 14/09/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed-AI course on the grounds “1) The institution has not shifted from temporary accommodation to its own premises, even after the expiry of three years (i.e., on 22.12.2009). 2) The building plan is not submitted. 3) Building Completion Certificate is not submitted. 4) No evidence of any efforts towards shifting to permanent premises as per the norms”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, J.S.J.V. Educational Trust (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 12/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. R.Aiazhain-Spl. Officer, J.S.J.V. Educational Trust, Cuddalore , Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation he has submitted the same explanation which he submitted in his appeal dated 17-09-2010 against the order of the SRC No. SRC/NCTE/2010/20030 dated 27-07-2010 withdrawing recognition for conducting the basic unit of D.Ed on the same grounds on which the SRC withdrew recognition for the additional unit. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appeal of the institution against withdrawal of recognition for the basic unit was accepted by the Council and the order of the SRC reversed with a direction to the SRC to examine the reply furnished by the appellant institution and take appropriate decision thereafter vide order F.No.89-1002/2010-Appeal dated 18-11-2010. Since the grounds of withdrawal of recognition for the basic and additional units and the contents of appeal against both the refusals are identical, the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal in this case also deserved to be accepted and the SRC’s order reversed with direction to SRC to examine the reply furnished by the institution and take appropriate decision thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC’s order dated 14-09-2010 with direction to the SRC to examine the reply furnished by the institution and take appropriate decision thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and SRC’s order dated 14-09-2010 was reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, J.S.J.V. Educational Trust, Jayaram Nagar, Chellanduppam, Cuddalore - 607003, 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 Jay Bajarang Pratisthan Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Pune, Maharashtra dated 15/09/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06476/122350(Addl.)(Court Case)/139th/2010/70359 dated 26/08/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed(m)(Co-Ed) course on the grounds “Particulars of land in the lease deed and the approved building plan do not match”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Jay Bajarang Pratisthan Adhyapak Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 12/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Rahul R. Khokale-Secretary, Jay Bajarang Pratisthan Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Pune, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the Respondent has refused to grant recognition on the ground that in response to the clarification sought in WRC’s letter dated 19-05-2010, he has stated that a Xerox copy of the certified copy of the lease deed dated 18-05-2006 has been submitted; the land mentioned in the lease deed and the building which is standing on the land are one and the same, and the appellant institution is already running D.Ed course since 2006. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the application of the appellant for grant of recognition for additional intake in D.Ed was rejected by the WRC in their order dated 14-03-2009 on the basis of the negative recommendations of the State Government of Maharashtra in respect of D.Ed course. Aggrieved by the order the appellant filed a writ petition No. 1279 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 23-02-2010 setting aside the order dated 14-03-2009 directed WRC to consider the application for the ensuing year in accordance with law. The WRC accordingly considered the application and issued order refusing grant of recognition against which the present appeal has been filed. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the lease deed for the land dated 18-05-2006 was got registered. But the property numbers 1043,228 and 541 mentioned in the land documents do not figure in the building plan submitted. The land number indicated in the plan is No. 393. The appellant submitted copy of a letter dated 05-10-2010 indicating that the land property Survey No. 393 out of property No.104,3228 and 541 is in the name of Gram Vikas Mandal who has given it to Jay Bajrang Pratishtan on agreement for 99 years. The Council also noted that the survey no. 393 is not mentioned in the other land documents, namely, Khataunis, submitted by the

appellant. The Council came to the conclusion that as rightly observed by the WRC the particulars of land in the lease deed and building plan do not match and the WRC was justified in refusing grant of recognition. The appeal therefore 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 during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 26-08-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Jay Bajarang Pratisthan Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Plot NO. 393, Vadgaon-Anand, (Aale Phata) Tal. Junnar,, Pune - , 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 Shri Sai Institute of Technology, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh dated 15/09/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW08175/222554 (Add)/138nd/2010/70043 dated 16/08/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed(Addl) course on the grounds “Staff not appointed as per the NCTE norms.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Sai Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Ajit Chhabra-Authorised Representative, Shri Sai Institute of Technology, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the application for additional intake in D.Ed was submitted on 24-10-2008, the staff was appointed as per NCTE norms then in force, on the basis of recommendations of a duly constituted selection committee, the qualifications of staff appointed were as per NCTE norms and the original affidavits of selected staff and affidavit of the society were submitted to the WRC and the visiting team. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the WRC issued a letter of intent dated 11-03-2010 prior to grant of recognition for the additional intake and the appellant replied on 03-05-2010 inter-alia stating that staff was appointed and the required affidavits are enclosed. From the affidavit of the society it is not clear who are the members of the selection committee as their designations have not been mentioned. Further copies of the advertisement issued for the faculty, minutes of the selection committee, approval of the affiliating body for the selected candidate and copies of the marks sheets of the selected candidates have not been produced by the appellant in order to verify his claims that the staff has been appointed as per NCTE norms. AND WHEREAS in these circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that the WRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore 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 during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 16-08-2010 was confirmed.


(S.V.S. Chaudhary) Vice-Chairperson 1. The Principal, Shri Sai Institute of Technology, Jaoro Road, Near RTO Office,, Ratlam - 457001, 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 Susila College of Education, Villupuram, Tamilnadu dated 14/10/2010 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/2010/20716 dated 25/08/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “As per Building Completion Certificate 13,612.75 sq.ft. area is asbestos roofed and as corroborated by the Building Completion Certificate which is also countersigned by the Management. As per NCTE Regulations, Norms and Standards, Clause 8(10) no temporary structure/asbestos roofing shall be allowed. As the asbestos - roofed area is shared by both B.Ed., D.T.Ed. and D.T.Ed.-Addl. intake programme, all the programmes deserve to be withdrawn and as the Management has concurred with the data, there is no need for any further notice.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Susila College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. K.Selvakumaran-Correspondent and Sh. D. Dhavamani-Advisor, Susila College of Education, Villupuram, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the total area of 13,612.75 sq.ft. calculated as A.C. sheet roofed building included one A.C. roofed building with an area of 12287.75 sq.ft. which has since been demolished as the land on which the building was standing was to be handed over to National Highways Authority of India (NHAI); the NHAI has already awarded a compensation of Rs 38 lakhs and the land and building have been taken over by the NHAI and the land has since been leveled for laying the road. The appellant through another letter dated 26-11-2010 submitted to the Council categorically stated that they have at present only two buildings in their premises and the RCC built up area in the building No.1 is 16,929.25 sq.ft. which is adequate for running B.Ed. course exclusively. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the building completion dated 07-09-2009 as submitted earlier indicated built up area in three buildings which included AC sheet roofing in respect of the entire building number three and partly in buildings numbers one and two. The appellant with his letter dated 26-11-2010 enclosed a self authenticated copy of the said building completion certificate indicating therein that the building number three is not existing now. AND WHEREAS the Council taking note of the fact that RCC built up area of 16, 929.25 sq.ft is available in building number one itself and this area is adequate for conducting one unit of B.Ed. course has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of SRC reversed with a direction to SRC to restore recognition within 15 days of receipt of the appellate order.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRC’s order dated 25-08-2010 with direction to the SRC to restore recognition within 15 days of receipt of the appellate order. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and SRC’s order dated 25-08-2010 was reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Susila College of Education, Kuppusamy Nagar, Chennai Main Road, Veeracholapuram-P.O. Kallakurich Taluk,, Villupuram - 606206, 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 Susila Teacher Training Institute, Villupuram, Tamilnadu dated 14/10/2010 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/2010/20652 dated 24/08/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed course on the grounds “As per Building Completion Certificate 13,612.75 sq.ft. area is asbestos roofed and as corroborated by the Building Completion Certificate which is also countersigned by the Management. As per NCTE Regulations, Norms and Standards, Clause 8(10) no temporary structure/asbestos roofing shall be allowed. As the asbestos- roofed area is shared by both B.Ed., D.T.Ed. and D.T.Ed.- Addl. intake programme, all the programmes deserve to be with the data, there is no need for any further notice.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Susila Teacher Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. K.Selvakumaran-Correspondent and Sh. D. Dhavamani-Advisor, Susila Teacher Training Institute, Villupuram, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the total area of 13, 612.75 sq.ft. calculated as A.C. sheet roofed building included one entirely A.C. sheet roofed building with an area of 12, 287.75 sq.ft. and A.C. roof and partly elevated A.C. sheet roof totaling 1325 sq.ft. in the other two buildings. The entirely A.C. sheet roof building has since been demolished as the land on which it was standing was handed over to National Highways Authority of India, who have since awarded a compensation of Rs 38 lakhs and the land has been leveled for laying the road. AND WHEREAS the appellant through a letter dated 26-11-2010 submitted to the Council, enclosing a self authenticated copy of the building completion certificate dated 07-09-2009 indicating therein that the building number three which was entirely A.C. sheet roofed is not existing now. In the same letter the appellant has stated that presently they have only second year DT.Ed. students who will complete their course by the end of academic year 2010-11 and they have not admitted any students for the first year course. The appellant further stated that they have decided to wind up DT.Ed. totally and in the circumstances requested issue of a formal closure order for DT.Ed. courses. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the order of withdrawal of recognition issued by the SRC clearly stated that it was effective from 2011-12 to enable the ongoing batch of students to complete the course. Taking into account the request made by the appellant, the Council came to the conclusion that it would suffice if the order of the SRC is confirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’s order dated 24-08-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Susila Teacher Training Institute, Kuppusamy Nagar, Chennai Road, Veeracholapuram, Kallakurichi, , Villupuram - 606206, 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 Susila Teacher Training Institute, Villupuram, Tamilnadu dated 14/10/2010 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/2010/20653 dated 24/08/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed course on the grounds “1) As per Building Completion Certificate 13,612.75 sq.ft. area is asbestos roofed and as corroborated by the Building Completion Certificate which is also countersigned by the Management. As per NCTE Regulations, Norms and Standards, Clause 8(10) no temporary structure/asbestos roofing shall be allowed. As the asbestos- roofed area is shared by both B.Ed., D.T.Ed. and D.T.Ed.- Addl. intake programme, all the programmes deserve to be with the data, there is no need for any further notice”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Susila Teacher Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. K.Selvakumaran-Correspondent and Sh. D. Dhavamani-Advisor, Susila Teacher Training Institute, Villupuram, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the total area of 13, 612.75 sq.ft. calculated as A.C. sheet roofed building included one entirely A.C. sheet roofed building with an area of 12, 287.75 sq.ft. and A.C. roof and partly elevated A.C. sheet roof totaling 1325 sq.ft. in the other two buildings. The entirely A.C. sheet roof building has since been demolished as the land on which it was standing was handed over to National Highways Authority of India, who have since awarded a compensation of Rs 38 lakhs and the land has been leveled for laying the road. AND WHEREAS the appellant through a letter dated 26-11-2010 submitted to the Council enclosed a self authenticated copy of the building completion certificate dated 07-09-2009 indicating therein that the building number three which was entirely A.C. sheet roofed is not existing now. In the same letter the appellant has stated that presently they have only second year DT.Ed. students who will complete their course by the end of academic year 2010-11 and they have not admitted any students for the first year course. The appellant further stated that they have decided to wind up DT.Ed. totally and in the circumstances requested issue of a formal closure order for DT.Ed. courses. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the order of withdrawal of recognition issued by the SRC clearly stated that it was effective from 2011-12 to enable the ongoing batch of students to complete the course. Taking into account the request made by the appellant, the Council came to the conclusion that it would suffice if the order of the SRC is confirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’s order dated 24-08-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Susila Teacher Training Institute, Kuppusamy Nagar, Veerachozapuram, Kallakurichi,, Villupuram - 606206, 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.

F.No.89-1063-2010 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Veer Bahadur Singh, Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh dated 08/11/2010 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-2111/162ND MEETING/2010/18 dated 27/10/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “In the light of fresh evidences available with NRC office, it is evident that faculty position of the Institution is falsely stated in the affidavit submitted by the Management on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-“. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Veer Bahadur Singh, Mahila Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 08/11/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that an appeal of the institution against the order of the NRC dated 22-12-2009 refusing recognition on the ground that it was not clear whether the faculty appointed in 2007 still exists was accepted by the Council in their order dated 31-05-2010. the Council also noted that the matter was again considered by the NRC and recognition was refused for the reasons stated in their order dated 27-10-2010, against which the present appeal has been preferred. AND WHEREAS Sh. Hanuman Singh Baghel, Representative and Dr. Anirudh Singh-Principal, Veer Bahadur Singh, Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that in response to two applications dated 17-07-2010 and 17-08-2010 filed under the RTI Act, seeking evidence on the basis of which the affidavit on Rs 100/- stamp paper was found false, the NRC has not furnished the requisite information. The appellant has also given the details of the steps taken from time to fill up the faculty positions. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that recognition was refused without intimating the appellant the details of falsification of faculty position stated in the affidavit. The replies stated to have been furnished in response to two applications under the RTI Act also do not clarify the position. In the circumstances the Council felt that a proper show cause notice should have been issued before refusing recognition. The Council, in these circumstances came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of NRC reversed with a direction to NRC to issue a proper show cause notice to the institution and take further action thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the NRC’s order dated 25-08-2010 with direction to the NRC to

issue a proper show cause notice and take further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and NRC’s order dated 25-08-2010 was reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Manager, Veer Bahadur Singh, Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Sanjay Gandhi Puram, Faizabad Road,, Lucknow - 226016, 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 Ashokrao Mane College of Education, Kolhapur, Maharashtra dated 01/11/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW05727/123704/139/2010/70668 dated 14/09/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed(Co-Ed) course on the grounds “The institution did not have land at the time of submission of application”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ashokrao Mane College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 08/11/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the application of the institution was closed by the WRC in their order dated 16-04-2009 on account of the negative recommendations of the State Government of Maharashtra in respect of B.Ed. course and the appeal against the said order was rejected by the Council on 11-09-2009. Aggrieved by the rejection order the appellant filed a writ petition No. 352/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Bombay and the Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 28-01-2010 set aside the Council’s order and directed consideration of the application for the ensuing year in accordance with law. The WRC accordingly considered the application and issued order refusing grant of recognition against which the present appeal has been preferred. AND WHEREAS Sh. Ranjit R. Patil-Member and Sh. Mahesh V.Mane- Member, Ashokrao Mane College of Education, Kolhapur, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the Institution have land on lease basis at the time of submission of application; before the inspection dated 18.12.2008 the land has been gifted to the institute on 17.12.2008; and therefore the institute has got absolute ownership and the copy of GIFT DEED is attached. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that at the time of application, the appellant did not submit any land document, after issue of a deficiency letter dated 29-03-2007, the institution submitted a notarized lease deed dated 19-06-2007 only and a gift deed for the same land was executed on 17-12-2008 and the gift deed is between the members of the same family. The Council noted that the appellant did not have land at the time of application which is the mandatory as per the NCTE Regulations and therefore the WRC was justified in refusing recognition. In the circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that 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 during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal

and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 14-09-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Ashokrao Mane College of Education, Plot No-46-B Khasra No 883-0-09 Peth Vadgaon, Kolhapur - 416112, 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 Blooming Buds Degree College, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh dated 20/10/2009 is against the Order No. F.NRC./NCTE/F-7/UP-2637/145 Meetimg/2009/12220 dated 12/11/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed (Addl.) course on the grounds “The basic unit of B.Ed. course has been refused. Hence the NRC decided to close the file for B.Ed. Additional intake.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Blooming Buds Degree College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/10/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Vinay Kumar Chaudhary, Chairman and Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, Accountant, Blooming Buds Degree College, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 15.03.10. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant had not been informed and no show cause notice had ever been issued by the NRC office. The NRC in its 145th Meeting, decided to close the file of the appellant for B.Ed. (Addl.) programme. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the NRC vide its order dt. 24.07.09 refused recognition for the B. Ed programme of the institution. It filed an appeal under section 18 of the NCTE Act and the case was considered on 01.12.09 and the Council vide its letter dt. 05.01.10 remanded the case to the NRC for examination of the faculty profile and passing appropriate orders there after. The appellant during the course of the hearing informed the Council that the NRC’s action on the B.Ed. programme, in the light of the directions of the Council was pending with the NRC. Under these circumstances, the Council decided that the appeal case of the B. Ed- Additional intake programme may be kept in pending, till the NRC take a final decision with regard recognition of the B. Ed programme with basic unit. AND WHEREAS the appellant vide his letter dated 22-10-2010 informed that NRC vide its order dated 24-09-2010 has granted recognition for B.Ed. course with an intake of 100 and enclosed a copy of the recognition order dated 24-09-2010. Pursuant to the appellant’s representation dated 22-10-2010, the case was listed again on 26-11-2010 before the appeal committee for consideration. The Council noted that (a) the appellant submitted an application for B.Ed. course on 16-06-2006; conditional recognition was granted by the NRC on 24-01-2007, the NRC refused recognition for B.Ed. (Basic Unit) vide order dated 24-07-2009 and the appellant preferred an appeal against the refusal order; the appellate authority vide order dated 05-01-2010 remanded the case to NRC for examination of the faculty profile; subsequently, the NRC vide order dated 24-09-2010 granted recognition for

B.Ed. (Basic Unit). (b) The appellant submitted an application for B.Ed. (additional intake) to the NRC on 03-10-2007; The NRC conducted an inspection of the institution on 12-06-2009 and thereafter refused recognition vide order dated 12-11-2009 for B.Ed. (Additional intake) on the ground as stated in para1. (c) Now that the NRC has granted recognition for B.Ed. (basic unit), the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with the direction to the NRC for considering the case of B.Ed. (Additional intake) as per regulations. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the NRC’s order dated 12-11-2009 with direction to the NRC for considering the case of B.Ed. (Additional intake) as per regulations. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and NRC’s order dated 12-11-2009 was reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Blooming Buds Degree College, Siktapur, Maniram,, Gorakhpur - , 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 Blooming Buds Degree College, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh dated 20/10/2009 is against the Order No. F.NRC./NCTE/F-7/UP-2468/145 Meetimg/2009/12220 dated 06/01/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.Ed course on the grounds “Reply of the institution has not been received within stipulated time.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Blooming Buds Degree College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/10/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Vinay Kumar Chaudhary, Chairman and Shri Satyendra Kumar Singh, Accountant, Blooming Buds Degree College, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 15.03.10. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant had not been informed and no show cause notice had ever been issued by the NRC office. The NRC in its 145th Meeting, decided to close the file of the appellant for M.Ed programme. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the NRC vide its order dt. 24.07.09 refused recognition for the B. Ed programme of the institution. It filed an appeal under section 18 of the NCTE Act and the case was considered on 01.12.09 and the Council vide its letter dt. 05.01.10 remanded the case to the NRC for examination of the faculty profile and passing appropriate orders there after. The appellant during the course of the hearing informed the Council that the NRC’s action on the B.Ed. programme, in the light of the directions of the Council was pending with the NRC. Under these circumstances, the Council decided that the appeal case of the M. Ed programme may be kept in pending, till the NRC take a final decision with regard recognition of the B. Ed programme, as the institutions offering B. Ed programme can only run/ apply for M. Ed programme. AND WHEREAS the appellant vide his letter dated 22-10-2010 informed that NRC vide its order dated 24-09-2010 has granted recognition for B.Ed. course with an intake of 100 and enclosed a copy of the recognition order dated 24-09-2010. Pursuant to the appellant’s representation dated 22-10-2010, the case was listed again on 26-11-2010 before the appeal committee for consideration. The committee noted that (a) the appellant submitted an application for B.Ed. course on 16-06-2006; conditional recognition was granted by the NRC on 24-01-2007, the NRC refused recognition for B.Ed. (Basic Unit). vide order dated 24-07-2009 and the appellant preferred an appeal against the refusal order; the appellate authority vide order dated 05-01-2010 remanded the case to NRC for examination of the faculty profile; subsequently, the NRC vide order dated 24-09-2010 granted recognition for B.Ed. (Basic Unit), (b) the appellant submitted an application for grant of recognition

of M.Ed. course to the NRC on 10-04-2007; the NRC vide letter dated 01-06-2009 asked the institution to submit its unconditional consent and the details of infrastructural and instructional facilities in the enclosed format within one month and after almost an year the NRC vide order dated 06-06-2010 refused recognition on the ground as stated in para I. The Council further observed that it was mandatory for the NRC to issue show cause notice before refusing recognition as per the provisions of the section 14/15 of the NCTE Act. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to the NRC to issue show cause notice and for further decision thereafter. While issuing show cause notice it shall also take into account the status of B.Ed. (basic unit) and B.Ed. (Additional) unit of the institution. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the NRC’s order dated 12-11-2009 with direction to the NRC to issue show cause notice and for further decision thereafter. While issuing show cause notice it shall also take into account the status of B.Ed. (basic unit) and B.Ed. (Additional) unit of the institution. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and NRC’s order dated 12-11-2009 was reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Blooming Buds Degree College, Sictor, Maniram, , Gorakhpur - , 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.89-1058-2010 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya, Banda, Uttar Pradesh dated 02/11/2010 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-3125/165 MEETING/2010/27282 dated 08/09/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) "The observation of the Visiting Team has been refuted by submitting documents, about purchases of books and equipments. For this purpose, only bills of various items have been submitted, which cannot be relied as authentic the institution has not submitted any proof of payment, receipt of items, their entry in stock register etc. to prove their assertion. The documents submitted by the institution are such that they can be obtained from anywhere. The institution did not even bother to supplement its claim by way of photographs/CD. In view of categorical negative report and in view of any provision for second inspection in the NCTE Regulation 2009, NRC came to the conclusion that institution is not fit to run a B.Ed. course." AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/11/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr Babulal Tiwari, Manager/Chairman, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya, Banda, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that he has made a comprehensive representation on 19.07.2010 in which he has given detailed reply along with the documentary evidence; and no such deficiency was mentioned in the notice dt. 23.07.2010 with respect to purchase of books as well as proof of payment receipt of items and entry in stock register and only there was an objection that the title of books in the library is not as per the N.C.T.E. norms. The appellant has enclosed a copy of his reply dated 19-07-2010, which was earlier considered by the NRC. In a letter dated 26-11-2010, the appellant claiming that despite having all the facilities, approval for conducting B.Ed. course has not been given, requested to have a re-inspection of the institution conducted for which he is ready to pay the fee. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the report of the visiting team is quite favourable and the deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice dated 23-07-2010 are not mentioned in its report. Not withstanding this, since the appellant had submitted the bills and other documents to the NRC who have not found them satisfactory and the appellant is willing to have his institution re-inspected on payment of the fee, the Council came to the conclusion that the request of appellant deserved to be accepted so as to remove the doubts about the availability of the requisite instructional facilities.

AND WHEREAS in view of the position stated above the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of NRC reversed with a direction to conduct a re-inspection of the institution and take further action thereafter. The appellant should deposit the inspection fee with the NRC within 10 days from the date of receipt of appellate order. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the NRC’s order dated 08-09-2010 with direction to the NRC to conduct a re-inspection after the appellant deposit the fee. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and NRC’s order dated 08-09-2010 was reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya, Village- Girwan, Post- Girwan, Tehsil- Naraini, Banda - 210001, 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.


Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002

23/12/2010

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Om Sai Ram Samaj Kalyan Samiti , Sagar , Madhya Pradesh dated 22/10/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW08172/223798/REJECTION/139TH/2010/70328 dated 26/08/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) Land is not in the name of the institution/society. 2) CLU not of the required Land”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Om Sai Ram Samaj Kalyan Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Ajay Shrivastav-Secretary and Sh. M.P. Mishra- Chairman, Om Sai Ram Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Sagar , Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that land is in the name of the institution and CLU of the required land is also available. In support of his claim, the appellant enclosed a copy of the sale deed and a copy of a CLU dated 09-01-2007. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the land registered is in the name of PSN College and the CLU has been obtained for an area of 26,980 sq.ft. the Council also noted that the institution is also running D.Ed. course in the same campus. The institution does not have 3000 sq.mts of land required as per the NCTE Regulations for both D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses. Further in the course of personal presentation, the appellant admitted that the land has been mortgaged to Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sagar, which means that the land is not free from encumbrances. AND WHEREAS the Council therefore came to the conclusion that both the grounds on which recognition was refused are valid and therefore 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 during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 26-08-2010 was confirmed.



1. The Secretary, Om Sai Ram Samaj Kalyan Samiti , Jhanda Chok, Gopalgang, , Sagar - , 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 Ramdhar Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh dated 25/09/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/WRCAPP374/138/2010/69529 dated 28/07/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground “1) The building is incomplete”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ramdhar Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Ramadhar Singh-Secretary and Sh. Jai Yadhav-Teacher, Ramdhar Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant submitted a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 06/07/2010 clarifying that the college of appellant is in the remote rural area and in the vicinity of 25 Kms; there is neither any Govt. College nor any private college. Due to being situated in remote area, the labour is scarcely available due to which the completion work of the building got delayed and after inspection the work got completed and the building of the appellant is complete in all respects; and the WRC, without considering the reply/representation of appellant, and without verifying the submission of appellant passed the refusal order in a mechanical way. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the visiting team which inspected the institution on 27-05-2010 clearly reported that the construction of first floor was going on and the ground floor was not complete yet in terms of plastering and door fixing. By adducing reasons for delay, the appellant himself has admitted the ground of refusal, namely, incomplete building. Even in the appeal the appellant has stated that the building will be complete and ready before beginning of the session. On the other hand the appellant has enclosed copy of the certificate dated 08-04-2010 from Gram Panchayat to the effect that construction of 1948.14 sq.mts building has been completed. AND WHEREAS the Council after considering all aspects of the matter has come to the conclusion that the ground on which recognition was refused is valid and therefore 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 during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 28-07-2009 was confirmed.



1. The Secretary, Ramdhar Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Plot No. 1471,1475, Village Nayagaon, Post Office - Nayagaon, Bhind - 477001, 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 Sadguru Education Society's College of Physical Education, Jalgaon, Maharashtra dated 27/10/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW03433/114004/139TH/2010/70638 dated 13/09/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting M.P.Ed course on the grounds “1) The land area is less as per the NCTE regulations. 2) FDRs in respect of endowment Fund and Reserve Fund have not been submitted”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sadguru Education Society's College of Physical Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Girish A Nagori-Employee Member, Sadguru Education Society's College of Physical Education, Jalgaon, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that he was not informed about the area of land required; WRC themselves returned the endowment and reserve funds without his demanding the same, during the visit of the VT on 24-02-2010 documents relating to land availability and title certificate were submitted which were not considered by the WRC, the question of recognition of the institution for M.P.E.d course was never under consideration as it was already running that course with an intake of 10; the request of the institution was for enhancement of intake from 10 to 30; the orders of withdrawal will adversely affect the students who have already been admitted; and currently the institution is possessing two lands-one at Kusumba Jalgaon- 3 hects 99 aare and at Jalgaon city- 0.33 aare. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the application of the appellant for enhancement of intake in M.P.Ed from 10 to 30 was closed by the WRC in their order dated 24-12-2008 and the appeal of the institution against that order was accepted by the Council in their order F.No.89-465/2009-Appeal dated 29-09-2009 with a direction to WRC for causing an inspection of the institution to ascertain the availability of infrastructure and instructional facilities as per NCTE norms and thereafter pass an appropriate order. the Council also noted that an inspection of the institution was conducted on 24-02-2010 and thereafter a show cause notice dated 22-04-2010 was issued to the institution pointing out that (i) the land area is less as per requirement of NCTE regulations for M.P.Ed course and (ii) FDRs in respect of endowment and Reserve Fund have not been submitted. The WRC thereafter, noting that the institution did not submit any representation to the show cause notice, withdrew recognition for M.P.Ed course on the same grounds mentioned in the show cause notice. the Council found that the assertion of the WRC that the institution did not send any representation to the show cause notice is correct as the

appellant has also not stated that any representation has been sent. the Council also noted that the visiting team besides mentioning that in the same building B.P.Ed, B.P.E and M.P.Ed course are being run and resultantly the space is not adequate for additional intake have made certain adverse remarks about inadequacy of teaching staff, use of B.P.Ed and B.P.E staff for M.P.Ed also. the Council further noted that the VT found that the total land area was only 2376.24 sq.mts whereas the requirement for B.P.Ed and M.P.Ed courses as per norms is 2700 sq.mts. According to the appeal the institution is having lands at two places and in the circumstances there was no justification for sanctioning additional intake of 20. AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the proposal under consideration being approval for enhancement of intake in M.P.Ed from 10 to 30, the WRC was not justified in withdrawing recognition which has adversely affected the already sanctioned intake of 10. In the circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of WRC revised with a direction to issue revised order refusing recognition for the enhancement of intake of 20 only without affecting the originally sanctioned intake of 10. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 13-09-2010 with direction to the WRC to issue revised orders refusing recognition for enhancement of intake of 20 only, without affecting the originally sanctioned intake of 10. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and WRC’s order dated 13-09-2010 was reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Sadguru Education Society's College of Physical Education, Near Khajamiya Dargha, Ganesh Colony,, Jalgaon - 425001, 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 Smt. J.N. Patel B.Ed College, Panchmahal, Gujarat dated 22/10/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW03296/323359/139TH/2009/70374 dated 27/08/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “Principal not appointed till date”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Smt. J.N. Patel B.Ed College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 25/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Patel Manish. N, President and Sh. Patel Bhavik. P.-Trustee, Smt. J.N. Patel B.Ed College, Panchmahal, Gujarat presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the Regional Director has erred in withdrawing the recognition from the end of the academic session next to the following date of this withdrawal order on the ground that "Principal not appointed till date" The institution tried twice to select and appoint Principal but could not get and after trying again, Principal has been selected by the university committee on 09/10/2010 and appointment letter has already been given to him and his acceptance received and he joined the college from 15/10/2010. The affidavit is also given by him to that effect. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the ground on which recognition was withdrawn on 27-08-2010 namely, the Principal not appointed till date is technically correct as the appellant himself submitted that only after some efforts they could get a Principal selected who has joined on 15-10-2010. From the bio-data and copies of experience certificates of the Principal, namely, Dr. Joginder Sigh Yadav, it seen that he is qualified for the post of Principal. Since this is an existing college which was running with an In-charge Principal, and the deficiency was in respect of one faculty member only (though he was Principal) which has since been reported to have been rectified by appointing a regular Principal. The Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of WRC reversed with a direction to WRC to consider the selection/appointment of the Principal and take further action thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 27-08-2010 with direction to the WRC to consider the selection/appointment of the Principal and take further action thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and WRC’s order dated 27-08-2010 was reversed.

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


1. The President, Smt. J.N. Patel B.Ed College, At & PO Salawada, , Panchmahal - 388270, Gujarat 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 Gujarat, Gandhinagar.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Swami Sahajananda Saraswati Sewa Samaj, Bakaro , Jharkhand dated 28/10/2010 is against the Order No. ERC/7-111.4.4/2010/5090 dated 24/09/2010 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) The institution had stated that at the time of inspection only outside plaster of two rooms was incomplete due to excessive heat outside which after rainfall now stands completed however, no documentary proof has been submitted to this effect. As per NCTE Regulations, the building has to be complete in the form of permanent structure at the time of inspection, whereas the institution itself has agreed that the building was under construction at the time of inspection. 2) The institution had stated that it had added more apparatus, instruments, equipments in the Science, Psychology and ET Lab, 3) The institution has stated that they are having 3750 books in the library, whereas as per the VT Report, the VT Members have stated that the institution is having 1504 books. (4) In reply to deficiency at Sr. No. vi, the institution had stated that the size of multipurpose hall has been extended to 2040 sq.ft, but no certificate / documentary proof has been submitted to the said effect. 5) With regard to approval of the building construction for B.Ed college in the leased building, the institution had submitted a certificate from AGM (L&E), SAIL, Bokaro stating that the request of the institution to start job oriented courses in addition to the school level course has been examined and it can be acceded to. 6) The building plan submitted by the institution was approved for the purpose of school. The institution had submitted a different building plan alongwith the reply dated 5th Aug 2010, which is not approved by the competent authority. 7) As per the land documents submitted by the institution, the land is allotted on lease basis by the Steel Authority of India Ltd for running a High School. As per the requirement of the Regulations 2007, the land must be in the name of the institution / society. 8) As per the Appeal order, the institution must obtain NOC from SAIL, Bokaro (However, NOC is not sufficient as per Regulations, rather the land must be in the name of the institution) 9) The institution has submitted a letter from SAIL, Bokaro which cannot be treated as NOC and it does not fulfill the requirement as directed by the Appellate Authority. 10) The institution has not submitted CLU from the competent authority. 11) Further, on perusal of file, it is seen that the FDRs towards EF & RF were returned to the institution, which has not since been submitted by the institution”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Swami Sahajananda Saraswati Sewa Samaj (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/11/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. P.N Roy-President and Sh. Choudhary-Member, Swami Sahajananda Saraswati Sewa Samaj, Bakaro , Jharkhand presented the case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it

was submitted that (i) the institution has lease land document (lease deed No. 9539 dt 10/12/85 and the land is measuring 185MX174M which comes to 8 Acres; the institution is in possession of land on lease from SAIL (Steel Authority of India Limited), a Government of India Undertaking and the land is free from all encumbrances; (ii) the building is complete in all respects as per photographs and building completion certificate;(iii) apparatus, instruments, equipments etc. in the Science, Psychology and ET Lab have been provided as required and documentary proof of the same is given;(iv) as informed earlier in their letter dt. 5th Aug 10 the number of books in our library is now 3750 and duly attested copy of the purchase Receipts and accession register are again submitted;(v) the size of multipurpose hall has been extended to 2040 sq.ft. which is more than the required size and the certificate from the Chartered Engineer confirming the same is also enclosed and the size of multipurpose hall is also shown in the drawing placed enclosed;(vi) the corrigendum to the certificate issued by the AGM (L&E) where "can be acceded to " has been replaced by "is acceded to" which confirms to the " No Objection Certificate" is now perfectly in order and enclosed;(vii) the new building plan submitted on 5th Aug 2010 is approved building plan for running B.Ed. college and for which corrigendum to "No Objection Certificate" has been issued as mentioned above; and approved building plan is also submitted as mentioned; (viii) the land leased by the SAIL (Steel Authority of India Limited), a Government of India undertaking measures 8 acres whereas for school only 2.5 acres land is reserved and rest 5.5 acres land is for other educational purpose including B.Ed. course for which "No objection certificate" has already been issued by the competent authority;(ix) NOC with corrigendum is now sufficient as per regulation; (x) CLU is not required in the case of the land leased by the Government of India OR Government of India Undertaking i.e. SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant; and (xi) FDR for the endowment fund of Rs. 5.00 (five) lakh from UCO Bank (receipt no. 810140) dated 23/10/2008 and FDR for Reserve Fund of Rs. 3.00 (Three) lakh from UCO Bank (receipt no. 810139 dated 23/10/2008) have been handed over on 27th Sept' 2010 in the office of Regional Director (ERC), NCTE, 15 Neelkantha Nagar, Nayapally, Bhubaneswar- 751012 by special messenger. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the application of the appellant institution for conducting B.Ed. course was refused by the ERC in their order dated 25-07-2009 and on appeal, the Council in their order F.No. 89-1146/2009-Appeal dated 15-04-2010 remanded the case to ERC for causing an inspection of the institution to ascertain the infrastructure and instructional facilities as per NCTE norms, pending receipt of NOC from SAIL, Bokaro. The ERC conducted an inspection on 02-06-2010, issued a show cause notice on 08-07-2010 and after considering the reply of the institution dated 05-08-2010 again issued order refusing recognition against which the present appeal has been preferred. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the building completion certificate by a Chartered Engineer was issued only on 12-07-2010 which indicates that the building, which should be complete in all respects by the time inspection takes place, was not infact complete. The Council also noted that additions in the labs were made after inspection only and no evidence except CDs was available. Similarly the additional books have been procured after inspection only. Further the documents do not provide satisfactory answers as to how the multi-purpose hall has been made big. No justification has been provided for submitting a new building plan in August 2010, when a building completion certificate was got issued on 12-07-2010. While the

replies of the institution in regard to lease of land by SAIL and NOC and corrigendum etc. issued by the relevant authorities are convincing, the Council noting that the vital infrastructural and instructional facilities were lacking at the time of inspection, which was specially arranged for giving an opportunity to the institution to comply with the relevant norms and standards, has come to the conclusion that ERC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of ERC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’s order dated 24-09-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Swami Sahajananda Saraswati Sewa Samaj, Sector-8, Bokaro Steel City, 927-978, 80-89, Bakaro - 827009, 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.

f.no.89-1012/2010-appeal national council for teacher ...ncte-india.org/appeal1/orders_17...

Documents