F.No.89-391/2011 Appeal/2nd Meeting-2012 NATIONAL … 2nd meeting order.pdf · NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, ... filed civil writ petition No. 11460 of 2010

F.No.89-391/2011 Appeal/2nd Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 20/03/2012

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of AET College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 14/10/2011 received in the NCTE office on 18-10-2011 is against the Order No. APS03935-B.Ed/SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/27782 dated 23/03/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “The institution did not care to respond to the notice issued on 01/09/2009, for their failure to shift to permanent premises, even after the lapse stipulated period of three years permitted in their conditional order of recognition. The SRC in its 196th meeting held on 15-16 Sep, 2010 considered the matter and decided to issue show cause notice. Show cause notice was issued to the institution on 27-10-2010. Again the institution did not care to respond to the show cause notice, even after lapse of four months. The show cause notice was issued stating: 1) Demand Draft of Rs. 40,000/- towards inspection fee in favour of "The Member Secretary NCTE" payable at Bangalore should be submitted. 2) Land documents of the new building/location for having own land in the name of the institution/society/trust. 3) Building plan of the new building duly approved by the Government authority. 4) Building completion certificate from the Government authorities in the prescribed format. 5) Land Usage Certificate from the concerned Government authorities stating that the land is exclusively permitted/sanctioned for Educational Purposes only should be submitted. 6) Encumbrance Certificate from the competent Government authority should be submitted. 7) FDR of Rs. 5 lakh kept in Joint Account with SRC in nationalized bank for a period of 5 years towards endowment fund in original should be submitted. 8) FDR of Rs. 3 lakh kept in Joint Account with SRC in nationalized bank for a period of 5 years towards endowment fund in original should be submitted. 9) Certificate of Registration/Bye-law of the Society/Trust should be submitted. 10) The affidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format with Notary attestation.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, AET College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 18/10/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the above appeal of the institution was not preferred within stipulated period of 60 days as per Appeal Rules and it was late by 4 months and 20 days. The appellant was requested to appear before the Council on 28-02-2012 for explaining the reasons of delay. AND WHEREAS Dr. P. Muntay, Director and Mrs. Shanthi Prabhakaran, Member, AET College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka appeared before the Council on 28-02-2012 and explained the reasons of delay stating that the Chairman and the Secretary died on the 11/12/2009 and 16/12/2009. (Death certificate attached with the appeal). Since there was no other office bearer authorized to officiate, the Management could not prefer the appeal in time. The new members of the trust assumed their post on 24/07/2011 and it took further time to decide the matter since the new members were not acquainted with the administration of the institution. That none of the earlier occasions the impugned order was received by the college. It was after RTl application dt. 10/10/2011, that they came to know

that the College recognition had been withdrawn. After knowing about withdrawal of recognition of the institution, an appeal was submitted immediately. The appellant further submitted with regard to withdrawal grounds that the appellant office did not receive SRC's earlier show cause notice dt 01-09-2009.However, the second notice dt 27-10-10 was received by the office on 10-11-2010. At that time the management Chairperson and Secretary were deceased and no other member of the Board was authorized to officiate in their absence. So there was a lapse on the part of management in replying to the show cause notice. They applied for recognition under Regulations 2006 in the leased premises taken for 30 years as permissible under this Regulation and therefore the question of shifting to new premises from rented premises did not arise at all. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) SRC issued two show cause notices dated 01-09-2009 and 27-10-2010 before withdrawing recognition of the institution, as per provisions of the NCTE Act. The appellant admitted that they were in receipt of show cause notice dated 27-10-2010. The reason furnished for non-response to this notice was due to death of the Secretary and Chairman in December 2009 and delay occurred in re-constitution of trust. b) The appellant also cited the same reason for not preferring the appeal within stipulated time frame of 60 days as per Appeal Rules. In addition he also cited that withdrawal order was not received by them, and it was obtained under RTI on 10-10-2011. the Council with regard to the reasons of delay noted that the demise of the Secretary (Late Mr. P. Raja Mohan) and Chairperson (Late Smt. Y.R. Sushella) occurred in December 2009 and in their place other trust members were appointed in July 2011. In the interest of the institution either the Principal, or Vice-Chairman/Treasurer/any member of the Trust should have filed the appeal within time. Further the death of two of the office bearers occurred in 2009 and this had nothing to do with the filing of the appeal against the order of SRC issued on 23-03-2011. Moreover the withdrawal order dated 23-03-2011 was sent to the institution by speed post and the decision of SRC was also hosted on the NCTE website. Hence, the appellant’s plea of not knowing about the withdrawal order till October 2011 is not acceptable. AND WHEREAS the Council therefore concluded that the reasons adduced by the appellant for the delay in preferring the appeal are not valid and justifiable and hence it decided not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby decided not to accept the reasons for condonation of delay, and admit the appeal.

(Vikram Sahay) Convenor

1. The Director, AET College of Education, Doddakannelli, Sarjapur Road, Carmelaram Post,, Bangalore - 560035, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

F.No.89-646/2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Bhagwan Mahavir College of Education, Sonepat, Haryana dated 07/06/2010 is against the NRC’s decision taken in its 161th meeting held on 26 to 29th May, 2010, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed., B.Ed., M.Ed., B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed., course on the ground “As per VT report the Institution does not exist at the address: ‘Bhagwan Mahavir College of Education, 31 Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Behind IOC Petrol Pamp, Kundli, Sonepat- 131028, Haryana’. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Bhagwan Mahavir College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 09/06/2010 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 the Council noted that the appellant was asked to present the case of the institution before the Council on 16-08-2010 and 17-09-2010. The institution, vide its letter dated 10th August, 2010 and 13th September, 2010, informed the NCTE that the college has filed civil writ petition No. 11460 of 2010 in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 02-07-2010 against the NRC’s decision for withdrawing recognition of the institution and the Hon’ble High Court passed an interim order dated 07-07-2010. Since the matter is sub-judice and pending in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh, they requested for adjourning the hearing sine-die till the CWP filed by the college is disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court. With reference to the institution’s representation , NCTE Hqrs, vide their letters dated 28-06-2011, 16-12-2011 and 13-05-2011 requested NRC for taking immediate steps to vacate the stay through their Counsel. In response to these letters the Regional Director, NRC, vide letter dated 05-01-2010, advised their Counsel to approach the Hon’ble High Court for dismissal of the petition and file reply to get the stay vacated, as imposed by the Court vide their interim order dated 07-07-2010 and further NRC vide their letter dated 06-07-2011 requested the counsel for furnishing the current status of the writ petition No. 11460/2010. In view of the information provided by the NRC, the Council while considering the case on 08-08-2011, decided to defer the consideration of the appeal of the institution and directed Legal section of NCTE Hqrs. to get expedited the legal issue of the institution settled for further consideration by the Council AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the Hon’ble High Court in their interim order dated 07-07-2010 observed that “since the petitioner institution would not be able to admit the students, the respondents would allow the petitioners to be part of counseling for admitting the students as an interim measure, which shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. This however would not lead to any change of equity in favour of the petitioner. And the Court adjourned the matter to 15-07-2010 and directed NCTE to file the reply.” The Council also decided to seek legal advice on the case particularly with reference to whether there is actually any stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court.

AND WHEREAS with reference to the Council’s observations, legal opinion was sought from NCTE’s standing Counsel Shri. Amitesh Kumar. The Counsel vide letter dated 07-01-2012 opined that “In any case, since there is no stay either on the order of NRC or on the proceeding pending before the Council, the Council should not only dispose off the appeal in accordance with norms but the Council would be well within its rights to make its observation regarding the conduct of petitioner institution”. Pursuant to the legal opinion, the Council decided to place the matter before the Appeal Committee at its second meeting held on 28-29th September 2010 and 1st March 2011 and accordingly notice dated 14-02-2012 was issued to the appellant for appearing before the Committee on 28-02-2012.

AND WHEREAS in the meantime NCTE Hqrs. received Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana order dated 08-02-2012 passed in C.W.P. No.11460/2010 of Bhagwan Mahavir College of Education. The Court issued direction to the NRC for “inspection of new premises of the institution and submit its report in the light of guidelines issued by the NCTE. The report after inspection of the premises, be submitted within a period of two months from today. In case petitioner fulfills the norms as prescribed and required under the guidelines issued by the NCTE, the recognition which has been withdrawn may be restored.” AND WHEREAS in the light of the Hon’ble High Court judgement dated 08-02-2012, the appeal preferred against the decision of NRC dated 26-29th May 2010 is infructuous. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby treats the appeal preferred against the decision of NRC dated 26-29th May 2010, as infructuous.


1. The Correspondent, Bhagwan Mahavir College of Education, 31 Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Behind IOC Petrol Pamp, Kundi, , Sonepat - 131028, Haryana 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar, Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of L.B.S.S. College of Education, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal dated 24/06/2011 is against the decision of the Northern Regional Committee, taken in its meeting held on 8-14th June 2011 granting recognition for conducting B.Ed. course w.e.f. 2011-12 academic session. The appellant sought recognition w.e.f. 2010-2011 session. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, L.B.S.S. College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 24/06/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the appeal was submitted without the copy of the order appealed against. NCTE vide letter dated 20-07-2011 requested the appellant to submit the order passed by the NRC. After receiving the copy of the recognition order dated 30-06-2011, the Council decided to place the case before the Appeal Committee for consideration. Accordingly a notice dated 14-02-2012 was issued to the appellant requesting him to appear before the appeal Committee on 28-02-2012 and present the appeal matter of the institution in person. AND WHEREAS the appellant vide letter dated 21-02-2012 informed that the affiliating University- ‘Kumaon University’ had commenced the admissions for the session 2012-13 and hence it would not permit admission to the previous session i.e. 2011-12. Hence requested for withdrawal of appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council acceding to the request of the institution, decided to treat the appeal dated 24-06-2011 of the institution as withdrawn and hence it stands disposed off. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby treats the appeal dated 24-06-2011 of the institution as withdrawn.


1. The President, L.B.S.S. College of Education, Plot No. 291/1M, Village- Mahuwa Dabra, Post Office-Mahuwa Dabra, Tehsil- Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar - , Uttaranchal 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar, Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson

5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun.

F.No.89-67/2011 Appeal/ 7th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Maharishi Centre for Education Excellence, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh dated 23/02/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW01745/223314/143/2010/74100 dated 22/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) Building does not exist on the land for which the documents were submitted by the institution with the application. 2) The institution has not been able to produce any document as evidence for the existence of infrastructure. The institution contravened clause 7(d) of appendix 7 of the NCTE Regulations 2002.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Maharishi Centre For Education Excellance, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/02/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Appeal of Maharishi Centre for Education Excellence, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh was placed before the Council in its 4th Meeting held on 07/06/2011 and again on 7th Meeting held on 7th June, 2011. The appellant during the course of presentation on 07/06/2011 sought another date for showing the documents in support of having adequate infrastructure. Acceding to the request of the appellant, the Council listed the case for hearing on 11/10/2011 as well as on 02/11/2011 giving last & final opportunity.

AND WHEREAS when nobody appeared before the Council on the said dates, the Council decided to dispose off the appeal on the basis of records available with NCTE. Accordingly, Appellate Authority vide order dt. 09/12/2011 rejected the appeal on the grounds “the institution was issued conditional recognition vide order dated 09-08-2005 by the WRC. An inspection U/s 17 of the NCTE Act was caused on 29-07-2010. The Visiting Team inter-alia reported that “The visiting team reached Lambakhera Panchayat and met Mr. Narain Singh, Member, Gram Panchayat and went to the site as mentioned in the land document provided by the WRC. We met the owner of the neighbouring land (North side) Mr. Jai Singh Thakur. There exists no concrete structure on the said land ant the land is under cultivation. We took photographs of the land alongwith Mr. Gaur and Mr. Thakur which are enclosed. However, a massive complex was visible at a distance and we were told that the complex belonged to Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence. So we considered going to the institute to find further details. There, we were told that a Department of Education was established on the 2nd floor of one of the buildings of school. We met Mr. Brijash Sharma who introduced himself as the HOD of Education. The institution lags behind in all critical areas crucial for skills development of teacher. Hence we conclude that we do not find the college prepared for conducting the B.Ed. programme at present.” From the observation of the VT, it appeared that the institution was not functioning at the location/

on the land, for which land document was submitted while granting recognition. Though the appellant had claimed earlier that it was having adequate infrastructure as per NCTE norms and sought another date for presenting the documentary proof vide letter dated 07-06-2011, but he did not turn up on both the dates i.e. 11-10-2011 and 02-11-2011 in order to establish his claim. Further the Council noted that the appellant alongwith the appeal memorandum submitted a land document for kh.no. 11/2 and also a certificate from Gram Panchayat office wherein it was stated that the institution was functioning at land bearing kh. No. 11/2. Whereas the appellant, at the time of grant of recognition submitted land documents in favour of the society, for the property bearing nos. 16/1, 17, 18/2, 18/3, 39/2, 39/2/1. So, it was obvious that the institution was not functioning from the location where recognition was granted. Furthermore the facilities had been shared with the school at the premises where inspection U/s 17 was caused and these facilities were inadequate. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification in accepting the appeal.” AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority the appellant approached Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.C. No. 411/2012. Standing Counsel of NCTE Shri Amitesh Kumar sent email stating that “the above mentioned matter was listed for hearing on 08/02/2012. After hearing the matter, the Hon’ble Court has remanded the matter to the appeal committee for deciding the appeal which is likely to be held in the last week of February or in the first week of March”. Accordingly the case is placed before the Council for consideration on 28-02-2012.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant approached Hon’ble High Court against the Council’s order dated 09-12-2011, therefore the Council asked the appellant to submit his explanation alongwith the supporting documents thereof, particularly with reference to the rejection grounds of appeal: a) the institution was not functioning from the location where recognition was granted. b) Furthermore the facilities had been shared with school at the premises where inspection u/S 17 was caused and those facilities were inadequate. AND WHEREAS Shri Vipin Singhal, Joint Director and Shri Indrajeet Dutt, Senior Administrator, submitted explanation stating a) that the grounds of withdrawal order of WRC were at variance with that of show cause notice; b) that SRM Foundation purchased 34 acres of land at kh.no. 4/5, 11/2; out of this, 17 acre of land was diverted for educational purposes on 30-03-2001, of which 3.5 acres of land at kh.no. 11/2 was donated by SRM Foundation to Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan vide registered donation deed bearing No. 3392 dated 15-03-2001. By virtue of the said donation deed, the land and building have been mutated in the name of Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan; The said certificate dated 11-09-2010 issued by Sarpanch Mrs. Mamta Narayan Singh Gaur firmly substantiated that the building had been constructed on the earmarked land of 3.5 acre. The institution’s building for B.Ed. course had been in existence at kh.no. 11/2 (now known as 11/2 B) ever since the application was made for grant of recognition. WRC after verifying the same by way of inspection granted recognition. c) that as far as not mentioning of kh.no. 11/2 in application form is concerned, it was due to human error/clerical mistake. Nonetheless, the same can be rectified with the permission of NCTE. However to ascertain the actual facts and ground reality, NCTE can detail a team for inspection. d) that SRM Foundation of India had applied for the approval of Map. The same had been granted by Gram Panchayat as well as Nagar Evam Gram Nivesh. e) that the appellant in support of his explanation submitted (i) Form ‘P’-11/khasra document showing 1.416 Hect. of land at kh.no. 11/2B in favour of

Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan. ii) an illegible copy of layout plan of University Complex at Bhopal. (iii) land diversion certificate issued by Collectorate office on 30-03-2001 stating that SRM Foundation of India, Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan constructed a school building in the year 1999-2000 at the land bearing kh.no. 11/2 which had been diverted for education purpose. (iv) Gram Panchayat office certificate mentioning 3.5 acre of land at kh.no. 11/2 was in possession of Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan and a building had already been constructed on it for the institution.(v) a certificate from a private architect mentioning 3 storey building was constructed, each floor measured about 1790 sq.mt.. (vi) a 3 storey building plan in favour of Maharishi Vedic School, of which ground floor plan was for Maharishi institute of Management. The plan did not mention total land area and kh.no. on which it was proposed.

AND WHEREAS the Council decided to examine the submission of the appellant specifically with reference to the rejection grounds of Appellate Authority as cited in para 6 above.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) the appellant submitted to WRC (P-116-159) three separate sale deeds for 0.707 acre, 1.707 acre and 2.293 acre at Kh.No.16/1, 17. 18/2, 18/3, 19, 39/2, 39/5/1/1/4 in favour of the society ‘Maharishi Shiksha Sanstha’. The appellant did not mention the land area as 5 acres in the Land Title Certificate attached with the application (P-23). In the light of above land document and land title certificate and further taking into consideration the observation of visiting team dated 29-07-2010 as reflected in para 4 above, the first rejection ground of the Council, that the institution did not exist at the place where recognition was granted is a valid one. b) Though the appellant claimed in the appeal that the institution since its inception had been functioning in the building (3 storey) that existed at land bearing Kh.No. 11/2. He however could not explain as to why he submitted different sets of land documents to WRC for getting recognition. The appellant also did not submit any explanation. With regard to second rejection ground of the Appellate Authority i.e. the facilities had been shared with the school at the premises where inspection U/s 17 was caused and these facilities were inadequate. The building plan submitted in the appeal on 28-02-2011 was titled for Maharishi Vedic School and Ground floor of the plan was for Institute of Management. In the absence of any explanation on-sharing of the building with school and availability of inadequate facilities for B.Ed. programme, the Council totally relied upon the VT observation and confirmed the second rejection ground as a valid one. c) Though the appellant claimed that 3.05 acres of land at Kh.No.11/2 which was in favour of the appellant trust was meant for B.Ed. course, but the affidavit dated 18-01-2010 available in WRC’s file (P-256) clearly mentioned that 3.50 acres of land at Kh.No. 11/2 B was meant for Maharishi Institute of Management (A unit of Maharishi Shiksha Sanstha) This affidavit clearly revealed that the land at Kh.No. 11/2 possessed by the trust was not actually meant for Maharishi Centre for Education Excellence which was granted recognition for B.Ed. course.

AND WHEREAS in view of the above the Council concluded that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it decided to re-confirm Council’s order dated 09-12-2011. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering Hon’ble Court directions and oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the

appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and Council’s earlier order dated 09-12-2011 is re-confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby re-confirms the Council’s earlier Order dated 09-12-2011 appealed against.


1. The Principal, Maharishi Centre For Education Excellance, Lambakheda, Berasia Road,, Bhopal - , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

F.No.89-371/2011 Appeal/2nd Meeting/2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Pragathi D.Ed College, Bagalkot, Karnataka dated 20/09/2011 is against the Order No. APS05203/D.ED/KA/2011-12/29666 dated 22/07/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds “1) The management is requesting three more months time to complete the building. The photographs submitted clearly indicate/show that the building is in initial stage of construction, and the management has not honoured the commitment given to appellate authority that the building will be completed by Nov, 2010. 2) The management is running D.Ed. programme. The total built up area as per VT report for D.Ed. programme is 3289 Sq.ft. which is inadequate. As per the NCTE norms, 16,000 Sq.ft. of built up area is required for D.Ed. 3) The Building Completion Certificate from Competent Govt. Engineer in a prescribed format is not submitted. 4) Language learning lab is not available separately. 5) Science lab and Psychology lab needs to be strengthened. 6) Salaries are paid by cash and not through Bank. 7) The institution has not paid shifting inspection fee of Rs. 40,000/-.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Pragathi D.Ed College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 26/09/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Siddayya T. Mathapati, Superintendent and Shri Mahalingayya S. Math, O. Superintendent, Pragathi D.Ed College, Bagalkot, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 28-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (a) the Management had already completed major portion of the building; remaining 5% to 8% of the final work was likely to be finished in a month. The photographs of the completed building was submitted for perusal; (b) that management was running D.Ed. programme in the premises as per the NCTE norms. The total land area of the institution premises was more than 2 Acres and on that land they already constructed an area of more than 11000 Sq.ft. and other necessary buildings were under construction. The progress of the under construction building could be seen from the photographs attached with appeal; (c) that building completion certificate issued by Govt. Engineer, on 10/06/2011 was in prescribed format; (d) that there was a separate language learning lab in new building; (e) that the Science lab and psycho lab were to be strengthened as per requirement of students and with the norms issued by the Department; (f) that the Management has made arrangement to pay salary through Bank from the academic year 2011-12 commencing from 1st of August; (g) that the necessary inspection fee of Rs. 40,000/- could be paid in advance once the date of inspection get fixed. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (a) SRC vide order dated 01-11-2007 granted recognition to the institution for D.Ed. course, in temporary premises with a condition to shift to own premises within three years from the date of recognition. (b) Principal Secretary,

Primary and Higher Education Department , Govt. of Karnataka vide letter dated 18-06-2009 recommended to NCTE to withdraw recognition and SRC, on the basis of State Govt. recommendations, after issuing a show cause notice on 12-08-2009 and 11-11-2009, withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated 05-03-2010. (c) Against the withdrawal order of SRC, an appeal was preferred. The Council considering the submission made by the appellant that the building construction would be completed by November 2010 accepted the appeal and vide order dated 19-07-2010, remanded the matter to SRC, by allowing the institution to shift to own premises by November 2010. The appellant was directed to apply to SRC for inspection of own premises in advance. (d) Pursuant to this order, the appellant vide his letter dated 22-10-2010 sought another 3 months time as the construction of the building was in progress. SRC after almost five months after the request of the institution, caused an inspection of the institution on 24-03-2011. From the visiting team report it was observed that 3289 sq.ft. of built-up area available in rented premises was highly inadequate and construction of the own building was done upto basement level only as shown in the photographs annexed with the report (e) Moreover the appellant in his reply on 22-07-2011 to show cause notice dated 09-05-2011 informed SRC that the institution would likely to shift, before start of academic year 2011. In the light of this reply, SRC was justified in withdrawing recognition of the institution. (f) The appellant even in the appeal also admitted that the construction of the building would likely to be completed within a month. AND WHEREAS the Council observing that the appellant failed to complete the construction of the new building till date, despite assurance given by him on 22-06-2010 before the Council that the building would be completed within November 2010; and the present rented premises did not have adequate space for running a D.Ed. programme as reported by the visiting team, came to the conclusion that there was no justification to accept the appeal. 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 no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC’s order dated 22-07-2011 is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The General Secretary, Pragathi D.Ed College, H.M. Nagar, Mudhol,, Bagalkot - 587313, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

F.No.89-267/2011 Appeal/2nd Meeting-2012

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

20/03/2012

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of B.T.K B.Ed College of Education, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu dated 04/06/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010/20895 dated 01/09/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) The institution was given recognition on 12/09/2006 in a temporary premises with a specific condition that the institution should move to a permanent premise within a period of three years i.e., on or before 11/09/2009. Notice was served on 11/09/2009 for which the college has not replied inspite of several reminders. 2) The institution, after the lapse of three years stipulated period, now gives a representation that it has purchased the land only now, and the plan for actual construction is yet to commence. As per the approved norms and regulations, the institution should have possessed the land at the time of original application itself; purchase of land only now, after a lapse of three years is a serious violation of norms, involving suppression of facts. 3) The institution's request for extension of time by another three years which only means that it is not serious in its efforts to move to a permanent premise, extension of time in this regard cannot be granted as per the regulations of NCTE. 4) The institution was given notice under section 17 on a complaint made by the State Govt. regarding infrastructural deficiencies and violation of norms and standards, for which the institution did not care to respond. 5) As the institution itself had admitted in writing that it has purchased the land only now and that it needs three more years time for construction, there was no need for any further notice/explanation from the institution.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, B.T.K B.Ed College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 10/06/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the above appeal of the institution was not preferred within the stipulated period of 60 days as per Appeal Rules and it was late by 9 months and 3 days. NCTE issued a notice dated 22-02-2012 and requested the appellant to appear before the Appeal Committee on 28-02-2012 for explaining the reasons of delay. AND WHEREAS Shri M.D. Einsteen, Correspondent, appeared before the Appeal Committee and submitted the reasons of delay stating that “Notice was served on 11-09-2009, but not at the college address. It was sent to the old Trust office address situated at Kovilpalayam, pollachi, Coimbatore Dist. The owner of the trust office building had asked them to vacate the premises and the same was later demolished. That all SRC reminders were sent to old Trust office address only, the same was returned back to SRC, and since the Trust office was shifted to the college premises itself. As they were not aware of SRC notice and SRC reminders, they could not reply to SRC. If a copy was sent to the college

address also, this communication gap could have been avoided. They came to know that SRC was sending letters to their old Trust office address, and so requested SRC to send it only to the college address. Withdrawal of recognition letter was also sent to the old address and the same was returned. They came to know only on 30-05-2011 and collected the same and within a week, made an appeal to NCTE. That correspondent of the institution was not well and doctor had advised him to take complete rest and also to avoid frequent travel which would cause severe health problem. Because of these reasons there was delay in filing the appeal.” AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) withdrawal order dated 03-08-2010 sent by the SRC by speed post at the address mentioned in the application i.e. the correspondent, “B.T.K.B.Ed. College of Education, Ramanathapuram, Palaghad road, Mannur post, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore-642005, Tamil Nadu”, was returned undelivered to the SRC. b) that the withdrawal order was again sent by speed post on 16-08-2010 to the correspondent, B.T.K. B.Ed. college, B.T.K. Education trust no. 26, Veterinary Hospital road, Pollachi-642005, Coimbatore (Dist) Tamil Nadu, (this address was reflected on a letter head of correspondent letter dated 22-02-2010). Even this letter was also returned undelivered. c) that third time on 09-09-2010, SRC sent the withdrawal order to the address of the institution where recognition was granted. d) that the decision of the Southern regional Committee was also hosted on the website of the NCTE. So, in the light of efforts made by the SRC in sending the withdrawal order dated 01-09-2010 and availability of decision of SRC in the public domain on website, the plea taken by the appellant that the withdrawal order was not received by them as it was sent to old address of the trust, was not acceptable. The appellant has not explained how they came to know of it, on 30th May 2011. Another plea taken by the correspondent for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated time frame was due to his ill health and his doctor advised him to avoid frequent travel which would cause severe health problem. The correspondent (here the appellant) did not submit any medical certificate regarding the nature of his illness and period of rest. Moreover travelling was not required to file an appeal, which should have been sent by post either by himself or through member of the trust/institution. AND WHEREAS in view of the above, the Council concluded that the reasons adduced by the appellant for condonation of 9 months and 3 days delay was not justifiable and hence it decided not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby decided not to accept the reasons for condonation of delay, and admit the appeal.


1. The Correspondent, B.T.K B.Ed College of Education, Palakad Road, Ramanathapuram, Mannur Post Pollachi(TK), , Coimbatore - 642005, Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson

5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Dr. R.N. Lahoti B.Ed. College, Buldhana, Maharashtra dated 17/11/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW04152/123497/153RD/2010/81937 dated 28/09/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed.(m)(co-ed) course on the ground “College does not have adequate and qualified staff as per the NCTE norms. Only five members of the staff have been approved by the examining body.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Dr. R.N. Lahoti B.Ed College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 25/11/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Dinesh P. Mawgare, Treasurer, Dr. R.N. Lahoti B.Ed. College, Buldhana, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 28-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that they appointed staff for B.Ed. course as per NCTE & UGC norms. University has approved five staff members for B.Ed. course and two staff members for M.Ed. course in 2010-11, but faculty members approved for M.Ed. course had been included in B.Ed. staff. They also appointed a candidate from the waiting list accommodated by the selection committee. Therefore there were a total of 8 staff members in place, for B.Ed. course. AND WHEREAS the Council noted a) that the withdrawal order dated 28-09-2011 mentioned D.Ed. course in the first paragraph, while the last paragraph mentioned B.Ed. course. There is ambiguity with regard to the name of the course for which recognition had been withdrawn. b) that the University gave approval for five faculty members namely R.E. Wathare, R.A. Gawai, R.C. Sonune, A.R. Tanpure and S.P. Nagrale. c) that the appellant further appointed J.B. Rathod and Shri P.S. Pandit who were approved by the University for M.Ed. programme. University approved these two names for the session 2010-11 only and that too for contributory 07 periods only. AND WHEREAS in view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that the case may be remanded to WRC for deciding the course for which recognition was withdrawn and to give two more months for appointing 2 more lecturers and Principal selected by duly constituted Committee and approved by the University and for taking further 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 concluded that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the WRC with a

direction to the WRC for deciding the course for which recognition was withdrawn and to give two more months for appointing 2 more lecturers and Principal selected by duly constituted Committee and approved by the University and for taking further decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Dr. R.N. Lahoti B.Ed College, Buldhana, Maharashtra to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Manager,, Dr. R.N. Lahoti B.Ed College, Aadarsha Bahuddeshiya Shikhan Prasarak Mandal, Gut No. 900, Jalna Road Sulatanpur, Tq. Lonar,, Buldhana - 443307, 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 Dr. Zakir Hussain Education Society, Nanded, Maharashtra dated 21/11/2011 is against the Order No. WRCAPP1206/D.E.C.Ed./2011/79129 dated 21/06/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.E.C.Ed. course on the ground “The hard copy in triplicate of the online application has not been dispatched within 7 days of the submission of the online application.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Dr. Zakir Hussain Education Society (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 07/12/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the appeal dt. 21/11/2011, received in the NCTE office on 07/12/2011 preferred against the refusal order dt. 21/06/2011 was not submitted within the stipulated period of 60 days and it was late by 3 months 15 days. The appellant was requested to appear before the Appeal Committee on 28/02/2012 for explaining the reasons of delay. AND WHEREAS Shri Siddiqui Sutzan, Treasurer, appeared before the Committee on 28-02-2012 and explained the reasons for delay stating that they submitted online application on 29-09-2010 for D.E.C.Ed. course to the WRC in the name of National Urdu D.Ed. college and hard copy of the proposal was sent through Maruti Courier Service on 07-10-2010, which was late by one day due to 2nd October being a National holiday on account of Gandhi Jayanti. The proposal was returned by the WRC. They re-submitted the proposal to the WRC on 24-08-2011 for re-consideration. Later on, they received the cheque for Rs. 40,000/- from NCTE Hqrs. vide their letter dated 29-08-2011. They were under the impression that their proposal was under consideration by the WRC. But after receiving fee of Rs. 40,000 from NCTE Hqrs. they immediately submitted an appeal and hence there was delay in preferring the appeal. It was also submitted that the appellant had already been conducting B.Ed. and D.Ed. programmes. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that WRC vide letter/order dated 21-06-2011 summarily rejected the application of D.E.C.Ed. course under clause 7(1-A) of Regulations 2009 and returned application alongwith its enclosures and FDRs. In that letter, WRC mentioned that processing fee of Rs. 40,000/- would be refunded shortly. Accordingly processing fee was also returned by NCTE Hqrs. on 29-08-2011. As it was a running institution instead of re-submitting the proposal to the WRC, it should have filed an appeal u/S 18 of the NCTE act within stipulated period of 60 days. Furthermore, as claimed by the appellant the proposal dated 24-08-2011 resubmitted by Advocate Siddiqui S.Z. Secretary of the society was also not available in WRC’s file.

AND WHEREAS the Council, therefore, concluded that the reasons adduced by the appellant for condonation of delay of 3 months and 15 days were not justifiable and hence it decided not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby decided not to accept the reasons for condonation of delay, and admit the appeal.


1. The Secretary, Dr. Zakir Hussain Education Society, C/o Advocate M.Z. Siddiqui, Railway Station Road, Nanded - , 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 Goutham Teacher Training Institute, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka dated 05/12/2011 is against the Order No. APS01410-D.ED/KA/2011/30804 dated 12/10/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the ground “As per VT report, the institution is functioning in an old temporary building, which was originally, meant for Hostel. The construction of new building is yet to start; the management has shown to the VT members the proposed land where the new building is proposed to be constructed; only fencing is put around the boundary of the land where work is yet to start. This is gross negligence on the part of the management that even after a lapse of 3 years (infact after more than 6 years and 9 months) shifting has not been effected. The construction of new building has not started. (The management has also admitted the same). This is against the NCTE Norms. Based on the above points the SRC decides to withdraw the recognition of the D.Ed. course run by the Goutham Teacher Training Institute, Gundlupet-571111, Chamarajanagar District, Karnataka, from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in D.Ed. course, if any, to complete their course. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Goutham Teacher Training Institute, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 09/12/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. A. Somashekar, Executive Director and Shri Shivanandaswamy. B.M., Principal, Goutham Teacher Training Institute,, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 28-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the institution had been functioning from the initial stages in its own building itself. But they informed SRC that they would build an exclusive building for D.Ed College. When the team visited the institution, they showed the team the existing building and the proposed building as well. VT wrongly mentioned that the construction was yet to be started. The construction of new building started one year back. The building is now ready for occupation with built-up-area of 1582.80 sq.mts (17030.91sq.ft.) exclusively for D.Ed. course. Without inspecting the new building SRC decided to withdraw recognition hastily. They submitted the land documents, building plan, building completion certificate and also the photographs of the building as proof. By looking at the photographs, it could be seen that the construction of the building was completed in the new campus. The existing building of the institution was not a temporary building and also not meant for Hostel as stated in the withdrawal order. The institution was purely managed by Scheduled Caste Community and the institution is located in the most backward area of Karnataka. The institution was established for the upliftment of SC/ST students particularly. More than 50% of the students and staff members in the institution were from SC category. Every year 50% seats are allotted to only SC/ST students and no fee was collected from these students.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was granted recognition for conducting D.Ed. course vide order dated 29-11-2004. NCTE caused an inspection of the institution on 24-06-2010 U/S 13 of the NCTE Act. On the basis of this report SRC issued show cause notice on 27-06-2011 and subsequently withdrew recognition of the institution. AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the society Goutham Social, Cultural and Education Society was in possession of 3.33 acre of land at Sy.nos 174/2 and 177/1 by way of gift deed dated 25-04-2006. After taking necessary approval from office of Municipal Council, Gundlupet, it constructed a building with a built-up area of 17030.91 sq.ft. and to this effect a building completion certificated was issued on 01-12-2011 by the office of Town Municipal Council, Gundlupet.

AND WHEREAS in view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the SRC for causing inspection of new premises of the institution for ascertaining availability of infrastructure and other facilities as per Norms, after obtaining a payment of Rs. 40,000/- from 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 concluded that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the SRC for causing inspection of new premises of the institution for ascertaining availability of infrastructure and other facilities as per Norms, after obtaining a payment of Rs. 40,000/- from the institution and for taking further decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Goutham Teacher Training Institute, Chamarajanagar, Karnataka to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Secretary, Goutham Teacher Training Institute,, Goutham Social Cultural & Education Society, Gundlupet,, Chamarajanagar - 571111, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Late M.C. Parmar (GBTC) B.Ed College, Subhanpura Vadodara, Gujarat dated 15/11/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW01134/323199/153RD/2011/82101 dated 29/09/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting GBTC (B.Ed) course on the grounds “1) Institution does not possess land in its own name. 2) Principal not appointed. 3) Two lecturers are not appointed.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Late M.C. Parmar (GBTC) B.Ed College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/11/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Kishorbhai Parmar, President and Shri Ashokbhai, Makwana, Lecturer, Late M.C. Parmar (GBTC) B.Ed College, Subhanpura Vadodara, Gujarat presented the case of the appellant institution on 28-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted a) that the 20,000 sq.mt. of land was in the name of the Trust itself; i.e. the land is allotted in the name of Vadodara Jilla Sarvodaya Seva Mandal Vadodara, and therefore there was no question about the registration of the land in the name of the institution. The land document was annexed with the appeal. The Trust has constructed three different buildings in the said land for B.Ed., P.T.C. and Ashramshala. Necessary land papers and the plans of the buildings approved by the competent authorities were also annexed; b) that the appellant had made several unsuccessful efforts to get a qualified candidate for the post of Principal and therefore, a person who possessed the qualification of M.A., M.Ed. and had a 3 Yrs. of experience was appointed as In-charge Principal; he has been a teacher in a Senior Secondary School for about thirty years. The trust has made this arrangement as no Ph.D. holder or NET-SLET qualified candidate with 10 years experience candidate had applied for the post. Recently, the appellant has given an advertisement in the local news papers on 8th September, 2011; c) that the trust selected and appointed 7 - lecturers as per the norms of NCTE and the profile of the approved staff was annexed with the appeal. He further submitted that 56 students enrolled and appeared in the final Examination conducted by Gujarat University - Ahmadabad for the year 2011. Looking at the students staff ratio the trust has selected and appointed 7 - lectures as per norms of NCTE for 56 students. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) WRC granted recognition to the institution for conducting B.Ed. course vide order dated 05-02-2005. b) On the basis of a complaint, WRC caused an inspection of the institution on 12-05-2009 u/S 17 of the NCTE Act, and after issuing a show cause notice withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated 28-07-2009 for inadequacies with regard to land and building. c) Aggrieved by the decision of NCTE, the appellant filed ‘Special Civil Application’ No. 6614/2010 before the Hon’ble High

Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad and the Court vide order dated 14-05-2010 disposed of a bunch of similar petitions inter-alia directing the petitioners to remove all the defects and conform to all the norms of NCTE, by 31-12-2010 and the institutions, after curing all the defects, not later than by 07-01-2011, shall intimate to the NCTE that defects have been cured and invite the inspection team to carry out inspection. d) In compliance with the Court directions WRC caused an inspection of the institution on 18-04-2011. The visiting team in its report had observed that infrastructure facilities like library, ET lab, psycho lab, computer lab, science lab, were shared with PTC course. The total built-up area for B.Ed. programme was 623.84 sq.mt and for PTC was 457.836 sq.mt., and this area was much lower than NCTE norms. The building was only partially completed. WRC issued a show cause notice on 21-06-2011 regarding land, built-up area and faculty. The institution in their reply to this notice also did not provide any substantial proof to show a built-up area of 1520 sq.mt. except annexing a photograph of the building. However withdrawal of recognition was done only on the grounds as stated in para 1 above. AND WHEREAS the Council, further noted with regard to the withdrawal grounds that a) the 2.00 Hect. of land was in the name of the sponsoring body/trust i.e. ‘Sarvodaya Seva Mandal Vadodara, which was acceptable. b) the appellant in the appeal submitted two faculty profiles approved by the University for the session 2010-11 and 2011-12. c) However, as admitted by the appellant the institution had been functioning with an in-charge Principal and efforts were on, to appoint a qualified experienced Principal as per NCTE norms.

AND WHEREAS in view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the WRC for re-examination of the matter in totality and for taking further 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 concluded that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the WRC for re-examination of the matter in totality and for taking further decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Late M.C. Parmar (GBTC) B.Ed College, Subhanpura Vadodara, Gujarat to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The President, Late M.C. Parmar (GBTC) B.Ed College, Vadodara Jilla Sarvodaya Seva Mandal, 6, Mahahar Park Society, Opp. Jain Temple, High Tension Road, , Subhanpura Vadodara - 390023, 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 Purvi Roy P.T.C. College, Subhanpura Vadodara, Gujarat dated 15/11/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW03020/322350/153RD/2011/82234 dated 31/10/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting PTC course on the grounds “1) Institution does not possess land in its name. 2) Principal not appointed.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Purvi Roy P.T.C. College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/11/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Kishorbhai Parmar, President and Shri Ashokbhai, Makwana, Lecturer, Purvi Roy P.T.C. College, Subhanpura Vadodara, Gujarat presented the case of the appellant institution on 28-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) the land is in the name of the Trust itself; i.e. the land is allotted in the name of the Vadodara Jilla Sarvodaya Seva Mandal Vadodara, and therefore, there was no question about registration of the land in the name of the institution. b) that second ground of withdrawal was not mentioned in the show-cause notice. When the inspection was carried out, the Principal herself had accompanied the visiting team and even group photographs were also taken wherein the Principal who had the required qualification as per the NCTE Norms could be very well seen with the visiting team. Even as per the NCTE Norms the staff profile approved by the District Education officer, which is a part of the record, was also verified by the Visiting Team. The photographs as well as the copy of the staff profile duly approved by the competent authority i.e. the District Education Officer, have been annexed to the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that 2.00 Hect. of land was in the name of the appellant society, which was acceptable. Principal Mrs. Sandhya M. Nagarkar had signed in the report of the visiting team as a representative of the management and hence the second withdrawal ground was invalid. AND WHEREAS the Council however noted that a) on the basis of a complaint WRC caused an inspection of the institution on 13-05-2009 u/S 17 of the NCTE act, issued show cause notice and subsequently withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated 27-07-2009 for the inadequacies of infrastructure. b) Aggrieved by the decision of the WRC the appellant approached Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in ‘Special Civil Application’ No. 6615/2010 and the Court vide order dated 14-05-2010 disposed of a bunch of similar petitions inter-alia directing the petitioners to remove all the defects and conform to all the norms of NCTE, by 31-12-2010 and institutions after curing all the defects, not later than by 07-01-2011, shall intimate NCTE that defects have been cured and invite the

inspection team to carry out inspection. c) In compliance with the Court directions, WRC caused an inspection of the institution on 18-04-2011. The visiting team in their report observed inter-alia that 623.84 sq.mt. of built-up area was available for B.Ed. course and 457.38 sq.mt. was available for PTC course. The building was partially completed. Though the withdrawal grounds were not sustainable, however in the light of VT observation, the Council concluded that the matter may be remanded to the WRC for re-examination and for taking further 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 concluded that there was adequate justification for remanding the case to the WRC for re-examination and for taking further decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Purvi Roy P.T.C. College, Subhanpura Vadodara, Gujarat to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The President, Purvi Roy P.T.C. College, Vadodara Jilla Sarvodaya Seva Mandal, 6, Mahahar Park Society, Opp. Jain Tample, High Tension Road, , Subhanpura Vadodara - 390023, 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.

F.No.89-497/2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Bonnie Foi College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh dated 18/05/2010 is against the Order No. WRCAPP234/REJECTION/134th/2010/67906 dated 13/05/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, rejecting the application of the institution for conducting D.EL.Ed course on the grounds “1) CLU is for residential purpose. 2) Affidavit by Management on Rs. 100 stamp paper not submitted and 3) Certified copy of land document not submitted.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Bonnie Foi College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/05/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the appeal of the institution was considered by the Council and rejected in their Order F.No.89-497/2010 dated 23-8-2011 on the ground that the registered copy of the land document was certified after the date of submission of the application i.e. on 25-03-2011 and the certification was from Tehsildar’s office only and not by the Registrar office.

AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal the appellant filed a writ petition No.7685 of 2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur and the Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 06-01-2012 set aside the appellate order dated 23-08-2010 and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority with the directions that (i) the Appellate Authority shall allow an opportunity to the petitioner to file certified copy of the sale deed within a period of fifteen days from the first date of hearing before the Appellate Authority; (ii) the petitioner shall file a copy of the sale deed obtained from the office of the Registrar (Registration) or may submit original sale deed to the Appellate Authority; and (iii) after filing the aforesaid, the Appellate Authority shall redecide the matter expeditiously. Following the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the matter was considered on 29-02-2012. AND WHEREAS Shri. R.K. Bajpai, Society Secretary presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. He submitted a copy of the land sale deed certified by the Registrar’s Office, Bhopal on 02-02-2012. AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the appellant has complied with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the matter remanded to the WRC, Bhopal for further consideration of the application taking into account the duly certified copy of the land document submitted by the appellant.

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 remanded the matter to the WRC with a direction to the WRC for further consideration of the application taking into account the duly certified copy of the land document submitted by the appellant. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Bonnie Foi College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Secretary, Bonnie Foi College, Plot No.154/1, Plt No. 154/1, 154/2, 154/10,/5, Narela Shankari, Ayodhya, Bhopal - 462021, 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 Gyan Prakash College of Education, Gaya, Bihar dated 14/01/2012 is against the Order No. ERC/7-125.6(i).12/2011/9757 dated 19/12/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, granting recognition for conducting B.Ed course from the academic session 2012-13. The institution through their appeal requested grant of recognition from the session 2010-11. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Gyan Prakash College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 17/01/2012 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant first filed a writ petition No.18761 of 2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and the Hon’ble High Court in their Order dated 05-01-2012 noting the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 18 of the NCTE Act directed that if the petitioner files such an application before NCTE, the Council is required to consider it expeditiously and dispose of by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of such an application with a copy of their order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Rajesh Ranjan Sahay, Member and Dr. Pankaj Kumar, Member, Gyan Prakash College of Education, Gaya, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that though applications were invited by NCTE for consideration for the 2010-11 academic session, there was delay in (i) the conduct of inspection on 20-11-2010; (ii) issue of letter of intent under Clause 7(9) of the Regulations on 14-03-2011; and (iii) issue of recognition under Clause 7(11) of the Regulations on 09-12-2011, that too for the academic session 2012-13, which was received on 06-01-2012. The appellant has submitted that due to fault of regulatory organization, their recognition got postponed to 2012-13; some of the colleges were granted recognition for the academic session 2011-12; and the affiliating Magadh University has been admitting students for 2011-12 session on its own up till now and also arranged special examination for the session 2010-11 on the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. He therefore pleaded that recognition may be granted from the session 2010-11. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the Regulations of the NCTE lay down the procedure in a sequential manner and stage by stage processing of applications, conduct of inspections, issue of letters of intent under Clause 7(9) and grant of formal recognition under Clause 7(11) after fulfilling all the conditions laid down for grant of recognition. It is noted that the ERC followed this procedure and considered this matter in their various meetings and decided to grant recognition in their 125th meeting held on 12-15 September, 2011, when it could be admissible for the academic session 2012-13 only. The Regional Committees grant recognition for prospective academic sessions and not retrospectively. In

this connection the Council noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in their order dated 06-01-2012 in Civil Appeal No.104 of 2012 @ SLP (c) No.14020 of 2009 have directed that the recognition granted by the Regional Committee under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted under Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e., from the date of communication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be. The Council after taking into account all aspects of the matter as mentioned above has come to the conclusion that 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 the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and ERC’s order dated 19-12-2011 is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Appellant, Gyan Prakash College of Education, Plot No. 977 & 978, Street No. NH-82, Village-Chiraila, Po- Kharhari, Tehsil/Taluka-Manpur,, Gaya - 805131, Bihar 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



20/03/2012

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Mohammedwala Khalid College of Education, Thane, Maharashtra dated 29/10/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW00173/123041/(Appeal) (Court Case)/153rd/2011/81880 dated 27/09/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground “The institution has not submitted staff profile duly approved by the examining body.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Mohammedwala Khalid College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/10/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. T.N. Hasan, Secretary and Shri. Thomas Koshy, Administrative Officer, Mohammedwala Khalid College of Education, Thane, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant has in fact all requisite facilities and amenities for the B.Ed course and necessary proof has been annexed; the approval of staff profile by the examining body will arise only after the grant of recognition by WRC, Bhopal; The University of Mumbai is the examining body to the appellant institution; on receipt of letter of intent dated 14/22-02-2011 from the WRC, the University of Mumbai was requested on 15-05-2011 to approve the staff profile and the University has not responded till date; and the appellant has spent considerable amount and appointed the teaching and non-teaching staff. The appellant through his letter dated 29-02-2012 submitted the Minority Certificate and details of staff selected. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the letter of intent dated 14/22-2-2011 issued by the WRC was endorsed to Mumbai University with a request that all assistance be provided to the institution to ensure that all the faculty is appointed as per NCTE norms within two months. the Council noting that the appellant is pursuing the matter of approval of staff profile with the University, came to the conclusion that he may be given another three months time for submitting the University approved staff profile to the WRC and the matter remanded to WRC for consideration, 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 give the appellant another three months time to submit approved staff profile to WRC and remand the matter to the WRC for further consideration,thereafter.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Mohammedwala Khalid College of Education, Thane, Maharashtra to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Principal/Secretary, Mohammedwala Khalid College of Education, At & Post Tarapur, Tal.- Palghar,, Thane - 401502, Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Mother Teresa College of Education, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh dated 07/01/2012 is against the Order No. APS02799/D.ED/AP/2011-12/32387 dated 17/11/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the ground “that as per the NCTE Regulations of 8(7) (1) the institution/society sponsoring the institution shall be in possession of required land on the date of application and Sale Deeds of the land documents dt 16-7-2004 & 8-12-2004 both are after the date of application i.e. 30-1-2004.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Mother Teresa College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 09/01/2012 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. Y.H. Prasad, Principal and Shri. N. Rvindhar Rao, Secretary, Mother Teresa College of Education, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that SRC failed to take cognizance of the replies given by the management for all the correspondence that they made with regard to the recognition for D.Ed. programme; SRC has not viewed the directions given by Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in its right spirit, and applying the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the time frame prescribed by NCTE for various stages of getting recognition to this specific case is arbitrary and not tenable under the accepted frame work of law and natural justice. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that following the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in writ petition No.8278 of 2008. SRC processed the application of the institution and issued deficiency letters dated 01-10-2008 and 04-12-2008 to the institution. As the institution failed to reply within the stipulated period of 90 days. SRC in their order dated 04-03-2009 closed the case.

AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the order of the SRC, the institution filed a W.P. No.7409 of 2011 before the Hon’ble high Court of AP and the Hon’ble high Court in their order dated 13-07-2011 disposed off the petition inter-alia observing that “1) The short prayer made by the petitioners in this writ petition is that they may be permitted to file applications before the respondent seeking relaxation of the cut-off date for compliance of the deficiencies as prescribed under Regulations 7 of the NCTE Regulations 2009. 2) After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case the petitioners are permitted to file applications seeking more time to do away with the deficiencies. 3) In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to move the applications as prayed for under Regulation 11 of the NCTE

Regulations 2009. In case the applications are filed, the same shall be considered within a period of four weeks thereafter”.

AND WHEREAS the appellant submitted a letter dated 30-07-2011 to the SRC, stated to be a reply to the deficiency letter issued by SRC on 04-12-2008, intimating the position in respect of the deficiencies pointed out in the SRC’s order dated 04-03-2009 closing the case. The SRC after considering the appellants’ letter dated 30-07-2011 rejected the application on 17-11-2011 on the ground that the sale deeds of the land documents dated 16-07-2004 and 08-12-2004 are after the date of submission of application i.e. 30-01-2004, whereas according to the NCTE Regulations 2007 the society should be in possession of the required land on the date of application.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that in the deficiency letter dated 01-10-2008, the applicant was inter-alia asked to submit a land document on ownership basis having minimum 2500 Sq.mts. area with an English translation. The direction of the Hon’ble High Court dated 13-07-2011 to the petitioner is to seek more time for removal of deficiencies. The appellant in his letter dated 30-07-2011 replied to the deficiencies. The SRC while refusing recognition on the ground mentioned therein has also relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India regarding adherence to cut off dates. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that in this case the institution has not fulfilled the requirement of possession of the required land on the date of application as per the provisions of NCTE Regulations, which is the cut off date for such possession and produced land sale deeds which have been executed after the date of application. In these circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that there is no justification for accepting the appeal and the order of the SRC dated 17-11-2011 deserved to be confirmed. 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 no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC’s order dated 17-11-2011 is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary / Correspondent, Mother Teresa College of Education, Mother Teresa Educational Society, Yellanndu Road, Mahabubabad,, Warangal - 506101, 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, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 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 Gulab Singh Mahavidyalaya, Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh dated 06/01/2012 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/NRCAPP-28/186TH MEETING/2011/13612 dated 20/12/2011 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground “The reply of the institution dt 2-6-2011 with reference to the show cause notice dt 29-6-2011 has been considered alongwith the CD submitted by the institution and it is felt that institution has not taken adequate steps to take appropriate action and the institution continued to suffer from serious deficiencies in its infrastructure to conduct a D.El.Ed course. The institution has not been able to develop its laboratories as per recommendations of NCTE contained in its Manual on organizing teaching resource material in teacher education institutions.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Gulab Singh Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 09/01/2012 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. Ranjeet Pratap, Clerk, Shri Gulab Singh Mahavidyalaya, Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the order does not specify the nature of deficiencies on which recognition was refused; copies of bills and vouchers related to purchase of equipment and apparatus were submitted, which were not considered; and they have sufficient land, building and built up area, equipment, library books, journals and all the required facilities to run D.Ed. course. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was inspected on 11-12 November 2010 and the visiting team gave a favourable report. However the NRC not being satisfied with the infrastructural facilities has refused recognition. The appellant has however submitted that he has all the requisite facilities for running D.Ed. course and a fresh inspection may be got conducted to verify the availability of the same. He has given a letter dated 29-02-2012 which contained this request. AND WHEREAS the Committee noting that the grounds of refusal are couched in very general terms, has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the matter remanded to NRC for conducting a fresh inspection on payment of the fee for inspection by the institution and taking 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 remand the matter to the NRC with a direction to conduct a fresh inspection on payment of the fee for inspection by the institution and taking decision thereafter.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Shri Gulab Singh Mahavidyalaya, Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Manager, Shri Gulab Singh Mahavidyalaya, Plot No. 112, 113, 114, 120, 121, 19, Street No. Barmupur, Village- Barmupur, PO/Taluka- Auraiya, , Auraiya - 206122, 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, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar, Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of St. Wilfred's Teacher Training College, Jaipur, Rajasthan received on 12-12-2011 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/RJ-1279/186TH MEETING/2011/12278 dated 05/10/2011 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) The institution claims that it has earmarked specific space for the B.Ed. course but did not provide any documents to clearly establish earmarked space, so as to see whether it is as per NCTE Norms. The institution failed to provide any evidence that the building for B.Ed. course is not being used for school. In the event of school furniture being used for B.Ed. course, the institution's willingness to get it changed now has no meaning. 2) The observations of the Visiting Team that the institution was not having proper functional lab and class rooms were used to display the equipments at the time of inspection has not been replied by the institution with proper documents/photographs or CD. 3) The institution failed to give any evidence to establish that it employed Faculty as per requirement under NCTE Norms. No document like University, approval intimation to University on different occasions regarding appointment of Faculty, Selection Committee Minutes, payment of salary to the Faculty including any payment through cheque etc. have been submitted. Thus it is clear that the institution has been conducting the course without adequate teaching faculty.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, St. Wilfred's Teacher Training College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 12/12/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Shashi Prabha Khurana, Principal and Ms. Renu Arora, Lecturer, St. Wilfred's Teacher Training College, Jaipur, Rajasthan presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant submitted the copy of map showing the earmarked space along with the reply to the show cause notice and it was further mentioned that the same is exclusively used for teachers training college; the earmarked specific area for B.Ed. course is available with the appellant and same is according to the norms of NCTE; the appellant submitted map which shows that the appellant was in possession of sufficient space for B.Ed. course according to the norms; the true and correct copy of the map was submitted; the appellants have functional labs and all the labs are functioning where several equipments were displayed on the tables and some were kept in the Almirahs for safety reasons; the lists of equipments and photographs were submitted; the appellants has employed the faculty as per norms; the appellant along with the reply to the showcase notice had submitted the list of faculty along with their affidavits to prove that the appellant was having requisite number of faculty; the original documents of all these staff members were already deposited with the University and the staff was selected through proper procedure; the nominees of the university were also part of selection process; the appellant at the time of

inspection placed list of faculty which showed the appellant had adequate teaching faculty; the true and correct copy of the university approval, intimation to University with regard to appointment of faculty, copy of minutes of meetings, and copy of account books which disclose the payment made to faculty members were enclosed; the impugned order was passed without considering the documents before authorities; all the faculty members were recruited as per recruitment policy and their records were also deposited with affiliating university; and. the appointment orders of faculty members were issued only after receiving the approval. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was granted recognition for a basic unit (100) of B.Ed. course on 13-08-2006 and for an additional unit (100) of the same course on 02-05-2008. An inspection of the institution was conducted on 29-08-2011 and after issue of a show cause notice on 24-05-2011 and receipt of reply dated 25-06-2011, NRC issued an order on 05-10-2011 withdrawing recognition for both the basic unit and additional unit. the Council noted that the report of visiting team inter-alia indicated that the land and building are as per NCTE requirement and original documents of approval of teaching and non-teaching staff were verified. the Council noted that the withdrawal order does not indicate why recognition is being withdrawn for both the units. It is not clear whether the NRC considered the adequacy or inadequacy of the infrastructural and instructional facilities even for one (basic) unit of the course. On the other hand the appellant is claiming availability of the facilities including duly approved teaching faculty. In these circumstances, the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the matter remanded to NRC for conducting a fresh inspection expeditiously on payment of fee and taking a 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 remand the matter to the NRC with a direction to conduct a fresh inspection expeditiously on payment of fee and taking a decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of St. Wilfred's Teacher Training College, Jaipur, Rajasthan to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Principal, St. Wilfred's Teacher Training College, Sector-10, Meera Marg, New Sanganer Road, Mansarovar,, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar, Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Al-Hidhaya Women's Teacher Training Institute, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu dated 18/01/2012 is against the Order No. APS02738/D.T.ED/TN/2011-12/32551 dated 24/11/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed (Additional) course on the ground “the management is running two teachers training courses in the same building, with no earmarked built up area for each of the course/programme. The total built up area is 11241 sq.ft. which is inadequate for both D.T.Ed and D.T.Ed (Additional) Teacher Education Programmes as per NCTE norms. A Total built up area of 21,000 Sq.ft. is required for both D.T.Ed and D.T.Ed (Additional).” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Al-Hidhaya Women's Teacher Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 24/01/2012 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. M.S. Thurapsha, Correspondent, Al-Hidhaya Women's Teacher Training Institute, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that they have been permitted to shift the premises to the new building at Al-Hidhaya Women's Teacher Training Institute, 2.8-77/2, College Road, Elathur, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu for D.T.Ed course; they have started work for an additional building with an area of 17,172.42 sq.ft; and the building will be completed before the end of this year after which the total built up area will be more than required. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution does not have the requisite built-up area for conducting two units of D.T.Ed. course i.e. D.T.Ed. basic unit and D.T.Ed.(Additional) unit and the appellant has only indicated that it would be available by the end of 2012. In the circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that the SRC was justified in withdrawing recognition for the D.T.Ed. (Additional Unit) and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC dated 24-11-2011 confirmed. 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 no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC’s order dated 24-11-2011 is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Correspondent, Al-Hidhaya Women's Teacher Training Institute, No. 21, Pudumanai 2nd Street, Tenkasi,, Tirunelveli - 627811, Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.

F.No.89-25/2012/Appeal/2nd Meeting-2012 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Asha College of Education, Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh dated 20/01/2012 is against the Order No. SRCAPP910(2012-13)/D.EL.ED/AP/2011-12/35948 dated 13/01/2012 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground that the essential documents mentioned in Regulation 1-A(i) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 have not been submitted within the time frame prescribed therein and were received on 07-10-2011. According to the time frame processing fee is to be furnished on or before the date of submission of on-line application and the hard copy of the on-line application in triplicate and copy of the registered land document issued by the Competent Authority indicating that the society/institution applying for course possessed land on the date of application are to be dispatched within 7 days of submission of on-line application. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Asha College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/01/2012 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 Syed. Showkath Hussain, Correspondent, Asha College of Education, Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that they submitted the online application on 28/09/2011 through the NCTE web portal and the same application’s hard copy was submitted on 03/10/2011 in the office of Regional Committee, Bangalore by hand i.e., within the time frame set by the NCTE. In support of their claim they showed their letter on which there is a date stamp of 03-10-2011 of SRC and also submitted photocopy thereof. AND WHEREAS in view of the submission made by the appellant the Council concluded that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to the SRC for further processing of the case on merit. 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 13-01-2012 with a direction to the SRC for further processing of the case on merit as per Regulation. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of SRC dated 13-01-2012 is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary/ Correspondent, Asha College of Education, Plot No. 52/2, Yellapuram Street and Village, Markapuram Post and Taluka, , Prakasam - 523316, 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, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.



20/03/2012

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Baba Naipal Smarak Mahavidyalaya, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh dated 06/09/2011 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-3123/182nd Meeting/2011/10613-19 dated 10/06/2011 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) The institution established that it has the required built up space to conduct the B.Ed. course and asserted that it had earmarked 16,649.20 Sq. Ft. of built up space, including common space and that it has two class rooms of 1000 Sq. Ft. each exclusively for the B.Ed. course. This has not been accepted, in view of the categorical observation of the Visiting Team that the college has only four class rooms and after taking into account the requirement of B.A. and B.P.ED. Course, the available class room facility is not as per specification by NCTE Norms. 2) The institution, despite its assertion in the reply, has not developed its laboratories properly in accordance with the recommendation of NCTE as contained its Manual on ‘‘Organizing Teaching Learning Resources in Teacher Education Institutions’. The new photographs of the Science & Math Resource Centre now submitted clearly shows that the equipment/apparatus continued to be placed on removable tables and Lab. had no fixed structure with experimental table, water and drainage arrangement and storage capacity to keep the chemicals/consumables. 3) Similarly, the Computer Lab, lack proper computer chairs. The chairs kept before computer do not match the size of the wooden platform for the computers making the computer, totally non operatable. 4) Psychology Lab has no storage capacity. 5) The Library was without proper Library furniture”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Baba Naipal Smarak Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/09/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Vipin Bihari Diwedi, Manager and Shri. Pravin Rao, Member, Baba Naipal Smarak Mahavidyalaya, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh appeared before the Council on 19-01-2012. Through letter dated 19-01-2012, informing that he has forgotten to bring the requisite documents in respect of certain points, and requested for another date of hearing for presenting the relevant documents. the Council agreed to his request and decided to list the case on a subsequent date. AND WHEREAS Shri. Vipin Bihari Diwedi, Manager and Shri. Pravin Rao, Member presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. They submitted a building plan and copies of certain documents which included a building completion certificate which did not give the details of the built-up area. And also submitted some photographs.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant in his appeal or subsequently, has not submitted point wise replies to the grounds of rejection except asserting that as per map of the institution, photographs and CD that the institution had required classrooms/labs, furniture and storage facility. The onus of conclusively proving that the grounds of rejection were not valid lies with the appellant. The appellant has not done this. In the circumstances, the Council came to the conclusion that the NRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserves 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 the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and NRC’s order dated 10-06-2011 is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Manager,, Baba Naipal Smarak Mahavidyalaya, Vill. - Brahmpur (Sattar), Post - Garenua, Tehsil - Sagari, Azamgarh - 276136, 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, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar, Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.



20/03/2012

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Janki-Anand D.Ed College, Nasik, Maharashtra dated 16/01/2012 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06408/1221890/156th/2011/84071 dated 16/12/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed(m)(co-ed) course on the ground “The institution has submitted a certificate from the Maharashtra SCERT, the certificate itself mentions that the Fine Arts & Physical Education lecturer have been appointed on part-time basis. Since this does not meet with the NCTE norms as per the Regulations, which requires full-lecturers for D.Ed. courses, the case is not fit for giving recognition.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Janki-Anand D.Ed College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 16/01/2012 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. Laxmanand Nana Patil, Office Superintendent, Janki-Anand D.Ed. College, Nasik, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the staff list is duly approved by the examining body and there is no deficiency in the same; Principal is having adequate teaching experience as per the NCTE norms. Fine Arts lecturer and Physical Education lecturer are well qualified as per the NCTE norms; the institution had though part time lecturer for Fine Arts and Physical Education, now has appointed the same lecturers as full time lecturers and they have even took the charge and at present they are working as full time lecturers. The appellant has also submitted copies of orders dated 04-02-2012 appointing the same part-time lecturers in Drawing and Physical Education on regular scale of pay with allowances. AND WHEREAS the Council noting the steps taken by the appellant institution for appointment of two full time lecturers, has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be accepted and the matter be remanded to WRC to examine the details of faculty appointed and to take further action. 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 remand the matter to the WRC with a direction, to examine the details of faculty appointed and to take further action.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Janki-Anand D.Ed College, Nasik, Maharashtra to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.

(Vikram Sahay)

Convenor 1. The Appellant, Janki-Anand D.Ed College, Kakasaheb Moghal Shaikshanik & Kalyankari Sanstha's, Plot No./Khasra No. 532/533, At Post Kasba Sukene, Bhausaheb Nagar, Tal-Niphad,, Nasik - , 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 Ram Krishan Paramhans B.Ed. College, Choryasi Surat, Gujarat dated 29/11/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW03107/323348/154TH/2011/82273 dated 04/10/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) The institution does not have land on ownership basis. 2) The built up area is not adequate. 3) Staff list approved by the examining body not submitted. 4) Principal not appointed.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ram Krishan Paramhans B.Ed. College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 02/12/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Manubhai P. Chavada, Managing Trustee, Ram Krishan Paramhans B.Ed. College, Choryasi Surat, Gujarat presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant institution had been granted recognition only very recently, i.e. in the year 2007, and at the time of grant of recognition, the Regulations of 2005 were in force, and as per the said Regulations, the appellant was permitted to run the B.Ed college in a rented premises or a premises taken on lease. However, the appellant had also started the construction of its own building on the land gifted by the managing trustee. However, due to some technical reasons for getting clearance of the land, some objections were raised by the Revenue authorities, and , under the circumstances, the construction which was made upto Plinth Level, had to be stopped at that stage. It is under these peculiar circumstances that the appellant could not complete the construction of new premises for the purpose of shifting the B.Ed college. The appellant submits that before granting recognition to the appellant, the respondent had verified all the documents and particulars of the appellant. Officers of the respondent had also verified and physically visited and inspected the premises and videography of the facilities available with the appellant was also taken which was placed on record before the respondent for consideration. It was only after examining all the relevant aspects that the recognition to the appellant institution was granted in the year 2007. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that while the appellant has given some explanation for delay in construction of building which is reported to have reached plinth level only, he has not given any explanation for the other three grounds on which recognition was withdrawn namely, (i) not having land on ownership basis; (ii) non-submission of staff list approved by the examining body and (iii) non-appointment of

Principal. In the course of personal presentation he requested for another six months time for construction of own building. AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the building has not yet been constructed and the grounds mentioned in the order dated 04-10-2011, have not been fully and properly contested by the appellant, has come to the conclusion that the WRC was justified in withdrawing recognition and therefore the appeal deserves 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 the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and WRC’s order dated 04-10-2011 is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Manager/Secretary, Ram Krishan Paramhans B.Ed. College, 73 To 84 Dangiger Society, C/o Nalanda Vidhyalaya, Kapodra-Punagam Road, At-Post Punagam, Ta- Choryasi Surat, Choryasi Surat - 394211, 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.



20/03/2012

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of S V Adhyapak Vidyalaya,, Gondiya, Maharashtra dated 17/01/2012 is against the Order No. WRC/WRCAPP/156TH/2011/83931 dated 14/12/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.E.C.Ed course on the grounds “1) Land documents certified by Sub-Registrar not submitted. 2) CLU submitted has not been issued by competent authority.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, S V Adhyapak Vidyalaya, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 24/01/2012 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. Ratnadeep Dahiwale, Director, S V Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Gondiya, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant already submitted the Marathi gift deed document copy with first original hard copy application which is duly certified by the sub-registrar at taluka level who is the only competent authority to register the land documents. The WRC in its letter dt 23-2-2011 pointed out certain deficiencies to the appellant and in response to the said letter the appellant has removed the deficiencies and forwarded all the documents demanded by WRC. It is submitted that the appellant had already given clarification is respect of mismatching the name and also submitted duly certified copy of gift deed and also the certified copy of English translated copy of Marathi gift deed; The appellant has already submitted a copy of CLU issued by the TAHASILDAR/TALUKA EXUCATIVE MAGISTRATE, who is competent authority in Revenue Department, Govt of Maharashtra. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the WRC has been considering SDO/Tahsildar as the Competent Authority for issuing conversion of land use certificate. Since the appellant has submitted all the documents and the CLU by the Competent Authority in the State of Maharashtra, the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be accepted and the matter be remanded to WRC for further consideration. 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 remand the matter to the WRC for further consideration as per Regulations.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of S V Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Gondiya, Maharashtra to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Secretary, S V Adhyapak Vidyalaya,, Plot No.- 297/2, Street No. 297/2, Village- Yerandi, Po- Arjuni Morgaon, The/Tal- Arjuni Morgaon, City- Morgaon Arjuni,, Gondiya - 441017, 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 St. Peter's Training College, Ernakulam, Kerala dated 06/12/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/B.ED/2011-12/32517 dated 15/11/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) The management is also running a Higher Secondary School in the Ground floor of the same building. This is against the NCTE norms. 2) Land documents are in individual's Name and not in the Name of the Society/Trust/Institution as per NCTE norms. In the sale deed submitted by institution, land is in individual name of Mr. Geevarghese Kathanar; in Sy.no.600/9 for the extent of 2 Acres & 31 cents. Land has to be in the name of the college/trust on the date of application as per regulations. 3) As per VCD observation, the building is roofed with AC sheets. 4) Building completion certificate from competent Govt. authorized Engineer is to be submitted. 5) Land usage certificate from competent Govt. authority is not submitted. 6) Multipurpose hall size is 988 sq.ft. which is less than the requirement of Regulation 2009. 7) Bye-laws of the Society are to be submitted by the management. 8) An affidavit on Rs. 100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format with notary attestation is to be submitted. 9) In the building plan submitted Sy.no., Plot no. total land area and built up area not mentioned. 10) Non-encumbrance certificate from the Competent Govt. authorized person/authority in English version is not submitted; and 11) Salary is not paid as per State Govt./UGC norms and the institution has not given the facility of CPF/PPF to the staff members.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, St. Peter's Training College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 15/12/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Babu Paul, Manager, St. Peter's Training College, Ernakulam, Kerala presented the case of the appellant institution on 18-01-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) the decision taken by the Regional Committee to withdraw the recognition granted to the appellant, in the meeting held on 21st/23rd September, 2011 was without considering any of the relevant factors which the Regional Committee ought to have considered. There was no occasion for issuance of a show cause notice to the appellant as there was no application submitted by the appellant for the shifting of the premises. It was therefore evident that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a fabricated document or a document over which the appellant had no knowledge or information. b) in response to the show cause notice issued to the appellant, all the essential particulars were furnished in the reply so also the documents in support of the contentions as urged by the appellant. However, none of those aspects had been considered by the SRC, while taking the decision other than reproducing the allegations as

contained in the show cause notice. c) there is no change of the premises, building and facilities provided by the appellant while submitting the application for the grant of recognition and while issuing the show cause notice and withdrawing the recognition. Viewed from the above angle it was evident that there was absolutely no justification in the decision and the course resorted by the Regional Committee for withdrawing recognition. When the Council specifically asked the appellant for making submission against each ground of withdrawal, and show the relevant documents in support of each submission, the appellant requested for giving another opportunity for doing same. The committee acceding to the request of the appellant decided to list the case for hearing on a subsequent date. AND WHEREAS Shri Babu Paul, Manager, Shri. Alias M.V. Office Staff presented the case on 29-02-2012. He gave a letter dated 29-02-2012 in which he submitted that (i) the B.Ed. course was started in the building exclusively constructed for that course; (ii) three rooms were being temporarily occupied by High Secondary school, which was also in the campus and which would be vacated immediately; (iii) the ownership of the land was with St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s Church and the document was executed in the name of Gheeverghese Kathanar, who was the Vicar of the Church at the relevant time; (iv) the building was roofed with tiles and not AC sheets and there was ceiling to make the rooms comfortable; (v) building completion certificate (issued by Asstt. Engineer, PWD Roads Section as per photocopy enclosed) dated 07-07-2009 was furnished to SRC; (vi) land use certificate issued by Village Officer was submitted to SRC; (vii) there was a multipurpose auditorium of 5600 Sq.ft.; (viii) an English translation of the Constitution of the Society was enclosed; (i) an affidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paper had been submitted to SRC on 09-07-2009; (x) Survey number of the land and built-up area were mentioned in the building completion certificate; (i) a certificate of non-encumbrance on property dated 29-06-2009 (which was in Malayalam) was furnished to SRC; and (xii) salary was paid as per the instructions of M.G. University to which the course is affiliated and steps had been taken to give facility of CPF/PPF to the staff members. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution had contested that they never proposed shifting of the premises as mentioned in the order of withdrawal of recognition. The Council also noted that the appellant was claiming that all the documents, a reference to which has been made in the withdrawal order, had already been submitted. The appellant admitting occupation of three rooms by the school undertook to vacate them. The English version of the Society’s constitution (approved on 22-10-1964) mentioned only schools and had not envisage establishment of the other educational institutions like Teacher Training institutions. The appellant had submitted a copy of the University’s affiliation order dated 23-03-2005, which inter-alia mentioned that the minimum consolidated monthly emoluments of a teacher should be Rs.8,000/- and that of the Principal should be Rs.12,000/-. The position regarding present emolument was not clear. The Council taking into account the number of grounds mentioned in the withdrawal order, admission of the appellant about presence of the school in the B.Ed. college premises, submission of documents some of which were still in Malayalam (like non-encumbrance certificate); and conditions, if any, laid down by the University in their latest affiliating order (copy of which has not been furnished) in regard to payment of salaries and provision of other benefits to the staff came to the conclusion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the SRC to conduct a fresh inspection of the institution on payment of the fee and taking 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 remand the matter to the SRC with a direction to conduct a fresh inspection of the institution on payment of the fee and to take further action thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of St. Peter's Training College, Ernakulam, Kerala to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Manager, St. Peter's Training College, Kolencherry P.O., , Ernakulam - , Kerala 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.


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

20/03/2012

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Vamsadhara Teacher Training College, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh dated 27/01/2012 is against the Order No. SRCAPP1005(2012-12)/D.EL.ED/AP/2011-12/35958 dated 13/01/2012 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground that the essential documents mentioned in Regulation 1-A(i) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 have not been submitted within the time frame prescribed therein and were received on 07-10-2011. According to the time frame, the processing fee is to be furnished on or before the date of submission of on-line application and the hard copy of the on-line application in triplicate and copy of the registered land documents issued by the Competent Authority indicating that the Society/institution applying for the course possessed land on the date of application are to be dispatched within 7 days of submission of on-line application. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Vamsadhara Teacher Training College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/01/2012 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 Ch. Anurudrudu, Correspondent, Vamsadhara Teacher Training College, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 29-02-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant had submitted the application for D.El.Ed. course with code No. SRCAPP 1005 well within the time i.e. on 29/09/2011; and the Hard copy of the application was submitted on 07/10/2011 well within the time by considering the public holidays and the date extended by the NCTE for online receiving. AND WHEREAS the Council considering certain intervening holidays and the submissions of the appellant has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be accepted and the matter be remanded to SRC for further consideration. 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 remand the matter to the SRC for further consideration on merit as per Regulations.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Vamsadhara Teacher Training College, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Correspondent, Vamsadhara Teacher Training College, Khasara No. 263/2, 264/7, Plot No. 5-5-224, Main Road, Kotabommali,, Srikakulam - , 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, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 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 Akula Gopayya College of Education, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh dated 29/12/2011 is against the Order No. APS00706/B.ED/AP/2011-12/32287 dated 15/11/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) As seen from VCD, the roof of the building is covered with Asbestos sheets and the building is incomplete. 2) The details of the other programmes run by the management in the same building/campus alongwith the existing course is not submitted. 3) In the building plan submitted, the built up area is not clearly mentioned. And the building plan is not legible and is not approved by competent Government Authority.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Akula Gopayya College of Education, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/01/2012 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. Subba Rao, Principal, Akula Gopayya College of Education, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) the building consisted of ground and first floor with Pucca RCC roof. Each floor was more than 10,000 sq.ft. The total built-up area was 20,063 sq.ft. The building was in full completed form. No pending work was left. Building completion certificate annexed with appeal for perusal. As seen in VCD the part covered with asbestos sheets was not the part of the building meant for the course, it was parking place for staff and students. The plinth area of 20,063 sq.ft was exclusively meant for running B.Ed. programme, which was more than sufficient as per NCTE norms. In such situation the asbestos covered area need not be considered, as it was not part of the main building. It was additional provision provided for Parking. b) As seen from VCD the second floor of the building i.e. pillar structuring was planned for D.Ed. course. As they did not get the permission for D.Ed. course, it was left unfinished. Already constructed ground and 1st floor put together, was more than sufficient for B.Ed. course. c) They got the permission for B.Ed. programme from the year 2003-04; In the minutes of 211th Meeting of SRC held on 21-23 Sep, 2011, it was mentioned that the management was running both B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses in the same building. After getting permission to run B.Ed., they actually applied for D.Ed. but could not get permission from SRC. Without getting permission there was no possibility to run D.Ed. course. Practically one course i.e. B.Ed. only was being run; d) that in the building plan submitted the total built up area was clearly mentioned with room wise measurements. The original building plan was shown to VT members also. The plan was approved by the competent Govt. authority i.e. Panchayat Executive Officer, Grampanchayat, Prathipadu Village, Pentapadu mandal, date of approval (i.e. 20-11-

2000) was seen on the reverse side of the plan. This was also shown to the VT members for their verification. AND WHEREAS the Council noted a) that SRC granted recognition to the institution for B.Ed. course vide order dated 30-12-2002 in temporary premises, with a condition to shift to own premises within 3 years. b) that the institution made a proposal for shifting of the premises on 04-02-2008. SRC caused an inspection of the institution at the new premises on 31-03-2011. The visiting team inter-alia reported that permanent pucca RCC roof building with 20063 sq.ft. of built-up area on ground and first floor was meant for B.Ed. programme only. The appellant further in their reply to show cause notice also categorically mentioned that ACC roof structure was for parking purpose only. Entire two storey building with RCC roof having 20063 sq.ft. of area was meant for only B.Ed. course and to this effect he submitted to SRC building completion certificate dated 07-06-2009, issued by Asst. Engineer, R&B, Bhimavaram. c) that further SRC vide order dated 04-03-2009 refused recognition for D.Ed. course. On the obverse side of the building plan, Gram Panchayat office approval is noted. AND WHEREAS in view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification to accept the appeal with a direction to the SRC for restoration of the recognition to the institution for B.Ed. course. 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 15-11-2011 with a direction to the SRC for restoration of the recognition to the institution for B.Ed. course. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of SRC dated 15-11-2011 is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary / Correspondent, Akula Gopayya College of Education,, Sri Gowthama Buddha Minorities Educational Society, Prathipadu, Tadepalligudem,, West Godavari - 534101, 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, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

F.No.89-196/2011 Appeal/ 8th Meeting-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Satara, Maharashtra dated 04/05/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06770/122203(Court Case)/145th/2011/76378 dated 15/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (m)(co-ed) course on the ground “CLU not submitted is response to Show Cause Notice.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/05/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Waghamare Bhimarao, Joint Secretary and Sh. Jagannath, Director, Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Satara, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 10-06-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that recognition to the institution was refused only on the ground that CLU had not been submitted in response to the Show Cause Notice. That paragraph 6.1 of the application for recognition nowhere, mentioned any requirement of giving CLU. It only required the title certificate in respect of the land. Therefore, the requirement of CLU was not contemplated even as per the application form. The Appellant further submitted that assuming that any such CLU was necessary, which deemed to have been granted to the Appellant Institution as per the provisions of sections 42 and 44(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It was necessary to note that as per the provisions of sections 42 and 44(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, within the period of 90 days from the date on which the application for NA permission was made (viz. from 29th November 2010), if the application was not decided, then deemed permission would have been given. Therefore, since in this case, the application dated 29th November was not decided, therefore, on 3rd March 2011, the deemed permission was granted. A copy of the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and also application dated 29th November 2010 for NA permission were enclosed with the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) the appellant’s institution submitted an application for grant of recognition of D.Ed. course to the WRC on 14-08-2007; inspection of the institution was caused on 19-04-2008; on the basis of the inspection report show cause notice was issued to the institution on 18-09-2008 stating that “Principal is not having experience as per NCTE norms and multipurpose hall is not as per NCTE norms; the appellant submitted its reply vide letters dated 19-09-2008 as well as dated 29-09-2008

stating that deficiencies were removed by the appellant; WRC thereafter vide order dated 23-04-2008 decided that no further processing of the application would be done in view of the policy decision taken by the NCTE, inter-alia considering the negative recommendations of Government of Maharashtra for granting recognition to the D.Ed. institutions in the state of Maharashtra; b) that aggrieved by the decision of the WRC, the appellant filed a WP.No. 5834/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the Court vide order dated 06-11-2009 set aside the WRC’s order “and remanded the matter back to NCTE for considering the matter de-novo and it will be open to the NCTE, to consider recommendation, if any, of the State Government, while taking a decision and the case of the petitioner now can be considered for the academic year 2010-11”. When the NCTE did not take any decision in the matter, incompliance with the above Court directions, the appellant filed contempt petition No. 361/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court and the Court vide order dated 25-02-2011 disposed of the petition with the observation that “respondents vide letter dated 26-11-2010 asked the State Government to clarify whether the recommendations have been given by the State Government or not. Similarly by 09-11-2010 a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner to explain the deficiencies which were noticed after inspection was under taken. Since the process of de novo has already begun, in my view, it would be appropriate if the respondents are directed to decide the matter and take a decision within 8 weeks from today.” c) Subsequent to the Court directions, WRC issued show cause notice afresh on 09-11-2010 on two new grounds, which were not mentioned in their earlier show cause notice dated 18-09-2008 and one of them was ‘CLU’ issued by the Competent Authority to be submitted. The institution furnished its reply on 09-12-2010 stating that the application for NA permission (CLU) had already been made on 29-11-2010 to the concerned authority and requested for sometime to submit ‘CLU’ from Collectorate office. But WRC, without acceding to his request, refused recognition of the institution on the stated ground, against which the present appeal was filed. The appellant during the course of presentation requested for providing another opportunity in order to furnish the original ‘CLU’ before the Council. the Council acceding to his request, decided to list the case on a subsequent date for hearing.

AND WHEREAS Shri B.J. Waghamara, Vice-Secretary and Shri Gadhari S.D. Vice-President, Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Satara, Maharashtra again appeared before the Council on 07-12-2011 and stated that the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Satara inspected the college building and land, and submitted report on 29-11-2011 in the Collector office. As the elections of Nagar Palika in the State of Maharashtra, have been declared the concerned authority i.e. Collectors of the State Govt. are very busy in election duty. Hence, they were unable to obtain ‘CLU’ document from the Authority and requested for giving 30 more days time for producing the ‘CLU’ document before the NCTE. AND WHEREAS in view of the above submission made by the appellant, the Council directed the appellant to send a certified copy of the ‘CLU’ document as issued by the Collectorate office on or before 31st January 2012, failing which the appeal shall stand rejected.

AND WHEREAS pursuant to this decision, the appellant vide letter dated 31-01-2012 submitted a certified copy of the ‘CLU’ issued by the Competent Authority i.e. Collectorate office, Satara. The Council, therefore, concluded that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to the WRC for further processing of the case on merit as per Regulations. The appellant is directed to send a certified copy of the ‘CLU’ to the WRC.

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 15-03-2011 with a direction for further processing of the case on merit as per Regulations. The appellant is directed to send a certified copy of the ‘CLU’ to the WRC. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of WRC dated 15-03-2011 is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Joint Secretary, Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Manganga Shikshan Sanstha, Plot No. 3309, AT. Post Dahiwadi, Tal. Man, , Satara - 415508, 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 CMR College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 27/01/2012 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/B.ED/2011-12/32976 dated 02/12/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) The management is sharing the building used for running D.Ed. & B.Ed. programmes along with other courses namely. Pharmacy, Law, M.B.A. & Nursing courses which is not permissible as per NCTE norms. No exclusive earmarked campus is available for the courses, being run. 2) As per NCTE norms, earmarked land area and built up area required. B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses are not in exclusive building, meant for the Teacher Education Programme only.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, CMR College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 31/01/2012 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. Bhaskar Reddy, Director and Dr. Praveen. R, Principal, CMR College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) the Management was in possession of 1.69 Acres (6851.40 Sq.Mtrs) of land in the name of the CMR Jnanadhara Trust. This land was allotted by Bangalore Development Authority and copy of the document dt 27-5-2004 annexed with appeal. The entire Block-‘B’ building was used exclusively for Teacher Education Institution and no other courses such as Pharmacy, Law, MBA & Nursing as alleged were running in that building and 0.75 Acre land. b) that Law, MBA and Nursing Institutions were being run in Block A and Block C buildings and these courses were not in Block B building. These two Blocks existed in the remaining part of the land. There was no sharing of the building, as erroneously concluded by the SRC; c) that the trust earmarked 0.75 Acre of land out of 1.69 Acres exclusively for Teacher Education programme vide its resolution dt 18-7-2006. A copy of trust resolution and a copy of the Site plan regarding demarcation of the 0.75 Acre of land exclusively for Teacher education programme as per the requirement of NCTE annexed with appeal. d) they were having exclusive Building (Block B) with 5 floors including Ground floor with an area of 48,437 sq.ft. against the requirement of 32,292 sq.ft. as per norms. Building completion certificate issued by competent authority i.e. Bangalore Development Authority on 25-05-2008 and the Photographs of the Block B building and class rooms, principal chamber, office room, staff room, library, laboratories, audio-visual hall, auditorium, playground etc which are used for B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses annexed with appeal.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) the institution submitted a proposal for shifting of the institution to own premises on 16-10-2007. SRC caused an inspection of the institution at the new premises on 24-11-2010. The visiting team reported that the new premises has an education complex with B.Ed. and D.Ed. in one building of one block and in the opposite two blocks, courses such as pharmacy, law measuring and management were running. A built-up area of 2750 sq.mt. was meant for B.Ed. course and 2655 sq.mt. was for D.Ed. course. It however recorded that labs, centralized library, a hall and auditorium were in separate block opposite to B.Ed. and D.Ed. block. So, there was certain amount of ambiguity with regard to existence of exclusive building with all the requisite facilities. AND WHEREAS the Council taking into consideration the submission made by the appellant and reply of the institution to the show cause notice as well as VT observations, came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to SRC for causing re-inspection of the institution for ascertaining availability of exclusive infrastructure for B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses, after obtaining a payment of Rs. 40,000/- from the institution and for taking further 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 concluded that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to SRC to cause re-inspection of the institution to ascertain availability of exclusive infrastructure for B.Ed. and D.Ed. course, after obtaining a payment of Rs. 40,000/- from the institution and for taking further decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of CMR College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Principal, CMR College of Education, CMR Janardhana Trust, CA No. 2, 3 Cross, 6th A Main, HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar,, Bangalore - 560043, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.


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

20/03/2012

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Hindi Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalaya, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh dated 15/12/2011 is against the Order No. APSO0266/H.P.T/AP/2011-12/32326 dated 15/11/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting H.P.T course on the grounds “1) As per BCC report 713.33 Sq.Mts of the building is roofed with AC sheets. 2) As per records submitted by the management, the land is on a private lease deed for 30 years in individual name executed on 19-3-2008, and private lease in the individual name is not acceptable and against the norms of NCTE. 3) The affidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format with notary attestation is not submitted. 4) The institute has not submitted the land usage certificate from a competent Govt. authority. 5) FDRs for Rs. 5 lakh and 3 lakh towards endowment and reserve fund respectively in joint account from a Nationalised Bank is not submitted. 6) Salaries are paid in cash instead of through Bank.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Hindi Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalay (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/12/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Naga Rajee, Lecturer and Shri Sak. Mynoddin, Associate Member, Hindi Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalaya, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted a) that as per building completion report 713.33 Sq.mt. of the building was with AC sheets, it was a rented building constructed by the owner of the building. The appellant being the lease holder of the said building, could not modify the structure as it was contrary to the lease conditions made in the registered lease agreement deed dt 19-3-2008. b) that as per NCTE Rules, 2005 there was a provision to establish the institution on the lease buildings. Accordingly, the appellant obtained lease under the Registered Document for 30 years from 19-3-2008 to 18-3-2038 on monthly rent of Rs. 4000/-; c) that the appellant submitted affidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format with notary attestation, to the SRC; d) that as the land was not owned by the appellant. It was obtained on lease alonwith an old building, while establishing the institution in the year 2001. At that time, Govt. of A.P. evolved new industrial policy and orders were issued exempting all industrial units from levy of NALA w.e.f. 1-4-2002 to 31-3-2005. NALA Act also did not apply for the following types of lands (i) Land in Estates not taken over by Govt. (ii) Land owned by State or Central Govt but does not include lands leased out for any

commercial, industrial or other non agricultural purpose. (iii) Land vested in a local authority and used for any commercial, industrial or other non agricultural purpose (iv) Land owned by any educational, charitable or religious institution (v) Land used exclusively for residential purpose where its extent does not exceed one hundred sq.mts. In the light of above law, educational institution is an industry, as per the settled law, educational institution are exempted from the provision of NALA Act and the agricultural land was converted as Non agricultural land in 2000, when the NALA Act was in force, once again conversion of the land as Non Agriculture purpose would not arise, and there was no any dispute or demand letter from the Revenue Deptt. e) that FDRs of Rs. 5 lakh and Rs. 3 lakh towards endowment and reserve fund respectively were exempted as per G.O. Ms.No.105 dt 11-9-2000 (enclosed). However as per the instructions of NCTE the appellant deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in 2003 i.e. 12-7-2003 to 12-7-2008 and from time to time it was being renewed; f) that the salaries of the staff were paid in cash, instead of through Bank, as per the demand of the staff for their convenience and there is no any complaint on that aspect, the amount was drawn from the Bank for paying the salaries to the staff without any remark. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) SRC vide order dated 17-09-2001 granted recognition to the institution in rented premises at Peddapalli, Karimnagar (Dist.), A.P. b) The institution submitted proposal for shifting of the premises on 20-06-2009, to a location at D.No. 2-22, Near Sub-Court, Opp. R.R. Garden. P.O. Rangampalli, Peddapalli, which was ¼ km away from the old premises. c) SRC caused an inspection of the new premises on 08-02-2011. The visiting team inter-alia reported that the premises were taken on 30 year lease by society. The Council perused the land document and noted that the lease deed was executed on 19-03-2008 from a private party for 3377 sq.mt. of land and a building with 53.32 sq.mt. of RCC roof and 744.60 sq.mt. of ACC roof. After notification of Regulations 2007, lease taken from private party was not acceptable. Furthermore the constructed area of the building as well as the ACC roof, was not in accordance with the Regulations 2007. The building completion certificate issued on 26-02-2008 also mentioned 792.92 sq.mt. of built-up area with RCC and ACC roof. The built-up area of 792.92 sq.mt. was inadequate, as per Norms 1500 sq.mt. of area is required. Further ACC roof is not permissible. d) that as it is a self financed institution it had to maintain FDRs for 3 lakh and 5 lakh, which it did not maintain and paying salary in cash was also contrary to the NCTE norms and standards. e) When the Council asked the appellant as to why they did not take steps to move to own building, he informed that the society was in possession of 3 acres of land 5 km away from the rented premises, they started constructing own building on this land which would take a year for completion. However the appellant did not show sale deed, building plan etc. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that in proof of proposed new building construction, no document was shown and the present leased premises taken from private party were not permissible after Regulations 2007 came into force and moreover the constructed area was also did not meet the requirement of NCTE norms; further the appellant so far has not yet constructed own building. the Council, therefore, concluded that there was no justification to accept the appeal. 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 no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC’s order dated 15-11-2011 is confirmed.

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


1. The Principal, Hindi Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalay, Karimnagar, Karimnagar - , 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, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 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 Integral University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh dated 16/01/2012 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/NRCAPP-541/191ST MEETING/14233 dated 05/01/2012 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground “The institution did not complete three academic sessions of the existing course as required under section 8(3) of NCTE Regulations, 2009. Therefore, the institution is not eligible to apply for D.El.Ed course.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Integral University (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/01/2012 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. Shaikh Azimuddin, Dean Education, Integral University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) the Integral University, Lucknow (U.P.) had applied to N.R.C. Jaipur for grant of recognition for conducting M.Ed. course on 11/04/2007; received a letter of Intent No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/U.P.-2445/2007/33113 dated 28/11/2007; subsequently appointed the faculty, informed the NRC and requested them on 17/03/2009 to accord recognition under clause 7(11) of the NCTE regulations. (Annexure-A) b) However, the NRC refused recognition through letter no. NRC/NCTE/F-7/U.P.-2445/142 meeting/2009/7584 dated 04/08/2009 on the grounds that 'The deficiency communicated to the Institution still exists'. c) An appeal to the NCTE, Delhi was preferred against this refusal order of the NRC. The NCTE reversed this order on 11/09/2009 on the ground that the unqualified teacher was substituted by a qualified teacher as per norms. d) Incompliance to this order of NCTE and on furnishing further information by the University, the NRC granted recognition to the M.Ed. course from the session 2009-10 instead of granting it from the session 2008-09 through its order no. NRC/NCTE/F-3/U.P.-2445/Appeal/2010/17334 dated 20/02/2010 where as all the formalities were completed as per the letter of Intent of 28/11/2007, including appointment of staff and students were admitted during the session 2008-09 who also passed. e) For saving the future of students, a second appeal was submitted against NRC's order of recognition no. NRC/NCTE/F-3/U.P.-2445/Appeal/2010/17334 dated 20/02/2010 requesting them to grant recognition from the session 2008-09 instead from the session 2009-10 in order to save students of the first batch. f) The NCTE considered the appeal and reversed the order of NRC and directed NRC to issue a modified formal recognition order to safe guard the interest of the passed out students in continuation to the letter of intent referred to above. g) In compliance, the NRC, issued a corrigendum letter no. NRC/NCTE/U.P.-2445/2010/1335 dated 16/12/2010 where in it didn't follow the spirit of the order of NCTE to grant formal recognition order from the session 2008-

09 which was meant in its order for continuing recognition from the date of letter of intent i.e. granting recognition from the session 2008-09. Despite the order of NCTE, it adhered to its previous stance of recognition from 2009-10. h) According to the order dated 19-7-2010, they had completed 3 academic sessions of M.Ed course from 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, which enabled them to file an application for D.El.Ed for beginning a new course. AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the appellant institution is a self financing University established through an Act of State legislation in 2004 and directions of the Appellate Authority as contained in the order dated 19-07-2010, and further observing that the University has completed 3 academic sessions i.e. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 as evidenced from result tabulation register copy submitted by the appellant, came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification to accept the appeal with a direction to the NRC for further processing of the application on merit as per 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 05-01-2012 with a direction to the NRC to further process the application on merit as per Regulations. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of NRC dated 05-01-2012 is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Registrar, Integral University, Islamic Society for Productive Education, Plot/ Khasra No. 108, Street No.- Kursi Road, Village-Bas'ha, PO- Dasauli, Tehsil/Taluka-Bakshi-ka-Talab,, Lucknow - , 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, 20/198, Kaveri Path, Mansarover Nagar, Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur - 302020, 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 Measi School of Education, Chennai, Tamilnadu dated 17/01/2012 is against the earlier appeal of Measi School of Education, Chennai, Tamilnadu dated 11-04-2011 preferred against SRC’s order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/27336 dated 06-03-2011 withdrawing recognition for B.Ed. course was considered by the Council on 08-06-2011. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Measi School of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/01/2012 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 vide order dated 06-07-2011 rejected the appeal of the institution and confirmed the order of SRC on the grounds that “In the appeal, the institution has claimed that it had sent reply to the show cause notice vide its letter dated 20.12.2010. But, it was observed that the said letter dated 20.12.2010 sent by the institution was in reply to the show cause notice dated 07.12.2010 regarding D.T.Ed course and not in respect of show cause notice dated 10.12.2010 regarding B. Ed course. Therefore, the first ground of withdrawal of recognition is correct. As regards the other grounds of withdrawal of recognition, the Council noted that the institution has conceded that building plan of the new building has not yet been approved by the Chennai Metropolitan Develop0ment Authority, Chennai. The institution has stated that approved building plan and building completion certificate will be submitted as soon as the same are received. Regarding available built up area, the institution has claimed that adequate built up area as per NCTE norms is available with the institution. However, since the building plan of the new building constructed has not been approved by the competent authority namely the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai and, thus, the building completion certificate has also not been issued, there is no need to examine the available built up area in the un-approved building plan. Even otherwise the built up area earmarked for B. Ed course, as indicated in the essential data countersigned by the institution, was 13004 sq.ft., which was inadequate as per NCTE norms. Therefore, the Council was of the view that the recognition of the institution was withdrawn by the SRC for valid reasons and there is no ground to accept the appeal.” AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the decision of the Council the appellant approached Hon’ble High Court of Tamil Nadu at Madras in W.P. No.17997 and 17998 of 2011. The Court vide order dated 12-08-2011 remitted the matter to the SRC to consider the request of the petitioner in all relevant facts and pass fresh orders. In compliance with the Court directions SRC re-considered the matter and withdrew recognition of the institution for B.Ed. course

vide Order No. APS03037/B.ED/TN/2011-12/32975 dated 02/12/2011 on the grounds “a) The earmarked area as provided in Essential data and countersigned by the management for B.Ed. course is 13004 sq.ft. which is inadequate as per NCTE norms. b) The institution has submitted building plan which is not approved for the location and Sy.No. not mentioned. c) The management has not submitted the building plan approved by the Competent Government Authority. d) The management has not produced the latest Building Completion Certificate from the competent authorized Government Engineer. e) The Total built up area available for both D.Ed and B.Ed is 18554 Sq.ft. which is far less than the requirement of 27,000 Sq.ft. as per NCTE norms.” Against this withdrawal order dated 02-12-2011 the appellant preferred an appeal dated 17-01-2012. AND WHEREAS Dr. D. Nisar Ahmed, Director and Shri Majur Sihhabuddin, Executive Officer, Measi School of Education, Chennai, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) in the said application a typographical error had occurred where the built-up area of the building was wrongly mentioned as 13,000 sq.ft against 28,211.48 sq.ft.; b) that the institution was in possession of Building plan duly approved by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) for the location bearing Survey No. 1290,1294,1296/2,1297,1298,1299,1295 (New No.1289/17, Old R.S.No. PATTA : 1289/13) Vepery Division, Block No.34, Chennai Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, Dn:45, Zone-III; A copy of the Building plan duly approved by the competent Government Engineer annexed with appeal for perusal; c) that the sanctioned plan and the Government Engineer Certificate were not submitted earlier. However, the sanctioned plan and Engineer's certificate were submitted later on 19-8-2011. Now a certificate obtained from Government Engineer had been sent with appeal. The institution has a total built up area of 28,211.48 sq.ft. (2621.88 Sq.mtrs.) for both D.T.Ed and B.Ed courses which is more than the requirement of 27,000 sq.ft. as per NCTE norms. d) the appellant further submitted that pursuant to the Court directions dated 12-08-2011, SRC considered the matter of the institution in their 211th meeting held on 22-23rd September 2011, and it decided “to cause re-inspection at the premises u/S 17 of the NCTE Act, to verify whether the building is same or a different one in a different location and whether it is in the same land shown alongwith the application. The institution is directed to submit re-inspection fee of Rs. 40,000/-.” The appellant with reference to this decision of SRC, paid re-inspection fee of Rs. 40,000/- separately for B.Ed. and D.T.Ed. courses vide Demand Draft dated 05-11-2011 and requested SRC for re-inspection of the institution.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that SRC in their 211th meeting held on 22-23rd

September 2011 decided to cause re-inspection of the institution for both B.Ed. and D.T.Ed. courses, while in their 212th meeting held on 24th October 2011 decided to withdraw recognition of the institution for B.Ed. course. In view of the contradictory stand taken by the SRC at two different points of time, the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the SRC for causing re-inspection of the institution for both B.Ed. and D.T.Ed. courses and for taking further 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 concluded that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the SRC for causing re-inspection of the institution for both B.Ed. and D.T.Ed. courses and for taking further decision thereafter.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Measi School of Education, Chennai, Tamilnadu to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Secretary, Measi School of Education, Measi MHS School, No. 53, Angappa Naicken Street,, Chennai - 600001, Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of MNR Teacher Education College, Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh dated 07/01/2012 is against the Order No. APS00043/B.ED/AP/2011-12/32408 dated 17/11/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) As seen from VCD, the management is running the B.Ed programme in the multistorey building having ground floor and four floors, running Arts and Science College also, which is against the NCTE norms. 2) The total built up area earmarked for the B.Ed is only 1578 Sq.ft, which is grossly inadequate as per NCTE norms. The same is also corroborated by the management by affixing signature of the management representative in the essential data. As per NCTE norms total built up area required for B.Ed is 16000 sq.ft. 3) The survey number 197,200in land documents and Sy.nos. in building plan is not matching which may be explained. 4) Building completion certificate from competent Govt. authorized Engineer is not submitted. 5) The institute has not submitted the Land usage certificate from a competent Govt approved authority. 6) Non-Encumbrance certificate from the competent authority is not submitted. 7) Details of FDRs for each course are not submitted. FDRs of D.Ed and M.Ed are not in the joint names.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, MNR Teacher Education College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 16/01/2012 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 G. Ramabhadra Charyulu, Administrative Officer, MNR Teacher Education College, Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) there were two different buildings opposite to each other. One building which was inspected by the NCTE team was exclusively meant for teacher education institution. Whereas the opposite building having Ground plus four floors was meant for Degree and PG College. There was no connection between these two buildings. Even it could be seen from VCD that separate mesh compound wall had been erected between two buildings bifurcating the D.Ed, B.Ed and M.Ed building and degree & PG college building. Therefore, no other course/college was offered/run in the teacher education building and the building was exclusively earmarked and used by D.Ed, B.Ed and M.Ed courses only. The total built up area earmarked for B.Ed course was 1578 sq.mts and not 1578 sq.ft. Just by viewing the building one could make out that just three rooms of the building measured more than 1578 sq.ft. The teacher education building was having total five floors with built up area of 40005 sq.ft. Each floor of the building measured 8001 sq.ft. The area earmarked for B.Ed was 1578 sq.mts (16975 sq.ft.), M.Ed was 553 sq.mts (5950 sq.ft) and D.Ed. was 1524 sq.mts (16400 sq.ft.) The building completion certificate issued by the Structural Engineer, Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally as proof annexed with appeal; b) The land was situated in the Survey Nos. 180,197 & 200. That all the survey numbers and plot numbers were clearly mentioned in the land documents as well as building plan. The building plan and land documents annexed for verification; The Structural Engineer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, who is a Government Employee of the Municipal Corporation on request of the institution inspected the institution premises and building, on 20-12-2011 and issued the building completion Certificate. c) The land usage certificate issued by the Office of Dy.Collector & Tehsildar, Balanagar Mandal clearly stated that the land was used for Educational purpose; d) The Non-Encumbrance certificate was issued by the office of Sub-Registrar on 11-12-2011; e) The institution had been maintaining the Endowment fund and Reserve fund for each of the course separately. As per the advice, all the FDRs i.e. Rs.5 Lakh & Rs. 3 lakh for D.Ed, Rs. 5 lakh & Rs.3 lakh for B.Ed and Rs. 5 lakh & Rs. 3 lakh for M.Ed were converted with joint name with SRC. Copies of all the FDRs with notary attestation annexed with appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant institution had been conducting D.Ed., B.Ed. and M.Ed. programmes. The visiting team which visited the institution reported about only one programme i.e. B.Ed. The sum of all the rooms area mentioned by the VT was much more than 1578 sq.ft. and hence total built-up area available for B.Ed. programme would not be only 1578 sq.ft. as mentioned in the withdrawal order of SRC. The Council further considering the documents related to infrastructure like land, building plan, building completion certificate etc. and submission made by the appellant came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the SRC for causing composite inspection of the institution for D.Ed. B.Ed. and M.Ed. programmes, on payment of Rs. 40,000/- by the institution and taking further 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 concluded that there was adequate justification to remand the case to SRC for causing composite inspection of the institution for D.Ed. B.Ed. and M.Ed. programmes, on payment of Rs. 40,000/- by the institution and to take further decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of MNR Teacher Education College, Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Correspondent, MNR Teacher Education College, MNR Educational Trust, Bachupally Village, Qutubullapur Mandal,, Ranga Reddy - 500072, 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, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 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 T.E. Thiyagaraj Pillai l.A.S (Rtd) Teacher Training Institute,, Trichy, Tamilnadu dated 03/01/2012 is against the Order No. APS04408/D.T.ED/TN/2011-12/34391 dated 22/12/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed course on the grounds “1) The land is not registered in the name of the institution/Trust. The lease deed is in favour of individual by name K.A.P Vishwanahan correspondent of a H.R. Secondary School running in the same building/campus which is against the NCTE norms of 2009. 2) The management has not submitted the building plan approved by the competent Government Authority. The survey numbers are not mentioned in the building plan. 3) Non-encumbrance certificate from competent Govt. authority is not submitted.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, T.E. Thiyagaraj Pillai l.A.S (Rtd) Teacher Training Institute, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 17/01/2012 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. Savariraj, Principal and Shri M.R. Krishnanachari, Administrative Officer, T.E. Thiyagaraj Pillai l.A.S (Rtd) Teacher Training Institute,, Trichy, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the land was registered in the year 1996 in the name of K.A.P. Viswanathan High School, Thillainnagar, Trichy. The said land was the property of the Sozhia Vellalar Sangam. The Sangam had passed a resolution unanimously by allotting the western side three storey block for the purpose of the T.E. Thiyagarajapillai Elementary Education Institute. Hence the specified part of the land was owned by the agency namely Sozhia Vellalar Sangam, which run the institution; The relevant building plan approved by the Trichirappalli city corporation licensed surveyor (L.No.22/2010-11) who is the Competent Govt. Authority, and the encumbrance certificate duly signed by Sub-Registrar (District Registrar cadre) Woraiyur, Trichy who is the competent authority were annexed with appeal for perusal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) the institution was granted recognition by the SRC vide order dated 02-09-2006 at the premises ‘K.A.P. Viswanathan Higher Secondary School Campus, Thillainnagar, Trichy’. b) Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, based on the enquiry report submitted by Sri Satyam, IAS (Retd.) directed NCTE that all the cases cleared by SRC in its 116th meeting held on 22-23rd August

2006 should be inspected and the maintenance of Norms and Standards should be verified. The appellant institution was one amongst 71 institutions which were granted recognition as per the decision of 116th SRC’s meeting. c) On the basis of these directions, SRC caused inspection of the institution u/S 17 of the NCTE Act on 17-12-2008. Subsequent to the inspection SRC issued show cause notice on 02-04-2009 and in reply the institution submitted that they were making speedy efforts to shift the institution to new building by September 2009. Thereafter, the institution vide their letter dated 05-10-2009 requested SRC for continuing in the same building of school premises as completion of new building would take another 2 years. SRC decided to cause re-inspection of the institution at the proposed premises and accordingly institution was inspected on 16-03-2011, issued show cause notice on 05-05-2011 and 04-07-2011 and finally withdrew recognition of the institution on the grounds as stated in para 1 above. AND WHEREAS the Council further noted specifically with regard to withdrawal grounds that a) 42075 sq.ft. of land at Door No. 33 in re-survey Nos. 75/6, 78, 79/1, 79/2 & 80/1 was in the name of KAP Viswanathan High School, as per the land registered document dated 24-03-1996. Therefore land was neither in the name of the appellant trust- ‘G. Vishwanathan Pillai Educational Trust’ nor in the name of the institution as required under NCTE Regulations. b) the building plan shown to the Council was approved on 07-12-56 and it was for elementary school building. The appellant also submitted another building plan for a total built-up area of 1216.74 sq.mt. (13092.12 sq.ft.) in all four blocks i.e. North, South, East and West. And this area was not adequate for school as well as D.T.Ed. college. c) non-encumbrance certificate was also issued for the school property, but not for the D.T.Ed. institution property.

AND WHEREAS in view of the above the Council concluded that there was no justification to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC’s order dated 22-12-2011 is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Correspondent, T.E. Thiyagaraj Pillai l.A.S (Rtd) Teacher Training Institute,, K.A.P Visvanatham, H.R. Sec. School Campus, Thillainagar,, Trichy - , Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of D.S. Patel Adhyapan Mandir,, Ahmadabad, Gujarat dated 23/12/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW03108/323349/153RD/2011/82652 dated 03/10/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) Certified copy of the land documents not submitted. 2) The list of staff approved by the University not submitted." AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, D.S. Patel Adhyapan Mandir, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 26/12/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Patel Dharmendra Dahyabhai, Managing Trustee, D.S. Patel Adhyapan Mandir, Ahmadabad, Gujarat presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) the institution had more than adequate land, on lease basis for 30 years at the time of making the application, as per the then NCTE norms. A copy of the said lease-deed annexed with appeal for perusal. b) Teaching faculty was approved by the Gujarat University. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) the institution was granted recognition by the WRC vide order dated 28-05-2007 for conducting B.Ed. course. b) State Govt. of Gujarat on the basis of Prof. A.U. Patel Committee report, forwarded a list of 129 colleges including the appellant institution which were not adhering to the NCTE Norms and Standards. Thereafter, WRC caused an inspection of the institution u/S 17 of the NCTE Act on 07-06-2008, after issuing show cause notice, it withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated 23-12-2008 on account of land and built-up area inadequacies; non-availability of laboratory and non-appointment of Principal. c) Aggrieved by the decision of NCTE, the appellant filed ‘Special Civil Application’ No. 89-119/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad and the Court vide order dated 14-05-2010 disposed of a bunch of similar petitions and inter-alia directing the petitioners to remove all the defects and conform to all the norms of NCTE, by 31-12-2010 and institutions after curing all the defects, not later than by 07-01-2011, shall intimate to the NCTE that defects have been cured and invite the inspection team to carry out inspection. d) In compliance with the Court directions WRC caused an inspection of the institution on 04-05-2011, after issuing a show cause notice on 21-06-2011, withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated 31-10-2011 on the grounds as stated in para 1 above. AND WHEREAS the Council, further noted that the visiting team in their report dated 04-05-2011 inter-alia observed that a) ‘the institution was situated on first floor of commercial

complex building. The building was on lease for 30 years in the name of trust. The land (700 sq.mt. ) and built-up area (763.45 sq.mt. in storey building) was not according to the NCTE norms. Language learning lab was not established Principal was not appointed. Library needed improvement.’ The visiting team confirmed the deficiencies pointed by the earlier visiting team which visited the institution on 07-06-2008. Hence it was proved that the institution did not make up the deficiencies within 31-12-2010 as permitted by the Hon’ble High Court also. b) The appellant submitted application on 28-12-2005 for grant of recognition of B.Ed. course and alongwith the application submitted, only a notarized rent agreement dated 14-12-2005 for 30 years, for 663.45 sq.mt. of land and 404.74 sq.mt. of built-up area at Sy.no. 200 of Mouje Village Bagefirdos. The rent agreement was not registered and hence it was not acceptable as a legally valid document. The appellant trust i.e. Dahyabhai Education Trust executed registered lease agreement on 29-01-2008 from private party i.e. Parul faculty trust for 763.45 sq.mt. of land and 764.5 sq.mt. of built-up area (on first and second floor of building). The land and built-up area mentioned in this lease agreement do not meet the requirement of NCTE norms. And also lease taken from a private party was not acceptable after notification of Regulations 2007. c) The appellant in the appeal submitted staff profiles separately for the session 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11, which were approved by ‘Incharge Registrar, Gujarat University’ also need to be verified for their authenticity. in view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that case be remanded to WRC for re-examination of the matter in the light of above observations and for taking further 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 concluded the case be remanded to WRC for re-examination of the matter, in the light of above observations of the Council and for taking further decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of D.S. Patel Adhyapan Mandir, Ahmedabad, Gujarat to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Managing Trustee, D.S. Patel Adhyapan Mandir,, 7, Khanlaxmi Society, Opp. CMC, Odhav,, Ahmedabad - 382415, 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 Indira Gandhi Memorial B.Ed. College, Howrah, West Bengal dated 03/12/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-128.6(ii).23/2011/9950(1)ERCAPP718 dated 09/01/2012 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground “At the time of application, the registered land deed is in the name of an individual not in the name of the society or institution.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Indira Gandhi Memorial B.Ed College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 08/12/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Sunit Ranjan Karar, Secretary and Shri Sri Kanta Panja, Representative, Indira Gandhi Memorial B.Ed. College, Howrah, West Bengal presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that because of problems of translation into English there was some confusion about use of expression of vendee/purchaser and seller/vendor, in the translated version of the sale deed. He submitted in the appeal certified copies of deeds duly attested by notary, Howrah, in favour of the institution. AND WHEREAS the Council perused the documents available in ERC’s file i.e. sale deed, mutation certificate dated 12-07-2011 issued by SDM office, and BL and & LRO office letter dated 05-07-2011 mentioning that the land was in the name of Indira Gandhi Memorial B.Ed. college and noted that land was not in the name of the individual, rather it was in the name of the institution itself and hence the refusal ground of ERC was not sustainable. The Council, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to the ERC for further processing of the case on merit as per Regulations. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the ERC’s order dated 09-01-2012 with a direction to the ERC for further processing of the case on merit as per Regulations. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of ERC dated 09-01-2012 is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Indira Gandhi Memorial B.Ed College, Village & P.O. Sonatala, P.S. Udaynarayanpur,, Howrah - 711141, West Bengal 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of West Bengal, Kolkata.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Mahant Laxmi Narayan Das College, Raipur, Chhatisgarh dated 04/01/2012 is against the Order No. WRC/APW02106/723078/154TH/2011/82977 dated 17/11/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) Built up area not adequate as per the NCTE norms. 2) Gift deed not certified by competent authority. 3) Qualified Principal not appointed. 4) The institution does not have adequate number of teaching staff.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Mahant Laxmi Narayan Das College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 10/01/2012 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. Devasish, Principal and Shri Mukesh, Asst. Professor, Mahant Laxmi Narayan Das College, Raipur, Chhatisgarh presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) as per regulation 2007 of NCTE the required built-up area should be 1500 sq.mt. Whereas the College was having 2514 sq.mt. of built-up area as per the certificate issued by Upper Collector Raipur, dt 10-4-1997; b) that they were gifted 2.1 acres of land by Sri Ajay Tiwari and besides that another piece of land of 3 acres was purchased for construction of new building for B.Ed college. The copy of the Gift deed and sale deed for 5.1 acres duly certified by competent authority annexed with appeal. The process of construction of new building would start after getting clearance from New Rajpur Development Authority, Raipur; c) that College had been running other courses of Commerce and the Principal for the College was appointed under Section 28 of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur and for appointment H.O.D of Education advertisements were given. The selection Committee for the appointment of HOD has been made from time to time by Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur and Higher Education C.G.Govt. Raipur; d) that as per NCTE requirement they recruited seven Asst. Professors under section 28 of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur. Out of them five have joined the college. For the remaining two posts fresh advertisement were given. The process of appointment was under way. (The copy of profile of Asst. Professor has been attached alongwith copy of advertisement.) AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) WRC caused an inspection of the institution on 12-04-2011 in order to verify compliance of NCTE norms by the recognized institution. The visiting team inter-alia reported that total land was 16,100 sq.ft. only for all the courses i.e. B.A., B.Com, M.Com, BCA and B.Ed. course. All these courses were being run in the same

building, having a built-up area of 27,052 sq.ft. and this area was inadequate. It did not earmark the area for different courses; All the selected teachers are not qualified as per NCTE norms. b) The Council specifically examined the documents related to land and built-up area and noted that (i) Gift deed dated 06-09-2010 mentioned 2.1 acre of land at kh.no. 572, 575 in favour of the society i.e. Shiksha Prasarak Samiti. (ii) Sale deed dated 09-12-2012 mentioned 3 acres of land at kh.bo. 572/1 and 575/1. (iii) The appellant did not show ‘CLU’ document, approved building plan etc. pertaining to the building to be constructed on this gifted/purchased land. Rather he admitted that building would be constructed on this land after taking necessary clearance from New Raipur Development Authority. (iv) Further as per the Additional Collectorate office certificate dated 10-04-1997, the society was in possession of 16,100 sq.ft. of land and 25032 sq.ft. of building (12516 sq.ft. on ground floor and 12516 sq.ft. on first floor), however the appellant could not show the original lease document to the Council. The land and built-up area mentioned in the said certificate was highly inadequate for B.Ed. and other non-teacher education courses. Because as per NCTE Regulations 2500 sq.mt. of land, where upon a built-up area of 1500 sq.mt. is required for B.Ed. programme alone. (v) The appellant himself admitted that Head of the Department in Education and two lecturers were not in position even as on the date of appeal presentation. AND WHEREAS in view of the above the Council concluded that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and WRC’s order dated 17-11-2011 is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, Mahant Laxmi Narayan Das College, In Front of Gandhi Chowk,, Raipur - 492001, Chhatisgarh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Chhatisgarh, Raipur.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Samarpan Deep B.Ed. College,, Ranchi, Jharkhand dated 09/01/2012 is against the Order No. ERC/7-128.6(i).4/2011/9672 dated 16/12/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground “the Council taken up the matter and decided that State Govt. of Jharkhand categorically stated not to give "No Objection Certificate" vide letter no. 12/AA.6-25/2010-2810 dated 28-5-2010.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Samarpan Deep B.Ed College, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/01/2012 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 Nawal Lal Gupta, Secretary and Shri Narayan Thakur, Advisor, Samarpan Deep B.Ed. College,, Ranchi, Jharkhand presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that they applied to ERC, for grant of recognition of the college for B.Ed. course from the session 2010-11 in month of Oct 2009 and thereafter they started construction as well as arrangement for infrastructure. In the month of April, 2010 the building was under construction. In the light of VT report, reply of notices and their preparedness for conducting B.Ed. course, ERC issued letter of intent under clause 7(9) on 12-08-2011 and instructed the institution comply with condition mentioned in the letter. In reply, they submitted all documents for grant of recognition under clause 7(11). They obtained NOC from Ranchi University also. Instead of granting recognition under clause 7(11), ERC issued refusal order, on the basis of a letter of State Govt. which was based on inspection conducted by the State Govt. almost 1 yr 9 month ago; As regards negative recommendation of the State Govt., the ERC has taken a specific view that “there is shortage of teacher training institutions in the State of Jharkhand as revealed in the Demand and Supply estimates of School Teachers and teacher educators (2007-08-2016-17) prepared by NCTE Hqrs. with data from State Govt. itself. The general recommendation of the Govt. not to further grant recognition to TTI in the State is therefore not acceptable at present.” AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) the institution submitted an application to the ERC on 28-10-2009 for grant of recognition of B.Ed. course. b) ERC vide letter dated 23-01-2010, followed by reminder letter dated 31-03-2010 sought recommendation of the State Govt. of Jharkhand. c) The State Govt. vide letter dated 28-05-2010 did not give ‘NOC’ on the ground that building was under construction and other infrastructure was not available

in the institution when they visited the institution in April 2010. d) On the basis of this letter of State Govt., which was received by ERC office on 07-06-2010. (p-139 of ERC file), ERC should have rejected the application of the institution, enabling the appellant to submit fresh application in the year 2010 and subsequent year. However ERC went ahead and caused inspection on 07-07-2010 and re-inspection on 01-04-2011, on the basis of the observation of VT issued show cause notices and after considering the reply thereto, issued letter of intent prior to grant of recognition under clause 7(9) of NCTE Regulations on 12-08-2011. e) The institution in reply to this letter submitted the details of faculty profile on 27-08-2011 and 09-09-2011. f) After examining the faculty profile of the institution, ERC vide clarification letter/notice dated 05-10-2011 asked the institution to submit certain documents related to faculty, for which the reply was made by the institution on 27-10-2011. g) From these sequential correspondences of the ERC, it was elicited that ERC would have examined the reply dated 27-10-2011 of the institution and passed appropriate orders. But, the ERC refused recognition vide order dated 09-01-2012 on the basis of non-issuance of ‘NOC’ as per State Govt. letter dated 28-05-2010. AND WHEREAS the appellant, however, informed the Council that the institution vide their letter dated 29-11-2010 made a request to State govt. for issuance of NOC, and an inspection of the institution was done by the State Govt. in the first week of June 2011. Hence, the appellant requested for giving atleast 15 days time for submission of ‘NOC’. The Council acceded to the request of the institution. subsequently, the appellant has submitted the ‘NOC’ dated 14-03-2012 issued by the State Govt. The Council, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to ERC for further processing of the case 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 ERC’s order dated 16-12-2011 with a direction to the to ERC for further processing of the case as per Regulations. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of ERC dated 16-12-2011 is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Samarpan Deep B.Ed College,, Village-Ushamatu, PO-Ratu, Taluka-Ratu, City-Ranchi,, Ranchi - 835222, Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Satyam College of Education, Bharuch, Gujarat dated 08/12/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/323026/154TH/2011/83196 dated 25/11/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) Built up area is inadequate to run 3 courses namely PTC, B.Ed. and ITI. 2) The building plan is not approved by the competent authority. 3) Approved staff list by examining body not submitted. 4) Principal not appointed. 5) Certified copy of the land documents not submitted.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Satyam College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 26/12/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Dineshbai Pandya, President and Shri Jagruti D. Pandya, Secretary, Satyam College of Education, Bharuch, Gujarat presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) the appellant institution is presently having 3815 Sq.mts. of land and 2500 Sq.mts of built up area, in accordance with the norms prescribed by the NCTE to conduct the B.Ed. course. b) The appellant was also in possession of 28000 sq.mts of land and on this land they constructed a new building with built up area of 6872 sq.mts. The new building was ready to use and building utilization certificate (BUP) was obtained from the competent authority annexed with appeal for perusal. c) The proposal for shifting institution to the new premises was submitted to WRC alongwith necessary fee of Rs.40,000/-; d) The appellant clearly informed WRC that the staff profiles were approved by the Examining Body i.e. SNDT Women's University, Mumbai on 2-12-2010 and affidavits of all the staff members alongwith their photographs and essential data were also submitted to the WRC; That Dr. N.H. Trivedi having educational qualification of MA, M.Ed., Ph.D and having experience as a Lecturer/Principal of more than 30 years in B.Ed/M.Ed had been working as Principal since last 3 years in the appellant college; e) Certified copy of the land document was submitted to WRC and was also shown to the VT. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) WRC vide order dated 20-09-2002 granted recognition to the institution. b) State Govt. of Gujarat on the basis of Prof. A.U. Patel Committee report, forwarded a list of 129 colleges including the appellant institution which were not adhering to the NCTE Norms and Standards. Thereafter, WRC, caused inspection of the institution on 07-06-2008 u/S 17 of the NCTE Act and subsequently withdrew

recognition of the institution vide order dated 19-12-2008. c) Aggrieved by the decision of the NCTE the appellant filed SCA No. 56081/2009 and before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad and the Court vide order dated 14-05-2010 disposed of a bunch of similar petitions and inter-alia directing the petitioners to remove all the defects and conform to all the norms of NCTE, by 31-12-2010 and institutions after curing all the defects, not later than by 07-01-2011, shall intimate to the NCTE that defects have been cured and invite the inspection team to carry out inspection. d) Incompliance with the Court directions WRC caused an inspection of the institution on 09-06-2011 and issued show cause notice on 08-07-2011 and subsequently withdrew recognition of the institution on the grounds as mentioned in para1 above. AND WHEREAS the Council however noted that the institution vide letter dated 04-07-2011 and 04-08-2011 informed WRC that they would like to shift to new building and sought WRC’s approval. The Council taking into consideration the submission made by the appellant and communication letters dated 04-07-2011 and 04-08-2011 available in WRC’s file came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the WRC for causing inspection of the institution at the new premises for ascertaining availability of adequate infrastructure and other instructional facilities as per norms and for taking further 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 concluded that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to WRC for causing inspection of the institution at the new premises for ascertaining availability of adequate infrastructure and other instructional facilities as per norms and for taking further decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Satyam College of Education, Bharuch, Gujarat to the WRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Director, Satyam College of Education, Tapovan Sanskar Kendra, Nutan Shopping Centre, Opp. Pritam Society No. 1, , Bharuch - 392002, 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 Shadan College of Education, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh dated 09/01/2012 is against the Order No. SRCAPP065/B.ED-Al/AP/32339 dated 15/11/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed (basic), B.Ed-AI, D.Ed, Pre School course on the grounds “The institution is running the following other courses/programmes (including other than Teacher Education) in the same building /premises (10 storey building page no. 4,6 & 7 of reply) which is gross violation of the norms/regulations. (i) Shadan Institute of Management studies for boys. (ii) Shadan Institute of Computer Studies (iii) Shadan Degree College for boys. (iv) Shadan Group of Modern Schools.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shadan College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/01/2012 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 Smt. Zakia Shariff, Representative, Shadan College of Education, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) the College of Education was being run alongwith other colleges was not true, as the other colleges were in separate blocks and college of Education had exclusive infrastructure which was not used at any time by any other course or institutions. This college of Education had got separate parking facility, separate lift, separate staircase and separate administrative block. This was being verified recurrently by Osmania University and granted affiliation. No college was either shared or run in the B.Ed block. Hence the other colleges were in separate blocks with separate amenities and facilities. b) It was also submitted that the institution had been functioning since 1987 with the affiliation of ‘Osmania University’. NCTE granted recognition for B.Ed. programme with an intake of 160 from the session 2008-09. c) The institution was awarded with ‘B’ grade by NAAC vide certification dated 18-06-2009. Thereafter, the institution submitted an application to the SRC on 29-10-2009 for enhancement of intake from existing 160 to 200 in the B.Ed. programme. SRC vide order dated 03-05-2010 rejected the application of the institution on the ground that Minority Status Certificate submitted is not from the Competent Authority. d) Against which an appeal was preferred and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23-08-2011 accepted the appeal and remanded the matter to the SRC for further processing of the case on merit. e) Thereafter SRC caused an inspection of the institution on 10-02-2011 and subsequently withdrew recognition of the institution for B.Ed. (basic), B.Ed. (Addl. Unit) and D.Ed. and pre-school. Further SRC had not granted any recognition for the courses pre-school and D.Ed. programme.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution had been in existence prior to the establishment of NCTE. It was granted recognition for B.Ed. course with 160 intake by the SRC vide order dated 22-05-2008. It was also accredited by NAAC with letter Grade ‘B’ in June 2009. The institution submitted an application for additional intake of 40 seats in the B.Ed. programme only. The institution was not granted recognition by SRC for D.Ed. and pre-school programmes. AND WHEREAS in view of the above, the Council observed that SRC was not justified in withdrawing recognition for the existing 160 intake of B.Ed. programme and D.Ed., pre-school programmes for which it had not granted recognition at all. It would have at the most denied recognition for the additional intake of 40 seats only. The Council, therefore came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to the SRC for re-consideration of additional 40 seats for the B.Ed. progamme and restoration of recognition to the institution for 160 intake in the B.Ed. programme immediately. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that there was adequate justification in remanding the case to SRC for re-consideration of additional 40 seats for the B.Ed. progamme and restoration of recognition to the institution for 160 intake in the B.Ed. programme immediately. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Shadan College of Education, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


1. The Secretary, Shadan College of Education, Shadan Educational Society, 6-2-978, Khairatabad,, Hyderabad - , 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, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 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 ‘The College of Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed. College’, Mehsana, Gujarat dated 24/10/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW04330/323430/151/2011/80202 dated 25/07/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. (co-ed) course on the ground “Principal has not been appointed.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, ‘The College of Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed College’ (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 28/10/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the decision of WRC, the appellant approached Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Special Civil Application No. 10359/2011 and the Court vide order dated 07-10-2011disposed off the petition. The appellant preferred a special leave to appeal (Civil) No(s) 28529/2011 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the High Court judgement. The Supreme Court vide order dated 13-10-2011 allowed to withdrew special lease petition, enabling the petitioner to challenge in statutory appeal, the order of withdrawal of recognition dated 25-07-2011 passed by WRC. In compliance with the Court directions the appellant filed an appeal u/S 18 of the NCTE Act on 28-10-2011. NCTE listed the case for hearing on 16-01-2012. AND WHEREAS Shri Bharat Patel. N, Trustee and Shri Nilesh Patel. N, Trustee, The College of Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed. College, Mehsana, Gujarat presented the case of the appellant institution on 16-01-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant, after following the due procedure, appointed Dr. Anilsinh Chauhan as Principal. Dr. Anilsinh Chauhan was duly qualified for appointment as Principal, but, his appointment was not approved by the University, hence, the same was not communicated to the WRC. Thereafter, the appellant appointed another Principal - Dr. Kantilal V. Gor, on 11-10-2011, having qualification of M.A., M.Ed., Ph.D. as well as 18 years teaching experience as a lecturer in B.Ed. College. Thus, the appellant now has a duly qualified Principal as per NCTE norms. The appellant again appeared on 01-03-2012 and stated that the affiliating University approved Dr. Kantilal V. Gor for the post of Principal. AND WHEREAS the Council taking into consideration the submission made by the appellant came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to the WRC for examination of profile of the Principal and taking

further decision thereafter. The institution is directed to forward a complete set of documents pertaining to qualification, experience and selection of the Principal –Dr. Kantilal V.Gor. 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 25-07-2011 with a direction to the WRC for examination of profile of the Principal and taking further decision thereafter. The institution is directed to forward a complete set of documents pertaining to qualification, experience and selection of the Principal –Dr. Kantilal V.Gor. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order of WRC dated 25-07-2011 is reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The President, The College of Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed College, Shree Shahjanand Education Trust, At & Ta. Vijapur,, Mehsana - 382875, 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 Wisdom Teacher Training Institute, Thiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu dated 14/01/2012 is against the Order No. APS03620/D.T.ED/TN/2011-12/32419 dated 17/11/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.T.Ed course on the grounds “1) The total built up area earmarked for the D.T.Ed, D.T.Ed-Al & B.Ed programme is only 18500 Sq.Ft. which is grossly inadequate for three courses as per NCTE norms. The same is also corroborated by the management by affixing signature of the management representative in the essential data. 2) The latest building completion certificate from the competent Government Engineer is not submitted. 3) FDRs of Rs. 5 lacs and 3 lacs towards Endowment and Reserve Fund respectively from Nationalised bank in joint account to each of the course being run is to be submitted. 4) Notarised affidavit on Rs. 100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format is to be submitted for D.T.Ed course. 5) The Sy.No. given in Building Plan and BCC are not matching with land documents. This discrepancy may be explained. 6) Salary is paid by cash and not through Bank, Proof for salary paid through Bank by Cheque is to be produced. 7) Land documents dt 16.8.1989 & 24.7.1996 are not in the Name of Society/Institution.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Wisdom Teacher Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/01/2012 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 T.G. Yani, Chairman, Wisdom Teacher Training Institute, Thiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 01-03-2012. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that a) as per withdrawal order of SRC, the built-up area earmarked for the D.T.Ed, D.T.Ed (Additional intake) and B.Ed programme was grossly inadequate. But they had completed construction with the support of highly technical engineers with all adequate facilities. The building completion certificate issued by Govt. Engineer would prove that the appellant was having 2472.51 Sq.Mts i.e. 26604.2 Sq.Ft. As per NCTE norms 2472.51 Sq.Mts (i.e. 26604.2 Sq.Ft. building is enough for B.Ed and D.T.Ed courses; The fresh and latest building completion certificate issued by the competent Govt Engineer is now enclosed for 26604.2 Sq.Ft. building; b) they had already submitted the original FDRs for Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs.3,00,000/- towards the endowment fund and reserve fund for D.T.Ed and original FDRs for Rs. 5 lakh and Rs. 3 lakh towards the endowment fund and reserve fund for Additional intake programme and another original FDRs for Rs. 5 lac and Rs. 3 lac for B.Ed. These FDRs were returned to the institution by the SRC after proper verification alongwith acknowledgement. c) that notarized original affidavit on Rs. 100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format was already sent to the SRC for D.T.Ed course. With the appeal annexed fresh notarized three original affidavits for each Rs.

100/- stamp paper in prescribed format for D.T.Ed and D.T.Ed Additional intake and B.Ed courses; d) that the Survey number given in building plan and BCC are matching with land documents as per approved plan. The fresh building completion certificate after rectification, annexed with appeal for perusal; e) that they were paying salary through Union Bank of India, Anakkavur. They already submitted copy of the cheques to the SRC; f) that as per Sale deed dated 16-8-1989, the properties were purchased by C.L.Balasundaram, B.Mani, T.G.Mani, B.L.Gurusrinivas, S.Karupiah, B.P. Hariharan and P.Thavamani. Then, the above mentioned 7 persons soled 5/12 shares to C.L.B. Pari, G.Deivayanai, N.Durairajan, P.Mayil and B.L.Gurumurthy as per Sale Deed dated 26-3-1990. Therefore they have each 1/12th share in the said properties and were got absolute right and title of the said properties. This property was given (the schedule mentioned property) to the Wisdom Educational Trust by way of oral gift in the month of Nov 1991. The Wisdom Educational Trust filed the original suit no. 524/1992 before the District Munsif court of Cheyyar to confirm the oral gift. The above 10 shareholders admitted before the court regarding the oral gift. Hence Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar declared the right and title of the Wisdom Educational Trust regarding schedule mentioned of properties. From the date of oral gift the Trust transferred the patta in its name and enjoying the scheduled mentioned properties without any objections. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) SRC vide orders dated 22-11-2005, 13-11-2006 and 23-12-2008 granted recognition to the institution for D.T.Ed. (basic unit), D.T.Ed. (addl. Unit) and B.Ed. (basic unit) course respectively. b) The institution vide letter dated 20-10-2010 submitted proposal for shifting of the institution to own premises. SRC caused an inspection of the institution on 21-04-2011 at the new premises, Cheyyor-Arni road, Cheyyatraivenram village, Tiruvanna malai (Dist.), Tamil Nadu. SRC after issuing show cause notice, withdrew recognition of the institution vide order dated 17-11-2011 on the grounds as stated in para 1 above. AND WHEREAS the Council further noted with regard to withdrawal grounds that a) the visiting team inter-alia reported availability of 18500 sq.ft. of built-up area for 2 units of D.T.Ed. and 1 unit of B.Ed. programme and this built-up area was highly inadequate because as per norms 3500 sq.mt. of built-up was required for 2 units of D.T.Ed. and 1 unit of B.Ed. So, SRC was right in permitting only 1 unit of B.Ed. programme in the premises. The appellant in his reply dated 25-07-2011 to the show cause notice also admitted that additional building construction was going on and requested for 5 months more time. b) The building completion certificate submitted to SRC in reply to the show cause notice mentioned 1714 sq.mt. of total built-up area. Even as per the building completion certificate submitted in the appeal also the appellant was having only 26604.2 sq.ft. (2472.51 sq.mt.) only and this area does not meet the requirement for 2 units of D.T.Ed. and 1 unit of B.Ed. c) District Munsif Court, Cheyyar vide judgement dated 07-06-1993, certified that the land at Sy.no. 43/1-7 was in favour of Wisdom Educational Trust. d) The building completion certificate mentioned Sy.nos 40/4, 40/3 and building plan mentioned as 40/3. 40/4, 43/1, 43/3, 43/4 (P-463). The land document mentioned only Sy.no. 43 but not 40. So, there was discrepancy with regard to Sy.Nos. as mentioned in the above documents. The Council mainly on the ground of non-availability of adequate built-up area and discrepancy with regard to Sy.no. as shown in various documents like building plan, building completion certificate and land documents concluded that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC’s order dated 17-11-2011 is confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Correspondent, Wisdom Teacher Training Institute, Cheyyatraivendran, Cheyyar Taluk, , Thiruvannamalai - 604401, Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Nagarabhavi, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore - 560 072. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.

Documents

F.No.89-391/2011 Appeal/2nd Meeting-2012 NATIONAL … 2nd meeting order.pdf · NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Hans Bhawan, ... filed civil writ petition No. 11460 of 2010