F.No.89-742/2010-Appeal/3 Mtg-2011 NATIONAL … order 3rd meet 2011.pdf · AND WHEREAS Dr. Y. Kishore, Principal, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh presented the

F.No.89-742/2010-Appeal/3rd Mtg-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 26/05/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh dated 07/06/2010 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/B.P.Ed.-A-1/2010/19169 dated 31-05-2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed. (Addl.) course on the grounds “1) the institution is already having M.P.Ed. course and B.P.Ed. course. Hence, as per the NCTE norms, 2700 sq.mtrs of built up space is required for offering B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed courses. An additional of 500 sq.mtrs is required for increase of intake from 50 to 100. 2) Additional built up area earmarked for additional course is 3529 sq.ft. which is less than the NCTE norms”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Acharya Nagarjuna University (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 23/06/2010 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 Dr. Y. Kishore, Principal, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the details of built-up area possessed by the university were submitted to the inspection committee in the form of three documents for three buildings and as per these documents the total built up area of the buildings under utilization of the Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences works out to 6,483 sq.mts (or) 69,764 sq.ft.; it appears that the Inspection committee has erred in considering the built-up area of only one of the above, i.e., University dormitory building, whose built up area is 3529 sq.ft. and did not take into account the other two built up areas; the respondent has not examined properly the relevant documents as well as the contents of the inspection committee report.; the respondent’s decision to refuse sanction of additional intake of 50 seats in B.P.Ed. is based on erroneous calculation of the built up area; and the university possesses more than the required built up area required for the courses already being offered viz., M.P.Ed. course and B.P.Ed. courses and for the additional intake of B.P.Ed. from 50 to 100 seats. In the course of personal presentation, the appellant clarified that the sports hostel complex building with a built-up area of 5,292 sq.mt. was originally given that name at the time of construction but it has suitable accommodation for conducting the Physical Education courses. He also informed that the indoor Stadium with a built-up area of 869 Sq.mt. also has three rooms and one hall. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the visiting team that inspected the institution on 07-05-2010 has indicated the built-up are as 3529 Sq.ft. at three places and in the overall assessment has recorded that space is enough and the instructional and infrastructural facilities available are adequate. Further, the VT report is positive in all respects. It appears that SRC came to conclusion that this area i.e. 3529 sq.ft. recorded in the VT report is not adequate for the additional intake of 50 in the B.P.Ed. From the submissions of the appellant in the appeal, it appears that the institution did not ensure that the visiting team correctly recorded the availability of built-up area in other buildings also as now brought out in the

appeal. the Council however noted that through their presentation in the appeal, the appellant has established that they have adequate built-up area for the proposed intake. The Council taking into account the above aspect into consideration has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of SRC reversed with a direction to the SRC for further processing of the case as per NCTE Regulation 2009. 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 SRC’s order dated 31-05-2010 with a direction to the SRC for further processing of the case as per NCTE Regulations, 2009. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of SRC reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.

(R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary

1. The Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar, Guntur - 522510, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

F.No.89-03/2011 Appeal/3rd Mtg-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

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

26/05/2011

O R D E R

WHEREAS the appeal of Lala Jagat Naryan Educational Society, Firozpur, Punjab dated 27/12/2010 is against the Order No. Appl./Return/2011-2012/NRCAPP-/974 dated 04/12/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds “1) On examination of your file it is observed that your institution has not submitted application through online, however the institution has submitted application in the format of Online Application Form. 2) The name of your institution and the name of your Society was entered in the computer to find out the same from the data of Online Application available in the computer, but the both name are not found in the data therefore, the application of your institution can't be treated as online applications”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Lala Jagat Naryan Educational Society (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Bimal Khanna, Executive Member and Shri. Jagjeet Singh, Superitendent, Lala Jagat Naryan Educational Society, Firozpur, Punjab presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the application was submitted online and the application popped out thereafter which was printed and a hard copy of the application was also sent before the due date. The appellant has not furnished the details of the ID which is generated after submission of an online application. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Clause 5(3) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 which are applicable in this case, stipulated that the application may be essentially submitted electronically through online mode available on the web-site of the NCTE alongwith the processing fee. Since the institution has not complied with this statutory requirement as is evident from non-generation of the ID and the fact that data of the applicant could not be found by the NRC, the Council came to the conclusion that the NRC was justified in rejecting the application for valid reasons and there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC’s order dated 04-12-2010 was confirmed

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


1. The Chairman, Lala Jagat Naryan Educational Society, Plot No. 226, 228, Village - Chak Arian Wala, Post Office & Tehsil - Jalalabad (West), Firozpur - 152024, Punjab 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Punjab, Chandigarh.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Malwa College of Education, Distt. Guna, Madhya Pradesh dated 27/01/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW07257/223747/122nd/2009/58095 dated 25/07/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the ground “1) Reply not received within stipulated time”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Malwa College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/01/2010 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 against the WRC’s order dated 25-07-2009 was filed before the Council on 27-01-2010 that was 04 months after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed under the NCTE Rules for filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Malwa College of Education, Distt. Guna, Madhya Pradesh was asked to present the reasons for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period of 60 days before the Council on 14-02-2011, 29-03-2011 and 04-05-2011 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity), as per the appeal rules. But nobody appeared before the Council on all three occasions. the Council, therefore decided to consider the question of condonation of delay on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith. AND WHEREAS the appellant vide his letter dated 21-12-2010 submitted the reasons for the delay caused in preferring the appeal stating that Shri Shivnarayan Gurjar, Chariman of the society was suffering from cancer and ultimately expired on 27-04-2009 and enclosed a medical certificate from Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay and also a death certificate dated 19-08-2009 from Municipal Corporation Guna, Madhya Pradesh, the delay was also due to appointment of new Chairman of Society which as per law should be appointed by the Firms and Societies Registrar, Madhya Pradesh, and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sen new Chairman has been appointed on 31-10-2009. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that WRC refused recognition vide order dated 25-07-2009. A society cannot depend solely on one person for its functioning. When a person/member of the society was unable to file an appeal on account of his indisposition or otherwise then any other member of the society/office bearer should have submitted an appeal within the stipulated period in the interest of the institution. Further, death of Shri Shivnarayan Gurjar who was the Chairman of the society occurred on 27-04-2009, that was about three months before recognition was refused to the institution on 25-07-2009. Besides, the appeal was filed by the institution on 27-01-2010 i.e. more than two months after the new Chairman of the society was appointed. Thus, there was no good and sufficient reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore the Council felt that there was no justification for condonation of delay of 04 months and hence the delay was not

condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.

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


1. The Chairman, Malwa College of Education, Gram Sagar (Jai Singh Pura), Tehsil Chachoda,, Distt. Guna - , 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 Marathwada Janvikas Pratishthan, Latur, Maharashtra dated 24/01/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW05416/1221492/110TH/ OBS/2008/52388 dated 07/03/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (M) (co-ed) course on the grounds “1) WRC considered the case of the institution in light of letters F.No. 46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sep, 2008, F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 1 October, 2008 received and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 31 October, 2008 from Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. course. Keeping in view of the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra State Government in respect of D.Ed. course and directions received from NCTE Hqs, the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case and communication to this effect to be made to this institution”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Marathwada Janvikas Pratishthan, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 24/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the appeal against the WRC’s order dated 07/03/2009 was filed before the Council on 24/01/2011 that was 1 year 8 months 23 days after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed under the NCTE Rules for filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Marathwada Janvikas Pratishthan, Latur, Maharashtra was asked to present the reasons for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period of 60 days before the Council on 15-02-2011, 29-03-2011 and also on 04-05-2011 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity), as per the appeal rules. But nobody appeared before the Council on all three occasions. The Council, therefore decided to consider the question of condonation of delay on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith. AND WHEREAS the appellant in his memorandum of appeal submitted the reasons for not preferring the appeal within the time limit stating that “it was primarily advised to the appellant that the writ petition is required to be filed as against the impugned order and so the appellant was preparing for the same. However later on it was informed to the appellant by the advocate from the High Court as well as Supreme Court that an appeal lies u/s 18 of the NCTE Act and as such delay occurred in this confusion. That, matter the delay in filling the appeal is not intentional nor it is due to any fault on the part of the appellant and so the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Delay has occurred due to the non response caused by the respondent for the months together and so there is no fault on the part of the appellant.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Rule 10 of the NCTE rules stipulates that an institution can file an appeal to the Council against the order of the Regional Committee of the NCTE, if it is aggrieved on that order, within 60 days of issue of such order. An applicant institution that has applied for grant of recognition for a teacher education course is expected to know the provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations. Therefore, ignorance of the provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations cannot be considered as an excuse for condonation of inordinate delay of 01 year 8 months and 23 days in filling the appeal and hence the delay was not condoned and the appeal was not admitted. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.



1. The President/ Secretary, Marathwada Janvikas Pratishthan,, Marathwada Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Plot No. 62,63/A,63/B AT-Latur, , Latur, - , 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 Paschim Maharasthra Education, Osmanabad, Maharashtra dated 28/06/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/2010/RL-5544 dated 21/01/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course (Urdu Medium) on the grounds “The institution did not fulfill the provision of clause 8(7) (i) of NCTE Regulations 2009”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Paschim Maharasthra Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/07/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the appeal against the WRC’s order dated 21/01/2010 was filed before the Council on 28/06/2010 that was 03 months 15 days after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed under the NCTE Rules for filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Paschim Maharasthra Education, Osmanabad, Maharashtra was asked to present the reasons for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period of 60 days before the Council on 17-02-2011, 29-03-2011 and 04-05-2011 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity), as per the appeal rules. But nobody appeared before the Council on all three occasions. The Council, therefore decided to consider the question of condonation of delay on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith. AND WHEREAS the appellant vide his letter dated 22-12-2010 submitted the reasons for the delay caused in preferring the appeal stating that they requested WRC, Bhopal on 10-02-2010 to re-consider their proposal and send an inspection team for inspection of the institution. The appellant was waiting for the reply from WRC and in this process the delay was caused. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the reason submitted by the appellant for considering the case for condonation of delay of 03 months 15 days, was not justifiable as the applicant can file only an appeal against the order of Regional Committee under the provisions of section 18 of the NCTE Act and approaching the WRC for re-consideration and sending an inspection team is not a remedy envisaged under the statute and hence it was decided not to condone the delay. The Council also noted that the society executed a gift deed only on 08-02-2010 that was after the submission of the application as well as rejection of the application on the ground that the institution/society did not possess requisite land as on the date of application. Therefore the Council decided not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Secretary, Paschim Maharasthra Education, Plot No. 232/2, Street- Darga Road, Post & Tal.- Paranda, Osmanabad - 413514, 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 Paschim Maharasthra Education, Jamila Arif Fazlani Urdu Junior College of Education, Pune, Maharashtra dated 23/06/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/2010/RL-5558 dated 21/01/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course (Additional Intake) on the grounds “The institution did not fulfill the provision of clause 8(3) of NCTE Regulations 2009”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Paschim Maharasthra Education, Jamila Arif Fazlani Urdu Junior College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/07/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the appeal against the WRC’s order dated 21/01/2010 was filed before the Council on 23/06/2010 that was 03 months 15 days after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed under the NCTE Rules for filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Paschim Maharasthra Education, Osmanabad, Maharashtra was asked to present the reasons for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period of 60 days before the Council on 17-02-2011, 29-03-2011 and 04-05-2011 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity), as per the appeal rules. But nobody appeared before the Council on all three occasions. The Council, therefore decided to consider the question of condonation of delay on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith. AND WHEREAS the appellant vide his letter dated 22-12-2010 submitted the reasons for the delay caused in preferring the appeal stating that they requested WRC, Bhopal on 10-02-2010 to re-consider their proposal and send an inspection team for inspection of the institution. The appellant was waiting for the reply from WRC and in this process the delay was caused. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the reason submitted by the appellant for considering the case for condonation of delay of 03 months 15 days, was not justifiable as the applicant can file only an appeal against the order of Regional Committee under the provisions of section 18 of the NCTE Act and approaching the WRC for re-consideration and sending an inspection team is not a remedy envisaged under the statute and hence it was decided not to condone the delay. The Council also noted that the institution was Jamila Arif Fazlani Urdu Junior College of Education, Pune, Maharashtra was granted recognition by the WRC vide order dated 08-03-2007 and the D.Ed. course being two year duration programme, the first batch of the D.Ed. students shall pass out in the year 2009, the second batch in 2010 and the third batch in the year 2011 and therefore the appellant was not eligible to submit an application in the year 2009 itself for grant of additional intake in the existing D.Ed. programme as per clause 8(3) of Regulations 2009. Therefore the Council

decided not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Secretary, Paschim Maharasthra Education, Jamila Arif Fazlani Urdu Junior College of Education, Plot No. 51, Street - Mithanagar, Hasan Kha Education CAM, Village-Kondhwa, Post - NIBM, Kondhwa, Tal- Haveli, Pune - 411048, 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 Paschim Maharasthra Education, PMET Diploma in Teacher Education, Osmanabad, Maharashtra dated 06/07/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/2010/RL-5543 dated 21/01/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course (Marathi Medium) on the grounds that The institution did not fulfill the provision of clause 8(7) (i) of NCTE Regulations 2009. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Paschim Maharasthra Education, PMET Diploma in Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/07/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the appeal against the WRC’s order dated 21/01/2010 was filed before the Council on 06/07/2010 that was 03 months 15 days after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed under the NCTE Rules for filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Paschim Maharasthra Education, Osmanabad, Maharashtra was asked to present the reasons for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period of 60 days before the Council on 17-02-2011, 29-03-2011 and 04-05-2011 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity), as per the appeal rules. But nobody appeared before the Council on all three occasions. The Council, therefore decided to consider the question of condonation of delay on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith. AND WHEREAS the appellant vide his letter dated 22-12-2010 submitted the reasons for the delay caused in preferring the appeal stating that they requested WRC, Bhopal on 10-02-2010 to re-consider their proposal and send an inspection team for inspection of the institution. The appellant was waiting for the reply from WRC and in this process the delay was caused. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the reason submitted by the appellant for considering the case for condonation of delay of 03 months 15 days, was not justifiable as the applicant can file only an appeal against the order of Regional Committee under the provisions of section 18 of the NCTE Act and approaching the WRC for re-consideration and sending an inspection team is not a remedy envisaged under the statute and hence it was decided not to condone the delay. The Council also noted that the society executed a gift deed only on 08-02-2010 that was after the submission of the application as well as rejection of the application on the ground that the institution/society did not possess requisite land as on the date of application. Therefore the Council decided not to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.

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

of delay and admit the appeal.


1. The President, Paschim Maharasthra Education, PMET Diploma in Teacher Education, Plot NO. 232/2, Street- Darga Road, Post & Tal- Paranda, Osmanabad - 413514, 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 Ravindra College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh dated 08/04/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/213016/111th/2008/48230-48235 dated 18/12/2008 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed.(Co-Ed) course on the grounds “1) Approved building plan from the competent authority not submitted by the college. 2) Original land and building documents were not shown to V.T. Members”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ravindra College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 13/04/2010 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 against the WRC’s order dated 18/12/2008 was filed before the Council on 08/04/2010 that was 01 year 02 months after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed under the NCTE Rules for filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Ravindra College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh was asked to present the reasons for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period of 60 days before the Council on 17-02-2011, 29-03-2011 and 04-05-2011 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity), as per the appeal rules. But nobody appeared before the Council on all three occasions. The Council, therefore decided to consider the question of condonation of delay on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith. AND WHEREAS the appellant vide his letter dated 05-05-2010 submitted the reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal stating that the WRC’s withdrawal order dated 18-12-2008 was received by them on 04-05-2010, in reply to their letter dated 23-02-2010. However the appellant heard about the withdrawal order on 22-02-2010 and immediately submitted the appeal and hence there is no delay as such in filling the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that WRC dispatched the withdrawal order dated 18-12-2008 to the institution through speed post. Generally, a mail dispatched through speed post/registered post is returned to the sender by the postal authorities if it is not delivered to the addressee. The withdrawal order was not received in the WRC office undelivered and, therefore, the claim of the institution that it did not receive the order cannot be accepted. WRC again dispatched a copy of the withdrawal order when the institution asked for the same vide letter dated 23-02-2010. Under these circumstances the contention of the appellant that he came to know about the withdrawal order orally on 23-02-2010 and further he has received the copy of the withdrawal order only on 04-05-2010 cannot be accepted for considering the case for condonation of an inordinate delay of 01 year 02 months. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.




1. The Principal, Ravindra College, South T.T. Nagar,, Bhopal - -, Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Bangalore City College of Diploma in Education, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 04/02/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/24878 dated 06/12/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed.-Al course (and also B.Ed., M.Ed. and D.Ed. courses) on the ground that the institution is running all the above mentioned courses along with Pre-University college with grossly inadequate built up area of 14,000 sq.ft. only as per the VT report. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Bangalore City of Diploma in Education, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/02/2011 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 Shri. T. Prasad Rao, Managing Trustee, Bangalore City College of Diploma in Education, Bangalore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that they have 38948 sq.ft available built up area for the educational courses like M.Ed., B.Ed., and D.Ed and Additional Intake only and they are not utilizing that building for the PU course or any other courses. In support of this claim the appellant has submitted a building plan approved by Village Panchayat on 10-12-2010 showing a built-up area of 38,948 Sq.ft. in two buildings and an affidavit. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that an inspection of D.Ed. course under Section 13 of the NCTE Act was conducted on 20-04-2010. SRC initiated action under Section 17 of the NCTE Act and issued a show cause notice on 31-08-2010; and after considering the representation of the institution decided to withdraw recognition for not only D.Ed.(additional intake); but also D.Ed. original intake, B.Ed. and M.Ed. course. SRC issued two withdrawal orders on 06-12-2010 one for B.Ed. and M.Ed. and another for D.Ed. original intake and D.Ed. addl intake. the Council noted that the visiting team report dated 20-04-2010 U/s 13 of the NCTE Act for D.Ed. course formed the basis for issue of show cause notices for two programmes, namely, B.Ed. , and D.Ed. (there being no show cause notice for M.Ed. programme on the relevant file) and the grounds in the notices were identical. The Council also noted that in response to the show cause notices, the appellant filed identical replies in which he claimed that they have a building with an area of 31,854 sq.ft., which is exclusively meant for only B.Ed. and D.Ed. (including D.Ed. Addl) and PU college is being run in their new premises and not in this building. AND WHEREAS the Council also noted that in the course of presentation, the appellant has given a letter dated 04-05-2011 in which he expressed his willingness to withdraw additional section in D.Ed. and requested for continuance of B.Ed., M.Ed. and D.Ed. courses. Alongwith this letter he has enclosed a building completion certificate dated 28-04-2011 showing a built-up area of 38,944 Sq.ft. The appellant has submitted an affidavit by the Managing Trustee of Rama Krishna Education Trust dated 28-04-2011 stating therein that the

P.U. course is run in a separate building at No.115, Doddabanaswadi, Ring Road, Bangalore-43. To that affidavit he has enclosed a copy of academic recognition issued by Commissioner, Pre-University Education, Bangalore showing the address of Bangalore city P.U. college at 115, Doddabanswadi. The affidavit in respect of the buildings for teacher education courses has been submitted by the Founder Chairman Trustee of Ramakrishna Education Trust showing the address of the building at No. 160/642, Challakere Main Road, Kalian Nagar, Outer Ring Road, Doddabanaswadi, Bangalore-43. It is not clear as to why the affidavits have been given by two functionaries of the same Trust. The Council noted that visiting team report dated 20-04-2010 besides indicating availability of inadequate area has mentioned several other deficiencies besides running of the PU course in the same building. Since the SRC on the basis of a report relating to D.Ed. course has withdrawn recognition for all the three courses namely D.Ed.,B.Ed. and M.Ed. and the appellant made certain submissions in his defence which are verifiable, the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of the SRC reversed with a direction to SRC to cause a composite inspection for all the courses being run on this premises/campus and take an appropriate decision thereafter. 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 SRC’s order dated 06-12-2010 with a direction to SRC to cause a composite inspection for all the courses and take an appropriate decision thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of SRC reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Managing Trustee, Bangalore City of Diploma in Education,, No. 160, Chelekere Main Road, Kalayanagar Post,, 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, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.



O R D E R WHEREAS the earlier appeal of ESS ESS College of Education, Agra, Uttar Pradesh dated 01/06/2010 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/NRCAPP203/158 Meeting/2010/21794 dated 11/05/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, rejecting its application for recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds “1) The name of the college mentioned in land documents do not match with the land documents submitted earlier and appears to be tampered. 2) Land documents are not certified. 3) Submitted CLU is not notarized”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, ESS ESS College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 28/03/2011 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 was rejected by the Council vide Order dated 27-08-2010 on the ground that application submitted online but not followed by dispatch through registered post or by hand, with seven documents mentioned at (i) to (vii) of Regulation 7(1), including certified copy of registered land documents issued by the competent authority, notarized copy of CLU issued by the competent authority within seven days, shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected. The institution forwarded only self attested copies of land documents and CLU and not certified copy of land document and notarized copy of CLU as required under regulation 7(1-A). The committee also noted that the name of the college mentioned in copies of the land documents submitted did not tally. Thus, the institution did not fulfill the requirement of provision in Regulation 7 (1 A) of NCTE Regulations, 2009 to become eligible for consideration for recognition by NCTE. Aggrieved by the decision of the Council, the appellant filed a W.P.(C) No.6227/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and the Court vide order dated 01-11-2010 disposed of the petition with certain observations and remanded the application of the petitioner for recognition to the NRC for consideration in accordance with law. The NRC incompliance with the Court directions considered the case in its 177th meeting held on 27-29th January 2011 and it decided that the application of the institution for D.El.Ed. course be refused under Clause 14(3)(b) of NCTE Act 1993 on the ground “The contention of the institution that variations in the land documents submitted by the institution initially and subsequently are essentially the typographical mistakes, has not been accepted by the NRC. The two land documents mention the name of the institution as SS College of Education in its Hindi version whereas the name written in English against this name in Hindi, varies in the two documents. In one document, photocopy of which is available with NRC, the English version has been written as SS College of Education whereas in the documents now submitted in the English version has been mentioned as ESS ESS College of Education. The two documents bears the same serial no. i.e. A289243. In any case, if it was a case of typographical error, proper authenticated correction should have been carried out by the Registering Authority in the original document and its photocopy with proper certification should have been submitted

by the institution to NRC. At present, the NRC is in possession of two sets of photocopies bearing same number eg. A289243 in one the name of the institution is written as S.S. College of Education and in another it is written as ESS ESS College of Education. The institution has failed to explain this discrepancy. The submission in para 6 of the institution's letter dated 20/01/2011 mentioning that Hon'ble High Court observed that it is a typographical mistake and has been rectified has not been properly understood as there is no such mention in the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Moreover, this observation was made after scrutiny of the papers by NRC on December 24-26, 2010”. Aggrieved by the decision of the NRC as reflected in the website in the minutes of 177th meeting, the appellant filed LPA 206/2011 in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and the Court vide order dated 01-03-2011 permitted to withdraw the appeal to prefer a statutory appeal U/s 18(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 before the Council within a period of three weeks and on such filing the appeal shall be decided on merits and not overboard on the ground of limitation. The Council shall decide the appeal within four weeks from the date of presentation of the appeal. In compliance with the Court direction the appellant preferred an appeal on 25-03-2011 and the Council decided to list the case for personal presentation on 04-05-2011 before the Council. AND WHEREAS Shri. Anil Kumar Garg, Secretary and Shri. Sanjay Jain, PRO, ESS ESS College of Education, Agra, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the objection pertaining to the name of the college is concerned, it was submitted that the Appellant's trust purchased land measuring 5000 sq. mtrs. and 2450 sq. mtrs. vide two registered sale deeds dated 31/08/2009 in the name of the appellant college, both the said plots were contiguous and formed part of khasra No. 134 in revenue estate of Mauza Khas Pur, Tehsil and District Agra. The sale deeds were typed in Hindi. The name of the Appellant college is "ESS ESS College of Education". In the sale deed the said name was written and typed correctly in Hindi. However when the sale deeds had been presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, the Sub-Registrar or some official in the office wrote in black pen in hand the name of the college in English in both the sale deeds against the name of the college. However in hand writing the name in English came to be written as "S.S. College of Education" instead of "ESS ESS College of Education". The Appellants rubber stamp depicting the correct spelling of the name was already affixed on each page of the sale deeds, When the Appellant got the sale deeds after registration, it did not notice the said corrections being made by the Sub-Registrar. After scrutinizing the application, the NRC pointed out nine deficiencies and one of them was that the name of college in the sale deeds was written as "S.S. College of Education" whereas in the application it was mentioned as "ESS ESS College of Education". Immediately thereafter the Appellant went to the Registrar's office and pointed out the discrepancy in the sale deeds. The said discrepancy was admitted by the Sub-Registrar and he personally got the spelling mistake corrected in the name of the college hand written in English in both the sale deeds. The Appellant thus obtained certified copies of the sale deeds after correction. Photocopies of the certified copies of the rectified sale deeds obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar were submitted by the Appellant to NRC alongwith reply dated 05/04/2010. Thus after submission of the rectified sale deed the said objection of the NRC became meaningless. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a copy of the document No.A289243 submitted alongwith the application mentions S.S. College of Education, whereas a copy of the same document No.289243 submitted subsequently mentions ESS ESS College of Education and hence refusal ground of NRC was valid. It further noted that the appellant submitted two

sets of certified copies of registered sale deed issued on 09-01-2011. In these documents S.S. College of Education is converted to ESS ESS College of Education by inserting the letter E before SS and a block of three letters ESS and no signature of the correcting authority is available at the appropriate corrected places. Further more the names in Hindi remains unchanged as “__________ “ and also on one of the page, the name of the college in English is written as S.S. College of Education. In view of the above discrepancies existing with regard to name of the institution and also in the absence of any authenticated correction letter issued by the concerned registrar orffice, the Council came to the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC’s order dated 11-05-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, ESS ESS College of Education, Plot No. 134, Village- Khaspur, Post- Dayal Bagh, Tehsil- Sadar,, Agra - 282005, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Fatika Nazrul Sukanta Educational Training Centre, Burdwan, West Bengal dated 28/02/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-85.8.34/2008/1073313 dated 10/04/2008 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds “1) Building completion certificate from the competent authority is not submitted. 2) Affidavit on Rs. 100/= stamp paper submitted is in old format so the built up area and total area cannot be ascertained. 3) Details of website in the mandatory disclosure format not submitted. 4) The Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Kolkata vide its letter dated 14/09/2007 has informed that they do not have any branch at Tarakeswar. Hence, the FDR of 5.00 Lakhs submitted by the institution towards Endowment Fund is fake”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Fatika Nazrul Sukanta Educational Training Centre, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 09/03/2011 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 Council noted that an earlier appeal of the institution dated 23-12-2008 was not admitted by the Council on the ground that it was late by six months and 21 days after the expiry of stipulated period of 60 days and the appellant was informed by the letter dated 19-03-2009. the Council also noted that the appellant, aggrieved by the Council’s decision, filed a writ petition No.22047(w) of 2009 and another petition AST No.1769 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta. The Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 23-12-2010 directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal afresh on merit after admitting the same upon being satisfied with regard to explanation offered in support of the delay that has occasioned. The Hon’ble High Court did not enter into the merit with regard to substantive appeal as well as the merit touching the prayer for condonation of delay which would remain absolutely wide open in both areas before the Respondent, namely, the Council. The appellant has submitted a fresh appeal dated 28-02-2011. The Council decided to condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits. AND WHEREAS Shri. SK Hedaetul Islam, Secretary and Md. Alamgir, Member, Fatika Nazrul Sukanta Educational Training Centre, Burdwan, West Bengal presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal it was submitted that ERC refused recognition to the institution; but the name of the institution was listed at Sl. No. 02 under the list of recognized institutions (D.Ed.) on Delhi’s website; ERC dispatched the refusal order to a wrong address and hence the institution could not receive the impugned order in time; further the institution submitted all the documents demanded by ERC. In the course of personal presentation the appellant informed that the refusal order was sent to wrong address in Burdwan Distt, whereas the institution was located in Bankura Distt and the communication was obtained from Burdwan after many efforts. The Council however noted that the ERC issued a corrigendum on 23-03-2009 giving the correct address. Regarding the grounds for refusal, the Council noted that the appellant obtained a building completion certificate issued by Asstt. Engineer, Burdwan Jila Parishad on 05-06-2009, and

not from a Competent Authority in Bankura Distt., where the institution is situated, and that too much after the date of refusal. The appellant submitted an affidavit on Rs.100 stamp paper with necessary details sworn on 01-03-2011 and a mandatory disclosure format with the present appeal only. The appellant during personal presentation admitted that the FDR for Rs.5.00 lakh issued by `Tarakeswar Branch’ of Syndicate Bank is not a genuine one and the fraud was perpetrated by the partner and they have now obtained a new FDR. AND WHEREAS the Council after considering all aspects of the matter and specially the submissions ground-wise made has come to the conclusion that all the four grounds on which ERC refused recognition are valid and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of ERC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’s order dated 10-04-2008 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Fatika Nazrul Sukanta Educational Training Centre,, Village - Fatika, PO - Roll,, Burdwan - 722205, 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 Gajanan Charity Trust’s K.A. Patel Adhyapan Mandir, Mehsana Dist., Gujarat dated 15/05/2009 is against the Order No. No.WRC/APW04030/32405/2009/54150/ dated 17/04/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting PTC (Guj.) (Girls) course on the grounds: “Keeping in view the negative recommendations received from the Gujarat State Government in respect of PTC course and direction received from NCTE Hqrs., the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case. As per above decision taken by WRC, the proposal of said institution is to be treated as closed, the FDRs towards Endowment fund and Reserve fund (in original) is returned herewith.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Gajanan Charity Trust (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 18/05/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the above appeal of the institution was rejected by the Council vide order dated 14-07-2009 on the grounds that “the VT report dated 20-06-2008 was not positive and it inter-alia indicated that the size of the classroom was only 13.50 Sq.mts. or 145.31 Sq.ft. and the size of the multi-purpose hall was 36.18 Sq.mt. or 389 Sq.ft. which were inadequate as per NCTE norms. The Council also noted that the building plan submitted along with the application indicated an area of 7606 Sq.ft. only and that though another building plan submitted after issue of deficiency letter indicated an area of 1437 Sq.mts. or 15468 Sq.ft. it was in respect of a school. The Council further noted that based on the recommendation of the State Govt. of Gujarat that no more PTC courses in the State should be allowed, the NCTE Hqrs issued a public notice on 02-10-2008 to the effect that applications for recognition of PTC courses in the State for the session 2009-10 would not be received by the WRC and that applications already received by WRC would not be processed and returned to the institution concerned. As the decision appealed against was taken by the WRC in accordance with the said public notice issued by the NCTE on the recommendation of the State Govt. of Gujarat, the Council was of the view that there was no justification for accepting the appeal”. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant filed a Special Civil Application No.12521 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 15-03-2011 without expressing any opinion on merit directed the respondent to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 15-05-2009 within two months. If it has already been decided, they will forward a copy to the petitioner. The final decision in any case may be forwarded to the petitioner within the period aforesaid.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council considered the case on 04-05-2011 and noted that the appeal dated 15-05-2009 of the institution was already decided by the Council vide order

dated 14-07-2009, and hence a copy of the Council’s order dated 14-07-2009 may be forwarded to the institution in compliance with the Hon’ble Court directions.


1. The Trustee, Gajanan Charity Trust, Po. Timba. Ta Satalasana. , Mehsana Dist. - , 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 Late A.M. Patil Public Education Society (Anand Adhyapak Vidyalaya), Distt. Dhule, Maharashtra dated 29/12/2009 is against the Order No. WRC/APW04600/1221088/110/2008/54475 dated 22/04/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed (M) (Co.Ed) course on the grounds “1) The inspection of the Institution was conducted on 09/11/2008 and WRC considered the case of the institution in light of letters F.No.46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sep., 2008, F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 1 October, 2008 and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 31 October, 2008 received from Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. course. Keeping in view of the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra State Government in respect of D.Ed. course and directions received from NCTE Hqr. the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case and communication to this effect to be made to this institution”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Late A.M. Patil Public Education Society (Anand Adhyapak Vidyalaya) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/12/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Deepak T. Deore, Clerk and Shri. Yogesh S. Gangurde, Peon, Late A.M. Patil Public Education Society (Anand Adhyapak Vidyalaya), Distt. Dhule, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the Regional Committee has gravely erred in holding that the proposal of the appellant institution for grant of the recognition is to be treated as closed as per the decision taken by the WRC. The impugned order of the respondent herein is vague, uncertain and against the principle of natural justice and thus liable to be set aside in the given factual matrix of the case; the decision of the Respondent is without any reason or rhythm and liable to be set aside. No reason much less legally tenable and cogent reason has been given by the respondent herein while taking such perverse decision; the appellant was not given any opportunity to be heard before taking the impugned decision by the respondent. The alleged communication made between the NCTE, Delhi and the respondent as well as the alleged negative recommendation has neither been discussed in detail by the respondent nor the same has been provided to the appellant. However the future of the appellant has been sealed without being given full and effective hearing to the appellant; the respondent failed to appreciate that the appellant has at each stages i.e. at the time of applying for the recognition, inspection of the institution, videography of the same, selection of faculty members, submitting the required building plans, submitting required fees etc., fulfilled all requirement to the satisfaction as per law and thus without giving any reason the passing of the impugned letter is bad in law.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appeal of the institution dated 29-12-2009 was not admitted by the Council vide their order dated 02-02-2010 on the ground that the appeal was late by six months and 10 days after the expiry of the stipulated period of 60 days. Aggrieved by the Council’s order dated 02-02-2010 the insituttion filed a writ petition No.942 of 2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and the Hon’ble High Court in their Order dated 10-02-2011 condoned the delay on payment of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) by the petitioner and directed that the appeal preferred by the petitioner be registered if it fulfils with other legal compliances. AND WHEREAS the Council taking all aspects of the matter into consideration including condonation of delay by the Hon’ble High Court has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of the WRC reversed with a direction to the WRC to examine the application of the institution on its own merit which has not been done earlier and take an appropriate decision thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 22-04-2009. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of WRC reversed with a direction to the WRC for further processing on merit. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Late A.M. Patil Public Education Society (Anand Adhyapak Vidyalaya), Yashwant Complex Satana Road, Pimpalner, Taluk-Sakri,, Distt. Dhule - , Maharashtra 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

F.No.89-523/2009/3rd Mtg-2011 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


26/05/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Late Ganpatrao Choudhary Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's, Yavatmal, Maharashtra dated 04/06/2009 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06017/1222007/110th./VTR/2008/53809 dated 13/04/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds that the inspection of the institution was conducted on 21/10/2008/ and WRC considered the case of the institutions in the light of letters F.No. 46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sep, 2008, F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 1 October, 2008 and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 31 October, 2008 received from Member-Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendation received from Govt. of Maharashtra in respect of D.Ed. Course. Keeping in view, the negative recommendation received from the State Government in respect of D.Ed. course and directions received from NCTE Hqs, the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Late Ganpatrao Choudhary Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 09/06/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appeal of the institution dated 04-06-2009 was earlier considered by the Council and in their order dated 07-08-2009 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the WRC. The Council also noted that the institution filed a writ petition No.2062 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur and the Hon’ble High Court in their Order dated 07-12-2010 directed the respondents to consider the proposal submitted by the petititoner for grant of recognition on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. The Council further noted that in pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court Order, the WRC considered the matter in their 145th meeting held on 17-18 Feb 2011 and issued a show cause noice to the institution on 11-03-2011. AND WHEREAS Shri. Baburao Ramrao Deshmukh, Principal and Shri. Panjabrao Kashinath Patil, Secretary, Late Ganpatrao Choudhary Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's, Yavatmal, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011 confirmed the position stated above and also informed that they have sent a reply to the show cause notice to the WRC. In view of the position stated above the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal has become in fructuous and, therefore, it should be treated as disposed of.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby treats the appeal as disposed of because the WRC as already initiated necessary action in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court.

(R.P. Sisodia)

Member Secretary

1. The Principal, Late Ganpatrao Choudhary Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's, Navprena Adhyapak Vidaylaya Sy.No. 65, Shembalpipmari Tq. Pusad , Yavatmal - , 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 Narmada Shikshan Prashishan Sansthan, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh dated 17/02/2011 is against the Order No. F.NO. Mis/Appl/Return/2011-2012/M.P./71762 dated 08/11/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground “the application was not received on-line as essentially required in the NCTE Regulations and therefore, the application is returned herewith in original with all attached documents”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Narmada Shikshan Prashishan Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/02/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant filed a writ petition No. W.P. 1796/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur against the order of the WRC and on the Respondent raising a preliminary objection about the availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, the petitioner sought time of 15 days to file an appeal with permission to withdraw the petition. The Hon’ble High Court in their Order dated 14-02-2011 directed that if the appeal is preferred within 15 days. The appellate authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation. AND WHEREAS Shri. Mukund Das Maheshwari, Secretary, Narmada Shikshan Prashishan Sansthan, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the application was submitted online on 10/09/2010 at 11.02 hrs but the ID was not generated for reasons unknown; he forwarded the printouts of on line submitted application along with three sets of hard copies to the Council and this should be treated as sufficient compliance of the condition. He also submitted that the online submission has been recently introduced and teething probelms are experienced in the initial stage which need to be overlooked/waived/relaxed in the larger interest of educational training in the country; the respondent lost sight of the fact that had the appellant not submitted the application online then printouts would not have generated and, therefore, merely on technical reason, the processing of application ought not to have been rejected; the application was submitted about 15 days prior to the closing date and had the respondent pointed out deficiency immediately in the month of September, the appellant would have again submitted the application online but this opportunity was lost due to delayed information sent by respondent in second week of November 2010. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Clause 5(3) of the NCTE Regulations 2009, which are applicable in this case, stipulates that the application may be essentially submitted electronically through online mode available on the website of the NCTE alongwith the processing fee. Non-generation of ID, which has been admitted by the appellant also, is a

proof that the application was not successfully sent online, which is a mandatory requirement. In the circumstances, the Council came to the conclusion that the application of the institution was rejected by the WRC for valid reasons and hence there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 08-11-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Narmada Shikshan Prashishan Sansthan, Narmada Welfare Society, Diwan Bahadur Vallabhdas Plance, Hanuman Tal,, Jabalpur - , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Ganesh College of Education, Jhunjhuna, Rajasthan dated 18/01/2011 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/RJ-1082/2009/6387 dated 17/07/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground “The deficiency communicated to the institution on 11-05-2009 still exists”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Ganesh College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that an earlier appeal of the institution dated 13-07-2009 against the withdrawal order of the NRC dated 17-07-2009 was rejected by the Council in their order dated 26-08-2009. Aggrieved by the order of the Council the appellant filed a writ petition No.11033 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and the Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 15-09-2009 directed the respondents to hold a fresh inspection of the institution about the fulfillment of the norms and standards prescribed under the Regulations and thereafter take appropriate steps and pass an order. Thereafter NRC got an inspection conducted on 16-11-2009, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 07-12-2009 and after considering the reply of the institution dated `Nil’ and received on 31-12-2009, NRC decided to send another visiting team to verify the claim made by the institution to the show cause notice dated 07-12-2009. Accordingly NRC got another inspection conducted on 29-09-2010 and before a decision could be taken the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court for Rajasthan at Jaipur through Civil W.P. No.14444/2009 and the Hon’ble High Court in the order dated 16-11-2011 directed the NRC to take a final decision. It is noted that the NRC in their 174th meeting held on 8-10 December 2010, after exhaustively considering the matter came to the conclusion that even the reply of the institution dated 31-12-2009 has not been satisfactory and there was no reason to withdraw or review its order dated 17-07-2009. The NRC also decided to furnish their findings to the Hon’ble High Court in its next hearing, with a submission that in case the institution is not satisfied with their decision they may approach the appellate authority. The NRC has accordingly written a letter dated 27-12-2010 to their advocate in the High Court to bring the contents to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court. The Council also noted that the appellant has filed another Civil Writ Peititon No.315 of 2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and the Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 12-01-2011, accepting the plea of the petitioner to file a statutory appeal as indicated in the minutes of the 174th meeting of NRC held on 8-10th December 2010, without entering into the merits of the case, directed that in case the petitioner file an appeal within 15 days, the same shall be decided within a period of 3 months. The present appeal has accordingly been filed.

AND WHEREAS Shri. Suresh Kumar, President and Shri. Sushil Kumar, Secretary, Shri Ganesh College of Education, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (1) Library facility as per NCTE Norms, with adequate seating space. (2.) Total built up area 47236 sq ft (Including Classroom, Lab, Library, Reception, Admn. Block, Multipurpose Hall) of college & using for Education College only. Inspection team calculated classroom area only in built-up area. (3) Teaching Staff as per NCTE Norms & Salary Paid by Bank. (4) Classes were held as per NCTE Norms with proper attendance. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that after conducting an inspection on 29-09-2010, the NRC after recording their decision neither to withdraw nor review its order dated 17-07-2009 has not served any show cause notice to the petitioner. The Council is of the opinion that in the interest of natural justice, an opportunity needs to be given to the appellant to make such representation he may like to make, before passing an order. The Council therefore, came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the NRC directed to issue a show cause notice to the appellant institution and take a final decision thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VTR 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 17-07-2009 and the NRC directed to issue a show cause notice to the appellant institution and take a final decision thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of NRC reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Shri Ganesh College of Education, Village - Chudina, Tehsil - Buhana,, Jhunjhuna - , Rajasthan 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Sai College of Education, Jhajjar, Haryana dated 04/04/2011 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-7/HR-958/2009/3844 dated 05/06/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the ground”1) Deficiencies communicated in the show cause notice issued by the office are not replied within stipulated period”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Sai College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/04/2011 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. Vijender Kumar Khatri, Chairman and Shri. Raghubir Singh, Vice-Chairman, Shri Sai College of Education, Jhajjar, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that in response to letter dated 02-07-2008, he had submitted details with supporting documents; the discrepencies pointed out in the letter dated 25-03-2009 after causing an inspection were replied to on 20-04-2009 with documentary proof and despite the reply recognition was refused; and he did not receive any response to his representation dated 26-07-2010.The appellant has also submitted that the respondent had followed a discriminatory policy in granting recognition and had not looked into the documents submitted by the appellant. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant has not filed any statutory appeal in the prescribed format after the NRC refused recognition. The representation stated to have been made on 26-07-2010 was not a formal appeal at all in the prescribed format with necessary documents and the prescribed fee. The Council also noted that the appellant without filing an appeal before the Council filed a writ petition No.WP(c) 1523/2011 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 15-03-2011, on a request made by the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to prefer an appeal to the Council alongwith an application for condonation of delay, dismissed the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid. The appellant thereafter filed the appeal only on 04-04-2011. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the filing of appeal has been delayed by nearly one year and eight months after the expiry of the permissible period of 60 days. The appellant in his application dated 04-04-2011 for condonation of delay has stated that (i) due to bonafide mistake of law he could not file the appeal within the statutory time; (ii) due to change of management of Trust relevant records were not available at the institute; (iii) only after the records were found process was initiated to seek recognition; (iv) there was no response to the letters written to the respondents; and (v) he had to approach the Hon’ble High Court. The Council noted that while the letter dated 26-07-2010 stated to have been written to the respondent after a lapse of more than one year from the date of refusal

of recognition was not a statutory appeal which alone is admissible after the issue of a formal order by the Regional Committee and the appellant filed the formal appeal only after withdrawing the petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court. The other grounds added for delayed submission are only after thought. In the circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that there are no good and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in the submission of appeal and hence the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.




1. The Chairman, Shri Sai College of Education, Village- Tamaspur, Post- Jhajjar,, Jhajjar - , Haryana 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Vidya Niketan Teacher's Training College, Patna, Bihar dated 03/01/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-94.8.50/2009/162161 dated 25/04/2009 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) The land registered on 15/12/2008, i.e. after the prescribed last due date hence cannot be accepted. (As per clause 8(7) of NCTE Regulations dt. 27/11/2007, no institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations unless it is possession of required land on the date of application. As per clause 5(5) of NCTE Regulations dt. 27/11/2007, all complete applications received on or before 31st October of the year shall be processed for the next academic session.) 2) The institution has submitted three sets of application form in prescribed format mentioning Plot No. 1197 & 1198. As per the affidavit mentioning Plot No. 1236, 1235, 1197 & 1198. As per land document submitted by the institution Plot No. 1236, 1235 is on ownership basis & Plot No. 1197 & 1198 is on lease basis. 3) Total area don't match as given in the application form & affidavit. Registration in the office of not given. Affidavit also not in prescribed format. As per the affidavit 27000 Sq. Ft. land is on ownership basis & 8296 Sq. Meter of land is on lease basis. Information regarding Col. 5 of the affidavit not given. 4) Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 3.00 lakhs (in original) not submitted as Reserve Fund. 5) Approved Building Plan with Plot No., Khata No., Khesera No., Total Area, Built up Area from the Competent State Govt. Authority not submitted. 6) Building Completion Certificate with Plot No., Khata No., Khesera No. Total Area, Built up Area from the Competent State Govt. Authority not submitted”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Vidya Niketan Teacher's Training College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 05/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Satish Kumar Singh, Member, Vidya Niketan Teacher's Training College, Patna, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 04-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that Land earlier was on lease basis and later on ownership basis on the advice of the competent authority; non-submission of bank Draft for Rs. 3 Lakhs will be modified by depositing as desired; and the building has been completed and relevant documents are submitted with the application. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of appeal was delayed by more than one year and six months after the permissible period of 60 days. The appellant has merely stated that the letter of refusal was received much after the expiry date for filing an appeal without even mentioning when he actually received the refusal order and much less without furnishing any proof of alleged delayed receipt. In the circumstances the Council came to the conclusion that there are no good and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in the submission of appeal and hence the delay is not condoned. Accordingly, the Council refused to accept the reasons for condonation of delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Secretary, Vidya Niketan Teacher's Training College, Vill/Po. - Sarai,, Patna - 801115, Bihar 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Abhilasha College of Education (Minority Institution), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh dated 18-11-2009 is against the Order No.WRC/APW08226/225169/122nd/2009/58333 dated 28-07-2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.Ed course on the ground “Reply not received within stipulated time. Hence application rejected, file closed”. The appeal was late by one month and twenty one days after the expiry of the stipulated limit of sixty days and the Council, vide their letter dated 17.06.2010 did not condone the delay. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Abhilasha College of Education (Minority Institution) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/04/2011 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 Council noted that the appellant institution filed a Writ Petition No.473/11 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur, M. P praying for permitting the petitioner to participate in the ongoing counseling to admit the students for B. Ed Course. The Hon’ble High Court, vide its order dated 15.02.2011, rejected the writ petition. Subsequently, the appellant institution filed a petition before the Hon’ble National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, against the letter of the Council dated 17.06.2010 refusing to condone the delay of 01 month and 21 days in filing the appeal before the Council against the order dated 28.07.2009 of the WRC, Bhopal refusing recognition to the institution. The Hon’ble National Commission, vide its order dated 05.04.2011,directed the Council to decide the question of condonation of delay in filing the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of four months. Accordingly, the appeal filed on 18.11.2009 was again listed for hearing on 05.05.2011. AND WHEREAS Shri. Khalid Masan, President, Abhilasha College of Education (Minority Institution), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the institution had not received the ‘so called deficiency letter’. Hence, they were unable to know what the deficiencies were. As and when they saw minutes of 122nd WRC meeting held on July 20-21, 2009, they went to the Regional Office, Bhopal and approached the in-charge Regional Director and informed him that they did not receive any deficiency letter. The Regional Director informed them that once file was closed by the WRC, it could not take any further action in the matter. Till the day of hearing, they had not received the deficiency letter or the ‘so called letter’ issued to convey the decision of 122nd meeting. AND WHEREAS the Council, considering the submissions of the appellant came to the conclusion that the delay may be condoned, the appeal accepted and the order of the WRC dated 28.07.009 reversed with a direction to WRC to reissue the deficiency letter dated 05.03.2009 to the institution and to take further action, thereafter.

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 set aside WRC’s order dated 28/07/2009 with direction to the WRC to re-issue the deficiency letter by the appellant institution and take necessary action, thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Abhilasha College of Education (Minority Institution), Plot No. 2/1, Opp. Birthiri Market, Ratibad, Hujur,, Bhopal - 462001, 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 Bharat Veerangana Awantibai Educational Sansthan, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh dated 18/02/2011 is against the Order No. F.NO.Appl./Return/2011-2012/NRCAPP-/1366 dated 21/12/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds “1) Your institution has not submitted application through online; however, the institution has submitted application in the format of Online Application Form. 2) The name of your institution and the name of your Society was entered in the computer to find out the same from the data of Online Application available in the computer, but both are not found in the data; therefore, the application of your institution can't be treated as online applications”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Bharat Veerangana Awantibai Educational Santhan (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/02/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Bharat Singh, President and Shri. Harswarup, Secretary, Bharat Veerangana Awantibai Educational Sansthan, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the appellant has submitted the application for grant of approval to start D.El.Ed (BTC) programme to the Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur in accordance with the procedures and guidelines laid down by NCTE. The application was filled up and submitted on-line on the NCTE website "www.ncte-india.org." on 29th September 2010, i.e. before the last date 30th September 2010, declared by NCTE. (As a proof of their having submitted the application on-line, they had submitted printout of the PDF copy generated on-line, vide Annexure-B to the appeal). They requested that the NCTE may like to find out the reasons for non-appearing of their application on the website of NCTE despite generation of the same at the appellant end. They reiterated that they had submitted the application online as per the laid down procedure and had also submitted by hand three sets of the application for grant of approval for D.El.Ed. (BTC) personally in the office of NRC, NCTE, Jaipur on 06/10/2010, vide forwarding letter No. PllT/BTC/10, dated 03/10/2010 (vide Annexure-C to the appeal). The NRC, NCTE Office also issued Receipt No. 12859, dated 06/10/2010 (vide Annexure-D to the appeal) in token of their having submitted the application with all required documents, including DD No. 823272, dated 29/09/2010 for Rs. 40,000/- towards processing fee and Rs. 1000/- towards application fee. (vide Annexure D & E to the appeal). The Appellant has also deposited on 21/10/2010 the FDRs in original for the total value of Rs. 8 Lakh (one FDR No. TBM/TDR/2007/B-074174, dated 28/09/2010 for Rs. 3 Lakh second FDR No. TBM/TDR/2007/B-072612, dated 13/02/2009 for Rs. 5 Lakh) towards processing fee, alongwith the application form. (Photocopies of FDRs attached as Annexure-F to the appeal); the appellant is also running a B.Ed College at Greater Noida

with the approval of NCTE and affiliation with CCS University, Meerut, observing the required necessary norms. The relevant information and data pertaining to the B.Ed. College is also being sent on-line and they have not received any complaint from NCTE about non-receipt of any information requisitioned; they already have required infrastructure for running the D.El.Ed. (BTC) course in their Institute functioning under the aegis of the Society, viz. "Prince Institute of Innovative Technology, Greater Noida". Besides building, the infrastructure include class rooms, 2 elegant Conference Halls with interactive facilities, LCD projector, well-stocked library, computer lab., Psycho. lab., well qualified and trained faculty in Education etc. With ample requisite facilities they are fully competent to run the D.El.Ed. (BTC) course at their Institute. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that clause 5 (3) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, stipulates that the applications are to be essentially submitted electronically through online mode available on the website of NCTE along with the processing fee. When the process of submission of application online is completed, an ID number is generated. No ID number was generated in this case, obviously, because the process of submission of the application online could not be completed by the institution properly. The institution, thus, did not fulfill this essential and mandatory requirement. Therefore, the Council was of the view that the application of the institution was rejected by the NRC for valid reasons and, thus, there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC’s order dated 21-12-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Bharat Veerangana Awantibai Educational Santhan, Plot No. D-16, Street No. - Sector- 9, Village & Post Office- New Vijay Nagar,, Ghaziabad - 201009, Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Rao Kanhi Ram College of Education, Mohindergarh, Haryana dated 27/01/2011 is against the Order No. HR-1732/70777 dated 08/03/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) State Govt. recommendation is required under clause 7(3) of Regulations 2007. The State Govt. Recommendation is negative. State Govt. has provided reasons/grounds and statistics for not granting recognition. 2) The institution has not submitted permission letter from the competent authority to use the land for educational purposes as required under the clause 8(8) of regulation 2007. 3) The land is not in the name of institution as required under 8(7) of the Regulations 2007. 4) Hence, the Council decided not to issue LOI for inspection and closed the file. Accordingly, the file of the institution is closed and the FDR No-852991 of Rs. 5 Lakh and FDR No-852992 of Rs. 3 Lakh issued by PNB are returned herewith; No further correspondence shall be entertained in this regard”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Rao Kanhi Ram College of Education, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 28/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Roshan Lal, Member, Rao Kanhi Ram College of Education, Mohindergarh, Haryana presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the respondents had decided not to issue L.O.I. for inspection on the basis of wrong reasons mentioned in their letter dated 08/03/2009 because the appellant submitted his application for seeking grant of recognition for start of B.Ed courses (Code No. APN 07163) at the time when the state Govt. of Haryana was recommending the applications under clause 7 (3) Regulations, 2007 but due to the delaying tactics of the respondents, the application of the appellants could not be recommended by the State Govt. Regarding the 1st clause i.e. CLU is not issued by the competent authority, the appellant institution mentioned that it is not situated in any urbanized or in any town planning area. The institution is situated at rural area at village Kothal Kalan Distt. Mahendergarh (Haryana). There the competent authority is the Sarpanch of the same village and the appellant has also supplied the copy of CLU, which was issued by the Sarpanch concerned on,19/05/2008. The photocopy of that letter is also attached with the appeal as per Annexure-G and CLU issued by DTP is also attached with the appeal as Annexure-H. As per this submission, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be admitted and recognition letter in favour of the institution issued. That after issuing the letter of deficiency ,which was issued on dated 28/08/2008, the next step was to be taken by the NRC, Jaipur i.e. respondent. But respondent deliberately and knowingly did not issue LOI. As per the NCTE rules, if the State Govt. fails to give the reply to the Regional Committee of the NCTE concerned within 60 days, in that situation the NCTE will consider that the State Govt. has no objection in such situations and the application will be considered in favour of the appellant. If proper step is already taken by the NCTE after issue of the deficiency letter, it means the 2nd objection of the respondent is totally baseless and out of law and the

submission of the appellant is having the right for issuing the recognition letter in favour of the institution; regarding the 3rd clause i.e. the land is not in the name of institution as required under the clause 8(8) of regulation 2007, the appellant is to submit that the land will be registered in the name of institution within one month after recognition; that some of the colleges were issued the recognition letter in favour of the institutions after given the said three points which are mentioned in para No. 2 against the institution and they have also filed the same reply. As such the appellant institution has every right for issuance of the recognition in favour of the appellant. AND WHEREAS the appeal dated 27.01.2011 against the NRC’s order dated 08.03.2009 was filed by the institution before the Council on 28.01.2011, that is more than one year and seven months after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed under the rules for filing the appeal. As regards reasons for condoning the delay, it has simply stated that it was not in the knowledge of the appellant that the appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act was to be filed within sixty days of the order passed by the NRC, Jaipur and, therefore, it could not file an appeal against the order dated 08.03.2009 of the NRC. Thus, the institution did not furnish any good and sufficient reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Council was, therefore, of the view that there was no ground to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to condone the delay and admit the appeal.



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



26/05/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Rattan Professional Education Society, Mohali, Punjab dated 12/02/2011 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-7/PB-475/140TH MEETING/2009/4093 dated 10/06/2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting ETT course on the grounds “1) Deficiencies communicated in the deficiency letter issued by the office are not removed within stipulated period. 2) The institution failed to submit complete application as required under clause 7(1) of the Regulations 2007. Even after receiving deficiency letter, the institution could not remove deficiencies within the stipulated period of 90 days. 3) The committee decided to close the file and return the FDRs to the institution if submitted”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Rattan Professional Education Society (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 Dr. S.M. Khera, Administrator and Shri. Deepak Gupta, Secretary, Rattan Professional Education Society, Mohali, Punjab presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that Mandatory Disclosure Format duly filled was submitted; Photocopy of FDR for Rs. 5.0 Lakh along with original FDR was duly submitted; Building Completion Certificate duly signed from competent authority was submitted. AND WHEREAS the appeal dated 12.02.2011 against the NRC’s order dated 10.06.2009 was filed by the institution before the Council on 23.02.2011, that is more than one year and six months after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed under the rules for filing the appeal. As regards delay in filing the appeal, the institution simply stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional as the Director of the Society had gone abroad and the rejection of the application was not conveyed to him by his office on time and hence the request to condone the delay. Thus, the institution did not furnish any good and sufficient reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Council was, therefore, of the view that there was no ground to condone the delay and admit the appeal. Accordingly, the Council refused to condone the delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Director, Rattan Professional Education Society, Sohana, Sector - 78, S.A.S. Nagar,, Mohali - , Punjab 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Punjab, Chandigarh.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Rural Teacher Training Institute, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 05/02/2011 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/24861 dated 06/12/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course on the grounds “1) The institution is running Pharmacy programme in same building along with D.Ed programme which is a serious violation of norms”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Rural Teacher Training Institute, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 07/02/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. C. Mallikarjuna, Administrative Officer, Rural Teacher Training Institute, Bangalore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the respondent erred in assuming that the appellant institution is running Pharmacy programme in the same building along with D.Ed programme. It submitted that D.Ed course is conducted by the appellant in a separate exclusive building and there is no other course being conducted in the same building; the respondent utterly failed to appreciate the fact that the pharmacy programme building is adjacent to the appellant institution and both buildings are not one and the same. It submitted that the photographs enclosed along with memorandum of appeal clearly disclosed the fact that the appellant institution is running D.Ed course in a separate building. Thus, the failure to appreciate this fact has resulted in passing the impugned order. The respondent/Regional Committee while inspecting the premises, not properly appreciated and collected material facts on record. The improper inspection by the inspection team resulted in passing of the impugned order, which is against material facts involved in the case; the respondent failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant institution is running the D.Ed course in its own exclusive building, since from 1985 and great hardship will be caused to the appellant institution if recognition is withdrawn. AND WHEREAS the institution submitted in writing that they were running the Rural College of Pharmacy and the Rural Teachers Training Institute in separate buildings in the same campus and that since there is no demand for the pharmacy course, they have closed the pharmacy course. The institution also reiterated that they were running the Rural Teachers Training Institute only in the exclusive (separate) building in the same campus. The institution is also prepared for another inspection and is willing to pay the requisite fee of Rs.40,000 to verify the position. In view of the submissions made by the institution and also considering the fact that it is a very old institution, which has been in existence since 1985, the Council was of the view that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal with direction to the SRC to get another comprehensive inspection of the institution conducted on payment of the requisite fee by the institution immediately to verify as to whether it is really functioning in conformity with the provisions in the NCTE Act/Regulations, as claimed by it and for 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 reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal, set aside SRC’s order dated 06.12.2010 with direction to the SRC to get another comprehensive inspection done on payment of the requisite fee by the institution immediately, to verify as to whether the institution is functioning in conformity with the provisions in NCTE Act/Regulations and, for further decision thereafter. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the SRC’s order dated 06.12.2010 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, Rural Teacher Training Institute,, D.S. Road, Devanahalli,, Bangalore - 562110, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.



26/05/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sanjivani Social and Welfare Association, Solapur, Maharashtra dated 31/01/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06072/1221741/110TH/VTR/2008/55121 dated 05/05/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (M)(co-ed) course on the ground “1) The inspection of the institution was conducted on 20/10/2008 and WRC considered the case of the institution in light of letters F.No.46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sep. 2008, F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 1 October, 2008 and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 31 October, 2008 received from Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. Course. Keeping in view of the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. course and directions received from NCTE Hqr. the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case and communication to this effect to be made to this institution”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sanjivani Social and Welfair Association, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 31/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. A. Javed and Shri. M. Mujam, Secretary, Sanjivani Social and Welfare Association, Solapur, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the refusal made by giving mere reference numbers of the letter bearing Reg. Nos. F.No.46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sept. 08 and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 1 Oct. 08 and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 31 Oct. 08 issued by the Member Secretary of NCTE, New Delhi is not the perfect, complete and clear cause for refusal is not given and nowhere has the respondent clarified as to what the contents of these letters are and how those affect in negative in refusal of the recognition; It is very well observed in Para No. 68 of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra V/s Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya reported in 2006(4) SCC page no.1. The relevant part is reproduced below for the ready reference of this Hon'ble council. "68. In view of the fact however that according to us the final authority lies with NCTE and we are supported in taking that view by various decisions of this court, NCTE cannot be deprived of its authority or power in taking the appropriate decision under the act irrespective of the absence of no objection certificate by the State Govt./Union Territory. Absence or the non production of the no objection certificate by the institution therefore was immaterial and irrelevant so far as the power of the NCTE is concerned." So it is ample clear that merely on the basis of the recommendation of the State Govt. it would not be valid as well as proper to refuse the recognition but in instant matter it is made. Nowhere it is clarified till this moment that what are the different grounds on which the State of Maharashtra has given its negative recommendation and so naturally it reveals that the respondents has failed to

assess the reasonability as well as validity and sufficiency of the reason/s if any are given by the State of Maharashtra. In the absence of any such finding and the observations on the record it appears that the impugned order is erroneous; As per the directives issued by this are also not followed properly by the respondent though it is one of the directive that in case of non justifiable reason behind negative recommendation the Council can consider the case on its own merits however it does not appear from the impugned order that the respondent has seen anywhere or has made any attempt to verify the justification of the cause/s behind refusal given by the State of Maharashtra; As per the knowledge of the petitioner institution the State of Maharashtra has not based its opposition to the new D.Ed. colleges on any scientific statistics coupled with proper reasons and as such there is no proper compliance of the directives by the State Govt. and so its objection is totally worthless. AND WHEREAS the appeal of the institution dated 31.01.2011 against the WRC’s order dated 05.05.2009 was submitted to the Council on 31.01.2011, that is one year and six months after expiry of the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed under the rules for filing the appeal AND WHEREAS as regards the delay in filing the appeal , it was submitted that the appellant received the impugned order passed by the WRC very late as it could not be delivered immediately and, secondly, it was advised to file writ petition No. 6014/2010 thereby challenging the WRC’s order dated 05.05.2009. The writ petition came up for hearing before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad when it sought withdrawal of the writ petition so as to take recourse to the alternate remedy available in law. The Hon’ble High Court disposed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the alternate remedy vide its order dated 10.12.2010. Therefore, some delay occurred in filing the present appeal and requested for condoning the delay and considering the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench against the WRC’s Order dated 05.05.2009 was filed by the institution only on 06.05.2010, that is one year after refusal of recognition and, therefore, even if the period of pendency of the writ petition is excluded from the period of delay in filing the appeal, there is no justifiable reason for condoning the delay. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to condone the delay. Accordingly, the Council refused to condone the delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Secretary, Sanjivani Social and Welfair Association,, Peer Khwajadaut Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Plot No. 845/1/A, A/P-Akkalkot, Tal - Solapur,, Solapur, - , 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 Shree Ram Das Mahavidyalaya, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh dated 27/01/2011 is against the Order No. NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-3215/175TH/2010/3445 dated 03/02/2011 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds “1) It has been found that the institution submitted documents to establish that it purchased the equipments for its various labs after the issue of the show cause notice. The reply could not be accepted on the basis of presented documents, which comprised of only 'Sale Invoice' with no receipt, payment proof; entries in stock register supported by pictures/photos or CD of the refurbished laboratories”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shree Ram Das Mahavidyalaya, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 27/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Bipul Singh, Manager and Shri. Ravi Shankar Singh, Clerk, Shree Ram Das Mahavidyalaya, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that on the satisfactory report of the first Visiting Team, the NCTE decided to issue letter under clause 7(9). The report states, " The institution has adequate financial resources accommodation, library, laboratory as prescribed in the norms and standards and that it fulfills all such conditions relating to infrastructural and instructional facilities required for the proper functioning of the institution for a Teacher Education Course." To their surprise, the report submitted by the second Visiting Team is different and contradictory with the first inspection team. However, the 09 deficiencies pointed out by the NCTE were fully met and the institution informed the NCTE office on 09/07/2010 along with an affidavit. Till today the institution fulfills all the norms and standards laid down by NCTE to run a Teacher Training Programme (B.Ed). The NRC/NCTE in its 175th Meeting held on 30th - 31st Dec., 2010 refused to grant permission to start B.Ed. Course; the reasons of refusal were of petty nature. The NCTE could have asked the management to produce the cash receipt against the invoice for the material purchased; The C.D. was taken at the time of first inspection as well as during second inspection. Both the CDs are on record with NCTE. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the NRC got an inspection of the institution conducted on 27.03.2010 by a visiting team of experts. The VT report dated 27.03.2010 was negative and it pointed out a number of deficiencies including that (i) the college campus was not maintained properly,(ii) toilet and drinking water facilities need improvement, (iii) Labs are ill- equipped and not properly maintained and (iv) the institution seemed to be unprepared for running the B.Ed. course. The NRC issued a show cause notice dated 10.06.2010 pointing out various deficiencies. The reply dated 09.07.2010 to the show cause notice inter-alia stated that the deficiencies pointed out by the V.T were fully met by the institution. The supporting documents, that is, bills regarding equipments and materials purchased were dated 16.06.2010, 20.06.2010, 25.06.2010 and 28.06.2010, which also

revealed that the deficiencies pointed out existed at the time of inspection on 27.03.2010. Therefore, the Council was of the view that the institution did not fulfill the requirements as per clause 8 (10) of the the NCTE Regulations, 2007 (applicable in this case), which stipulated that at the time of inspection, the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure on the land possessed by the institution equipped with all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the norms and standards. Thus, recognition was refused to the institution by NRC for valid reason and, therefore, there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC’s order dated 03-02-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


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



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Ganesh Gram & Krishi Vikas Pratishthan, Solapur, Maharashtra dated 20/01/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW04754/1221128/110/VTR/2008/54448 dated 21/04/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (M)(co-ed) course on the grounds “1) The inspection of the institution was conducted on 17/10/2008 and WRC considered the case of the institution in light of letters F.No.46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sep. 2008, F.No.49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 1 October, 2008 and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 31 October, 2008 received from Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. course. Keeping in view of the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. course and directions received from NCTE Hqs, the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case and communication to this effect to be made to this institution. 2) as per above decision taken by WRC, the proposal of said institution is to be treated as closed.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Ganesh Gram & Krishi Vikas Pratishthan, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 31/01/2011 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. Prasad Haribhan Gurav, Chairman, Shri Ganesh Gram & Krishi Vikas Pratishthan, Solapur, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that It is very well observed in Para No. 68 of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra V/s Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidayalya reported in 2006 (4) SCC Page No.1. The relevant part is reproduced below for the ready reference of this Hon'ble Council. "68. In view of the fact, however, that according to us the final authority lies with NCTE and we are supported in taking that view by various decisions of this court, NCTE cannot be deprived of its authority or power in taking the appropriate decision under the Act irrespective of the absence of No Objection Certificate by the State Govt./Union Territory. Absence or the non production of the no objection certificate by the institution, therefore, was immaterial and irrelevant so far as the power of the NCTE is concerned." So it is amply clear that merely on the basis of the recommendation of the State Govt. it would not be valid as well as proper to refuse the recognition but in instant matter it is made; Nowhere it is clarified till this moment that what are the different grounds on which the State of Maharashtra has given its negative recommendation and so naturally it reveals that the respondent has failed to assess the reasonability as well as validity and sufficiency of the reasons/s, if any, given by the State of Maharashtra. In the absence of any such specific finding and the observations on the record, it appears that the impugned order is erroneous; As per the knowledge of the petitioner institution, the State of Maharashtra has not based its opposition to the new D.Ed. colleges on any scientific

statistics coupled with proper reasons and, as such, there is no proper compliance of the directives by the State Govt. and so its objection is totally worthless. AND WHEREAS the appeal of the institution dated 20.01.2011 against the WRC’s order dated 21.04.2009 was filed before the Council on 31.01.2011, that is more than one year and seven months after expiry of limitation of 60 days prescribed under the rules for filing appeal. AND WHEREAS as regards the delay in filing the appeal , it was submitted that the appellant received the impugned order passed by the WRC very late as it could not be delivered immediately and, secondly, it was advised to file writ petition No. 6014/2010 thereby challenging the WRC’s order dated 21.04.2009. The writ petition came up for hearing before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad when it sought withdrawal of the writ petition so as to take recourse to the alternate remedy available in law. The Hon’ble High Court disposed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to the alternate remedy vide its order dated 10.12.2010. Therefore, some delay occurred in filing the appeal. AND WHEREAS the Committee noted that the writ petition in the High Court of Bombay Aurangabad Bench against the WRC’s Order dated 21.04.2009 was filed by the institution only on 06.05.2010, that is, one year after refusal of recognition. Therefore, even if the period of pendency of writ petition is excluded from the period of delay, there was no justifiable reasons for condoning the delay. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to condone the delay. Accordingly, the Council refused to condone the delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Chairman, Shri Ganesh Gram & Krishi Vikas Pratishthan,, Shri Haribhau Gurav Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Gut No. 257/1, At-Post Nanaj, Tal-N - Solapur, Solapur - , 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 Sri Ayyappa Educational Trust,, Gudiyattam, Tamilnadu dated 25/01/2011 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/2009-2010/23648 dated 15/11/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground “1) It has been verified from the NCTE online process that the institution has not submitted application online, since, you have not submitted your application in on line mode, hence it is returned herewith along with the Demand Draft of Rs. 40,000/- bearing No. 000695 dt. 29/10/2010 and Rs. 1,000/- bearing no. 000701 dt. 30/10/2010”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Sri Ayyappa Educational Trust, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 09/02/2011 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 Shri. Y. Abraham, Representative and Shri. L. Srinivas, Member, Sri Ayyappa Educational Trust, Gudiyattam, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the order of the Regional Committee dated 15/11/2010 is erroneous of law and facts and is liable to be set aside and recognition ought to have been granted to Start B.Ed Degree Course since the appellant has fulfilled all the norms as prescribed by the NCTE; The Regional Committee failed to see that the application for the recognition for the academic year 2011-2012 was filed before the Regional Committee well within time i.e. 01/10/2010 by online. In its application the appellant had enclosed all the relevant documents as prescribed under Annexure 1B. Further, the hard copy of the application was also sent to the Regional Committee on 18/10/2010 and the same was acknowledged by the Regional Committee on the very same day. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that clause 5 (3) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, stipulates that the applications are to be essentially submitted electronically through online mode available on the website of NCTE along with the processing fee. When the process of submission of application on-line is completed, an ID number is generated. No ID number was generated in this case, which imply that the process of submission of application was not successfully completed by the institution. Thus, the institution did not fulfill this essential and mandatory requirement. Therefore, the Council was of the view that the application of the institution was rejected by the SRC for valid reasons and thus there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’s order dated 15-11-2010 was confirmed.



1. The Chairman, Sri Ayyappa Educational Trust,, No. 16/1, Pandiyan Street- II, Pernambut,, Gudiyattam - , Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of State Council of Educational Research & Training, Patna, Bihar dated 21/12/2010 is against the Order No. ERC/7-100.6 (l).3/2009/13461 dated 31/08/2009 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course on the grounds “1) The institution submitted an application form in Old format, which is unsigned. So, three sets of application form in prescribed format duly signed and giving complete details not submitted. 2) Certified copies of ownership/Lease documents of land in favour of the institution where the proposed D.Ed. (Distance Mode) Course will be opened alongwith English version of land document duly notarized not submitted as per para 8(7).” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, State Council of Educational Research & Training (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/03/2011 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. S.A. Moin, HOD, State Council of Educational Research & Training, Patna, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that ERC, Bhubaneswar issued two deficiency letters to SCERT vide letter No-ERC/7-93.8.11/2009/15694 dated 14th March, 2009 and file No. BR-E/9-07/08-113915 dt. 11th November, 2008. SCERT replied regarding the deficiencies vide letter No. -c/42-T/E/2008/915 dt. 23rd June 2009. Finally a visiting team was constituted vide Letter No-ERC/02-57/2009(Part-III)/476 dated July 7, 2009. Visiting team visited the SCERT on 17 July, 2009 and submitted the report to ERC, Bhubaneswar. ERC issued a letter of deficiency vide letter No-ERC/7-99.5(1)(3S.22/2009/1103 dt. 5th August, 2009. SCERT replied about these deficiencies vide letter No-c/42/T/E/2008/1355 dt. 14 August, 2009. Before sending the letter, all the papers were sent by Fax to ERC, Bhubaneswar. SCERT is the nodal Agency for School Education in Bihar with all facilities required to run any course of Teacher Education. According to the order of Principal Secretary, HRD, Bihar, the academic and physical resources of SCERT, Patna will be used to run D.Ed. (Distance Education) Course. (Order is attached with appeal); The major deficiency was the approval for D.Ed. course through Distance Mode from IGNOU, New Delhi. IGNOU vide letter No-F.No.DEC/BIH/SCERT/2010-3678 dt. 16/11/2010 provided the approval for D.Ed. through Distance Mode. AND WHEREAS the appeal against the ERC’s order dated 31.08.2009 was filed by the institution on 11.03.2011 i.e. more than one year and four months after expiry of the limitation of sixty days prescribed for filing the appeal as per rules. As regards delay in filing the appeal, it was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the delay in grant of Distance Education Council (DEC) from IGNOU, which was issued only on 16th November, 2010. The institution, however, regretted the delay and requested for accepting the appeal after condoning the delay.

AND WHEREAS after taking into consideration the submissions made by the institution, the Council condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to consider the case on merit. The Council noted that SCERT is the nodal agency for education in Bihar and as per the order issued by the Principal Secretary, HRD, Bihar, the Government of Bihar has decided that the academic and physical resources of the SCERT, Patna will be used by the Government of Bihar to run D. Ed course through distance education mode for the purpose of meeting the requirement of training teachers in view of the implementation of the Right to Education Act. Therefore, the Council was of the view that the appeal of the institution should be accepted and the ERC’s order dated 31.08.2009 set-aside with direction to the ERC to process the case further on merit. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal, set aside ERC’s order dated 31.08.2009 with direction to the ERC to process the case further on merit and take appropriate decision. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the ERC’s order dated 31.08.2009 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training, Village- Patna City, PO- Mahendru, St. Ashok Rajpath, City- Patna,, Patna - 800006, Bihar 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Annamalai University, Cuddalore, Tamilnadu dated 14/03/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/26522 dated 27/01/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.P.Ed course on the grounds “1) Last date for submission of on-line application is 1st October 2010. Hence hard copy of application should have been submitted on or before 08/10/2010. The University has submitted its application on 20/01/2011 which is after the last date. 2) As per the new Regulations, 2009 the application may be essentially submitted electronically through on-line mode available on the website of National Council for Teacher Education along with the processing fee. However, while submitting the application through on-line mode the application and requisite documents in triplicate shall have to be submitted or sent by registered post separately to the office of the Regional Committee concerned, immediately after on-line submission of the application. The University has not submitted the application in on-line mode. 3) Further, as per Public Notice dated 29th July, 2010, application will not be accepted for D.P.Ed. course for the academic session 2011-2012”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Annamalai University (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 17/03/2011 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. Ramanathan, Vice-Chancellor and Dr. G. Visvanathan, Dean, Faculty of Education, Annamalai University, Cuddalore, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that based on a private complaint a public notice was issued by NCTE on 06/01/2011 stating that the D.P.Ed. is not recognized by NCTE. Subsequently, they applied to SRC- NCTE with all the required documents. NCTE in their reply has stated that the application is being submitted belatedly and should be submitted electronically through online mode and the hard copies of the document have to be in triplicate. Hence the appeal under section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the order No. F: SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/26522 dated 27/01/2011 of SRC refusing recognition for conducting D.P.Ed. programme on the ground of Public Notice dated 29th July, 2010. Since the NCTE issued the public notice only on 06/01/2011, they were unable to submit the application on time. The decision taken by NCTE was arbitrary. They requested that the time delay for the submission of application be condoned and the application form be considered for recognition. Further, as stated above, the case of Annamalai University is totally different from the other self-financing colleges and the colleges established after the formation of NCTE. The courses are duly approved by UGC and AIU and it is being run as per the norms and guidelines of UGC and NCTE. The appeal of Annamalai University be considered favorably and permitted to continue the existing practice of admitting students for D.P.Ed. the academic year 2010-2011.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that clause 5 (3) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, stipulates that the applications are to be essentially submitted electronically through online mode available on the website of NCTE along with the processing fee. Clause 7 (1-A) of the Regulations, 2009 also stipulates that the application submitted on-line, but not followed by dispatch, through registered post or by hand, with certain specified documents within seven days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected with the reasons recorded in writing. The institution did not fulfill these essential and mandatory requirements in as much as it submitted its application only on 20.01.2011, that is, more than two months after the last date of 01.10.2010 prescribed for submission of application. Further, as per the public notice dated 29.07.2010 issued by the NCTE, applications for recognition of D.P.Ed course in Tamilnadu for the academic session 2011-12 cannot be accepted by the SRC. Therefore, the Council was of the view that the application of the institution was rejected by the SRC for valid reasons and thus there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’s order dated 27-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Registrar, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram Taluk,, Cuddalore - 608002, Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Annamalai University, Cuddalore, Tamilnadu dated 14/03/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2009-2010/262521 dated 27/01/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.P.Ed course on the ground “1) Last date for submission of on-line application is 1st October 2010. Hence hard copy of application should have been submitted on or before 08/10/2010. The University has submitted its application on 20/01/2011, which is after the last date. As per the new Regulation, 2009 the application may be essentially submitted electronically through on-line mode available on the website of National Council for Teacher Education along with the processing fee. However, while submitting the application through on-line, the application and requisite documents in triplicate shall have to be submitted or sent by registered post separately to the office of the Regional Committee concerned, immediately after on-line submission of the application. The university has not submitted the application through on-line mode.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Annamalai University (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 17/03/2011 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. Ramanathan, Vice-Chancellor and Dr. G. Visvanathan, Dean, Faculty of Education, Annamalai University, Cuddalore, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that based on a private complaint a public notice was issued by NCTE on 06/01/2011 stating that the M.P.Ed is not recognized by NCTE. Subsequently, they applied to SRC-NCTE with all the required documents. NCTE in their reply has stated that the application is to be submitted electronically through on-line mode and the hard copies of the document have to be in triplicate; Since the NCTE issued the public notice only on 06/01/2011, they were unable to submit the application on time. The decision taken by NCTE was arbitrary. They, therefore, requested that the time delay for the submission of application be condoned and the application form be considered for recognition. Further, as stated above, the case of Annamalai University is totally different from the other self financing colleges and the colleges established after the formation of NCTE. The course is duly approved by UGC and AlU and it is being run as per the norms and guidelines of UGC and NCTE. The Appeal of Annamalai University be considered favorably and the permitted to continue the existing practice of admitting students for M.P.Ed. the academic year 2010-2011. They are offering the M.P.Ed. course from 1980 onwards. The Ban order existing in Tamilnadu may not be applicable to them; it is requested that the order issued by the SRC may please be set aside and M.P.Ed application of Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Annamalai University, Tamilnadu for grant of recognition for the academic year 2011-2012 be considered.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that clause 5 (3) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, stipulates that the applications are to be essentially submitted electronically through online mode available on the website of NCTE along with the processing fee. Clause 7 (1-A) of the Regulations, 2009 also stipulates that the application submitted on-line, but not followed by dispatch, through registered post or by hand, with certain specified documents within seven days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected with the reasons recorded in writing. The institution did not fulfill these essential and mandatory requirements in as much as it submitted its application only on 20.01.2011, that is more than two months after the last date of 01.10.2010 prescribed for submission of application. Therefore, the Council was of the view that the application of the institution was rejected by the SRC for valid reasons and thus there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’s order dated 27-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Registrar, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram Taluk,, Cuddalore - 608002, Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Annamalai University, Cuddalore, Tamilnadu dated 14/03/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2009-2010/26520 dated 27/01/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed course on the grounds “1) Last date for submission of on-line application is 1st October 2010. Hence hard copy of application should have been submitted on or before 08/10/2010. The University has submitted its application on 20/01/2011, which is after the last date. 2) As per the new Regulations, 2009 the application may be essentially submitted electronically through on-line mode available on the website of National Council for Teacher Education along with the processing fee. However, while submitting the application through on-line mode the application and requisite documents in triplicate shall have to be submitted or sent by registered post separately to the office of the Regional Committee concerned, immediately after on-line submission of the application. The University has not submitted the application in on-line mode.3) Further, as per Public Notice dated 29th July, 2010, the application will not be accepted for B.P.Ed. course for the academic session 2011-2012. 2) In view of above, your application is rejected and returned along with D.D. of Rs. 40,100/- bearing no. 324457 dated 13/01/2011”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Annamalai University, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 17/03/2011 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. Ramanathan, Vice-Chancellor and Dr. G. Visvanathan, Dean, Faculty of Education, Annamalai University, Cuddalore, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that Annamalai University, established in 1929, is a unitary residential university. The Department of Physical Education exists from the inception of this university and then upgraded as teaching department from 1974 onwards. Since then, the Department started offering B.P.Ed. (one year) course from 1974 and One Year M.P.Ed course from 1980 as per the guidelines UGC and Tamil Nadu Government. Thereafter, as per the guidelines of UGC D.O. Letter No, F. 14/9/85 (CPP) S.P.E. Vol-lV the above mentioned courses were merged and converted into M.P.E.S. (Two- year course) in the year 1987 and B.P.E.S (three- year course) was commenced in the year 1989. In the year 1998, the Regional Director, SRC-NCTE wrote a letter to the University and enclosed the list of the institutions in Tamil Nadu, which had not applied to SRC-NCTE, Bangalore. It was mentioned that Annamalai University College of Physical Education, Annamalainagar, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District affiliated to Annamalai University is running B.P.Ed. course and asked the University to advise not to make admission for the academic year 1998-1999. There was no such Annamalai University College of Physical Education affiliated to Annamalai University. But at that time only the Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences of this university was offering B.P.E.S. three years course and M.P.E.S. two years course; Based on a private complaint, a public notice was issued by NCTE on 06/01/2011 stating that the B.P.Ed., is not recognized by NCTE. Subsequently, they applied to SRC-NCTE with all the

required documents. AS per NCTE norms,application has to be submitted electronically through on-line mode and the hard copies of the document have to be in triplicate. Hence the appeal under section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the order No. F. SRO/NCTE/2009-2010/26520 dt. 27/01/2011 of SRC refusing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed. program on the ground of Public Notice 29th July 2010. Since the NCTE issued the public notice only on 06/01/2011, they were unable to submit the application on time. The decision taken by NCTE was arbitrary. They requested that the time delay for the submission of application be condoned and the application form be considered for recognition. Further, as stated above, the case of Annamalai University is totally different from the other self financing colleges and the colleges established after the formation of NCTE. The courses are duly approved by UGC and AlU and it is being run as per the norms and guidelines of UGC and NCTE. The appeal of Annamalai University be considered favorably and permitted to continue the existing practice of admitting students for B.P.Ed. the academic year 2010-2011. They are offering the B.P.Ed course from 1974 onwards. The Ban order existing in Tamilnadu may not be applicable to them. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that clause 5 (3) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, stipulates that the applications are to be essentially submitted electronically through online mode available on the website of NCTE along with the processing fee. Clause 7 (1-A) of the Regulations, 2009 also stipulates that the application submitted on-line but not followed by dispatch, through registered post or by hand, with certain specified documents within seven days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected with the reasons recorded in writing. The institution did not fulfill these essential and mandatory requirements in as much as it submitted its application only on 20.01.2011, that is, more than two months after the last date of 01.10.2010 prescribed for submission of application. Further, as per the public notice dated 29.07.2010 issued by the NCTE, applications for recognition of B.P. Ed course in Tamilnadu for the academic session 2011-12 cannot be accepted by the SRC Therefore, the Council was of the view that the application of the institution was rejected by the SRC for valid reasons and thus there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’s order dated 27-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Registrar, Annamalai University,, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram Taluk,, Cuddalore - 608002, Tamilnadu 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Bhayandar Kelvani Mandal, Thane, Maharashtra dated 16/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW07224/123917 (MINO.INST.)(Appeal)/143rd/2010/74348 dated 27/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the ground “1) The gifted land of 2548 sq.mts is not adequate for conducting school as well as the proposed B.Ed. course because as per norms for B.Ed. course alone 2500 sq.mts of exclusive land is required”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Bhayandar Kelvani Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 18/03/2011 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. Rajendra Pandit and Shri. Chitranjan Dave, Sr. Executive Officer, Bhayandar Kelvani Mandal, Thane, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that as per the resolution made by the Society/Trust dated 17-10-2007 it was resolved much before the date of filling the application at WRC, that the campus will be used for running B.Ed College only. Therefore, the so called objection raised by the WRC, vide above mentioned letter is invalid as the school is non-functional and non existing. Therefore, the total area as per the land and building document is used only to run the college of education. It was also submitted that the NCTE may reconsider the order in the light of the following and set aside the order appealed against and grant appropriate relief:-

(a) The ambition of the society to develop minorities in the area; (b) surrounding the premises; (c) The cause for which Society has been established; (d) The land is completely meant for the purpose of B. Ed Course only.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the application of the institution for grant of recognition for B.Ed course was submitted to the WRC on 27.03.2008 and it was rejected by the WRC vide its order dated 29.04.2010 on the ground that certified copy of land document as required in the NCTE Regulations, 2009 was not submitted by the institution. The institution filed an appeal dated 26.05.2010 to the Council against the said order dated 29.04.2010 of the WRC. The Council then observed that a total of 2548 sq.mts of land was gifted by one of the Trustees to Shree Bhayandar Kelvani Mandal, Thane, which was sponsoring the proposed Bhayandar College of Education. The land measuring 2548 sq.mts was gifted by one of the Trustees for construction of a new building for accommodating the ever increasing number of school students. It was in that plot of land measuring 2548 sq.mts that the Trust proposed to run B.Ed college also along with the school. The building plan submitted by the Trust also indicated that the building plan was in respect of a school building. Since the total available land for running the existing school and the proposed B.Ed college was 2548 Sq.mts only as against the requirement of a minimum of 2500 sq.mts

of land, as per the NCTE norms for the proposed B.Ed course, the Council noted that the land was inadequate for running the existing school and the proposed B.Ed college. However, the Council also noted that the WRC rejected the application of the institution on the ground that the certified copy of the land document, as required in the NCTE Regulations 2009, was not submitted whereas the NCTE Regulations 2007 were actually applicable in its case. Therefore, the Council remanded the case to the WRC for issuing a revised speaking order for rejection of the application on the correct ground that the institution was not having adequate land as per the NCTE norms. Accordingly, the WRC issued a revised speaking order vide Order dated 27.01.2011 against which the present appeal has been filed by the institution. Since the revised order dated 27.01.2011 has been issued by the WRC in compliance with the Council’s appellate order dated 31.08.2010, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to accept the appeal. The claim of the institution that the Trust, through a resolution, decided that the entire land will be used for running the proposed B. Ed College only and the School is non -functional cannot be accepted as the Gift Deed in respect of the land stipulated that the land was being gifted for construction of a new building for accommodating ever increasing number of school students. The Council, therefore, came to the conclusion 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 and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 27-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Bhayandar Kelvani Mandal, J.H. Poddar High School Corss Road Bhayandar (West) Mira Bhayandar, Thane - 401101, 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 Kai Govind Chhagan Patil Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Nandurbar, Maharashtra dated 05/04/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06470/1221934/110TH/VTR/2008/155696 dated 23/05/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (M) course on the grounds “1) The inspection of the Institution was conducted on 09/10/2008 and WRC considered the case of the institution in light of letters F.No.46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sep., 2008, F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 1 October, 2008 and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE(N&S) dt. 31 October, 2008 received from Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. course. Keeping in view of the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. course and directions received from NCTE Hqrs, the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case and communication to this effect to be made to this institution. 2) Therefore, as per above decision taken by WRC, the proposal of said institution is to be treated as closed”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Kai Govind Chhagan Patil Adhyapak Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 05/04/2011 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. Ganesh Govind Patil, Chairman and Shri. Rajesh Ramesh Kulkarni, Director, Kai Govind Chhagan Patil Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Nandurbar, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the Western Regional Committee has not considered the proposal of the applicant by observing that the letter received from the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. course and on account of that, the proposal is returned back/ not considered; after receipt of the order, the applicant, for want of proper legal advice, could not take any decision and consequently, could not take proper course of action within the stipulated time. In the meantime, the applicant came to know about the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others reported in 2006 (9) Supreme Court Cases 1. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Advocate for soliciting the legal advice. Then they came to know about the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Abhyudaya Sanstha's College of D.Ed. Vs The Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, NCTE, Bhopal and others, dated 15/02/2010 in Writ Petition No. 1189/2010. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, as stated above is identical with the case of the applicant and, therefore, it was advised to make a representation to the respondent - Western Region Committee, NCTE, Bhopal and accordingly, the applicant made a representation on 26/03/2010; Recently the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, has condoned the delay in Writ Petition No. 942/2011, in the case of Late A.M. Patil Public Education Society (Anand Adhyapak Vidyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education & others.

AND WHEREAS the appeal of the institution against WRC’s order dated 23.05.2009 was filed on 05.04.2011, that is more than one year and five months after expiry of the limitation period of sixty days prescribed for filing the appeal as per rules. The institution filed a writ petition 987 of 2010 in the High Court of Judicature, Bombay Bench at Aurangabad on 27.10.2010 against the WRC’s order dated 23.05.2009. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 09.03.2011, allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and ordered that if the petitioner files appeal within a period of four weeks from 09.03.2011 alongwith an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority, in view of the time consumed by the petitioner in filing the writ petition and its pendency before the Court, shall condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution filed the writ petition against the WRC’s order dated 23.05.2009 in the Ho’nble High Court on 27.10.2010, that is after a period of one year and five months. Therefore, even after excluding the time consumed by the petitioner in filing the writ petition and its pendency before the Court, the delay amounts to more than one year and three months. The institution has not furnished any good and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. Thus, there is no ground for condoning the delay. Therefore, the Council refused to condone the delay and admit the appeal.



1. The Manager, Kai Govind Chhagan Patil Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Shree Tarkeshwari Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Plot No. 3 A/2, Khasra No. 5/6, Tikhora, Shahada,, Nandurbar - , 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 Madhepur Teacher's Training College, Madhepur, Bihar dated 16/03/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-114.6(Vol.l).6/2010/6187 dated 21/01/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) In reply to para 1 of the SCN regarding CLU, the institution had submitted the copy of letter written by the Secretary of the Society and remarked by the Aanchal Adhikari notarized on 10th Oct 2009. No Certificate from any authority has been submitted. 2) In response to para 2 of the SCN regarding PAN, the institution had stated that the same was under process while the application form was submitted to NCTE and soon after the submission of application, PAN was allotted vide N. AAlTSO684A. 3) In response to para 3 of the SCN, the institution has mentioned the Website address of the society as www.mttcollege.org.in. 4) In reply to para 4 of the SCN, the institution had stated that the college was in possession of land by way of lease deed dated 17/12/2007. The contention of the institution that the existing building was mentioned in the Sale Deed is not correct, as in the sale deed para 5, it is clearly mentioned that the sale deed for vacant land. 5) In reply to para 5 of the SCN, the institution had agreed that the building plan and building completion certificate was approved by the competent authority on 3rd Jan 2009 for the building already complete on 20th Dec 2007. 6) In reply to para 6 of the SCN, the institution has submitted a request letter made to the nearby schools for permission to allow arrangements for practice teaching. 7) In response to para 7 of the SCN, the institution had stated that the facilities for language learning lab has been made available and submitted a copy of the bills. 8) In response to para 8 and 9 of the SCN, the institution had stated that after submission of application to ERC-NCTE the improvements were made in the building and hence, the revised building plan was got approved on 9th Nov 2009. The same is not acceptable as per NCTE Regulations 2009 and directions of NCTE-HQrs vide letter dated 2nd Dec 2009”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Madhepur Teacher's Training College, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 17/03/2011 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. Satya Narayan Agrawal, President and Dr. Md. Shamin Ahmad, Chairman, Madhepur Teacher's Training College, Madhepur, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the respondent ERC, NCTE did not notice the CLU issued by the competent authority (Anchaladhikari, Madhepur) dated 01/04/2009 and has mistakenly repeated the same question and refused the recognition of the college. And whereas as per section 76 and 78 the Bihar Tenancy Act 1885, read with S.O. Letter No. 1210 dated 10th Dec 1970 the Government of Bihar was pleased to appoint all Deputy Collectors to discharge the function of Collector in their respective jurisdiction and thus the Anchal Adhikari/ Circle officer is only empowered to issue land possession certificate. The respondent unnecessarily considered the point of PAN of the institution which was already

complied by the college in their written reply dt. 15/10/2010. The respondent unnecessarily considered the point of website address of the college which was already complied by the college in their written reply dt. 15/10/2010. The respondent erred in holding that the college was in possession of land by way of lease deed dated 17/12/2007 whereas in column No. 5 of the sale deed dated 16/03/2009 it is clearly mentioned that the sale deed is for vacant land and ignored to see the column No. 4 of the aforesaid deed wherein value of structure is already mentioned in the sale deed and the Managing committee of the appellant college has already paid the due registration fees over the cost of the structure purchased by the Committee. The respondent misconstrued the real imports of the sale deed and ignored the report submitted by the visiting team who clearly mentioned about the existing building and structure for smooth running of the college and found it suitable for B.Ed. course. The respondent erred in holding that institution only send request letter issued for facility of practice teaching in nearby school and not the consent letter of the same. The real fact is that institution already obtained consent letter from 22 nearby schools for arrangement of practice teaching and showed the same before visiting team but inadvertently did not sent the same to the respondent. In reply of deficiencies raised in SCN dated 27/09/2010 it is not out of place to draw your attention towards reply at point no. 6 where it clearly described. “Be it by misunderstanding keeping in mind that it is essential to show the VT or to submit on demand because this is the practice of rule and it is mere a mistake which should have been considered not in the manner after clarification was made in the reply of SCN dated 15/10/2010 at serial No. 6”. The respondent unnecessarily considered the point of language learning lab, whereas the language learning lab is in ready position with all necessary equipments which was already visited and seen by the visiting team at the time of their inspection. The same was thoroughly videographed and submitted to visiting team. The respondent without referring to any direction of NCTE Headquarter dated 02/12/2009 in his earlier notice dated 27/09/2010 erroneously came into conclusion that building plan was got approved on 9th Nov. 2009 is not in accordance to NCTE Rules whereas the institution made necessary improvements as per their requirement in addition to previous one i.e. 1511.29sq.mt. and got it approved which is found suitable and as per specification of the NCTE. AND WHEREAS as regards the first ground pertaining to CLU, the Council noted that no proper CLU was submitted by the institution and hence the objection was valid. As regards second objection pertaining to PAN, the Council noted that although the institution could not indicate the PAN in the application, as it was under process at that time, and it subsequently furnished the same, this could not be a valid reason for refusal of recognition. Regarding third objection relating to website, the Council noted that the website address was indicated by the institution in the hard copy of application submitted and, therefore, this objection was also not valid. As regards fourth objection pertaining to sale deed, the Council noted that the sale deed dated 16.03.2009 is not clear enough to establish beyond doubt that the institution was in possession of adequate land and structure with sufficient built up area and, therefore, the objection was valid. Regarding objection at serial number 5 pertaining to approval of building plan and building completion certificate, the Council noted that the date of approval of the building plan and the date of completion certificate of the building was the same that is 03.01.2009, which could not be accepted. Regarding objection at serial number 6 pertaining to practice teaching schools, the Council noted that the institution admitted that in reply to the show cause notice, the institution submitted only copies of request letters sent to the schools seeking their consent and not copies of consent letters from the Schools and, therefore, this objection is also valid. As regards the objection at serial number 7 pertaining to availability of facilities in language learning lab,

the Council noted that the VT report indicated that facilities were not available and the reply to the show cause notice furnished by the institution also indicated that facilities were made available only subsequently. Therefore, this objection is also valid. As for the 8th and last objection regarding approval of revised building plan on 9th November, 2009, the Council noted that the explanation given that improvements were made in the building and thereafter the revised building plan was got approved, could not be accepted as the built up area shown in the building plan submitted along with the application was 1511.29 sq.mts whereas the built up area shown in the revised building plan was 1632.82 sq. mts. Therefore, this objection is also valid. In the circumstances, the Council was of the view that the institution did not fulfill the requirements as per the NCTE Regulations to become eligible for recognition and, thus, the recognition was refused to the institution by the ERC for valid reasons and hence there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’s order dated 21-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. Chairman, Madhepur Teacher's Training College,, Vill./Po- / Town- Madhepur,, Madhepur - 847408, Bihar 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Mahabodhi Mahavidyalaya, Nalanda, Bihar dated is against the Order No. ERC/7-114.6(Vol.III).2/2010/6173 dated 21/01/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds that “1) VT report and CD and reply of the institution do not reflect any demarcation of building and land. 2) As regards Sr. No. (i), the institution had stated that the proposed institution is not demarcated from Degree College to provide indoor and outdoor game facility for both institutions. The said contention of the institution is not acceptable in view of para 8 (7) (ii) of NCTE Regulations 2009. 3) As regards Sr. No. (ii) & (xvi), the institution had submitted that the Multipurpose hall is above than 2300 sq. ft. Its area is 67'8x35'. It follows the norms of NCTE institution read just multipurpose hall in the seminar hall shown in building plan. The contention of the institution is not acceptable as the VT on physical verification has found the size of multipurpose hall as 1800 sq. ft. (Pg 97 of VT Folder). 4) As regards Sr. No. (iii), the institution mentioned that the Class Room, Principal Room, Library also follow the norms of NCTE. In online application approximate area was given for different hall. So some difference can be seen. Some hall readjusted as suitable like multipurpose hall in seminar hall after compliance of building. 5) In reply to having only one computer in the ET lab, the institution has stated that it is having ten computers with all assets in ET Lab. And had attached a CD to substantiate the claim. 6) In reply to Sr. No. (v), the institution had stated that the land allotted for B.Ed. institution i.e. 4000 Sqmt is sufficient as per NCTE Norms. 7) As per Points (vi), the institution has stated that it is having two copy of building plans. By mistake one copy does not signed by Executive Engineer unfortunately photocopy of that building plan was sent to NCTE. 8) As regards Point (vii), the institution has stated that the website is www.mahabodhimahavidyalaya.com. 9) As per Point (viii), the institution mentioned that C.A. 13 is not Pan No. That is Current account of institution. That can be read now 1193201000013. 10) As per Point (ix), the institution had stated that the society was formed after the establishment of M.B. College for the manner of registered in UGC, New Delhi that society managed the college development and had submitted immunity Bond formed the time of Registration in 2(F) section of UGC. From the perusal of said bond, it is seen that the institution is running aided Degree College in the campus. 11) In reply to Point (x), the institution had stated that as per land possession certificate institution is owner of the land from 1978 and stated that the said land is not an agricultural land. The institution had submitted a no-objection from the Circle Officer to the said effect issued on 20th Nov. 2010. The said contention of the institution is not acceptable in view of the fact that the land possession certificate issued as per the Revenue records on 7th Sept. 2009 states that the land is agricultural and there is no document to show that the land has been converted from agricultural to educational. 12) In reply to point No. (xi), the institution had stated that by mistake the non-encumbrance certificate was not attached with the application form; hence, the same was submitted in reply to DLI. 13) In reply to point No. (xii), the institution had stated that it is having total seven plot nos. in one campus and surrounded by boundary wall. So it has been seen in one affidavit. The said contention of the institution is violation of para 8(7) (ii) of NCTE Regulations 2009, which states that " The society sponsoring

the institution shall have to ensure that proposed teacher education institution has a well demarcated land area as specified by the norms. The Teacher Education institution shall not be allowed to have any other institution within its demarcated area or building and shall not have any other course(s) in its building." 14) In reply to point no. (xiii), the institution had stated that total land area of 11.67 acres is in possession of Maha Bodhi Mahavidyalaya, but 5.73 acres in one campus. 5.94 acres are in another campus. So it is not seen in building plan. From the above contention it is seen that the institution has not demarcated the exclusive land for Teacher Education institution. 15) In reply to point No. (xiv), the institution had stated that as per above plot No. 5279, 5155, 5617, 5333, 5334, 5342, 5331 & 5142 is land of one campus surrounded by one boundary wall. In which plot No. 5279 area 2.12 acre is demarcated and allotted for B.Ed institution. The said contention is not acceptable in view of the submissions made by the institution at Sr. No. (1) and (12). 16) In reply to point No. (xv), the institution had stated that it is running degree courses in the name of Maha Bodhi Mahavidyalaya in the same premises but its building is situated on other plot no. in support of same, it had submitted a CD and also stated that the building built up in 1978 and the building plan is not available. The said contention is not acceptable in view of the submissions made by the institution at Sr. No. (1) and (12). 17) The certified copy of land documents have been issued on 14th Jan 2010 whereas as per Regulations it should have been prior to the date of application. 18) Undertaking in prescribed format not submitted. 19) Built up area not mentioned in the affidavit. 20) At pg. 104 of VT Folder, the seating capacity in the library is 30. 21) The land documents submitted by the institution are not legible. the Council may please verify. 22) Further, as per VT Report, Notarized CLU details not given. The documents as "Land Possession Certificate" Notarized on 08/02/2010 mentions/indicates that its agricultural cultivating land in possession of the institution. The multipurpose hall as per application also is less than requirement”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Mahabodhi Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 11/03/2011 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. Arvind Kumar, Principal and Shri. F. Ahmad, Representative, Mahabodhi Mahavidyalaya, Nalanda, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the reason No.1 in the impugned order is absolutely vague as obviously the land and building are clearly demarcated and the same is projected in the CD and as such explained in the reply of the appellant; regarding reason No. 2, it is submitted that the respondent has completely ignored the explanation of the appellant given vide letter dated 09/12/2010 wherein the appellant had in clear terms stated the proposed Mahabodhi Mahavidyalaya, Nalanda for B.Ed. course has been founded/opened under the management of the degree college (which is referred as multifaculty college by the respondent). It was submitted that the said degree college is affiliated to the Magadh University and the said Managing Committee was run under the sponsorship of Mahabodhi Education and Social Welfare Society registered under Societies Registration Act. That the management of Degree College in its resolution had described and demarcated 4000 sq. mts. of its total land of 1167 acres towards the proposed institution, that the possession of land in the title of the B.Ed College of the appellant was accordingly delivered and even the building plan of the college was accordingly prepared by the competent authority the Executive Engineer and that the building was constructed as per norms and requirement of the NCTE. Thus, the demarcation of land was evidentially proved with the above noted resolution and there

was clear description of the boundary of land showing separation of B.Ed College from the Degree College through the demarcation of area in the landed property over which there has been the construction of the building. Hence such observation as given in the impugned order ignoring the explanation as above of the appellant is not only unjust but totally prejudicial to the appellant and is fit to be ignored; with regard to point 3 it is submitted that the respondent has once again ignored the explanation of the appellant which had already described that as regards multipurpose hall it was mistakenly shown in the building plan having an area of 750 sq.ft., whereas the seminar hall was a large hall having area of much more than 2000 sq.ft., which was to be treated as the multipurpose hall. As such the multipurpose hall described in the building plan was requested to be treated as the seminar hall and it was clearly mentioned that the necessary changes in the building plan were incorporated in the revised building plan. Therefore it was clear that the purpose and object behind the arrangements were undoubtedly solved and there remained no scope for raising any objection; with regard to the reasons no. 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 of the impugned order, it is totally not clear as to why the replies of the appellant with respect to the deficiencies in connection with the above reasons, already sent and submitted by the appellant have remained unsatisfactory. It may be seen that the respondent has simply noted the respective replies of the appellant as against the deficiencies pointed out, and no reason has been given for their being rejected which method is per se un acceptable and also untenable in law. It may be reiterated however that the infrastructural facilities may be verified afresh in case the replies to the show cause appear to be unsatisfactory whereupon it will be proved that the same are in accordance with the plan-map and in agreement with the norms of NCTE. It is submitted that even the accessories such as the computers etc., available in the said college were video graphed during inspection. Regarding 10 number of computers in the I.T Laboratory and one was located in the chamber of the Principal for official utilization. It may be noted that the institution has however applied for the PAN no against processing fee coupon no 514295120, the said number, upon its receipt shall be intimated to the respondent. It may be also pertinent to mention here that since the building plan which was signed and approved by the Executive Engineer dated 10th March 2007 was already submitted to the members of the visiting team earlier, the same was fit to be considered and objection to this effect was fit to be rejected. That the landed property was already registered in the name of the Degree College in the year 1978 and that the Appellant institution was run under the management of the society was registered only on 12 August 2004 thus the society was registered as a legal entity only much later and there could be no legal impediment in its land having executed prior to registration of the said society; with regard to the reasons no: 11,12,13 and 14 it is submitted that while reproducing the respective replies made by the appellant to the relevant points of deficiencies indicated by the ERC, earlier, in the `reasons', the ERC /respondent neither considered nor appreciated the said explanations and thus has left the appellant utterly prejudiced. It is submitted that the respondent has failed to consider that the appellant obtained the "land possession certificate" and certificate regarding the nature of use of land from local competent authority i.e., Anchal Adhikari, Silao Anchal Officer under District Nalanda. Further the non encumbrance certificate had already been submitted with the ERC under its letter no 02/2010 dated 09/12/2010; For that with regard to the reason no 15 it is submitted that the institution had the demarcated khata no 449 for B.Ed college and a detailed affidavit to that effect was already submitted, wherein it was explained categorically that out of several plots and khatas numbers duly in possession of the society the specific khata number 449 was exclusively demarcated for the B.Ed institution of the appellant. This fact has not been considered at all neither has been duly appreciated by the respondent for which the

appellants are before this august council; with regard to the reason No 16 it is submitted that as explained in the earlier paragraphs the degree college has under its ownership seven different khatas against which non encumbrance certificates were obtained from the competent authority. The respective building plans were lawfully obtained by the degree college for land of 11.67 acres, out of which 4000 sq.mt. have been allotted to the B.Ed College. In the whole plot of land under ownership of Degree College, comprising two parts, one part is of 5.73 acres which has a boundary wall. Hence in the building plan there is mention of 5.73 acres that covered the area demarcated for the B.Ed college/institution. It may be submitted that the appellant institution is to run under the management of degree college therefore the question of any extraneous institution being in the said premises could not arise at all, and as such whimsical conclusions are only to defeat the purpose of running the institution which has strenuously made all arrangements for this to provide educational course for teachers as good teachers are a sine qua non for the purpose of a will balanced and integrated society at large; the reasons 17-22 are not only vague but objections per se hence the same may kindly be ignored. AND WHEREAS as regards objections at serial numbers 1, 2,10,13,14 and 15, the Council noted that clause 8 (7) (ii) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 stipulates that the Society sponsoring the institution shall have to ensure that proposed Teacher Education Institution has a well demarcated land area as specified by the norms and that the teacher education institution shall not be allowed to have any other institution within its demarcated area or building and shall not have any other course(s) in its building. From the affidavit, building plan and reply to the show cause notice submitted by the institution and the VT report, it is obvious that a Degree College is already being run in the same campus in which the B. Ed College is proposed to be run without any demarcation of area. Thus, the institution did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of clause 8 (7) (ii) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009. As regards objection at serial number 3 pertaining to size of the Multipurpose hall, the Council noted that the VT, which physically inspected the premises, in its report dated 09.07.2010 indicated that the size of the Multipurpose hall was 1800 sq. ft. only (as against the requirement of 2000 sq. ft. as per the NCTE norms) and hence this objection is valid. Regarding objection at serial number 4, it is not valid as the VT, after physical inspection, in its report indicated the area available, which was adequate as per norms. Regarding ground at serial number 5 pertaining to number of computers, the Council noted that reply of the institution that it was having ten computers could be accepted as the VT report also confirmed the same. As regards objection at serial number six relating to adequacy of 4000 sq. mts of land for B. ED course, the Council was of the view that this objection as such was not valid as 4000 sq. mts. of land was adequate for B. Ed course as per NCTE norms. However, the Council also noted that, as already stated, there was no proper area exclusively demarcated for the B. Ed course. As regards objection at serial number 7, the Council was of the view that the explanation of the institution that it submitted unsigned copy of building plan wrongly although signed copy of building plan was also available with it, could not be accepted as the building plan submitted was unsigned and therefore unapproved. As per the NCTE norms, unapproved building plan cannot be accepted. Regarding objection at serial number 8 relating to website, it was not a valid objection as non-indication of the website address in the application as such cannot be a valid ground for rejection/refusal of recognition particularly when the website address was communicated by the institution subsequently. Mandatory requirement, as per clause 7(10) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, is that the institution should establish its own website after issue of Letter of Intent. Regarding objection at serial number 9, the Council noted that indicating the current account number of the institution as PAN, cannot be a

valid reason for rejecting /refusing recognition although the mistake shows that the institution was casual and negligent while submitting the application. Regarding objection at serial no.11, the Council noted that the land possession certificate dated 07.09.2009 issued by the Circle Officer indicated that the entire 11.67 acres of land possessed by the Mahabodhi Mahavidhyalay, Nalanda was agricultural land and, therefore, this objection is valid. Regarding objection at serial no. 12, the Council noted that the institution submitted the non-encumbrance certificate along with the reply to the deficiency letter and, therefore, the explanation of the institution could be accepted. Regarding objection at serial no. 16, as already stated, the institution is running Degree college also in the same campus in which the B.Ed college is proposed to be conducted and therefore, the contention of the institution that the degree college is run in a separate plot cannot be accepted. Regarding objection at serial no. 17 pertaining to certified copy of land document, the Council noted that clause 7 (1-A) of NCTE Regulations, 2009 stipulates that the application submitted online but not followed by dispatch, through registered post or by hand, with all the seven specified documents, including certified copy of the registered land document issued by the competent authority within seven days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected with the reasons recorded in writing. Thus, certified copy of land document was not available with the institution on the date of submission of the application on 20.10.2009 and it obtained the same only on 14.01.2010, that is, much after the date of submission of application. Therefore, the institution did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of clause 8 (7) (1-A) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009.As regards objections at serial nos. 18-22, the Council noted that the institution did not furnish specific replies to them as they felt that they were vague and objections per se. AND WHEREAS to sum up, the Council was of the view that it did not fulfill the requirement as per the NCTE norms to become eligible for recognition and, hence there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’s order dated 21-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Mahabodhi Mahavidyalaya, Plot No. 5279, Street No. - 402, Vill. - Muzafarpur, , Nalanda - 803111, Bihar 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Bihar, Patna.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Matru Shri Kesarben Savaniya B.Ed. College, Junagadh Dist., Gujarat dated 26/02/2009 is against the Order No. WRC/APWO2709/323331/110th/2008/48324 dated 28/12/2008 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground “No supporting documents for land and building is submitted”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Matru Shri Kesarben Savaniya B.Ed. College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 02/03/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Matru Shri Kesarben Savaniya B.Ed. College, Junagadh Dist., Gujarat was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011, but nobody appeared to present their case on that day. The Council was informed that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad gave certain direction on SCA No.5089 of 2010 filed by the institution and the WRC, Bhopal has already initiated necessary action in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court and hence the present appeal is infructuous and therefore, the appeal was treated as disposed of. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby treats the appeal as disposed of because the WRC as already initiated necessary action in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court.


1. The Secretary, Matru Shri Kesarben Savaniya B.Ed. College, At. & Ta: Varaval, , Junagadh Dist. - 362265, 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 Ramesh Teachers Training Institute, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh dated 08/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW08199/222531/143/2010/74856 dated 12/02/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds “1) The reason given for not getting the inspection done by the VT is not justified. The institution contravened the order No. WRC/inspection/MP/2010/69369 dated 28/07/2010 and clause 8.14 of NCTE Regulations 2007”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ramesh Teachers Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 08/03/2011 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. Manoj Kumar Bajpai, Prinicpal and Shri. Vijay Bahadur Singh Sikarwar, Clerk, Ramesh Teachers Training Institute, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was clarified that the appellant submitted reply to the above notice indicated therein that all the facilities are available with full fledged furniture facility in the appellant Institute. Stating so it was then urged that inspection committee has not submitted proper inspection report on due verification; The Hon'ble Court has recently decided the matter that once recognition is granted to an Institute, the inspection under section 17 is not permissible but initially an inspection under section 13 should be made granting opportunity to the Institute to cure the defect and thereafter to conduct another inspection under section 17, and then, if the defects are still not cured, to withdraw the recognition. No such course was adopted and directly the order has been passed withdrawing the recognition granted to the appellant vide order at Annexure A/7 to the appeal. During the hearing, it was submitted that Dr. Manoj Kumar Bajpai, Principal of the College was the son of Shri Rameshchandra Bajpai, who was the Chairman of the Society, which was sponsoring the College. Since Shri Rameshchandra Bajpai died at around 1.30 P.M. on 09.08.2010, when the inspection of the institution was going on, the inspection could not be completed and requested to get re-inspection of the institution on humanitarian grounds. It was also submitted that the institution was prepared to bear cost of inspection of Rs.40,000. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that 1) the Visiting Team, which visited the institution on 09.08.2010 for inspection, inter-alia, stated that at around 10.00 AM, before visit to the institution, the team contacted the Principal, Dr. Manoj Kumar Bajpai, on his mobile when Dr. Bajpai informed the team that no one would be available till 12.00 noon. The VT reached the College at the address given in the NCTE letter. Dr. Manoj Kumar Bajpai, the Principal of the College and Shri Yogesh Bajpai, Member of the managing committee received the VT in the college. Inspection of the institution was going on. However, at around 1.30 p.m. the principal of the college suddenly went out of the office saying that his uncle died due to heart attack and he had to leave. 2) Dr. Manoj Kumar Bajpai the

Principal of the College, showed to the Council the death certificate of his father Shri Rameshchandra Bajpai, wherein it was stated that his father died on 09-08-2010 at Birla Hospital, Gwailor. 3) This death certificate indicates that Shri Rameshchandra Bajpai father of Dr. Manoj Kumar Bajpai, Principal of the College, died on the day of the visit of the institution by the visiting team and that was the reason why the Principal, suddenly left the College. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was adequate justification in accepting the request of the institution for re-inspection of the institution on payment of requisite fee of Rs.40,000 by the institution, on humanitarian grounds. 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 with direction to WRC for causing re-inspection of the institution to verify as to whether the institution was functioning in conformity with the provision of the NCTE Act, Regulations etc. as on 09.08.2010 and take further necessary action. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and WRC’s order dated 12-02-2011 reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Ramesh Teachers Training Institute, Creze Education and Social Welfare Society, Veshanow Devi Parisar, Near Gupteshwar Mandir, Tighra Road,, Gwalior - , 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 Takshila College of Education, Patna, Bihar dated 13/03/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-114.6(Vol.lll).1/2010/6189 dated 21/01/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) The Visiting Team Member in their report categorically stated that despite their best efforts to locate the institution, there is no such institution. 2) The reply received from the institution thereafter is not acceptable. 3) As per point 1, the institution had stated that on online submission the issue of PAN was not identified although the PAN is available with the institution and had submitted a copy of the PAN card. 4) In reply to Serial No. 2, the institution had stated that the non-encumbrance certificate was obtained in compliance to DLI. 5) In reply to Serial No. 03 to 5, the institution has agreed that the building plan has been approved on 18th Jan. 2010 and also stated that the building of the institution is at plot No. 917 & 921 which is apparent in the building plan dated 18th Jan 2010. Even if the said contention of the institution is accepted, the total land area for the institution comes to 39.50 dec i.e. 1599 sq.m approximately, which is less than required as per Regulations. Moreover, the building plan has been approved on 18th Jan 2010, which is not acceptable in the light of clarification issued by NCTE-HQrs vide letter dated 2nd Dec. 2009. 6) In reply to paras 6 and 7 of the SCN, the institution had stated that the Land Use Certificate was submitted in compliance to DLI as the same was not available at the time of submission of application. The same is not acceptable in light of clarification issued by NCTE-HQrs vide letter dated 2nd Dec. 2009. 7) In reply to para 7 of the SCN, the institution had submitted a reply. the Council may please see. 8) The building plan at P.130/c consists of only two Plot Nos. 921 & 917 of the land, whereas the land document and the affidavit plan do not speak of the Plot No. 900”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Takshila College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 16/03/2011 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. Mobashir Rahman, Secretary, Takshila College of Education, Patna, Bihar presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that, on online submission, the issue of PAN was not identified although it is a fact that the PAN is available to the institution at a later date. A Xerox copy of the PAN AABAP129N of the issuing letter is annexed as Annexure-5 to the appeal. That it is a fact that non encumbrance certificate was obtained in compliance to DLI (Xerox copy of non encumbrance certificate enclosed as Annexure-6 to the appeal). But it is also a fact that land is registered within stipulated period. It is a fact that the building plan was duly approved as on 18th Jan 2010. But it is also a fact that at the time of submission of application, building plan, duly approved by registered Architect, was also submitted within the stipulated period and there was no change in the later submission.

That the total land is having three plots no. 900, 917, 921, total land 34188.32 Sq. Ft.=3180.30 Square Meter (Xerox copy of land deed is annexed as Annexure 7) and adjacent to each other, which is certified by District Sub- Registrar where the land deed was made (Xerox copy enclosed as Annexure 8 to the appeal); but the building is installed in two plots No. 917 and 921 which is apparent in building plan dated 18th Jan 2010; That the building plan & building completion certificate both are approved and issued respectively for Plot No. 917 & 921. Xerox copies of building plan and building completion certificate are annexed as Annexure-9 and Annexure-10 respectively with the appeal. AND WHEREAS as regards the first ground of refusal of recognition that the Visiting Team, in its report, categorically stated that despite their best efforts to locate the institution, they could not locate such an institution; the institution did not give any convincing explanation in the appeal. It only stated that all letters and correspondences are being acknowledged by the institution. The Council also noted that a letter dated 24.11.2009 sent to the institution by the ERC by speed post indicating complete address of the institution, was returned by the Postal Department with the remarks “There is no such college in Hinduni locality”. In view of this, the Council was inclined to go with the finding of the VT that there was no such institution at the address indicated by the institution. Regarding the second and fourth grounds of refusal pertaining to late submission of non-encumbrance certificate, the Council noted that the institution admitted that it was not submitted along with the application and the same dated 12-01-2010 was submitted in reply to the deficiency letter. Regarding the ground of refusal relating to PAN, the Council was of the view that since details of PAN card were subsequently furnished by the institution, non-indication of PAN in the application as such cannot be a valid objection for refusal of recognition. Regarding ground of refusal of recognition at serial number 5 relating to area of land available and the date of approval of the building plan, the Council noted that the building plan submitted by the institution showed that the size of the plot was measuring 39.50 dismal, which works out to around 1599 sq. mts. as against the requirement of a minimum of 2500 sq. mts. for B. Ed Course as per the NCTE norms. The building plan initially submitted was not approved by the local authority and the same was subsequently got approved only on 18.01.2010, that is, after submission of the application. Thus, the Council noted that the objection at serial number 5 was valid. As regards objection at serial numbers 6 and 7 pertaining to submission of CLU, the Council noted that the institution admitted that the same was obtained only on 16.01.2010 and submitted along with reply to deficiency letter. Thus, CLU was not available at the time of submission of the application, which was a mandatory requirement as per the NCTE norms. Regarding ground of refusal at serial number 8 relating to discrepancy in the building plan and the affidavit/land document, the Council noted that the discrepancy pointed out was correct.

AND WHEREAS to sum up, the Council noted that the institution did not fulfill the requirements as per the NCTE norms to become eligible for grant of recognition and, therefore, the Council was of the view that recognition was refused to the institution by the ERC for valid reasons and, thus, there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’s order dated 21-01-2011 was confirmed.



1. The Secretary, Takshila College of Education, Village- Abdul Rahmanpur Hinduni, PO- Phulwarisharif, , Patna - 801505, 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.

F.No.89-87/2011 Appeal/3rd Mtg-2011

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

26/05/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India University, Aizawl, Mizoram dated 11/03/2011 is against the Order No. ERC87-114.6(Vol-lll).2/2010/6172 dated 21/01/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds “1) As per VTR, 2 Multipurpose halls are available and their size 70 M2 & 80.55M2 which is less than required as per NCTE Norms. 2) The built up area is 1140.3 Sq.mtr, which is functioning in rented building. 3) Nos. of computer is 12, which is less as per NCTE Norms. 4) Details of FDR verified by the VT are not same as submitted by the institution. 5) The institution is running various courses, such as BBA,BCA,BNTM, MBA etc. demarcated site plan demarcating land and building exclusively for teacher training programme has not been submitted by the institution. 6) As per the VT report the institution is functioning in a rented building covering an area of 1140.3 sq. mt. and VT also stated that the faculty of education will be accommodated for the present in this building. 7) The building completion not submitted. Infrastructure details do not tally with the VT report. 8) Certified copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority not submitted. 9) Approved building plan by the competent civil authority mentioning the plot no., khata no., total area, built up area, plinth area not submitted. 10) Notarized copy of change of land use certificate by the Competent Authority not submitted. 11) Non-Encumbrance Certificate by the Competent Authority not submitted”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India University (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 17/03/2011 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 Prof. Lalkima, Registrar and Shri. Joseph.L., Sr. Manager (Admin) , The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India University, Aizawl, Mizoram presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the Respondent erred in concluding, that as per VTR, 2 multipurpose halls are available and their size is 70 sq.mt. and 80.55 sq.mt., which is less than required as per NCTE norms, ignoring the factual position as explained by the Appellant in its Representation dt. 14/10/2010 (Annexure-6 to appeal) that the multipurpose hall mentioned in the VT report are the halls in the present rented accommodation, one at Chaltlang Dawrkawn and the other at Salem Veng, Chaltlang and that the construction of the owned permanent campus of the University at Durtlang North (on the outskirts of Aizawl) is being completed. That the University will be operating from the new campus with effect from the new academic session i.e. 2011-2012 at this owned campus, wherein 210 sq.mt. multipurpose hall is earmarked exclusively for B.Ed course; The Respondent erred in holding that the built up area is 1140.3 sq.mtr. which is functioning in rented building, without appreciating the clarification of Appellant that the area of 1140 sq.mt. is in respect of rented accommodation wherein the Appellant is temporarily operating and that the Appellant University will move to its own new campus by the next academic session 2011-

2012 and 1520 sqmt floor plan has been exclusively demarcated for running the B.Ed programme. The same demarcated floor plan was submitted to VT and also enclosed with the written Representation dated 14/10/2010; The Respondent erred in its finding that number of computers available as 12, which is less as per NCTE norms, while failing to appreciate the clarification of Appellant that the University presently has a laboratory with 24 computers and the same had also been inspected by the Visiting Team and further that in the new campus to be occupied by the Appellant this year, there will be a laboratory with 48 computers. It is pertinent to note that as per norms one computer for every six students is required to be provided. Accordingly, the number of computers being provided by the Appellant is adequate; The Respondent erroneously held that the details of FDR verified by the VT are not same as submitted by the institution, ignoring the clarification given by Appellant that the FD certificate submitted earlier to NCTE with the application was of one year term and that on the advice of the Visiting Team a fresh FDR certificate of five years term was obtained and submitted to the Visiting Team; The Respondent erred in its finding that the Appellant University is running various courses, such as BBA, BCA, BHTM, MBA etc., and that a demarcated site plan demarcating land and building exclusively for teacher training programme has not been submitted by the Appellant; The Respondent ought to have appreciated the facts explained by the Appellant that the Appellant University has two buildings at present and that the BBA, BCA, BHTM and MBA programmes are run in one building located in Salem-Veng, Chaltlang, whereas, the building proposed for B.Ed program is the second building at Dawrkawn, Chaltlang which is exclusively earmarked for B.Ed program. That this was inspected by the Visiting Team and a video of the same was also submitted. The Respondent ignored the demarcated site plan for 2500 sq.mt. and 1520 sq.mt. floor plan of the said building, submitted to the Visiting Team; That, at the time of application, the B.Ed program was proposed to be started in the campus where the other programs like BBA, BCA, BHTM and MBA are run at Salem Veng campus and as such details of infrastructure of that building was submitted. Subsequently, an exclusive building at Dawrkawn was identified for B.Ed and infrastructure created to meet the NCTE norms. That this fact was explained to the visiting team and hence, there was variation in infrastructure details between application and the VT Report; The Respondent erroneously concluded that certified copy of the Registered land documents issued by the competent authority were not submitted, ignoring the fact that certified copies of the Registered land documents were submitted to NCTE along with Appellant's application and suitably acknowledged on October 27th, 2009. That the same copies were once again resubmitted to the Respondent vide Appellant's letter dated January 20th, 2010 against their deficiency letter ref no. F.ERC/NCTE/2009/B.Ed/DL-2985 dt. December 22nd, 2009. The Blue-dart courier vide POD no - 12722168815 was delivered and received by Respondent on January 24th, 2010. Once again the same copies were resubmitted to the Respondent vide letter no. lcfai/UNIV-AZL/ADMN/2009-10/56 dt. March 25, 2010 and again vide letter no. lcfai/UNIV-AZL/ADMN/2010-11/34 dt. October 14th, 2010; The Respondent erred in holding that the Approved building plan by the competent civil authority mentioning the plot no., khata no. Total Area, Built up area, Plinth area etc. were not submitted. Whereas, the approved plan and the letter of approval issued by the Aizawl Development Authority had been submitted to the Respondent vide letter dated January 20th, 2009, against their deficiency letter ref no. F.ERC/NCTE/2009/B.Ed/DL-2985 dt. December 22nd, 2009. The same were again resubmitted to the Respondent vide letter no. lcfai/UNIV-AZL/ADMN/2010-11/34 dt. October 14th, 2010; The Respondent erroneously held that the Notarized copy of Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate by the competent authority was not submitted, failing to appreciate the fact that there is no rule for issue of CLU (change of land use) in Mizoram. The Respondent ignored the Certificate issued by the Authorized Signatory of the Govt. of

Mizoram to that effect, submitted to the Respondent. The Respondent also ignored the land lease documents of the Appellant wherein it was categorically mentioned that the purpose of the land is for "establishment of ICFAI University campus"; The Respondent erred in its finding that Non-encumbrance Certificate by the competent authority not submitted; The Respondent failed to appreciate the fact that Govt. of Mizoram does not issue certificate of non-encumbrance against any land lease, despite submitted a certificate to that effect issued by the Director, Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt. Govt. of Mizoram, vide Appellant's letter dated January 20, 2010 to the Respondent. The certificate issued by the Director of the Govt. of Mizoram states as follows: "Certified that the Govt. of Mizoram Revenue Deptt. has never issued Certificate of Non-Encumbrance along with Certificate of Land Lease as there is no provision in the Land law for issuance of Non-Encumbrance Certificate in issuing Land Leased Certificate". The above said certificate was again submitted along with the Appellant's reply to the show cause notice dated 14/10/2010; The Respondent erred in holding as deficiency that the Building completion certificate with the plot number, Khata No. Total area and built up area, plinth area etc. from the competent authority was not submitted.; The Respondent failed to appreciate and consider the explanation given by the Appellant that the University campus building will be completed before the next academic session i.e. 2011-12 and that a certificate to this effect will be obtained from the competent authority upon completion of the building and would be submitted to the Respondent and that the same had been already conveyed to the Visiting Team; The Respondent contrary to its own finding that the land documents were not submitted held that the University has only submitted the land documents for 71192.36 Sqmt and that the clear demarcated site plan, where the proposed teacher education institution will be run was not submitted. The Respondent ignored that the Building plan submitted is for an integrated University campus where in one floor of 1520 sqmt. is clearly demarcated for B.Ed. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that along with its application dated 27.10.2009 for recognition of B. Ed Course, the ICFAI University, Aizawl, Mizoram, submitted a private lease deed dated 07.03.2008 for a period of three years in support of its claim regarding availability of land and building for running the proposed B. Ed Course. From the lease deed, it was also noted that the land taken on lease was only 0.22 Bigha or 291 sq. mts and a building with a built up area of 1140.3 sq. mts only as against the requirement of a minimum of 2500 sq. mts of land and 1500 sq. mts. of built up area as per the NCTE norms. The application of the institution was submitted on 27.10.2009, and as per clause 8 (7) (i) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, applicable in this case, no institution shall be granted recognition under the Regulations, unless the institution is in possession of required land, free from all encumbrances, on ownership basis or on lease from Government/ Government institutions for a period of not less than thirty years, on the date of application. The institution, thus, did not fulfill this essential and mandatory requirement to become eligible for considering its application for recognition for B. Ed Course. Nevertheless, the ERC wrongly processed the application of the institution, got it inspected on 18.06.2010 and ultimately refused recognition to the institution on various grounds including those relating to inadequate land and built up area and rented accommodation. In any case, since the institution did not fulfill the mandatory requirement to become eligible for recognition for B. Ed Course, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be

rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’s order dated 21-01-2011 was confirmed.



1. The Registrar, The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India University, At - Chatlang, PO - Ramhlun,, Aizawl - 796012, Mizoram 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 Mizoram, Aizawl.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Virendra Kumar Singh Education Society, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh dated 14/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW04187/222227/143/2010/74575 dated 02/02/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course on the grounds “There are no valid documents regarding land, building and other infrastructural and instructional facilities. The institution contravened the clause 8(5) and 8(8) of NCTE Regulations 2005”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Virendra Kumar Singh Education Society (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 Shri. Mukesh Rana, Secretary, Virendra Kumar Singh Education Society, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that that, in the year 2006, there were norms and conditions that the appellant institution is required to run the College on its own building and land and after considering the permanent lease deed the NCTE granted the recognition in the year 2008, the students are studying in the appellant institution in the course of D.Ed and the institution is running smoothly. The Session which was commenced from 1st September, 2010 will be completed in the month of July, 2011. If the impugned order is not set aside, then the appellant institution will be deprived of for admitting the students and it will cause huge loss to the appellant institution as well as to the students who are studying in the institution. In such a situation, as per provisions of Section 17 (3) of the NCTE Act, the appellant institution will be allowed to admit the student in the forthcoming Session which is going to be commenced from the month of July, 2011, the visiting team deliberately and intentionally submitted its wrong report on account of the reason best known to the visiting team. The appellant institution is ready and willing to get re-inspection of the institution, which will demonstrate the actual position and also clarify the arbitrary and illegal action of the authority, even illegal report submitted by the visiting team. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the Virendra Kumar Singh Education Society,478, Mohan Nagar, Thatipur, Gwalior, M.P was granted recognition for D. Ed Course with an annual intake of 50 students vide WRC’s order dated 28.01.2008. The WRC decided to initiate action against the institution under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, which provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution for reasons to be recorded in writing. Accordingly, an inspection of the institution was conducted on 06.10.2010 in order to verify as to whether the institution was functioning in conformity with

the provisions in the NCTE Act, Regulations etc. The VT report dated 06.10.2010, inter-alia, indicated that the address of the institution was a residence of the Management; the original land record available could not be verified because it was not made available; it is a leased land; no identifiable mark was available; ownership document of the owner show a different House No.; site map/location map, village map was not available for verification; the present building also accommodate primary/nursery school; the institute does not satisfy NCTE norms with reference to Library, IT facilities and teaching-learning resource centre. The WRC issued a show-cause notice dated 23.08.2009 under section 17 of the NCTE Act and after consideration of the reply dated 16.09.2010 in the 143rd meeting held on 17-18 December, 2010, decided to withdraw recognition of the institution for D. Ed course on the ground that there are no valid document regarding land, building and other infrastructural and instructional facilities and that the institution contravened the clause 8 (5) and 8 (8) of the NCTE Regulations, 2005. In view of the position explained, the Council was of the view that recognition of the institution was withdrawn by the WRC for valid reasons and hence there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 02-02-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Virendra Kumar Singh Education Society, 478, Mohan Nagar, Thatipur, Gwalior - , 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 B.T.L. College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 26/03/2011 is against the Order No. SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/27586 dated 11/03/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds: “1) the built up area allotted to B.Ed. in one floor is only 1190 sq.mts, which has been admitted in writing by the management. The built up area is inadequate for B.Ed. course as per NCTE norms, 2) based on the above points the Council decides to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed. course run by B.T.L College of Education, No. 259/B, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, from the academic year 2011-12, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed. course if any, to complete their course”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, B.T.L. College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 28/03/2011 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. Gangadhar, Dean BTL Group of Institutes, B.T.L. College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the appellant has provided the entire necessary infrastructure (i) The institution possess 25 acres of land and has dedicated built up area of more than 1690 Sq meters for B.Ed. College and the remaining space for lawns, playfields, other institution referred to above in a single comprehensive campus, etc. The appellant submits that the appellant fulfills all the conditions for grant of recognition as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education for conducting the course or training in teacher education including the norms, inter alia, cover conditions relating to financial resources, accommodation, library, laboratory, other physical infrastructure, qualified staff including teaching and non-teaching personnel etc. The Appellant submits that the impugned order has severely affected the morale of the management, staff and students as the appellant have not violated any of the Norms and has been striving hard to grow and in the near future the appellant has proposed to set up an exclusive building for housing the B.Ed. College in a specially earmarked 1 acre of land, their desire is to make the Campus premier Education Center and they are blessed with adequate resources. To satisfy the appellant authority they have annexed to this Appeal memo the Plan and Photographs about the exclusive wing provided for the B.Ed. College. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was granted recognition for B.Ed course vide SRC’s order dated 30.01.2006. The NCTE Headquarters got an inspection of the institution conducted by a visiting team of experts on 22.04.2010 under Section 13 of the NCTE Act. The VT report dated 22.04.2010, inter-alia, indicated that the B. Ed course was being run in the second floor of a two-storey building with an earmarked area of 1094 sq. mts and in the other two floors PUC was being run. Since earmarked built up area was only

1094 sq. mts. as against the requirement of 1500 sq. mts. as per the prescribed NCTE norms and non-teacher education courses were also being run in the same building, the NCTE Headquarters forwarded a copy of the VT report to the SRC, Bangaluru for initiating action against the institution under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, which provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution for reasons to be recorded in writing. The SRC issued a show cause notice dated 06.12.2010 on the grounds that (i) the management was running Pre-University Course (PUC) in the same building where B. Ed programme was also conducted, which was not permissible as per the NCTE norms and (ii) the built up area as per VT report was only 1094 sq. mts, which was inadequate as per NCTE norms of 1500 sq.mts. The reply dated 10.01.2011 to the show cause notice confirmed that 2nd floor of the building was earmarked for the B. Ed course and the available built up area of one floor was only 1190 sq. mts.( as per the Building Plan), as against the requirement of a minimum of 1500 sq. mts. as per the NCTE norms. Therefore, the SRC withdrew the recognition of the institution for B. Ed course from the academic year 2011-12 vide its order dated 11.03.2011. In view of the position explained, the Council was of the view that recognition of the institution was withdrawn by the SRC for valid reasons and, therefore, there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’s order dated 11-03-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, B.T.L. College of Education, No. 259/B, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Hosur Main Road,, Bangalore - 560099, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of City D.Ed. College, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh dated 25/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06038/222319/143/2010/74468 dated 30/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course on the grounds: “1) Copy of certified land documents not submitted. The institution contravened the clause 8(7) and 8(10) of NCTE Regulations 2007. 2) Land use certificate not submitted. The institution contravened the clause 8(8) and 8(10) of NCTE Regulations 2007. 3) Staff not qualified. The institution contravened the clause 8(7) and 8(1) of NCTE Regulations 2007.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, City D.Ed. College, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 25/03/2011 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. Satya Prakash Tiwari, Vice President, City D.Ed. College, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that because, as per the directions contained in the show cause notice dated 23/08/2010, the complainant submitted the reply within time, because, the impugned order is not speaking and is far from the truth. It has been passed mechanically without application of mind. That no reason indicating alleged inadequacy has been mentioned in the impugned order; because, the appellant institution has incurred heavy amount in construction of the building and in purchase of other necessary equipment and paraphernalia; because, the institution is not a paper institution; because, the grounds for withdrawal differ from the charges mentioned in the show cause notice; because, the inspection of section 17 has been directly conducted without following the procedure of section 13 as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh; because the appellant has been subjected to the very harsh treatment and it was given recognition after the inspection as mentioned in the recognition order dated 19/02/2009. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was granted recognition for D. Ed course, vide WRC’s order dated 19.02.2009. The WRC, in its 137th meeting held on 14.06.2010 decided to initiate action against the City D.Ed College under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, which provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution for reasons to be recorded in writing. Accordingly, an inspection of the institution was also conducted on 08.08.2010.The VT report, inter-alia, indicated that the institution was running a number of courses and there was no specific earmarking of facilities. The WRC issued a show-cause notice dated 23.08.2010 on the ground that (i) the institution is running many courses, wherein the built up area for D. Ed is not earmarked, (ii) certified copy of

land document not submitted, (iii) CLU not submitted (iv) staff not approved by the affiliating body and (v) latest khasra/khatoni not produced. After considering the reply dated 19.09.2010, the WRC withdrew the recognition of the institution vide its order dated 30.01.2011 against which the present appeal has been filed by the institution. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that although the institution, in its reply dated 19.09.2010 claimed it was running only B.P.Ed and D. Ed courses in the same building, the VT report has indicated that infrastructural facilities like class rooms, computers, library, science laboratories, play ground, etc; are shared for conducting Secondary & Higher Secondary School, B. P.Ed and D. Ed programmes and there is no specific earmarking of such facilities. Sharing of facilities with non-teacher education courses is not permissible as per the NCTE norms. The Council also perused the staff profile submitted by the institution and found that while the Principal and two lecturers appointed are qualified, three lecturers are not qualified as per the NCTE norms, 2007. Therefore, the Council was of the view that there was no ground to accept the appeal. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 30-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, City D.Ed. College,, Near Dak Bunglow, Ater Road,, Bhind - 477001, Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Elitte College of Education, Kolkata, West Bengal dated 16/03/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-114.6.14/2010/6169 dated 21/01/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds: “1) The institution has enclosed a copy of the Architecture Layout which is contradiction to VT Report. 2) Regarding point 2, 3 & 4 the institution stated equipment will be added once the institution will become operational. Hence the deficiency still exists. Essential register not submitted by the institution. 3) Playground is under process. 4) Certified copy of registered land document not submitted. The institution submitted a conditional gift deed. 5) In building plan date is not mentioned which is submitted after notice. 6) As per point 10 other courses run by the institution. However the institution stated no other courses run by the institution. 7) Regarding point 11 the institution stated it was inadvertently included in affidavit. 8) The institution has not submitted the certified copy of the land document. The land is Gift deed which is conditional. In one of the Appeal decision, the Appellate Authority did not accept appeal of the institution on the ground of the conditional land gift deed. 9) The building plan submitted by the institution does not show the details of land area & built up area. 10) The institution in its reply has submitted that the "plot No. 1224 is not with its possession and through oversight the same has been incorporated in Affidavit.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Elittle College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 18/03/2011 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. Bazlul Haque, President and Sh. Sajal Ghosh, Secretary, Elittle College of Education, Kolkata, West Bengal presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that “there are certain internal architectural changes in 3rd floor for a hall to accommodate 100 students and two rooms to accommodate 25 students each for general and method classes and same has been completed after inspection as per the suggestions of VT representatives and the same is supported by the competent architect. More furniture, chairs, tables and almirahs etc. have been added as per the suggestion of VT representative though in the observation point of VT report it has been mentioned that the sufficient number of furniture, chairs, tables and almirahs etc. exists to run the college. As per the suggestion of the VT representative we have met the requirements and according we are attaching herewith purchase order, delivery challans and invoices for ready reference as Annexure-II. Playground is fully developed now. As per VT observation the same is not adequate for football, cricket, hockey etc., for the same we have taken permission from one organization to share their playground and same will be used for football, cricket, hockey etc. We are attaching herewith permission letters for your reference as Annexure-III; we are once again submitting certified copy Registered Land Deed for your reference. The same we are submitting fourth time as mentioned in our

previous letter PET/ECE/DO/09-10/22 dated 08/10/2010. Regarding conditional gift deed, we are attaching the explanation from advocate is attached herewith along with certified copy of the registered land deed as Annexure-IV; Copy of the corrected notarized building plan is being submitted herewith after giving date from the sanctioning authority which is not mentioned by the said authority by mistake as an attachment as Annexure-V; We still reiterate that no other courses are being run in the said building and in the VT report no where it is mentioned or observed by the VT representative. We are hereby quoting the VT observation only for your ready reference "The Trust has earmarked as area of 4443.3 Sq. meters including a built up area of 2753.3 sq. meters for the Elitte College of Education.”; We have already stated and submitted document/letter that Plot No. 1224 is not our land. The same has been communicated through our previous PET/ECE/DO/09-10/22 dated 08/10/2010 also. We are quoting the same for your reference. "In support to your point no. 11, plot no. 1224 is not within our possession and through oversight, the same has been incorporated in affidavit." Accordingly we are once again submitting the said Affidavit as per Annexure-VI; as mentioned in your point no. (viii), it is repetition of point no (IV) and the regarding the conditional Gift Deed it was never mentioned earlier in show cause notice or in any other communications including the VT report; Building Plan shows all the individual details of built-up area, VT report confirmed the same. We are enclosing herewith building plan for reference as highlighted as Annexure-VII.” AND WHEREAS the Council noted that it was a suggestion of the VT that at least one more hall to accommodate 100 students and two rooms to accommodate at least 25 students required for holding general and method classes. The institution, in its reply dated 08.10.2010 to the show cause notice dated 27.09.2010, stated that in the 3rd floor of the B. Ed college building, one hall measuring 114.28 sq. mts and two tutorial halls measuring 34.56 sq. mts. can accommodate the above number of students. Therefore, this objection is not valid. As regards the objection at serial number 2 relating to furniture, chairs, tables, almirahs and more equipments in the laboratories, the Council noted that the VT report indicated that more furniture- chairs, tables, almirahs and more equipments in the laboratories are required to be added, which implied that furniture and equipments are inadequate, therefore, there is need to augment the same. The institution also agreed that it will make additions when the institution becomes operational. Thus, this objection is valid. Regarding the 3rd objection relating to playground, the institution has stated that playground is fully developed now, which imply that playground was not available at the time of inspection as observed by the VT. Therefore, this objection is valid. Regarding objection at serial numbers 4 and 8 relating to certified copy of registered land document, the Council noted that the institution did not submit certified copy of registered land document alongwith the application dated 29.10.2009 and copy of the registered land document was actually obtained by the institution only on 18.02.2010 that is much after submission of the application. Thus, the institution did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of submission of certified copy of registered land document as on the date of application as required as per clause 7 (1) and 7 (1-B) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009. Regarding objections at serial numbers 5 and 9 pertaining to submission of approved building plan with the requisite details, the Council noted that the building plan initially submitted by the institution was not proper and, thus, these objections are valid. As regards objections at serial numbers 6, 7 and 10 relating to other courses and mistake in the affidavits, in view of the explanations given by the institution in the affidavit, there is no need to further examine the same. To sum up, as already explained, the institution did not fulfill the requirements as per the NCTE norms to become eligible for recognition. the Council was, therefore, of the view that there was no ground to accept the appeal.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’s order dated 21-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The president, Elittle College of Education, Vill./PO - Karnamadhabpur,, Kolkata - 70013, 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 Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh dated 25/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06458/222348/143/2010/74454 dated 30/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course on the ground: “No building for D.Ed. course exists on the land specified in the application. The institution contravened the clause 8(5), 8(6), 8(7) and 8(8) of NCTE Regulations 2005.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/03/2011 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. S.S. Tiwari, Chairman, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that 1) the institution ‘Jawahar lal Nehru College of Education’ under Shiv Shakti Shiksha Evam Seva Samiti, Rewa possess 8.53 acres of land on ownership basis at plot. Nos. 484, 485, 486, 490, 491 in Rathara Rewa, M.P. Though the area is not specific in the NCTE Regulations 2005, the society, with an objective of achieving goals to improve the area in the field of higher education and teacher education, constructed the building with an area to meet up the requirement of the NCTE Regulation (8) 2007 and 2009. Therefore, the allegation made in this regard of contravening clause 8(5) of NCTE regulations 2005 is false. Therefore, this ground on which withdrawal was made is invalid and null and void; 2) with regard to contravention of clause 8(6) of NCTE Regulation (8) 2005, it was submitted that the institution has furnished Rs. 100/- affidavit stating that the institution/society is in possession of the land and it is for educational purpose as per the provisions of Regulations, along with the application form and also the same had been submitted to the VT members at the time of inspection which may be verified from the records available with the WRC. Further it is to say that the land had been converted for education purpose on 05/05/2007 by the SDM, Rewa. Therefore, the objection raised on the ground that the land is for agriculture purpose and not diverted for educational purpose is null and void; 3) the third ground under clause 8(7) of NCTE Regulations 2005 is applicable to the institutions, which are being inspected for the first time to check the institution’s readiness to conduct the course in terms of permanent structure and other physical facilities, whereas their institution is an existing institution and this clause was not applicable to them. Further, it was to say that the objection made by the WRC in its show cause notice was well replied to, by the institution in writing and submitted the same on 13/10/2010, which has not been perused by the WRC. Thus, without looking into the facts of the case, the WRC has withdrawn the recognition of the institution. 4) It was further submitted that the institution was visited by the VT members on 27-08-2010 and on that date the students, faculty/staff and the management went for an educational tour. This programme was fixed keeping in view that the inspection would be over by that time which was scheduled as per the WRC’s first letter. Since the inspection was not conducted as per

the original schedule as proposed by the WRC, and the management had made payments to travel agents and for accommodation at various visiting places in respect of the faculty/students and they requested the VT members and also the Regional Director to postpone the inspection; but all these were in vain as the WRC neither considered their representation nor made an effort to understand the difficulties of the institution and postpone the inspection. The case may be sympathetically considered by the Appellate Authority and arrange for an inspection of the institution at the cost of the institution to verify the facts before taking a final decision in this regard. AND WHEREAS the Council made the following observations: -

1. a)The Council observed that a) Regulation (5) of NCTE Regulations 2005 stipulated that ‘No institution shall be granted recognition under these Regulations unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application. The land, free from all encumbrances, could be either on ownership basis or on lease for a period of not less than 30 years. Regulation 8(6) stipulated that the institution/society shall furnish an affidavit of Rs. 100 stamp paper duly attested by Notary Public stating the precise location of the land (village, district, state etc.), the total area in possession and the permission of the competent authority to use the land for educational purposes, mode of possession i.e. ownership or lease. Regulation 8(7) stipulated that the affidavit shall be relied upon by the Regional Committee as an authentic self declaration. The copy of the affidavit shall be displayed by the institution on its official website so as to make the self declaration available in public domain. In case the contents of the affidavit are found to be incorrect or false, the society/trust or the institution concerned shall be liable for action under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code and other relevant clauses. Regulation 8(8) stipulated that “at the time of inspection, the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure on the land possessed by the institution in terms of Regulation (5), equipped with all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the Norms and Standards. b) As per these Regulations, the building of the institution with adequate facilities as per NCTE Norms and Standards, should exist on the land possessed by the society/institution.

2. The Council noted that a) the appellant institution submitted three separate applications for grant of recognition of D.Ed., B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses simultaneously on 02-07-2007. The proposed address of the institution was “Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education Near Bye pass junction NH-7, Rathara, Rewa.” The affidavits, building plans and land documents submitted with these applications were same. The affidavits dated 29-06-2007 mentioned availability of 44000 sq.mt. of land and 2482 sq.mt. of built- up area at Kh.nos. 484, 485, 486, 490, 491, Rathara, Rewa and the land was meant for educational purpose. b) The building plan submitted was for National College, Rewa at plot No. 484/485/486 at Rathara, Rewa (run by Shiv Shakti Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal). It mentioned plot area as 1.55 acre (6272 sq.mt.) and built-up area as 13700 sq.ft. The trust “Shiv Shakti Avum Seva Samiti” was in possession of land at Kh.no. 484, 485, 486, 490 & 491 on ownership basis.

c) WRC conducted inspections u/s 14/15 of the NCTE Act, prior to grant of recognition for D.Ed. course on 08-03-2008, B.Ed. course on 21-07-2008 and B.P.Ed. course on 02-04-2009 and recognition was granted for B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses by the WRC vide orders dated 27-08-2008, 25-09-2008 and 24-04-2009 respectively. WRC did not notice that all the building plans submitted were for National College of Education run by the same society.

3. The Council further noted that WRC caused an inspection of the institution u/s 17

of the NCTE Act and visiting team that inspected the institution on 27-08-2010 reported that “though it was informed to the management by WRC office, either representative of the Management or Principal of institution were not present to furnish necessary information to the inspection Committee members. The Chairman of the Management was informed by telephone, but instead of giving co-operation to the VT members, a letter of refusal for inspection was sent to the members which was enclosed to the VTR. The reason mentioned in the letter is not accepted. Therefore, the members of visiting team visited the site on the address mentioned to run B.P.Ed.. B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses. The VT indicated that there is an engineering college building. There is no provision to run B.P.Ed., B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses For B.P.Ed. course there is not a single play ground in the premises, space for athletics track is not available. Looking at the situation it is presumed that management is running all courses without necessary infrastructure and this is the reason the management has refused for the inspection. The VT members also stated that there is no board of said courses at the address given; on inquiring with staff of engineering college it was told that there is no B.P.Ed., B.Ed. or D.Ed. courses run in these premises. But all training courses are run in the city at “National B.Ed. College building Shirmor Choraya Rewa”. To confirm this, VT members visited that place and found that there is small building with the board of ‘National B.Ed. College’. For detailed information regarding building and land, the VT members contacted Revenue Department (Deputy Collector Rewa) and obtained record of land documents and as per these documents the institute has 6270 sq.mt. of land, prescribed land has not been converted from agricultural to educational purpose, the institution has not built-up any building for B.P.Ed., B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses on this land. At present the existing building is for engineering college only. On inquiring with local people of Rewa and from the documents collected it was found that ‘Shiv Shakti Shiksha & Seva Samiti Rewa’ and ‘Shivdham Shiksha Seva Samiti’ founded by its Chairman Shri S.S. Tiwari was running several teacher education courses in the name of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.P.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education D.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education B.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education D.Ed. course, National B.Ed. College at Shahdol and infrastructural facilities are not created for all these courses by the management. As a proof necessary land documents certificate obtained from Panchayat and Tehsil authority are enclosed with the VT report. It seems that all the courses (six courses) mentioned above are controlled from one central place i.e. National B.Ed. College, near Shirmor Choraya Rewa. To get permission from different agencies like NCTE, University concerned and State Government different addresses are given. Therefore it is recommended that if necessary after making detailed inquiry further strong action should be taken to set an example.

4. The Council perused the VT report and noted that the address mentioned in the

recognition orders of NCTE for B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses is “Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, run by Shiv Shakti Shiksha and Seva Samiti, Kh.no. 484, 485, 486, 490, 491, near Bypass junction, Rathara, Rewa, M.P. and at this address an Engineering College was being run, B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education were being conducted from a small building meant for National B.Ed. college which is also under the same society. It was further noted that Shri S.S. Tiwari is the Chairman of two societies i.e. the appellant society. Shiv Shakti Shiksha Avam Seva Samiti which is running two colleges namely Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education and National College and another society – Shivdham Shiksha Samiti which is running Shivdham College of Education. Thus, Shri S.S. Tiwari, Chairman of two societies has been running several teacher education institutions including Jawahar Nehru College of Education, without adequate infrastructure. Further the appellant along with the applications submitted the building plan of National College Rewa at plot No. 484/485/486 at Rathara, Rewa (run by Shiv Shakti Shiksha Samiti. So it was evident from the building plan submitted alongwith the applications of Jawahar Nehru College of Education for B.Ed., D.Ed., B.P.Ed. courses and also from the VT report conducted under section 17 of the NCTE Act that the college building does not exist on the land documents submitted by the institution for grant of recognition. Moreover the appellant in the appeal submitted a copy of the building plan proposed for National College of Education, by replacing the College name as Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that WRC had withdrawn recognition on valid ground and hence appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the order WRC be confirmed.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 30-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, Shiv Shakti and Seva Samiti, Khasra No. 404, 485, 486, 490, 491, Near By Pass Junction, Village- Ratahara,, Rewa - , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh dated 25/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06505/224160/143/2010/74522 dated 30/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.P.Ed. course on the ground “No building for B.P.Ed. course exists on the land specified in the application. The institution contravened the clause 8(5), 8(6), 8(7) and 8(8) of NCTE Regulations 2005.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/03/2011 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. S.S. Tiwari, Chairman, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that 1) the institution ‘Jawahar lal Nehru College of Education’ under Shiv Shakti Shiksha Evam Seva Samiti, Rewa possess 8.53 acres of land on ownership basis at plot. Nos. 484, 485, 486, 490, 491 in Rathara Rewa, M.P. Though the area is not specific in the NCTE Regulations 2005, the society, with an objective of achieving goals to improve the area in the field of higher education and teacher education, constructed the building with an area to meet up the requirement of the NCTE Regulation (8) 2007 and 2009. Therefore, the allegation made in this regard of contravening clause 8(5) of NCTE regulations 2005 is false. Therefore, this ground on which withdrawal was made is invalid and null and void; 2) with regard to contravention of clause 8(6) of NCTE Regulation (8) 2005, it was submitted that the institution has furnished Rs. 100/- affidavit stating that the institution/society is in possession of the land and it is for educational purpose as per the provisions of Regulations, along with the application form and also the same had been submitted to the VT members at the time of inspection which may be verified from the records available with the WRC. Further it is to say that the land had been converted for education purpose on 05/05/2007 by the SDM, Rewa. Therefore, the objection raised on the ground that the land is for agriculture purpose and not diverted for educational purpose is null and void; 3) the third ground under clause 8(7) of NCTE Regulations 2005 is applicable to the institutions, which are being inspected for the first time to check the institution’s readiness to conduct the course in terms of permanent structure and other physical facilities, whereas their institution is an existing institution and this clause was not applicable to them. Further, it was to say that the objection made by the WRC in its show cause notice was well replied to, by the institution in writing and submitted the same on 13/10/2010, which has not been perused by the WRC. Thus, without looking into the facts of the case, the WRC has withdrawn the recognition of the institution. 4) It was further submitted that the institution was visited by the VT members on 27-08-2010 and on that date the students, faculty/staff and the management went for an educational tour. This programme was fixed keeping in view that the inspection would be over by that time which was scheduled as per the WRC’s first letter. Since the inspection was not conducted as per





3. The Council further noted that WRC caused an inspection of the institution u/s 17 of

the NCTE Act and visiting team that inspected the institution on 27-08-2010 reported that “though it was informed to the management by WRC office, either representative of the Management or Principal of institution were not present to furnish necessary information to the inspection Committee members. The Chairman of the Management was informed by telephone, but instead of giving co-operation to the VT members, a letter of refusal for inspection was sent to the members which was enclosed to the VTR. The reason mentioned in the letter is not accepted. Therefore, the members of visiting team visited the site on the address mentioned to run B.P.Ed.. B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses. The VT indicated that there is an engineering college building. There is no provision to run B.P.Ed., B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses For B.P.Ed. course there is not a single play ground in the premises, space for athletics track is not available. Looking at the situation it is presumed that management is running all courses without necessary infrastructure and this is the reason the management has refused for the inspection. The VT members also stated that there is no board of said courses at the address given; on inquiring with staff of engineering college it was told that there is no B.P.Ed., B.Ed. or D.Ed. courses run in these premises. But all training courses are run in the city at “National B.Ed. College building Shirmor Choraya Rewa”. To confirm this, VT members visited that place and found that there is small building with the board of ‘National B.Ed. College’. For detailed information regarding building and land, the VT members contacted Revenue Department (Deputy Collector Rewa) and obtained record of land documents and as per these documents the institute has 6270 sq.mt. of land, prescribed land has not been converted from agricultural to educational purpose, the institution has not built-up any building for B.P.Ed., B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses on this land. At present the existing building is for engineering college only. On inquiring with local people of Rewa and from the documents collected it was found that ‘Shiv Shakti Shiksha & Seva Samiti Rewa’ and ‘Shivdham Shiksha Seva Samiti’ founded by its Chairman Shri S.S. Tiwari was running several teacher education courses in the name of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.P.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education D.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education B.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education D.Ed. course, National B.Ed. College at Shahdol and infrastructural facilities are not created for all these courses by the management. As a proof necessary land documents certificate obtained from Panchayat and Tehsil authority are enclosed with the VT report. It seems that all the courses (six courses) mentioned above are controlled from one central place i.e. National B.Ed. College, near Shirmor Choraya Rewa. To get permission from different agencies like NCTE, University concerned and State Government different addresses are given. Therefore it is recommended that if necessary after making detailed inquiry further strong action should be taken to set an example.

4. The Council perused the VT report and noted that the address mentioned in the recognition orders of NCTE for B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses is “Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, run by Shiv Shakti Shiksha and Seva Samiti, Kh.no. 484, 485, 486, 490, 491, near Bypass junction, Rathara, Rewa, M.P. and at this address an Engineering College was being run, B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education were being conducted from a small building meant for National B.Ed. college which is also under the same society. It was further noted that Shri S.S. Tiwari is the Chairman of two societies i.e. the appellant society. Shiv Shakti Shiksha Avam Seva Samiti which is running two colleges namely Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education and National College and another society – Shivdham Shiksha Samiti which is running Shivdham College of Education. Thus, Shri S.S. Tiwari, Chairman of two societies has been running several teacher education institutions including Jawahar Nehru College of Education, without adequate infrastructure. Further the appellant along with the applications submitted the building plan of National College Rewa at plot No. 484/485/486 at Rathara, Rewa (run by Shiv Shakti Shiksha Samiti. So it was evident from the building plan submitted alongwith the applications of Jawahar Nehru College of Education for B.Ed., D.Ed., B.P.Ed. courses and also from the VT report conducted under section 17 of the NCTE Act that the college building does not exist on the land documents submitted by the institution for grant of recognition. Moreover the appellant in the appeal submitted a copy of the building plan proposed for National College of Education, by replacing the College name as Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that WRC had withdrawn recognition on valid ground and hence appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the order WRC be confirmed.



1. The Chairman, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, Near By Pass Crossing, NH-7, Village- Ratahara,, Rewa - 486001, 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 Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh dated 25/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06480/223704/143/2010/74461 dated 30/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. (co-ed) course on the ground “No building for B.Ed. course exists on the land specified in the application. The institution contravened the clause 8(5), 8(6), 8(7) and 8(8) of NCTE Regulations 2005.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/03/2011 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. S.S. Tiwari, Chairman, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that 1) the institution ‘Jawahar lal Nehru College of Education’ under Shiv Shakti Shiksha Evam Seva Samiti, Rewa possess 8.53 acres of land on ownership basis at plot. Nos. 484, 485, 486, 490, 491 in Rathara Rewa, M.P. Though the area is not specific in the NCTE Regulations 2005, the society, with an objective of achieving goals to improve the area in the field of higher education and teacher education, constructed the building with an area to meet up the requirement of the NCTE Regulation (8) 2007 and 2009. Therefore, the allegation made in this regard of contravening clause 8(5) of NCTE regulations 2005 is false. Therefore, this ground on which withdrawal was made is invalid and null and void; 2) with regard to contravention of clause 8(6) of NCTE Regulation (8) 2005, it was submitted that the institution has furnished Rs. 100/- affidavit stating that the institution/society is in possession of the land and it is for educational purpose as per the provisions of Regulations, along with the application form and also the same had been submitted to the VT members at the time of inspection which may be verified from the records available with the WRC. Further it is to say that the land had been converted for education purpose on 05/05/2007 by the SDM, Rewa. Therefore, the objection raised on the ground that the land is for agriculture purpose and not diverted for educational purpose is null and void; 3) the third ground under clause 8(7) of NCTE Regulations 2005 is applicable to the institutions, which are being inspected for the first time to check the institution’s readiness to conduct the course in terms of permanent structure and other physical facilities, whereas their institution is an existing institution and this clause was not applicable to them. Further, it was to say that the objection made by the WRC in its show cause notice was well replied to, by the institution in writing and submitted the same on 13/10/2010, which has not been perused by the WRC. Thus, without looking into the facts of the case, the WRC has withdrawn the recognition of the institution. 4) It was further submitted that the institution was visited by the VT members on 27-08-2010 and on that date the students, faculty/staff and the management went for an educational tour. This programme was fixed keeping in view that the inspection would be over by that time which was scheduled as per the WRC’s first letter. Since the inspection was not conducted as per





3. The Council further noted that WRC caused an inspection of the institution u/s 17 of

the NCTE Act and visiting team that inspected the institution on 27-08-2010 reported that “though it was informed to the management by WRC office, either representative of the Management or Principal of institution were not present to furnish necessary information to the inspection Committee members. The Chairman of the Management was informed by telephone, but instead of giving co-operation to the VT members, a letter of refusal for inspection was sent to the members which was enclosed to the VTR. The reason mentioned in the letter is not accepted. Therefore, the members of visiting team visited the site on the address mentioned to run B.P.Ed.. B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses. The VT indicated that there is an engineering college building. There is no provision to run B.P.Ed., B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses For B.P.Ed. course there is not a single play ground in the premises, space for athletics track is not available. Looking at the situation it is presumed that management is running all courses without necessary infrastructure and this is the reason the management has refused for the inspection. The VT members also stated that there is no board of said courses at the address given; on inquiring with staff of engineering college it was told that there is no B.P.Ed., B.Ed. or D.Ed. courses run in these premises. But all training courses are run in the city at “National B.Ed. College building Shirmor Choraya Rewa”. To confirm this, VT members visited that place and found that there is small building with the board of ‘National B.Ed. College’. For detailed information regarding building and land, the VT members contacted Revenue Department (Deputy Collector Rewa) and obtained record of land documents and as per these documents the institute has 6270 sq.mt. of land, prescribed land has not been converted from agricultural to educational purpose, the institution has not built-up any building for B.P.Ed., B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses on this land. At present the existing building is for engineering college only. On inquiring with local people of Rewa and from the documents collected it was found that ‘Shiv Shakti Shiksha & Seva Samiti Rewa’ and ‘Shivdham Shiksha Seva Samiti’ founded by its Chairman Shri S.S. Tiwari was running several teacher education courses in the name of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.P.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education D.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education B.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education D.Ed. course, National B.Ed. College at Shahdol and infrastructural facilities are not created for all these courses by the management. As a proof necessary land documents certificate obtained from Panchayat and Tehsil authority are enclosed with the VT report. It seems that all the courses (six courses) mentioned above are controlled from one central place i.e. National B.Ed. College, near Shirmor Choraya Rewa. To get permission from different agencies like NCTE, University concerned and State Government different addresses are given. Therefore it is recommended that if necessary after making detailed inquiry further strong action should be taken to set an example.

4. The Council perused the VT report and noted that the address mentioned in the recognition orders of NCTE for B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses is “Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, run by Shiv Shakti Shiksha and Seva Samiti, Kh.no. 484, 485, 486, 490, 491, near Bypass junction, Rathara, Rewa, M.P. and at this address an Engineering College was being run, B.Ed., D.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education were being conducted from a small building meant for National B.Ed. college which is also under the same society. It was further noted that Shri S.S. Tiwari is the Chairman of two societies i.e. the appellant society. Shiv Shakti Shiksha Avam Seva Samiti which is running two colleges namely Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education and National College and another society – Shivdham Shiksha Samiti which is running Shivdham College of Education. Thus, Shri S.S. Tiwari, Chairman of two societies has been running several teacher education institutions including Jawahar Nehru College of Education, without adequate infrastructure. Further the appellant along with the applications submitted the building plan of National College Rewa at plot No. 484/485/486 at Rathara, Rewa (run by Shiv Shakti Shiksha Samiti. So it was evident from the building plan submitted alongwith the applications of Jawahar Nehru College of Education for B.Ed., D.Ed., B.P.Ed. courses and also from the VT report conducted under section 17 of the NCTE Act that the college building does not exist on the land documents submitted by the institution for grant of recognition. Moreover the appellant in the appeal submitted a copy of the building plan proposed for National College of Education, by replacing the College name as Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that WRC had withdrawn recognition on valid ground and hence appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the order WRC be confirmed.



1. The Chairman, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education, Shiv Shakti and Seva Samiti, Khasra No. 404, 485, 486, 490, 491, Village- Ratahara,, Rewa - , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Maharashtra Shiksha Vikas New Adhyapak Vidyalaya Mandal, Nasik, Maharashtra dated 16/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW04280/123510/144TH/2011/75774 dated 05/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. (M) (co-ed) course on the ground: “Original land documents and CLU were not shown to the VT. 2) Approved staff list not submitted.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Maharashtra Shiksha Vikas New Adhyapak Vidyalaya Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/03/2011 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. Sadashiv Motiram Sonawane, Principal and Sh. Sandeep Gulve, Secretary, Maharashtra Shiksha Vikas New Adhyapak Vidyalaya Mandal, Nasik, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that 1) in response to the show cause notice dated 24.06.2010 the institution immediately sent the relevant original documents, through special messenger to WRC Bhopal, but WRC office suggested to send the original attested copies of documents by mail. Hence the special messenger has sent the attested copies of the documents through courier service to WRC office on 15-07-2010 but these documents were not considered by the WRC. 2) the institution has shown the staff profile containing details of the staff (qualification, experience, date of birth, date of joining etc.) with their photographs, original mark memos, degree certificates to the visiting team and the team noted all the desired details. The institute was having 7+1 staff (7 lecturers and a principal) who were qualified as per NCTE Regulations 2007. As the institution is under the Pune University, it sends the proposals for approval of teaching posts to the University. Three lecturers got the approval of the University and for remaining staff, the approval was under process. AND WHEREAS the Council perused the visiting team report dated 22-02-2010 and noted that the staff that was recruited by the Selection Committee on 17-02-2010 had not been approved by the affiliating university; that the ground floor has elementary school of the society, the first floor is shared by school and B.Ed. course, second half of the first floor and second floor is exclusively used for B.Ed. course; there is no separate room for Science laboratory and it is shared with psychology laboratory; original land documents were not shown to the visiting team; the available 3420 sq.mt. of land and 1519.55 sq.mt. of built-up area was shared with school; library and sports facilities are shared with school. 2) WRC ignoring this fact that the school was being run in the premises of B.Ed. course, issued a show cause notice on 28-06-2010 on two grounds only i.e. ‘The original land document and CLU were not shown to VT; staff is inadequate; In response to this show cause notice, the institution submitted its reply on 12-07-2010, inter-alia, stating that the original land and ‘CLU’ documents were in the custody of an office bearer who happened to be out of station on

an emergency, the institution appointed staff qualified as per NCTE norms and staff list had been sent to Pune University for their approval. 3) The 24663 sq.mt. of land at Sy.No. (Gat No.) 98/1 and 98/2 was already converted for non-agricultural purpose and residential use, in the year 2002 itself and out of 24663 sq.mt. of land 3420 sq.mt. had been gifted to the appellant society vide gift deed dated 30-11-2005. 4) the Council perused the original gift deed executed on 30-11-2005 shown by the appellant and noted that 3420 sq.mt. of land at Gat No. 98/1, 98/2 situated in village Chunchale for starting a school in the name of ‘Late Laxmibai Balu Bhor’ and the Donee shall have to enter the name of Late Laxmibai Balu Bhor in its record and also in Govt. record wherever necessary in respect of the said property and the amendment to that effect shall be made in record of institution forever by making a resolution. It was apparent from the land document that the land can be used for the purpose of school in the name of Late Laxmibai Balu Bhor only and not for any other purpose. The visiting team also clearly recorded that both the land and building were shared with school. Sharing of land and building of school is not permissible as per the condition laid in the gift deed and further the NCTE Regulations also do not permit sharing of facilities with any course other than teacher training courses. 5) the Council also noted that the affiliating University gave its approval in respect of 3 faculty members and for the remaining four lecturers and Principal approval of the University does not exist. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion 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 hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 05-03-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Maharashtra Shiksha Vikas New Adhyapak Vidyalaya Mandal, G. No. 98/1-98/2,At. Chunchale Shiwar,, 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 Naveen Swami Vivekanand B.Ed. College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh dated 25/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/223094/143/2010/74500 dated 30/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground: “No building exists on the land specified by the institution at the time of application. The institution contravened the clause 7(d) of appendix 7 and (iv) of appendix 2 (B) of NCTE Regulations 2002.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Naveen Swami Vivekanand B.Ed. College, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 25/03/2011 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. K.D. Dwivedi, Chairman, Naveen Swami Vivekanand B.Ed. College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that 1) the building of appellant college measuring 1726.07 sq.mt. was there on 2.56 acres of land at survey Nos. 146 and 147/1/1, Barkhedi Kalan, Neelbad Road, Bhopal; the said land was registered in the name of Shri Narayan Shikshan Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti which sponsored the appellant college. The copy of registered lease deed dated 27/09/2002 for 2.56 acre of land at Barkhedi Kalan and the copy of registered sale deed dated 13/01/2002 for 0.55 acre of land are annexed with appeal; 2) the said land was duly diverted for vocational training centre by orders of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal, dated 21/01/2003, passed under section 172 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 in Case No. 89/A-2/2002-03; 3) the building plan of the college on the said land was approved by the Municipal Corporation of Bhopal on two occasions- firstly, on 25/01/2003 for total constructed area of 1550 sq.mt. and secondly on 27/02/2004 for additional construction of 176.07 sq.mt.; 4) the certified true copy of Government records of the above land for the year 2009-2010, clearly mentioned in Column No. 12 that Naveen Swami Vivekanand Mahavidyalaya exists on survey No. 146, 147/1/1 of Barkhedi Kalan in the name of Shri Narayan Shikshan Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti which sponsored the appellant college; 5) Shri Narayan Shikshan Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti had applied for grant of recognition to the appellant college when the building was under construction. The WRC had verified the progress of construction by sending the visiting team of Dr. Anjani Mehta and Dr. N.N. Pandey on 12/06/2002 and the visiting team of Dr. R.S. Mani and Shri P.R. Gaikwad on 06/02/2003. After completion of construction, the WRC again verified the infrastructure of the appellant college by sending the visiting team of Dr. (Ms) U. Guha and Prof. R.P. Singh on 13/06/2003 and the visiting team of Dr. Vasudha Kamat and Dr. Subhash Jain on 13/09/2003. The recognition was granted after considering the above documents together with aforesaid four visiting team reports; 6) The Shri Narayan Shikshan Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti had submitted land documents of another 3.00 acre of land at Barkhedi Kalan, having survey Nos. 27, 63 and 64 just to intimate the WRC that the society had started another College of Pharmacy on this land. This innocent act of the society caused the withdrawal of recognition because the visiting team of Prof. H.C.S

Rathore and Dr. Saroj Virkar was given the copies of these land documents. The visiting team, therefore, reported on 03/08/2010 that the appellant college did not exist on this land; 7) the WRC served the show cause notice for withdrawal of recognition which was replied to, by the appellant college on 18/10/2010. It was submitted that the land of survey Nos. 27, 63 and 64 was for the College of Pharmacy while the land of survey Nos. 146 and 147/1 was for the appellant college. The WRC did not consider this explanation before passing the impugned order of withdrawal of recognition; 8) there was overwhelming evidence from Government Officers as well as visiting team reports dated 12/06/2002, 06/02/2003, 13/06/2003 & 13/09/2003 which established beyond all possible doubts that the appellant college existed from its inception on survey Nos. 146 and 147/1 of Barkhedi Kalan. All this evidence was overlooked only because the appellant had innocently submitted the copy of another land document pertaining to its College of Pharmacy; 9) the WRC has not assigned any reasons for not considering the documents and the visiting team reports pertaining to survey Nos. 146 and 147/1 of Barkhedi Kalan. In case a relevant document is not considered by an authority or if any irrelevant document is considered by the authority the order of the authority is treated in the eye of law as a "Perverse Order", which is liable to be set aside by the designated Appellate Authority. The impugned order was, therefore, liable to be set aside in appeal. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that clause (iv) of appendix 2B of NCTE Regulations 2002 refers to submission of sworn affidavit verifying the contents given in the application form and the documents attached there with, and clause 7(d) of Appendix 7 of NCTE Regulations 2002 stipulates that ‘the Management/Institutions shall, at the time of making application, have in its possession adequate land and building on ownership basis free from all encumbrances. Govt. land acquired on long-term lease as per the law of the concerned State/UT will also be considered valid for the purpose. Pending construction of permanent building in the above land, the institution may provide these facilities in suitable temporary premises up to a maximum period of 3 years, before expiry of which the institution should shift to its permanent building’.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that a) the appellant society submitted three sale deeds in all to the WRC- the first one was executed on 22-09-2001 for 1.00 acre of land at Kh.no. 27, 63, 64/1/2 (p-407 of WRC’s file) in village Barkhedi, Kala and this deed was infact in the name of an individual Shri. K.P. Dwivedi, which cannot be accepted as per NCTE Regulations; the second one was executed on 30-08-2002 (p-189 of WRC’s file) for 1.00 acre of land at Kh.no. 169/63 in village Barkhedi, Kala in the name of society and the third one was executed in the name of the society on 06-09-2002 (p-230 of WRC’s file) for 2.00 acre of land at Kh.no. 27, 63, 64/1/3 in village Barkhedi, Kala. b) a copy of the Gram Panchayat resolution dated 08-04-2002 mentioned the Kh.no. 27, 63, 64/1/2 only. c) the appellant submitted a building plan proposed for educational institute (vocational training) building at Gram Barkhera for 1550 sq.mt. of built-up area on ground and first floor, it did not mention total plot/land area as well as Kh.no. Moreover this building was not for college of education; rather it was for vocational training. The appellant forwarded another building plan on 13-03-2009 in response to a show cause notice dated 28-02-2009 of WRC and this plan was also for vocational training institute, at village Barkhedi, Kala but it mentioned Kh.no. 146, 147/1/1 and the plan was for four floors. (Ground + three floors) for a built-up area of 3511.03 sq.mt. d) The appellant in another letter dated 02/09/2008 (p-569 of WRC’s file) sent in response to the WRC’s letter dated 05-08-2008 inter-alia stated that pharmacy college is shifted to another newly constructed building which is nearby Engineering College, 6134 sq.mt. of land and a building existing with a built-up area of 2500 sq.mt. on

this land was exclusively for B.Ed. college and other courses shall not be run in the teacher education building w.e.f. 2008-09. AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that a) WRC conducted an inspection of the institution u/s 17 of the NCTE Act on 03-08-2010. The visiting team in its report stated that on the land at Kh.no. 27, 63, 64/1/2 in village Barkhedi a huge building exists, in which an engineering college with some other professional courses were being conducted. The Director of this college informed that no B.Ed. course was run there and perhaps the B.Ed. College was run in another building situated at the other end of the village and the Director called up the Chairman of the society. The visiting team accompanied by the Chairman of the society - Shri. K.P. Dwivedi went to a building on the other end of this village and found that it was a pharmacy college building. Shri. K.P. Dwivedi handed over to the visiting team a letter dated 08-08-2010 signed by him stating that B.Ed. college building was not erected on the plot at Kh.no. 27, 63, 64/1/2 and the said college runs in the name of Naveen Swami Vivekanand B.Ed. College from a building constructed on the plot at Kh.no. 146, 147/1/1 in village Barkhedi. In reference to this letter the visiting team categorically mentioned that Naveen Swami Vivekanand B.Ed. College building does not exist on the land at Kh.no. 146, 147/1/1 and building on this plot was for pharmacy college. b) WRC on the basis of this report issued a show cause notice on 23-09-2010 on the ground that the college does not exist on the land where it was permitted (Kh.no. 27, 63, 64/1/2) in village Barkhedi, Kala. In response to this notice the institution submitted its representation to the WRC on 18-10-2010 stating that the recognition for the institution was granted by the WRC on the premises situated on the land bearing Kh.no. 146 and 147/1/1 and not on Kh.no. 27, 63 and 64/1/2 and submitted land documents in favour of the society at Kh.no. 146 and 147; WRC after considering this.representation withdrew the recognition of the institution vide order dated 30-01-2011 on the ground stated in para one, against which the institution preferred the present appeal.

AND WHEREAS the Council after taking into account all the facts as recorded above came to the conclusion that a) the appellant’s society was in possession of land at kh/plot nos. 27, 63, 64, 169, 146 and 147, and before grant of recognition the appellant submitted land documents to the WRC for the plot nos. 27, 63 and 64 and 169 only. The land documents pertaining to the Kh.no. 146 and 147 were forwarded only after the issue of show cause notice u/s 17 of the NCTE Act only. b) The appellant institution was supposed to exist on the land at Kh.no. 27, 63 and 64 as mentioned by the appellant in various correspondences made with WRC. c) The visiting team categorically mentioned that in a huge building at Kh.no. 27, 63 and 64 was for Engineering College and the building on Kh.no. 146 and 147 was for Pharmacy College and infact there was no building showing the name of B.Ed. College. d) The appellant requested vide letter dated 21-04-2011 AICTE, for closure of the Pharmacy College which clearly revealed that the appellant had been running Pharmacy College in the building which he showed to the VT as B.Ed. College building. e) Therefore the appellant’s B.Ed. College building neither exists on the land at Kh.no. 27, 63 and 64 where recognition was granted on the basis of land documents submitted to the WRC, (rather Engineering courses are being run in the building on that land) nor on the land at Kh.no. 146 and 147 as per the appellant’s contention because in the building on this land, Pharmacy College was being run as recorded by the VT. AND WHEREAS in view of the facts stated above the Council came to the conclusion that there is no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected. After perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering

oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 30-01-2011 was confirmed.



1. The Chairman, Naveen Swami Vivekanand B.Ed. College,, Barkhedi Kala, Neelbad 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.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Regent Education and Research Foundation, North 24 Pargana, West Bengal dated 17/03/2011 is against the Order No. ERC/7-114.6(Vol.l).4/2010/6188 dated 21/01/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the grounds: “1) The institution has submitted the copy of the registered deed of conveyance. However, certified copy of land documents not submitted. 2) The institution has mentioned that they have updated library with 4015 books. However, no supporting documents have been submitted. 3) The institution in its representation has mentioned that the building is presently complete to run the course. It appears that the institution building was not ready at the time of inspection. And as per remarks of VT in column 11.1. the building is under construction, almost completed for the required academic/administrative work. 4) As per point 11. of the notice dated. 25/09/2010 regarding land documents consisting of various plots the institution has mentioned that the institution has submitted the land documents as per the sequence of the purchase of lands as it was purchased in various plots from various owners. 5) As per point 12, of the notice the building plan does not indicate of the name of the institution. In the land document, there are at least 7 plots, whereas in the building plan only Dag No. 1009 is mentioned and RS No. 70 and JL No. 7 are not mentioned in the land documents. Hence, this building plan cannot be considered for grant of recognition. In response to this, the institution has mentioned that out of the 07 plots, the concerned building is in dag No. 1008 which will host the B.Ed. course and the other plots shall be utilized for the other courses. 6) Regarding point 13 of the notice, the institution has mentioned that the plot no. 1008 is earmarked for the B.Ed. building and other dag no. as stated in the land documents are used for other purpose. 7) The building completion certificate submitted is from chartered engineer.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Regent Education and Research Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/03/2011 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. Sandeep Daga, Manager(Accounts) and Sh. Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Assistant Dean, Regent Education and Research Foundation, North 24 Pargana, West Bengal presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that they had submitted self certified copies of the land documents earlier but now the duly certified copies of the land deeds obtained from the Registrar Office, Kolkata are annexed with appeal; they had sufficient books in the library aggregating to more than 4015 and in support they enclosed relevant documents with the appeal; with regard to point no. 3, it was stated that the visiting team has observed that building was under construction and almost completed for the required academic/administrative work. In this regard they stated that the building is fully complete and ready to run the courses; with regard to point no. 4- it was stated that the land at various plot Nos. under the Dag No 1008 was purchased from various owners in small plots and hence the land documents consists of various plots and same is reflected in the land

documents itself; with regard to point no. 5- it was stated that they already submitted building plan clearly showing the name of the institution. The said building plan clearly states that building is on Dag No. 1008 instead of Dag No. 1009 as alleged in the said Notice of NCTE, ERC and building plan also states RS No. 70 and JL No. 7; with regard to point No. 6- it was stated that the affidavit submitted states RS No. 70 and JL No. 7 and apart from that it clearly states that the building is constructed on Dag No. 1008 surrounded by the other pieces of land of different Dag Nos. and there is no mismatch absolutely as alleged, and a copy of the affidavit is forwarded; with regard to point no. 7, it was stated that they had submitted the building completion certificate dated 03/11/2010 issued by the Registered Chartered Engineer and same is completely reliable and also a completion certificate issued by the Panchayat office to the visiting team. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the certified copy of the registered land documents were obtained only on 17-03-2011. As per Regulations 2009; it was mandatory for the appellant to forward the said document alongwith the hard copy of the application; the visiting team in its report dated 21-06-2010 mentioned the availability of 2874 books only and these books were not adequate as per NCTE norms. The institution added more books to the existing stock of 2874 books only after the date of inspection and the subsequent developments taken place hitherto cannot be accepted; the visiting team in its report categorically mentioned that the ground floor construction has been completed and some portion of the first floor was under construction and the same would be completed within a month. So, it was apparent that the building was under construction and as per clause 8(10) of NCTE Regulations 2009; at the time of inspection the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of permanent structure on the land possessed by it, equipped with all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the Norms and Standards. They did not fulfill this mandatory requirement as stipulated under clause 8(10) of Regulations 2009 and hence it did not become eligible for grant of recognition. The building plan indicates 2670.98 sq.mt. of land at DAG No. 1008, SL.No. 7 and RS.No. 70 and hence all the pieces of land acquired through five sale deeds can be considered as contiguous and moreover five sale deeds mention the same DAG No. 1008. And also the same DAG No. 1008 was shown in the building plan and the land documents and further the 2670.98 sq.mt. of land that was acquired by various sale deeds was in possession of the institution and, therefore, refusal grounds at Sl. Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are not valid. The institution had earlier submitted to the VT a certificate from Gram Panchayat office issued on 21-06-2010 mentioning partial completion of the building and the certificate now submitted after completion of construction of the building was issued on 03-11-2010 by the Chartered Engineer. This certificate is not accepted as it was not issued by the Competent Civic Authority and this certificate otherwise proves that the construction of the building was completed after the date of inspection. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal in the light of the deficiencies existing in regard to the refusal grounds 1, 2, 3 and 7 as illustrated above, and hence the appeal deserved to be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and ERC’s order dated 21-01-2011 was confirmed.



1. The Director, Regent Education and Research Foundation, PO - Sewil Telinipara, Vill. - Bara Kanthalia, Tehsil - P.S. Titagarh, Near Barrackpur, City - Kolkata,, North 24 Pargana - 700121, West Bengal 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - 751 012. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of West Bengal, Kolkata.

F.No.89-100/2011 Appeal/3rd Mtg-2011


26/05/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shiksha Vikas Samiti Pisoud, Janjgir-Champa, Chhatisgarh dated 22/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/WRCAPP1405/144/2010/75816 dated 07/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the ground “The hard copy of the application of the institution has not dispatched within 7 days of submission of online application.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shiksha Vikas Samiti Pisoud (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/03/2011 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. Alok Shukla, Secretary, Shiksha Vikas Samiti Pisoud, Janjgir-Champa, Chhatisgarh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that they had already dispatched the hard copy of the application on 07/10/2010 by speed post within seven days of submission of on-line application on 01-10-2010. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant institution submitted an online application on 01-10-2010 and hardcopy of the application with requisite documents was sent by speed post on 07-10-2010 that was well within the stipulated period of seven days of submission of on-line application. The envelope, in which the hard copy was sent, available in WRC’s file clearly depicts the date of dispatch of the hard copy as 07-10-2010 and the date of receipt of the same by the WRC office on 14-10-2010. In view of this, the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of WRC dated 07-03-2011 reversed with a direction to the WRC for further processing on merit. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC’s order dated 07-03-2011. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of WRC reversed with a direction to the WRC for further processing on merit. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Shiksha Vikas Samiti Pisoud, Plot No. 268/1, Indra Awas, Village- Pisoud Champa, , Janjgir-Champa - 495668, 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 Uday Memorial B.Ed. College, Ranchi, Jharkhand dated 25/03/2011 is against the Order No. –ERC (i) 3/2011/6582 dated 18/03/2011 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground: “The reply to show cause notice not received by the ERC so far. Hence ERC decides to refuse/reject the application under section 14(3) (b) of NCTE Act 1993.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Uday Memorial B.Ed. College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/03/2011 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. Naresh Kumar Mishra, Member and Sh. Mukesh Kumar Kandarwar, Member, Uday Memorial B.Ed. College, Ranchi, Jharkhand presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that their application for grant of recognition has been refused under Sec. 14(3)(b) of NCTE Act 1993, on non compliance of show cause notice within stipulated time period i.e. 30 days; ERC issued show cause notice on 16/11/2010; In compliance of aforesaid show cause notice the institution dispatched reply on 03/12/2010 along with all relevant documents through speed post at GPO Ranchi; their aforesaid compliance letter was received by ERC, on 07/12/2010 (Certificate obtained from G.P.O., Ranchi is annexed with appeal for its delivery on 07/12/2010 in the ERC office)which is within 22 days of issue of show cause notice. Hence, the reply in response of aforesaid show cause notice was within stipulated time period of 30 days. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that ERC vide show cause notice dated 16-11-2010 asked the institution for making a representation within 30 days. The institution submitted its representation vide their letter dated 02-12-2010 and this reply was dispatched on 03-12-2010 by speed post and Department of Posts, Ranchi vide their letter dated 26-03-2011 confirmed that the letter was delivered on 07-12-2010 in the ERC office. Hence the reply of the institution reached ERC office well within the permissible time period. In view of this, the Council came to the conclusion that the refusal of recognition on the ground that the reply was not received so far, was not in order and hence the appeal deserved to be accepted. A copy of the reply dated 21-12-2010 alongwith the enclosures as submitted during the course of presentation is placed in the ERC’s file for their ready reference. Further, the ERC is directed to locate the reply sent by the institution by speed post on 03-12-2010 which was received in the ERC office on 07-12-2010. 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 18-03-2011. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of ERC reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Uday Memorial B.Ed. College, Village-Kedal, PO-Neori Vikas,, Ranchi - 835217, 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 Adhyapdk Vidyalaya, Nandurbar, Maharashtra dated 05/04/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06512/122136(ADDL)/110/VTR/2008/54445 dated 21/04/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed.(M) course on the ground: “WRC considered the case of the institution in light of letters F.No.46-3/2008/NCTE(N&S)84003 dated 17 Sep. 2008, F.No. 46-27/2007/NCTE (N&S) dated 1 October, 2008 and F.No. 49-27/2007/NCTE (N&S) dated 31st October from Maharashtra State Government in respect of D.Ed. course. Keeping in view the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra State Government in respect of D.Ed. course and directions received from NCTE Hqrs., the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case and communication to this effect to be made to this institution.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Adhyapdk Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 05/04/2011 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 appellant filed a writ petition No. 933/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Bombay Bench at Aurangabad with a prayer for directing WRC to decide and take an appropriate decision on the representation dated 26-03-2010 submitted to the WRC. The Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 09-03-2011 disposed of the petition as withdrawn, with liberty to file an appeal. It directed that if the petitioner files appeal within a period of 4 weeks from the date of Court order alongwith an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority, in view of the time consumed by the petitioner in filing of the writ petition and its pendency before the Court shall condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law. AND WHEREAS in compliance with the Court directions the appellant submitted an appeal on 05-04-2011 for condonation of delay and the Council invited the appellant for presenting its case before the Council on 06-05-2011. The appellant made a request for hearing the case on 05-05-2011 on certain genuine personal grounds. Acceding to his request, the appellant was allowed to present its case before the Council on 05-05-2011. AND WHEREAS Smt. Vasant Brijlal Patil, Junior Clerk and Sh. Rajesh R. Kulkarni, Director, Adhyapdk Vidyalaya, Nandurbar, Maharashtra presented the case of the appellant institution on 05-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that against the order dated 21-05-2009 of WRC, the applicants (appellant) ought to have preferred an appeal within 60 days. However there was delay in preferring the appeal u/s 18 of the NCTE Act, after receipt of the order, the appellant, for want of proper legal advice, could not take any decision and consequently, could not take proper course of action within the stipulated time. The appellant further submitted that, in the meantime, he came to know about the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.

Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Advocate for soliciting legal advice. There he came to know about the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Abhyudaya Sanstha's College of D.Ed. vs. the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, NCTE, Bhopal and others, dated 15/02/2010 in Writ Petition No. 1189/2010. The judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, as stated above, was identical with the case of the appellant and, therefore, he was advised to make a representation to the Western Region Committee, Bhopal and accordingly, the appellant made a representation on 26/03/2010, which was duly received by the WRC. However, the WRC failed to communicate anything about the representation made by the appellant and, therefore, he was constrained to approach the Hon’ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No.933/2011; that the aforesaid Writ Petition admission was disposed of by Hon’ble High Court on 09-03-2011; that in aforesaid facts and circumstances, the delay is caused in filing the appeal and hence there is no intentional delay nor the appellant is guilty of any lapses on his part. The delay was caused in pursuing the wrong remedies; that if the delay was not considered and appeal was not heard on merits, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and injury. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that WRC closed the file of the institution vide order dated 21-04-2009 and the appellant should have preferred an appeal against this order within 60 days, latest by 21-06-2009; that the appellant instead of availing the provisions available in the NCTE, preferred to make a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and accordingly a writ petition was made on 27-10-2010. This shows that the appellant approached the Hon’ble Court also, after 18 months of issue of impugned order. The period spent between 27-10-2010 to 09-03-2011 (date of filing of Court petition to date of Courts judgement) has been excluded, as this time period was spent in pursuing the writ petition before the Hon’ble Court. However still there was delay of almost one and a half year, when calculated from the date of issue of the order dated 21-04-2009, to the date of filing a writ petition before the Hon’ble Court i.e. 27-10-2010. The reason submitted for condonation of this one and half year period of delay by the appellant was for want of legal advice, and after knowing about the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement passed in case of State of Maharashtra v/s Sant Dhyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha Mahavidyalaya (on which date the appellant came to know about this judgement is not mentioned) he submitted a representation to the WRC only 26-03-2010 and this representation was also submitted after a lapse of 9 months from the date of issue of impugned order. The Council therefore came to the conclusion that there was no good and sufficient reason for considering the case for condonation of delay of almost 18 months, that is the period between the date of issue of the impugned order and the date of filing of writ petition before the Hon’ble Court and hence it was decided not to admit the appeal. As the delay was not condoned, the case could not be examined further on merit.



1. The Chairman, Adhyapdk Vidyalaya, Shahada Taluka Cooperative Education Society, Khasra No. S.No. 75, , Nandurbar - , 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 Drona's College of Management & Technical Education, Dehradun, Uttaranchal dated 30/10/2010 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/UP-20/163RD Meeting/2010/27131 dated 03/09/2010 of the Northern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground: “The NCTE norms in respect of B.Ed. admission were not complied by the Institution. Hence the recognition of B.Ed. course of the Institution from academic session 2009-2010 is withdrawn.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Drona's College of Management & Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/11/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Navin Bisht, Secretary, Drona's College of Management & Technical Education, Dehradun, Uttaranchal presented the case of the appellant institution on 14-02-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the Northern Regional Committee failed to appreciate that the University accepted the admissions and permitted the students to take the exams and declared the results of all the students for the academic session 2007-08. In the provisions of the Act and the rules framed by the NCTE, the eligibility has been very clearly enumerated. The NCTE does not have any such Norms related to admission except that it has been mentioned that any student who secures 50% in Graduation is eligible for admission. The Appellant has never violated any regulation of the NCTE or any state policy regarding admission of students under management quota for the academic session 2007-08. It was further submitted that the Appellant has never admitted any student below the cut off merits/marks issued by the H.N.B. Garhwal University. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the NRC issued a show cause notice on 03-07-2009 inter-alia asking the institution to submit documents related to Government policy regarding admission to B.Ed. under management quota, category-wise list of admitted students and category-wise cut off marks fixed by the University. The withdrawal ground pertains to improper admissions made in the academic session 2007-08. the Council observed that as per Regulations 2007, the eligibility criteria for admission of B.Ed. course was either 45% marks in the qualifying examination or any selection process as per the policy of the State Government. The appellant contended that the admissions under management quota were as per norms and also as per state policy, for the students admitted during the session 2007-08, the University conducted the examination and also declared the results of the students for the session 2007-08. Further the appellant stated that University also extended affiliation for current session 2010-11. However, he could not show the documents in proof of non-violation of admission procedure/policy of NCTE and sought another opportunity for producing the same. The Council, acceding to his request, decided to give another opportunity and accordingly listed the case for hearing on 06-05-2011.

AND WHEREAS Sh. Naveen Singh Bisht, Secretary and Sh. Sush Gupta, Manager, Drona's College of Management & Technical Education, Dehradun, Uttaranchal presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. During personal presentation the appellant showed a letter dated 10-03-2011 of H.N.B. Garhwal University wherein, it was mentioned that it regularized the admissions made in the session 2007-08 and also conducted exams and thereafter declared the results. He also showed a letter dated 15-07-2010 of SC/ST Commission of Dehradun addressed to Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, wherein it was mentioned that the issue related to admission of students for the session 2007-08 was resolved and no further action in this regard was required. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal and reverse the order of NRC.

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 03-09-2010. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of NRC reversed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Drona's College of Management & Technical Education, 49, subhash Road, Opp- Guru Nanak Wedding Point, Dehradun - 248001, Uttaranchal 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun.

F.No.89-133/2011 Appeal/3rd Mtg-2011


26/05/2011

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Gajwel College of Education, Medak, Andhra Pradesh dated 05/04/2011 is against the Order No. SRC/NCTE/B.ED/2010/27797 dated 23/03/2011 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. course on the ground: “The institution has not replied to the deficiency letters even after a lapse of stipulated time of 60 days as per clause 7(10, Regulation 2009).” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Gajwel College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 06/04/2011 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. Syed Khursheed Ahmed, Chairman and Sh. M.M Ansari, Correspondent, Gajwel College of Education, Medak, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that they were expecting that the existing FDRs of Rs. 500000 and Rs. 300000 would be sufficient for existing B.Ed. & new D.Ed. courses; the college is situated in Telangana region, due to frequent bandhs occurring in the region, submission of the FDRs was delayed and they regret for delayed submission of FDR's and requested for sympathetic consideration. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that SRC vide deficiency letter dated 09-12-2010 informed the institution for submission of FDRs, certified copy of registered land document, affidavit on Rs. 100/- stamp paper, notarized copy of ‘CLU’, building completion certificate, minority certificate, building plan etc. within 60 days. The appellant was supposed to furnish its reply latest by 09-02-2010 to the SRC, whereas he furnished the reply only on 04-03-2011 that was much after the stipulated period. However by that time, SRC in its meeting held on 22-23rd February’ 2011 had already decided for rejection of the case. The Council perused the documents annexed with the reply dated 04-03-2011 of the institution and noted that FDRs for Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs were created in Andhra Bank only on 04-03-2011. As per NCTE Regulations 2009, the FDRs are to be forwarded alongwith the hard copy of the application and the appellant did not possess these FDRs at that time and the same were created only on 04-03-2011 that was much after the date of submission of application. Infact, the sole reason for not submitting the reply itself was FDRs and, moreover, the institution did not reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated period to the SRC. In view of this, the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after hearing oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’s order dated 23-03-2011 was confirmed.



1. The Chairman, Gajwel College of Education, 743/AA, 743/E, 743/E-2, Pamulaparthi Road, Wargal,, Medak - 502279, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel College of Education (Kashyap Smriti Shivaji Shiksha Samiti), Rewa , Madhya Pradesh dated 23/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/WRCAPP1150/2011/76557 dated 17/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the ground: “The institution has not completed three academic sessions to be eligible for additional course.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, kashyap Smriti Shivaji Shiksha Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 04/04/2011 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. Satish Chandra Vijayvargiya, A.O., Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel College of Education (Kashyap Smriti Shivaji Shiksha Samiti), Rewa, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the appellant understood from the NCTE Regulations that the completion of three academic sessions is necessary for enhancement of seats in an already approved course; the institution has completed two and a half year of running the B.Ed. course and hence their application for grant of recognition of the proposed course be considered. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that the Regulation 8(3) of Regulations 2009 stipulates that an institution can apply for basic unit only of an additional course or for an additional unit of the existing recognized course after completion of three academic sessions of the respective course, for which the institution shall submit an application before the cut-off date prescribed for submission of applications in the year succeeding the completion of three academic sessions. The Council noted that the appellant institution was granted recognition for B.Ed. course by the WRC vide order dated 27-11-2008 and as admitted by the appellant the institution, has not yet completed three successive academic session of conducting B.Ed. course and, therefore, the institution was not eligible for submitting an application for an additional course i.e. the proposed D.El.Ed. course, in the light of Regulation 8(3) of NCTE Regulations 2009. Therefore, the Council came to the conclusion that there is no justification in accepting the appeal and hence it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after hearing oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 17-03-2011 was confirmed.



1. The Manager, kashyap Smriti Shivaji Shiksha Samiti, Ward No. 15/1263, Saman Rewa, PO- Bansagar Colony,, Rewa - , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Laxmi Bai Sahu College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh dated is against the Order No. WRC/APW01710/223300/143/2010/74493 dated 30/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground: “As per the certified copy dated 26/08/2010 of the land documents collected from the department of land record, Jabalpur. No building exists on the land specified in the application. The institution contravened 8(7) and 8(10) of NCTE Regulations 2007.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Laxmi Bai Sahu College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 30/03/2011 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. Rajesh Sahu, Chairman and Sh. Vishal Sahu, Secretary, Laxmi Bai Sahu College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentations it was submitted that (1) 1,08,900 sq.ft. of land located at Kh.no. 1/3, Benikheda was in possession of the society and the SDM office vide order dated 10-01-2006 changed the land use from agricultural to non-agricultural. Due to, inadvertence, a typographical error crept into the order dated 10-01-2006 and Kh.no. 1/2 was typed instead of Kh.no. 1/3. The society moved an application for correction in Kh.no. and the SDM office vide order dated 03-03-2006 rectified the Kh.no. and the revenue entries were updated as Kh.no. 1/3 in place of kh. No. 1/2. (2) the appellant institution initiated its B.Ed. course in rented premises at 389, Napier Town, Jabalpur. Pursuant to the new Norms and Regulations 2007, the appellant was required to shift to own building having adequate infrastructure facility as per the Norms. The appellant immediately took steps for diversion of land and construction of building and submitted an application alongwith requisite fee of Rs. 40,000/- for inspection of building and shifted in its own premises. WRC did not conduct any inspection for the new premises; whereas an inspection u/s 13 was conducted in reference to direction of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, the appellant has constructed a building with a built-up area of 36400 sq.ft excluding toilets, canteen and a piece of land measuring 3600 sq.mt. (3) WRC conducted an inspection of the institution u/s 17 of the NCTE Act on 26-08-2010 and issued a show cause notice stating that no building exists on the land where it was permitted and thereafter vide order dated 30-01-2011 withdrew recognition of the institution on the stated ground. (4) With regard to withdrawal ground, it was submitted that at no point of time the appellant has contravened 8(7) and 8(10) of Regulations 2007. The certified copy issued by the office of Collectorate, Jabalpur shows that a building for education institution exists on the Kh.no. 1/3, Benikheda and in the light of this certified copy, the refusal ground of WRC is invalid and liable to be set aside. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that Regulations 8(7) of NCTE Regulations 2007 stipulates that no institution shall be granted recognition unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application either on ownership basis or on long term lease from

Government and Regulation 8(10) stipulates that at the time of inspection the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that 1) the appellant submitted an application for grant of recognition of B.Ed. course on 31-12-2004 and alongwith the application a lease deed for 30 years was submitted for 7800 sq.ft. of land at plot No. 73, Lamti and the land title certificate dated 30-12-2004 also mentioned the same land particulars. WRC granted recognition for B.Ed. course on rented premises for a period of three years subject to shifting to own premises within 3 years. The appellant vide letter dated 07-10-2008 sought WRC permission to shift to permanent location from the next academic session and with this letter he enclosed a building completion certificate for a building constructed on the land situated at Kh.no. 1/3, 1/1, 1/9 and this certificate proves that the building was not built on the land piece at plot No. 73, which was submitted alongwith the application. 2) WRC conducted an inspection u/s 17 of the NCTE Act on 26-08-2010 and the visiting team in its report stated that the institution has large campus of around 10 acres on which two buildings were completed in all respects and one building was under construction; the institution informed that one building having four storey was being used for D.Ed., B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses, it, however was not able to give any document to show that the building was constructed on the land shown in the land document submitted to NCTE. After inspection, the visiting team contacted the concerned land records authority in Collectorate office, Jabalpur and obtained a certified copy. According to the land records, the land shown in the land documents is still un-diverted and no construction exists thereon and the VT enclosed certified copy of land records with its report. 3) WRC on the basis of this report issued a show cause notice and after considering the reply submitted by the institution, it withdrew the recognition of the institution. AND WHEREAS the Council perused land documents, building completion certificate, building plans submitted by the institution to the WRC as well as in the appeal and noted that a) a building completion certificate dated NIL issued by Gram Panchayat office, forwarded alongwith the appellant letter dated 07-10-2008, mentioned 3.75 acres of land at Kh.no. 1/3, 1/1 & 1/9 at Benikheda and 36400 sq.ft. of built-up area in a four storey building. Another certificate dated 28-03-2008 enclosed with this letter was issued by Rakesh Bajpai & Associates and this certificate mentioned different Kh.no. i.e. 1/3, 1/4, 5/3. b) Lease deed dated 29-12-2004 for 7800 sq.ft. at plot No. 73, Lamti. Sale deed for 1.0 Hect. 05-01-2006 of land at Kh.no. 1/2. C) A certified copy of ‘form no. 11’ (khasara) of land document mentioning 52000 sq.ft. of area for college building at Kh.no. 1/3 and another certified copy of ‘form no. 11’ obtained by VT for the land at Kh.no. 1/3 does not mention land diversion and as well as a college building existing on it. d) A copy of the CLU dated 10-01-2006 for 108900 sq.ft. of land at Kh.no.1/2 and a correction order dated 03-03-2006 mentioning the Kh.no. as 1/3. E) Land title certificate dated 10-06-2006 for 1.04 hect. Of land at Kh.no. 1/3 and 5/2. F) Building plan of Laxmi Bai Sahuji College indicates 3.5 acre of land (2.5 acre at old Kh.no.1/2, New Kh.no. 1/3 and 1 acre of land at Kh.no.1/4) and 36400 sq.ft. of built-up area on ground plus three floors.

AND WHEREAS the Council inferred that the institution has submitted a sale deed for one Hect. of land at Kh.no. 1/2 whereas the building plan as well as building completion certificates, land title certificates mention different Kh.no. Moreover, a copy of the ‘form-11’ mentioning existence of 52000 sq.ft. of College building at Kh.no. 1/3 by the institution cannot be accepted, as the same ‘form-11’ obtained by the VT does not mention the purpose of the land as well as the area of the college building and further 52000 sq.ft. of

area does not get reflected in other documents like building plan, building completion certificate, sale deed etc. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the order of the WRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after hearing oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 30-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Laxmi Bai Sahu College, Choudhary Yuva Shikti Shikshan and Sanskrita Sanstha, 747, Marhatal,, Jabalpur - , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Laxmi Bai Sahuji College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh dated is against the Order No. WRC/APW04549/225050/143/2010/74508 dated 30/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting M.Ed. course on the ground: “As per the certified copy dated 26/08/2010 of the land documents collected from the department of land record, Jabalpur. No building exists on the land specified in the application. The institution contravened 8(7) and 8(10) of NCTE Regulations 2007.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Laxmi Bai Sahuji College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 30/03/2011 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. Rajesh Sahu, Chairman and Sh. Vishal Sahu, Secretary, Laxmi Bai Sahu College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (1) 1,08,900 sq.ft. of land located at Kh.no. 1/3, Benikheda was in possession of the society and the SDM office vide order dated 10-01-2006 changed the land use from agricultural to non-agricultural. Due to, inadvertence a typographical error crept into the order dated 10-01-2006 and Kh.no. 1/2 was typed instead of Kh.no. 1/3. The society moved an application for correction in Kh.no. and the SDM office vide order dated 03-03-2006 rectified the Kh.no. and the revenue entries were updated as Kh.no. 1/3 in place of kh. No. 1/2. (2) the appellant institution initiated its B.Ed. course in rented premises at 389, Napier Town, Jabalpur. Pursuant to the new Norms and Regulations 2007, the appellant was required to shift to own building having adequate infrastructure facility. The appellant immediately took steps for diversion of land and construction of building and submitted an application alongwith requisite fee of Rs. 40,000/- for inspection of building and shifted in its own premises. WRC did not conduct any inspection for the new premises; whereas an inspection u/s 13 was conducted in reference to direction of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, the appellant has constructed a building with a built-up area of 36400 sq.ft excluding toilets, canteen and a piece of land measuring 3600 sq.mt. 3) the WRC after causing an inspection for M.Ed. course in these new premises granted recognition for M.Ed. course vide order dated 25-06-2009. (4) WRC conducted an inspection of the institution u/s 17 of the NCTE Act on 26-08-2010 and issued a show cause notice stating that no building exists on the land where it was permitted and thereafter vide order dated 30-01-2011 withdrew recognition of the institution on the stated ground. (5) With regard to withdrawal ground it was submitted that at no point of time the appellant has contravened 8(7) and 8(10) of Regulations 2007. The certified copy issued by the office of Collectorate, Jabalpur shows that a building for education institution exists on the Kh.no. 1/3, Benikheda and in the light of this certified copy, the refusal ground of WRC is invalid and liable to be set aside. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that Regulations 8(7) of NCTE Regulations 2007 stipulates that no institution shall be granted recognition unless it is in possession of required

land on the date of application either on ownership basis or on long term lease from Government and that Regulation 8(10) stipulates that at the time of inspection the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure.

AND WHEREAS the Council noted that 1) the appellant submitted an application for grant of recognition of B.Ed. course on 31-12-2004 and alongwith the application a lease deed for 30 years was submitted for 7800 sq.ft. of land at plot No. 73, Lamti and the land title certificate dated 30-12-2004 also mentioned the same land particulars. WRC granted recognition on rented premises. The appellant vide letter dated 07-10-2008 sought WRC permission to shift on permanent location from the next academic session and with this letter he enclosed a building completion certificate for a building constructed on the land situated at Kh.no. 1/3, 1/1, 1/9 and this certificate proves that the building was not built on the land piece at plot No. 73, which was submitted alongwith the application. 2) WRC conducted an inspection u/s 17 of the NCTE Act on 26-08-2010 and the visiting team in its report stated that the institution has large campus of around 10 acres on which two buildings were completed in all respects and one building was under construction; the institution informed that one building having four storey was being used for D.Ed., B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses, it, however was not able to give any document to show that the building was constructed on the land shown in the land document submitted to NCTE. After inspection the visiting team contacted the concerned land records authority in Collectorate office, Jabalpur and obtained a certified copy. According to the land records the land shown in the land documents is still un-diverted and no construction exists thereon and the VT enclosed certified copy of land records with its report. 3) WRC on the basis of this report issued a show cause notice and after considering the reply submitted by the institution, it withdrew the recognition of the institution. AND WHEREAS the Council perused land documents, building completion certificate, building plans submitted by the institution to the WRC as well as in the appeal and noted that a) a building completion certificate dated NIL issued by Gram Panchayat office, forwarded alongwith the appellant letter dated 07-10-2008, mentioned 3.75 acres of land at Kh.no. 1/3, 1/1 & 1/9 at Benikheda and 36400 sq.ft. of built-up area in a four storey building. Another certificate dated 28-03-2008 enclosed with this letter was issued by Rakesh Bajpai & Associates and this certificate mentioned different Kh.no. i.e. 1/3, 1/4, 5/3. b) Lease deed dated 29-12-2004 for 7800 sq.ft. at plot No. 73, Lamti. Sale deed for 1.0 hect. 05-01-2006 Of land at Kh.no. 1/2. C) A certified copy of ‘form no. 11’ (khasara) of land document mentioning 52000 sq.ft. of area for college building at Kh.no. 1/3 and another certified copy of ‘form no. 11’ obtained by VT for the land at Kh.no. 1/3 does not mention land diversion and as well as a college building existing on it. d) A copy of the CLU dated 10-01-2006 for 108900 sq.ft. of land at Kh.no.1/2 and a correction order dated 03-03-2006 mentioning the Kh.no. as 1/3. E) Land title certificate dated 10-06-2006 for 1.04 hect. Of land at Kh.no. 1/3 and 5/2. F) Building plan of Laxmi Bai Sahuji College indicates 3.5 acre of land (2.5 acre at old Kh.no.1/2 , New Kh.no. 1/3 and 1 acre of land at Kh.no.1/4) and 36400 sq.ft. of built-up area on ground + three floors.

AND WHEREAS the Council inferred that the institution has submitted a sale deed for one Hect. of land at Kh.no. 1/2 whereas the building plan as well as building completion certificates, land titles certificates mention different Kh.no. Moreover, a copy of the ‘form-11’ mentioning existence of 52000 sq.ft. of College building at Kh.no. 1/3 by the institution cannot be accepted, as the same ‘form-11’ obtained by the VT does not mention the purpose of the land as well as the area of the college building and further 52000 sq.ft. of

area does not get reflected in other documents like building plan, building completion certificate, sale deed etc. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the order of the WRC confirmed. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after hearing oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 30-01-2011 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairman, Laxmi Bai Sahuji College, 747, Marhatal,, Jabalpur - , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shivdham College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh dated 25/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW07031/223741/143/2010/74529 dated 30/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground: “There is no building on the land specified in the application. The institution contravened the clause 8(7) and 8(10) of NCTE Regulations 2007.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shivdham College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/03/2011 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. S.S. Tiwari, Secretary, Shivdham College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the institution ‘Shivdham College of Education, Uncha Tola PO Paharakha Block Gangeo Distt Rewa’ was run by Shivdham Shiksha Evam Seva Samiti, Uncha Tola, PO Paharakha Block Gangeo Distt. Rewa; the society was in possession of 3.07 acre of land on ownership basis at plot nos. 20/2 and 21/2 of Unchatola, Gram Panchayat Paharka, Block ganger and on this land a building with a built up area of 34700 sq. ft. was constructed. Therefore the objection raised by WRC saying that the institution/society did not possess the land in its name was not in order. The CLU dated 02/04/2008 was issued by SDM office. With regard to the second objection raised by WRC, it was submitted that clause 8(1) of NCTE Regulations 2007 are applicable to the new institutions and not for the existing institutions. It was further submitted that the institution had made all necessary arrangements for inspection and the VT members did not make a visit to the institution as per their original schedule. The college management had made all the arrangements for the educational tour keeping in view of the original schedule of the VT members. The same could not be cancelled which may incur severe loss to both the students and the management. Thus a letter to this effect was sent to WRC and also through the VT members who visited the institution to organize the visit on re-scheduled date, so that the WRC would make alternate arrangements to postpone the visit. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that Regulations 8(7) of NCTE Regulations 2007 stipulates that no institution shall be granted recognition unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application either on ownership basis or on long term lease from Government and Regulations 8(10) stipulates that at the time of inspection the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that 1) the appellant submitted two applications simultaneously to the WRC on 23-11-2007 for grant of recognition of D.Ed. course and B.Ed. course; and details with regard to endowment funds and reserve funds as well as

infrastructures were left blank; thereafter in response to a deficiency letter, it submitted a building plan of the College at plot No. 20/2 and 21/2. Unchatola, a sale deed 29-12-2007 for 3.07 acre of land (1.242 Hect.) at Kh.no. 20/2 and 21/2. This sale deed which was executed on 29-12-2007 cannot be accepted as it was executed after a month of submission of the application and the appellant was not having land on ownership basis as required under relevant Regulations and so the institution was not eligible for grant of recognition. Further the building plan approved by the Panchayat office on 26-07-2006 cannot be accepted as it was done much before the purchase of land (29-12-2007), 2) WRC conducted inspection of the institution for u/s 14/15 of the NCTE Act for the B.E.d course on 22-02-2009 and the visiting team inter-alia mentioned that there were four almirahs containing technical education books and it appeared that the building was meant for technical courses. WRC did not issue any show cause notice to the institution calling for its explanation on this observation of VT. WRC granted recognition to the institution for B.Ed. course vide order dated 16-07-2009. 3)Thereafter WRC caused an inspection u/s 17 of the NCTE Act and the visiting team that visited the institution on 28-08-2010 reported that even though WRC Bhopal intimated the management about the schedule of the VT, but the management representative gave a letter of refusal for inspection. However the team visited the place Unchatola, (the address given by the management) and found that there was no college building at the address given; for inquiry in detail the VT members approached the Deputy Collector, Rewa to collect land and building documents of Shivdam College of Education. As per records available from the competent authority concerned of the village/Tehsil, there was no such building for Shivdham College of Education and that was the reason the management has refused inspection, on a lame excuse of study tour. 4) WRC on the basis of the VTR issued show cause notice 23-09-2010. In the light of the observations of the VT (conducted before grant of recognition and after grant of recognition) the contention of the appellant for having building on the land specified in the application cannot be accepted. Moreover the institution was not eligible for grant of recognition as it was not in possession of requisite land on the date of submission of application and further building plan was approved much before the purchase of the land.

AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the visiting team that caused the inspection of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education reported that ‘Shiv Shakti Shiksha Avum Seva Samiti Rewa’ and ‘Shivdham Shiksha Seva Samiti’ founded by its Chairman Shri S.S. Tiwari was running several teacher education courses in the name of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.P.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education D.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education B.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education D.Ed. course, National B.Ed. College at Shahdol and infrastructural facilities are not created for all these courses by the management. It seems that all the courses (six courses) mentioned above are controlled from one central place i.e. National B.Ed. College, near Shirmor Choraya Rewa. To get permission from different agencies like NCTE, University concerned and State Government different addresses are given.

AND WHEREAS in view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion 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 hearing oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be

rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 30-01-2011 was confirmed.



1. The Secretary, Shivdham College of Education, Shivdham Shiksha and Seva Samiti, NH-27, Village- Uncha, Post Office-Paharkha, Block- Gamgeo, Tehsil- Mangawa,, Rewa - , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shivdham College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh dated 29/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06967/222395/143/2010/74486 dated 30/01/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course on the ground: “There is no building on the land specified in the application. The institution contravened the clause 8(7) and 8(10) of NCTE Regulations 2007.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shivdham College of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 29/03/2011 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. S.S. Tiwari, Secretary, Shivdham College of Education, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the institution ‘Shivdham College of Education, Uncha Tola PO Paharakha Block Gangeo Distt Rewa’ was run by Shivdham Shiksha Evam Seva Samiti, Uncha Tola, PO Paharakha Block Gangeo Distt. Rewa; the society was in possession of 3.07 acre of land on ownership basis at plot nos. 20/2 and 21/2 of Unchatola, Gram Panchayat Paharka, Block ganger and on this land a building with a built up area of 34700 sq. ft. was constructed. Therefore the objection raised by WRC saying that the institution/society did not possess the land in its name was not in order. The CLU dated 02/04/2008 was issued by SDM office. With regard to the second objection raised by WRC, it was submitted that clause 8(1) of NCTE Regulations 2007 are applicable to the new institutions and not for the existing institutions. It was further submitted that the institution had made all necessary arrangements for inspection and the VT members did not make a visit to the institution as per their original schedule. The college management had made all the arrangements for the educational tour keeping in view of the original schedule of the VT members. The same could not be cancelled which may incur severe loss to both the students and the management. Thus, a letter to this effect was sent to WRC and also through the VT members who visited the institution on re-scheduled date, so that the WRC would make alternate arrangements to postpone the visit. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that Regulation 8(7) of NCTE Regulations 2007 stipulates that no institution shall be granted recognition unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application either on ownership basis or on long term lease from Government and that Regulation 8(10) stipulates that at the time of inspection the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that 1) the appellant submitted two applications simultaneously to the WRC on 23-11-2007 for grant of recognition of D.Ed. course and B.Ed. course; and details with regard to endowment funds and reserve funds as well as infrastructures were left blank; thereafter in response to a deficiency letter, it submitted a building plan of the College at plot No. 20/2 and 21/2. Unchatola, a sale deed 29-12-2007

for 3.07 acre of land (1.242 Hect.) at Kh.no. 20/2 and 21/2. This sale deed which was executed on 29-12-2007 cannot be accepted as it was executed after a month of submission of the application and the appellant was not having land on ownership basis as required under relevant Regulations and so the institution was not eligible for grant of recognition itself. Further the building plan approved by the Panchayat office on 26-07-2006 cannot be accepted as it was done much before the purchase of land (29-12-2007), 2) WRC after conducting an inspection of the institution for u/s 14/15 of the NCTE Act for the D.E.d course on 02-11-2008, granted recognition to the institution for D.Ed. course vide order dated 25-12-2008. 3) Thereafter, WRC caused an inspection u/s 17 of the NCTE Act and the visiting team that visited the institution on 28-08-2010 reported that even though WRC Bhopal intimated the management about the schedule of the VT, but the management representative gave a letter of refusal for inspection. However the team visited the place Unchatola, (the address given by the management) and found that there was no college building at the address given; for inquiry in detail the VT members approached the Deputy Collector, Rewa to collect land and building documents of Shivdam College of Education. As per records available from the competent authority concerned of the village/Tehsil, there was no such building for Shivdham College of Education and that was the reason the management has refused inspection, on a lame excuse of study tour. 4) WRC on the basis of the VTR issued show cause notice 23-09-2010. In the light of the observations of the VT (conducted before grant of recognition and after grant of recognition) the contention of the appellant for having building on the land specified in the application cannot be accepted. Moreover the institution was not eligible for grant of recognition as it was not in possession of requisite land on the date of submission of application and further building plan was approved much before the purchase of the land.

AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the visiting team that caused the inspection of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education reported that ‘Shiv Shakti Shiksha Avum Seva Samiti Rewa’ and ‘Shivdham Shiksha Seva Samiti’ founded by its Chairman Shri S.S. Tiwari was running several teacher education courses in the name of Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education B.P.Ed. course, Jawaharlal Nehru College of Education D.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education B.Ed. course, Shivdham College of Education D.Ed. course, National B.Ed. College at Shahdol and infrastructural facilities are not created for all these courses by the management. It seems that all the courses (six courses) mentioned above are controlled from one central place i.e. National B.Ed. College, near Shirmor Choraya Rewa. To get permission from different agencies like NCTE, University concerned and State Government different addresses are given.

AND WHEREAS In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there

was 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 hearing oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 30-01-2011 was confirmed.



1. The Secretary, Shivdham College of Education, Near, NH-27, Gamgeo,, Rewa - , Madhya Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sansthan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh dated 31/03/2011 is against the Order No. WRC/NCTE/WRCAPP934/2011/76731 dated 21/03/2011 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. course on the ground: “The Institution has not completed three academic sessions to be eligible for additional intake.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 01/04/2011 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. Sourabh Jain, Mgt. Representative and Sh. Jagdish Mehra, Staff, Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sansthan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 06-05-2011. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the institution got recognition of NCTE from the academic session 2007 and it admitted students in the academic session 2007-08 and the Board of Secondary Education, MP, Bhopal conducted exams and declared the results for the session 2007-08; the institute had been conducting the D.El.Ed. course since 2007-08 and it has completed 03 academic years (2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) & the 4th academic year shall be completed in June 2011. They applied to NCTE for the additional 50 seats from the next academic year i.e. 2011-12, which was according to the rules. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that WRC vide order dated 01-03-2008 granted recognition for D.Ed. course and as per this order it was eligible to begin the course from 2008-09 academic year only. The course being 2 year duration, the first batch of D.Ed. course shall pass out, only in the year 2010, second batch in the year 2011 and the third batch in the year 2012 and hence it had not successfully completed 3 academic sessions of 2 year D.Ed. course by sending out 3 batches of students. Hence it was not eligible to submit an application for additional intake as per clause 8(3) of NCTE Regulations 2009 because it has not completed three academic sessions on the date of submission of application. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion 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, and after hearing oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 21-03-2011 was confirmed.


(R.P. Sisodia)

Member Secretary 1. The Principal, Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sansthan, Shri Girrajji Raghunandan Shikshan Prasar Evam Vikas Samiti, Plot No. 45, Vaishali Nagar, Kotra Sultanbad, Tehsil- Bhopal, Bhopal - 462003, 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.

Documents

F.No.89-742/2010-Appeal/3 Mtg-2011 NATIONAL … order 3rd meet 2011.pdf · AND WHEREAS Dr. Y. Kishore, Principal, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh presented the