f.no.89-1073/2010 appeal national council for teacher ... of spl. meeting _15th mar2011_.pdf ·...

F.No.89-1073/2010 Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

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

O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Holy Child B.Ed. College, Malda, West Bengal dated13/11/2010 is against the Order No. ERC/7-112.53.24/2010/5381 dated 26/10/2010of the Eastern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed.course on the grounds: “1) As per land possession certificate, the land is possessedby Dr. Debasish Sarkar who is Secretary of the institution. 2) List of teaching staff notsubmitted. 3) Facilities for Language Learning Lab are not mentioned in the VTreport. 4) The institution has not submitted the Affidavit on Rs. 10/- stamp paperregarding individual teaching staff along with Principal. 5) Experience certificate ofthe Principal namely Shri Sadhan Kumar Thakur not submitted. 6) As per VTR theSociety registered on 13/07/2009 and application received in 2007. 7) The VTR hasprovided only the detail of one FDR for each of endowment fund and reserve fundwhereas the institution is recognised for D.Ed. & B.Ed. Courses. 8) Teacher forPrimary Education not appointed by the institution. Faculty list approved by theaffiliating University not submitted. 9) 3 classrooms have been provided by theinstitution. 10) The plot no. mentioned in the affidavit is not same as in the landdocument. Further, khasra Nos. mentioned in the affidavit are not therein theschedule of the land of the VTR and of the affidavit. 11) The land is in the name ofindividual. 12) The institution is not functioning as per NCTE norms and the salaryand service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff are also not as perNCTE norms”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Holy Child B.Ed. College (hereinafterreferred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/11/2010 to theNational Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as theCouncil) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Dr. Debashis Sarkar, Secretary and Shri. Shailendra NarayanPrysty, Member, of the society Holy Child B.Ed. College, Malda, West Bengalpresented the case of the appellant institution on 21-12-2010. In the appeal andduring personal presentation, it was submitted that the land was under thepossession of Holy Child B.Ed. College. To support this fact the institution submittedthe sale deed of the land, possession certificate in favour of Holy Child B.Ed.College issued by B.L.L.R.O., Malda, Govt of West Bengal and the mutationcertificate issued by B.L.L.R.O. - Malda, Govt. of West Bengal alongwith theappeal. The sale deed of the land was submitted to the ERC on 05/01/2010 byspeed post, again through VT members on 31/05/2010; the institution submittedthe affidavit in the prescribed format containing the list of teaching staffseparately for B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses to the VT members on the day of inspectiondated 31/05/2010. Based on the list, the VT members asked all the teaching staff tofill-up the format for information about the teaching staff. The VT members

collected the filled-in format directly from the teaching staff of B.Ed. and D.Ed.Courses separately and submitted to the ERC; the institution purchased thematerials for the language learning prior to obtaining the recognition from theERC. Photocopy of the vouchers which showed the purchase of the materials forthe language learning materials were submitted to the ERC through the VTmembers on 16/05/2008 prior to the recognition of B.Ed. course and also prior tothe recognition of the D.Ed. course on 21/05/2009. The language learningmaterials for the students were observed by the VT members during last threeinspections; the institution had submitted the affidavit on Rs. 10/- stamp paper ofall the teaching staff of B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses separately along with that of theprincipal to the VT members on the day of inspection on 31/05/2010. Also theinstitution had submitted the photocopy on Rs. 10/- stamp papers to the ERCalong with the written representation by speed post on 03/08/2010; institution hadsubmitted the photo copy of testimonials and experience certificates of all theteaching staff along with that of Principal separately for B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses tothe VT members on the day of inspection on 31/05/2010, as well as along withwritten representation by speed post on 03/08/2010; the fact remains that thesociety: ‘Singatola Society for Education, Relief & Vocational Excellence’ wasregistered under Society Registration Act XXVI of 1961 Govt. of West Bengal on09/02/1996 Vide the registration certificate No. - S/82693 which speaks for itself. Thiscertificate had been submitted to the ERC, NCTE several times, as and whenrequired, including to the VT members on the day of inspections on 16/05/2008,21/05/2009 & 31/05/2010 as well as along with written representation on03/08/2010; fixed deposits for endowment fund and reserve fund separately forB.Ed. & D.Ed. course were submitted separately to ERC, N.C.T.E. at the time ofobtaining recognition. Also the institution converted the fixed deposits to the jointoperation system. The institution was having separate sets of infrastructure for B.Ed.and D.Ed. courses as per the norms of NCTE to run B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses. It washaving three classrooms for the D.Ed. course & three classrooms for the B.Ed.course separately. This could be verified from the building plan as well as from theCD of the videography collected during the visit of VT members. Also,a copy ofthe building plan was submitted to ERC, NCTE along with written representation on03/08/2010; plot numbers of the land used for the Holy Child B.Ed. College were533, 534 and 535 which included an area of 7281.2 sq.mt. These plots were alreadyregistered directly in the name of Holy Child B.Ed. College by means of aregistered sale deed No. 6716 dated 13/07/2009 executed before the ADSR,Malda, Govt. of West Bengal. This could also be verified from the possessioncertificate and mutation certificate in favour of Holy Child B.Ed. College issued byB.L.L.R.O., Malda, Govt. of West Bengal; The fact was that the land was under thepossession of Holy Child B.Ed. College. The institution was functioning as per theNCTE Norms and the salary and service conditions of teaching and non-teachingstaff were also as per the NCTE Norms. As per NCTE norms and the guidelines ofaffiliated University, the institution was delivering the pay to the teaching and non-teaching staff as per the basic pay of State Govt. by means of account payeecheque. AND WHEREAS the Council deferred its decision on the appeal on 21-12-2010for want of certain information from the ERC. It again considered the case on 15-03-2011. The Council noted that the institution submitted an application to the ERCfor grant of recognition of B.Ed. course on 29-09-2007. ERC after causing an

inspection U/s 14 of the NCTE Act on 16-05-2008, granted recognition to theinstitution for conducting B.Ed. course vide order dated 30-08-2008. In pursuanceof a complaint dated 03-06-2009 received from Dr. Kalyani Sahoo, Principal of theCollege, the ERC got an inspection of the institution conducted u/S 17 of the NCTEAct on 31-05-2010. The VT report was positive and it inter-alia, indicated that theinfrastructural and instructional facilities for both B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses wereadequate and that the complaint dated 03-06-2009 as unreasonable. The ERCafter considering the VTR, issued a show cause notice to the institution on 05-07-2010 on several points. The institution submitted a point-wise reply, alongwithsupporting documents, to the ERC on 05-08-2010. The ERC, vide its order dated 26-10-2010 withdrew the recognition of the institution stating all the grounds of theshow cause notice. It appears that ERC has not carefully taken into account thepoint-wise reply submitted by the institution alongwith the supporting documents inresponse to the show cause notice. The Council further noted that the ERC hadreceived another complaint on 08-06-2010, that was subsequent to the inspectionof the institution U/s 17 of the NCTE Act, from the same complainant i.e. Dr. KalyaniSahoo alleging that infrastructural and instructional facilities shown to the VT werefake. Alongwith this complaint, an audio CD and certain documents were alsosent. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there wasadequate justification in accepting the appeal with direction to the ERC forexamination of the reply submitted by the institution in response to the show causenotice, taking into account the VT report and the documents submitted therewith,the complaint dated 08-06-2010 and the documents received alongwith it andtake appropriate decision thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during thehearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground toaccept the appeal and reverse the ERC’s order dated 26-10-2010 with a directionto ERC for re-examination of the reply submitted by the institution in response tothe show cause notice taking into account the VT report and the documentssubmitted therewith, the complaint dated 08-06-2010 and the documentsreceived alongwith it and take appropriate decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.

(R.P. Sisodia) Member Secretary

1. The Secretary, Holy Child B.Ed. College, Vill - Noonbahi Road, Holy Child Campus, PO - MaldaHead Post Office,, Malda - 732101, 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.89-1045-2010 Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Bindeshwari Kannya Mahavidyalaya, AmbedkarNagar, Uttar Pradesh dated 21/10/2010 is against the Order No. F.NRC/NCTE/F-3/NRCAPP162/165 Meeting/2010/27275 dated 08/09/2010 of the Northern RegionalCommittee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed course on the grounds:“on the basis of VTR dt. 23.05.2010, a show cause notice was decided in 162ndmeeting of NRC and eleven reasons were given conveying unsuitability of theinstitution to conduct D.EI.Ed. course. Whereas the institution has established that ithas earmarked area and sufficient building, it failed to establish that the building iscomplete in all respects, proper finishing and furnishing has been done. Even thelatest photographs suggested that building lacks finishing, door/windows are noteven polished, furniture is rough/unpolished and not up to the mark. Labs aretotally inadequate. The total feel of the building as revealed in photos submitted isnot good. The institution is not suitable to be recognized as a teacher traininginstitution." AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Bindeshwari Kannya Mahavidyalaya(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/10/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Sudhir Pandey, Clerk and Sh. Suresh Verma, Manager,Bindeshwari Kannya Mahavidyalaya, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh presentedthe case of the appellant institution on 26-11-2010. In the appeal and duringpersonal presentation, it was submitted that he had submitted a representationdated 22-07-2010 in response to the show cause notice; while the latestphotographs show that the building was complete in all respects, the NRC reliedon some old photographs and did not consider the latest photographs and it wasnot clear how the labs were inadequate when all the equipment/items were therein all the five labs. The appellant also enclosed a copy of his representation dated22-07-2010 sent to NRC with the appeal without adding the relevant enclosuresexcept some photographs. AND WHEREAS the Council deferred its decision on 26-11-2010 pendingreceipt of certain information from NRC. It again considered the case on 15-03-2011. the Council perused the documents/photographs submitted with the replydated 22-07-2010 of the institution in response to the NRC’s show cause notice andnoted that recognition was refused by the NRC for valid reasons as even the latestphotographs depicted that furniture, doors and tables, surface work, etc. wereunfinished; the equipment/materials in the labs were inadequate and improperlyplaced; the VT report dated 23-05-2010 stated that the rooms need to be furnished

well, and the journals to be subscribed more carefully; ET labs need to beupdated, the equipment need to be placed properly. 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, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and NRC’s order dated 08-092010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Manager, Bindeshwari Kannya Mahavidyalaya, Plot No. 101, Village- Bardha Bhiura, Post- Songaon, Tehsil Akabarpur,, Ambedkar Nagar - , Uttar Pradesh 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

F.No.89-980/2010-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Sansthan, Distt. Durg,Chhatisgarh dated 01/09/2010 is against the Order No.WRC/APW00401/723012/137th/2009/69011 dated 06/07/2010 of the WesternRegional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on thegrounds: “The institution has shifted to the new premises without seeking duepermission from the WRC, NCTE as required in the NCTE Regulations”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Sansthan(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03/09/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri. B.K. Srivastava, Registrar, Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Sansthan,Distt. Durg, Chattisgarh presented the case of the appellant institution on 15-09-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that theTrust, at one point of time, was running an institution named `Rawatpura SarkarInternational University’ at C-1, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chattisgarh,which was closed alongwith other private universities because of order of theHon’ble Supreme Court. (2) The institution ‘Shri. Rawatpura Sarkar Sansthan’ wasgranted recognition by the WRC vide order dated 23-11-2005 and the institutionhas its building and requisite property on land bearing Kh.No.63/2 and 63/3situated at Kumhari, Durg District,. (3) The Trust `Rawatpur Lok Kalyan Trust’ wasfunctioning from the address ‘C-1, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur’ which is at adistance of 20 km from Kumhari where the institution is situated. For administrativeconvenience the corporate office of the trust was shifted to the place within thecollege premises at Kumhari, Durg. The information regarding change ofcoporate/administrative office had been given to WRC through letters dated 28-04-2009 and 13-10-2009. (4) The WRC issued show cause notice on 04-05-2010stating that the institution has been shifted from Raipur to Durg without obtainingprior permission of WRC. For this notice the institution submitted its reply stating thatno shifting of the premises has been done. The institution, in furtherance of its actof fairness, also submitted a demand draft for Rs.40,000/- in case the authoritiessee this change of administrative office as change of premises. WRC, instead of re-inspecting the premises at Durg, passed an order withdrawing recognition. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that Shri. Rawatpura Lok Kalyan Trustsubmitted an application on 07-10-2003 to the WRC for grant of recognition of“Shri. Rawatpura Sarkar International University” (SRI University) and mentioned theaddress of the proposed institution as `C-1, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur,Chattisgarh”. It also furnished the information in the application that its own

building construction shall be completed by November 2003 and submitted a landdocument for 5.00 acre at Kh.No.63/2, 63/3. The VT that conducted inspection u/s14 of the NCTE Act on 17-05-2004 stated that the institution proposes to functionfrom its own building and construction of the building was nearly completed, andit was in possession of 6.48 acre of land. (2) WRC issued recognition order dated22-11-2004 to the Department of Education, Shri. Rawatpura Sarkar InternationalUniversity, C-1, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (Appl. Code No.723012). WRC;Consequent upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as the University statusceased to exist, it accorded recognition vide order dated 23-11-2005 as aninstitution in the name of Shri. Rawatpura Sarkar Sansthan, at the same premiseswhere earlier recognition was granted to the SRI University (C-1, Sector-1,Devendra Nagar, Raipur).Thus, the recognition for B.Ed. course was given toRawatpura Sarkar Sansthan at C-1, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, vide orderdated 23-11-2005. But, the institution applied for grant of recognition of M.Ed.course at Durg, for which only an institution already offering B.Ed. course waseligible. Since no B.Ed. course was sanctioned to the institution at Durg and B.Ed.course was actually sanctioned at Raipur, the WRC, in its 133rd meeting held on20th and 21st April, 2010 decided to refuse recognition for the M.Ed. course andalso decided to issue show cause notice for withdrawal of recognition of B.Ed.course sanctioned at Raipur as the institution shifted to Durg without obtainingprior approval of the WRC. (3) Accordingly, the WRC issued show cause notice tothe institution on 04-05-2010. The institution submitted its reply on 20-05-2010. TheWRC withdrew recognition of the institution. Alongwith the reply dated 20-05-2010the institution forwarded a copy of its earlier letter dated 28-04-2009 informing theWRC that Shri. Rawatpura Sarkar Sansthan which was functioning at C-1,Devender Nagar, Raipur, was shifted to its own building at Gram Chorha, nearPower Grid, Durg. The Council also noted that the argument of the institution thatonly corporate office was shifted to Durg cannot be accepted. The institutionshould have shifted after obtaining permission of the WRC as required under theNCTE Regulations. Therefore, the Council was of the view that the recognition ofthe institution for B.Ed. course was withdrawn by WRC 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 duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal, and hence, it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and WRC’s order dated 06-07-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chief Operating Officer, Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Sansthan, Gram Chouraha, Near Power Grid, Kumhari, Distt. Durg - 490042, 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 Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute, Durg, Chhatisgarhdated 18/06/2010 is against the Order No.WRC/APW08164/725032/133rd/2010/67706 dated 05/05/2010 of the WesternRegional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.Ed course on theground “The recognition for running B.Ed. course was granted to the institution atRaipur and the institution has applied for the M.Ed. at Durg”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 18/06/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Smt. Amita Saxena, Director, Shri. Rawatpura Sarkar Institute,Durg, Chhatisgarh presented the case of the appellant institution on 19-08-2010. Inthe appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the Head,Corporate office of the Trust was at Raipur and administrative part was beingadministered from Durg which is at a distance of about 20 km; the administrativeblock was only shifted to the institution at Kumhari, Distt. Durg, and informationregarding this was sent to WRC; the inspecting team also visited the institution atKumhari, Durg, and the institution has been conducting B.Ed. course for the lastfive years at Kumhari, Durg; and confusion must have been caused because ofthe existence of corporate office at Raipur. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (1) the trust on 31-10-2008 submittedan application for an M.Ed. additional course with an intake of 25 students in ShriRawatpura Sarkar Institute, Kumhari Dist. Durg (C.G.); WRC vide order dated 05-06-2009 refused recognition for non-fulfillment of the deficiencies communicated tothe institute. An appeal was preferred against this order and the appellateauthority remanded the matter to WRC for considering the case on merit. WRCafter causing an inspection on 09-12-2009, issued letter of intent prior to grant ofrecognition on 7th January 2010. The institution submitted faculty details on 23-01-2010. (2) Thereafter the WRC, referring to the visiting team report, issued a showcause notice on 12-03-2010 on the ground that the institution was not running B.Ed.course at Durg. Hence recognition could not be granted for M.Ed. course at Durg.The appellant submitted its reply on 10-04-2010 stating that earlier they wererunning Shri. Rawatpura Sarkar International University at Devendra Nagar, Raipur.After the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of `SRI’ University, theyclosed the institute and office at Devendra Nagar, Raipur and shifted all functionsto their own building behind Holiday Resort, Kumhari, Distt. Durg. The WRC, afterconsidering the reply, refused recognition. (3) The Council examined the VT report

and noted that the society proposed M.Ed. course in an institution namely “ShriRawatpura Sarkar Institute” which was granted recognition for B.Ed. course viderecognition order No.WRC/56/723012/61/2004/9037 dated 23-11-2005 at DevendraNagar, Raipur. Therefore, the Council was of the view that the WRC was right inrefusing the recognition to the institution as it was not running B.Ed. course at Durgwhere recognition for M.Ed. course was sought. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and WRC’s order dated 05-05-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chief Operating Officer, Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute, Behind Holidat Resort NH-kUMHARI, Durg - 490042, 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 Shri Dwarika Prasad Yadav Shiksha Mahavidyalaya,Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh dated 09/07/2010 is against the Order No.WRC/NCTE/2010/RL-66060 dated 22/03/2010 of the Western Regional Committee,refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed (Addl. Intake) course on the grounds“The land documents Khasra no. 517/ min 1 and 517 min 2 and 286/ min-2 area notproperly readable in favour of soceity. The same land is used for existing D.Edcourse namely Shri Dwarika Prasad Yadav Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, recognized byWRC on 14.04.2007. This is not as per NCTE Regulations 2009.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Dwarika Prasad Yadav ShikshaMahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appealdated 09/07/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shri Rabindra Nath Yadav, Principal, Shri Dwarika PrasadYadav Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh presented the case ofthe appellant institution on 16-09-2010. In the appeal and during personalpresentation, it was submitted that the appellant had been conductingD.Ed./D.El.Ed. programme w.e.f. 2006-07 with the NCTE’s recognition and affiliationof the examining body. And in the same premises, now it had proposed for D.El.Ed.programme. It was having requisite land on ownership basis in the name of thesociety for the existing programme as well as for the proposed programme. Inproof of availability of land, the appellant submitted the required land documentsi.e. (Khasra, a Khatauni document, from which the land area mentioned againsteach Kh. No. 517/min- 1, 517/min- 2 and 286/min-2 were readable. WRC has notprovided any opportunity to the appellant for submitting its explanation againstthe grounds of rejection of the file not yet received from WRC. The Councildeferred its decision on the appeal on that day for want of certain informationfrom WRC. It again considered the case on 15-03-2011. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was not issued any showcause notice before rejecting the application as per the provisions containedunder Section 15 of the NCTE Act. The ground on which the recognition wasrefused to the institution vide WRC’s order dated 22-03-2010 was also not clear. TheCouncil, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was adequate justificationin accepting the appeal with a direction to the WRC for issuing show notice on therefusal grounds and taking further decision thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,

affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, theCouncil reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept theappeal and reverse WRC’s order dated 22-03-10 with direction to the WRC forissuing show notice on the refusal grounds and taking further decision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The Principal, Shri Dwarika Prasad Yadav Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Khasra No. 517, Village- Sironj, Post Office - Sirnoj, Tehsil- Sirnoj, Vidisha - -, 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 Guru Harikishan College of Education, Ratlam,Madhya Pradesh dated 06/12/2010 is against the Order No.WRC/APW05682/223616/140TH/2010/71773 dated 08/11/2010 of the WesternRegional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on theground: “The College does not exist on the land of which the land documentswere submitted, along with the application. The explanation given by theinstitution is not acceptable. The institution contravened the clause 8.11 and 8.7 ofRegulations 2005.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Guru Harikishan College of Education(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 13/12/2010to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Sh. Rajendra Khabiya, Secretary and Sh. Vikas Kothari,Director, Shri Guru Harikishan College of Education, Ratlam, Madhya Pradeshpresented the case of the appellant institution on 22-12-2010. In the appeal andduring personal presentation, it was submitted that the inspection of the institutionu/S 14 of the NCTE Act was caused at Shastri Nagar, Ratlam; when the recognitionitself was granted on consideration of visiting team’s report of Shastri Nagar,Ratlam, there could be no reason to hold that the college did not exist on the landfor which the land documents were submitted; WRC did not consider that the landdocuments for Shastri Nagar, Ratlam, which were on record at the time of grant ofrecognition and the visiting team had confirmed that the college existed on theland at Shastri Nagar, Ratlam. WRC decided the case of withdrawal of recognitionon the basis of land documents of Barbad Road, Ratlam, which were submittedinitially along with the application. There was no reason to ignore the landdocuments, visiting team report, etc. which mentioned the address of ShastriNagar, Ratlam. The decision of WRC is, therefore, perverse. The Council deferredthe decision on the appeal on that day for want of certain information. The casewas again considered by the Council on 15-03-2011. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (1) the appellant society – Shri GuruHarikishan Shiksha Samverdhan Samiti - submitted an application on 06-03-2007 tothe WRC for grant of recognition of the B.Ed. course in the name of Sri GuruHarikishan College of Education in the premises situated at Shree Guru TegBahadur Academy campus, Barbad Road, Ratlam. The appellant alongwith itsapplication submitted a lease deed for 32,500 sq.ft. of land and 22,500 sq.ft. ofbuilding at Barbad Road, Ratlam and the deed was executed on 22-02-2007between the appellant society and Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Academy and also an

affidavit dated 1-03-2007 mentioning the complete postal address of the institutionas “ 40 Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Academy, Barbad, Sailana Road, Ratlam”. Theinstitution did not submit any approved building plan, building completioncertificate neither at the time of submission of the application nor while sendingthe reply to the deficiency letter. It just submitted a lease document for thepremises at Barbad, Ratlam only. The WRC conducted an inspection on 20-08-2007. The visiting team clearly mentioned the location of the institution as ShastriNagar, Ratlam and also mentioned in the essential data sheet about a lease deedexecuted on 12-07-2007 for the premises at Shastri Nagar, Ratlam Distt. However,copy of the lease deed dated 12-07-2007 for Shastri Nagar premises was notannexed with the VTR. WRC did not notice that VT mentioned a different address,other than the address mentioned in the application and affidavit. Further theinstitution did not submit any land and building documents for the premises atShastri Nagar. It did not raise the issue of change of location of the building even inits show cause notice dated 10-01-2008. The institution submitted a building planvide its letter dated 14-07-2008 titled for S.G.T.B. Shaikshnik Vikas Samiti, ShastriNagar and the plan mentioned 2028.05 sq.mt. of land and 1647.52 sq.mt. of built-up area. WRC would have issued a notice to the institution for taking the visitingteam to a place other than address mentioned in the application and the leasedocument submitted therewith. Rather erroneously granted recognition to theinstitution at the premises of Shri. Guru Tegh Bahadur Academy, Barbad, MadhyaPradesh vide order dated 29-07-08. The institution also did not bring to the noticeof the WRC about the wrong address mentioned in the recognition order. It alsodid not submit any lease document for Shastri Nagar premises. AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the WRC vide letter dated 28-04-2010 informed the institution about inspection of the institution u/s 17 of theNCTE Act. The visiting team that visited the institution on 11-05-2010 mentioned thelocation of the institution as Barbad, Ratlam and availability of 2028.05 sq.mt. ofbuilt-up area and 3633.22 sq.mt. of land. It however recorded that the postaladdress of location is different. The VT annexed with its report an affidavit of theinstitution stating the location of the institution as Shastri Nagar, Ratlam; a leasedeed dated 02-02-2007 for the premises situated at Shastri Nagar and buildingplan of S.G.T.B Shaikshanik Vikas Samiti, Shastri Nagar. WRC on the basis of thereport withdrew recognition of the institution on the ground mentioned in para-1.The Council also noted that the institution submitted/downloaded copies of thewebsite details twice to the WRC. (a) The website details submitted prior to(inspection u/s 14) grant of recognition revealed the address of Shri. HarikishanCollege of Education, Aurobindo Marg, Sailana Road, Ratlam, and (b) the websitedetails furnished after grant of recognition (at the time of inspection u/s 17)revealed the address of the institution as Shastri Nagar, Ratlam. It is apparent thatthe society took first visiting team to the Shastri Nagar address despite knowingvery well that it had furnished in the application, affidavit and website details; landdocuments in support of Barbad Road, Ratlam and the institution did not bring thechange of location of the institution to the notice of WRC before causinginspection or granting recognition as well as after issuing recognition order. It evenfurnished misleading information to the second VT that also while it informed the VTthe location of the institution is at Barbad, Ratlam but furnished the document insupport of Shastri Nagar premises. That’s why VT recorded that the postal addressof location is different. The institution has now come up with a new version stating

that it has purchased land adjacent to the old leased premises at Barbad Road,Ratlam and constructed a building and these premises may be inspected by theWRC. The Council noted that the Society has been changing the premises of theinstitution on its own as per its wish, and this is not being acceptable as per NCTERegulations. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and WRC’s order dated 08-11-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Shri Guru Harikishan College of Education, C/O In The Campus of Shree Guru Teg Bahadur Academy, Barbad (Sailana) Road, , Ratlam - , 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 Institute of Progressive Studies and Development,Haridwar, Uttaranchal dated 20/10/2010 is against the OrderF.No.NRC/NCTE/F.3/UR-192/166th Meeting/2010 dated 19/11/2010 of the NorthernRegional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting M.Ed course on thegrounds “1) The total land available to the institution is 2,816 hectare which isinadequate for the existing B.Ed and B.P.Ed. Course. As such, institution cannot begiven any additional course, on the present land. 2) The visiting team report hascategorically mentioned that the labs are not adequate. The reply of theinstitution giving the details of equipments/ apparatus has been given byproviding a typed list, and bills, which do not have any serial number and do notseem to be authentic. It cannot be accepted as a proof, particularly when theitems were not found in the labs by VT during its visit. Moreover, the institution didnot submit even a copy of stock register to establish that they have theequipments/ apparatus, in the absence of which the list or bill cannot beaccepted. 3) The library and facilities therein have been found inadequate by VT.The institution has claimed that it has 7000 books. However, to substantiate itsclaim it has given cash receipt of books; but did not give even copy of theaccession register to establish that they have been purchased and placed in thelibrary”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Institute of Progressive Studies andDevelopment (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appealdated 20/10/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Mrs. Kuldeep Kaushik, Chairperson and Shri. Paras Kaushik,Lecturer, Institute of Progressive Studies and Development, Haridwar, Uttaranchalpresented the case of the appellant institution on 21-12-2010. In the appeal andduring personal presentation, it was submitted that the institute was having landmeasuring 34406 sq. mts. (8.50191 acre). The institution received 2.816 hectareland on long term lease for 30 years from Uttarakhand Govt. and the institutebought 0.6246 hectare land it self. The institute was having 5813.19 Sq.mts. built uparea which was quite sufficient for running B.Ed., M.Ed, and B.P.Ed. coursesaccording to NCTE norms, because according to NCTE norms only 2000 Sq.mts.built up area was essential for running B.Ed. and M.Ed courses and only 1500Sq.mts. built up area was needed for running B.P.Ed. course. The institute wouldproduce all the documents relating to land and built up area; the labs of theinstitute were fully furnished and the institute was having the genuine bills of thetools and materials relating to different labs. All the tools relating to different labs

were already entered in the stock registers which were inspected by the visitingteam and they found them very satisfactory. The institute would again produce allthe stock registers; the institute was having a very rich library containing 7086books of 1017 titles. The visiting team inspected all the records and accessionregister of the library. The institute would again produce the desired document.the Council deferred its decision on that day for want of someinformation/documents from NRC. It again considered the case on 15-03-2011. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant had already beenconducting B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. courses and submitted an application for grant ofrecognition of M.Ed. course on 24-07-2008. Along with the application, it submitteda lease deed for 2.816 Hect. (6.958 acre) of land at Village Shikarpur/Hajjarpur.NRC after causing an inspection of the institution vide letter dated 18-12-2009 inter-alia informed the institution that the land area is not enough to B.Ed. B.P.Ed. andM.Ed. courses. NRC after considering the reply of the institution refused recognitionvide order dated 19-11-2010 inter-alia on the ground that 2.816 Hect. of landavailable with the institution is inadequate for the existing courses (B.Ed. andB.P.Ed.), and hence, no additional course can be granted on this land. Theappellant during the course of presentation submitted one more document for0.6246 Hect. of land on ownership basis and this additional land piece documentwhich was not submitted to the NRC cannot be considered now, and moreover,this piece of land existed at Village Jaurasi, whereas the leased portion of the landexisted at Shikharpur village. So both the land pieces were at two different placesand they were not adjacent to each other. Further, VT also recorded in its reportdated 21-11-2009 that the space and equipment in labs and library is notadequate for the existing courses and the proposed course, and therefore, theclaim of the appellant that the library and facilities therein were found adequateby the VT cannot be accepted. In view of this, the Council came to theconclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it shouldbe rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced duringhearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to acceptthe appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal wasrejected and NRC’s order dated 19.11.2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Chairperson, Institute of Progressive Studies and Development, Opp. Landhora Railway Station, Shikarpur,, Haridwar - , 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.



O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Somnath Educational and Charitable Trust,Junagarh, Gujarat dated 17/04/2010 is against the Order No.WRC/APW02158/322239/131st/2010/65809 dated 10/03/2010 of the WesternRegional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting PTC course on thegrounds: “1) Certified copy of land document has not been submitted. 2) Staffaffidavit by the management not submitted. 3) Principal does not have adequateteaching experience as per the NCTE norms”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Somnath Educational and CharitableTrust (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated04/05/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the saidOrder. AND WHEREAS Shri. Karshanbhai M. Solanki, President, Somnath Educationaland Charitable Trust, Junagarh, Gujarat presented the case of the appellantinstitution on 19-06-2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it wassubmitted that land documents were provided in vernacular language and alsolegally authorized translation in English submitted by the appellant institution andthe same were registered in the name of Somnath Educational and CharitableTrust, all the land documents submitted by the appellant were certified by thecompetent authority; staff affidavit was furnished to the WRC; however, anotherstaff affidavit on Rs.100 stamp paper in the prescribed proforma was submittedalongwith the appeal; as per prevailing norms and standards, the Principal of theappellant institution was eligible for appointment as lecturer as he was having fiveyears experience in teacher training institute and the qualification of the Principalwas also as per NCTE Norms. During the presentation, the representative of theinstitution also submitted that a new Principal was subsequently appointed. AND WHEREAS the Council deferred its decision on that day for want of someinformation/documents from the WRC. It again considered the case on 17-02-2011. The Committe noted that (1) the appellant submitted an application to theWRC on 05-11-2005 for grant of recognition of PTT (PTC) course in the name of“Somnath Educational and Charitable Trust, Kodinor, Distt, Junagarh (the Trustname as well as institution name is same) and it submitted alongwith theapplication a lease deed dated 27-11-2005 in favour of the institution i.e. SomnathCharitable and Educational Trust for the premises at Survey No.270, Gohil Ni KhanKodinar for conducting P.T.C, B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. colleges. The lease deed did notmention the land and built-up area details. (2) WRC granted recognition videorder dated 15-09-2006 to “Somnath Educational and Charitable Trust” for

conducting P.T.C. course. The President of the institution/trust vide his letter dated30-10-2008 requested WRC for change of nomenclature and address of theinstitution from the existing “Somnath Educational and Charitable Trust”, C/oShivam Silk Palace, Opp. Government Hospital, At-Kodinar, Junagarh toMatushree Ajuben B. Solanki PTC College, Somnath Educational and CharitableTrust, Somnath Academy, Voraval Highway, Near Bypass, at-Kodinor, Dist-Junagarh, Gujarat. WRC in its meeting held on 12-14 November 2008 permittedthe change. However, no letter has been issued by the office to this effect. (3)WRC conducted an inspection u/s 17 of the NCTE Act on 13-10-2009. The visitingteam in its report mentioned that the institution “Matushree Ajuben B. Solanki PTCCollege, Kodinor has also been conducting B.Ed. (100 intake) and C.P.Ed. (50intake) courses in the same building”. The VT though mentioned a total land areaof 47784 sq.mt. and built-up area 3373.22 sq.mt. (B.Ed. 1551 sq.mt., C.P.Ed.-1217sqmt., PTC-1005.22sqmt.). It did not annex with its report any document in proof ofits availability. There were only 15 computers and 4250 books and labs and libraryfacilities were shared with other courses. AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that the appellant society was inpossession of land at various survey Nos. at village Gohil Ni Khan and it hasexecuted two sale deeds and four lease deeds for the immovable property atdifferent points of time. They are (a) lease deed dated 27-11-2005 for both landand building at Sy.No.270 (but area details are not mentioned) for conductingPTC, B.Ed., B.P.Ed. college. (b) Lease deed dated 16-06-2008 for 4400 sqmt. of landat SyNo.300, (built-up area details not mentioned). (c) Lease deed dated 13-6-2008 for 11059 sq.mt. of land at Sy.No.299 for B.Ed., C.P.Ed., PTC and M.Ed.colleges. (d) Lease deed dated 23-12-2004 for the property at Sy.No.269 for B.Ed.,B.P.Ed. and PTC college (land and built-up area details not mentioned). (e) Saledeed dated 23-10-2008 for 5649 sqmt. of land at Sy.No.270/1. (f) Sale deed dated29-12-2008 for 19026 sqmt. of land SyNo.292/2 and 302/1/11. In view of theavailability of so many pieces of land, it was not certain as to on which piece ofland the institution under reference is situated, and moreover, there is no mentionof the Sy.No. of the land by the VT and also did not annex any land document,building plan and building completion certificate alongwith its report obviouslybecause the institution did not made available the same to the VT. Further,land/building on private lease was permissible only during the period from 13-01-2006 to 09-12-2007, when the NCTE Regulations, 2005 were in vogue. From 10-12-2007, when the Regulations, 2007 came to force, private lease is not permissible.Therefore, the lease deeds dated 13-06-2007 and 16-06-2008 were notacceptable. In fact in the entire file there is no building completion certificatementioning the Kh.No., land and built-up area details. The file also contains twodifferent building plans. The one, submitted before the grant of recognition, wasfor school and hostel building, and the plan submitted on 15-01-2010 was for“Somnath Educational and Charitable Trust” for a built-up area of 3774.00 sqmt. ona plot area of 5649 sqmt. at Sy.No.270/1. The total plot area dimensions mentionedby the VT do not match with the dimension shown in the building plan. Though theinstitution maintained in the appeal that all the land documents were certified, theCouncil noted that the documents furnished were not certified. Further, it wasapparent that the Trust has been running a number of courses under differentcollege names. Therefore, it can not be ascertained as to on which piece of landthe present institution is located and what is the exact built-up area, as there is no

building completion certificate also. The institution did not submit any affidavit byManagement. Therefore, the Council came to the conclusion that a compositeinspection of all the courses/institutions under the banner of Somnath Educationaland Charitable Trust may be conducted by the WRC and further decision betaken only thereafter. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal,affidavit, VT report and after considering oral arguments advanced during thehearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground toaccept the appeal and reverse WRC’s order dated 10-03-2010 with direction tothe WRC for causing a composite inspection of all the courses/institutions underthe banner of Somnath Educational and Charitable Trust and taking furtherdecision thereafter. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Somnath Educational and Charitable Trust, C/O Shivam Silk Palace, Opp. Govt. Hospital, At- Kodinagar , Junagarh - 362720, Gujarat 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shayamala Hills, Bhopal - 462002. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar.

F.No.89 - 267/2010 - Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shri Siddharoodha B.Ed. College (Shri Venkateshwara Education Society), Dharwad, Karnataka dated 12/04/2010 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/2009-2010/18153 dated 25/03/2010 of the Southern Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds that 1) The institution has not shifted from rented/temporary premises to permanent premises, even after nine years since it was started. 2) Building completion certificate from the Govt. authority in the prescribed format is not submitted. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shri Siddharoodha B.Ed. College (Shri Venkateshwara Education Society) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 16/04/2010 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 Shri Siddharoodha B.Ed. College (Shri Venkateshwara Education Society), Dharwad, Karnataka was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 19-05-2010, 18-06-2010 & and also on 13-07-2010 giving third and final opportunity. AND WHEREAS according to appeal rules upto three chances are to be given to an appellant before deciding the case and the appellant had been given three opportunities but nobody appeared on all the three occasions before the Council. Therefore the Council decided to dispose the appeal of the institution on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith and also the documents available in the file of the SRC pertaining to the institution. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was granted recognition on rented premises vide SRC’s order dated 02-12-2004 with a condition to shift to own premises within three years from the date of recognition. The appellant in the memorandum of appeal submitted that the appellant institution commenced its session only from 2005 January; The construction of the own building could not be completed early due to heavy rains which lashed in the area till December 2009 and the appellant may require about two years maximum outer limit to complete the construction of own premises. So, from the submission of the appellant it was apparent that the construction of the building has not completed even after six years of date of recognition of institution and this was not acceptable for continuing recognition on rented premises. In view of this 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 VT report 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 25-03-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Shri Siddharoodha B.Ed. College (Shri Venkateshwara Education Society), Maratha Vidya Prasarak Mandal's Building, Bharath High School Campus, Soundatti Road, Dharwad - 580008, 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 Ajeetnath College of Teachers Education, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh dated 29/03/2010 is against the Order No. F.WRC/NCTE/2010/RL-63941 dated 29/01/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds: “The land area is only 0.239 hect which is not as per the NCTE norms 2009. The total required area is 2500 sq.mt. The institute did not fulfil the condition as required in clause 8 (7)(1) of NCTE Regulations 2009”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Ajeetnath College of Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 30/03/2010 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 Ajeetnath College of Teachers Education, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 19-05-2010, 18-06-2010 & 13-07-2010 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity) but nobody appeared before the Council on that day also. AND WHEREAS according to appeal rules upto three chances are to be given to an appellant before deciding the case and the appellant had been given three opportunities but nobody appeared on all the three occasions before the Council. Therefore the Council decided to dispose the appeal of the institution on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith and also the documents available in the file of the WRC pertaining to the institution. The appellant in the appeal memorandum stated that the institution submitted a registered land document for 0.239 Hect. (24450 Sq.ft.) of land to the WRC; the appellant institute also executed an agreement with the land owner for an area of 5000 Sq.ft. and therefore 30,000 Sq.ft. of land is in possession of the institute. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution submitted a registered land document for 0.239 hect. (2390 Sq.mt.) as against the requirement of 2500 Sq.mt. of land as per norms. Further an agreement made for 5000 Sq.ft. of land cannot be acceptable and this land area was not in lawful possession of the appellant on the date of submission of the application. As the appellant institute was not in possession of the requisite land as on the date of application, WRC was right in refusing recognition. 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 and affidavit, 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 29-01-2010 was confirmed.

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


1. The Secretary, Ajeetnath College of Teachers Education, Khasra No. 1746, Village & P.O- Rairu, 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 Shatabdi Institute of Education, Nashik, Maharashtra dated 16/07/2010 is against the Order No. WRCAPP231/Rejection/134th/2010/68036 dated 17/05/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. course on the grounds that Reply of the deficiency letter not received till date. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shatabdi Institute of Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 20/07/2010 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 Shatabdi Institute of Education, Nashik, Maharashtra was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 17-09-2010, 19-10-2010 & 21-12-2010 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity) but nobody appeared before the Council on that day also. AND WHEREAS according to appeal rules upto three chances are to be given to an appellant before deciding the case and the appellant had been given three opportunities but nobody appeared on all the three occasions before the Council. Therefore the Council decided to dispose the appeal of the institution on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal alongwith the documents annexed therewith and also the documents available in the file of the WRC pertaining to the institution. The appellant in the memorandum of appeal stated that the WRC issued deficiency letter to the institution on 25-02-2010 for submitting the reply within 60 days; the appellant incompliance of deficiency letter submitted its reply on 23-04-2010 through registered AD. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the submission of the appellant that he has submitted the reply by registered post within the time limit cannot be accepted as the appellant submitted a photocopy of the postal receipt dated 23-04-2010 and not the original receipt. It further perused the photocopy of the postal receipt submitted by the institution in the appeal and noted that the sender was not Shatabdi College of Education, but it was AVEW Trust College of Education. It further noted that the Trust “AVEW Trust Kalyan” has been running D.Ed., B.Ed. and M.Ed. programmes in the name of College of Education at Agaskhind and it has now proposed for D.El.Ed. programme recognition in the name of “Shatabdi College of Education” at the same village Agaskhind and this cannot be accepted as per NCTE’s mandate to prevent commercialisation of teacher education. Moreover the trust is also not eligible to submit another application for D.El.Ed. programme at the same place that is at village Agaskhind as recognition for D.Ed. programme was granted on 13-05-2008 and it has not completed three academic sessions for submitting new application as per clause 8(3) of NCTE Regulations 2009. In view of this 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, and affidavit, 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 17-05-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Shatabdi Institute of Education, Plot NO. 02, Post - Agaskhind, Tal- Sinnar, Nashik - 422502, 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 Shivchaleshwar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Solapur, Maharashtra dated 18/08/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW06329/1221869/136th/2010/68729 dated 25/06/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed(M) course on the grounds “1) Valid registered land documents has not been submitted. 2) Teaching experience certificate of the Principal not submitted”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shivchaleshwar Adhyapak Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/08/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shivchaleshwar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Solapur, Maharashtra was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 15-09-2010, 19-10-2010 & 25-11-2010 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity) but nobody appeared before the Council on that day also. AND WHEREAS according to appeal rules upto three chances are to be given to an appellant before deciding the case and the appellant had been given three opportunities but nobody appeared on all the occasions before the Council. Therefore the Council decided to dispose the appeal of the institution on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal and the documents annexed therewith and also the documents available in the file of the WRC pertaining to the institution The appellant in the memorandum of appeal stated that the land in question has already been allotted by the British Govt. hence no documents viz. land purchase deed is not available. Only the property documents are available and the same have been submitted to the WRC; the principal is appointed on 01-04-2008 and he is having five years teaching experience in D.Ed. college. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that though the appellant made a submission in appeal memorandum that the Principal was having five years teaching experience in a D.Ed. college, but he did not submit any supporting document to this effect. The appellant also did not submit any registered land document/putta deed in proof of having land on ownership basis in the name of the society/trust which is a mandatory requirement. In view of this, 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, 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 25-06-2010 was confirmed.

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


1. The Chairman, Shivchaleshwar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Maindargi, Tal-Akkalkot, 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.

F.No.89- 1174/2009-Appeal NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION


O R D E R WHEREAS the appeal of Shakti Shiksha College (Hirdey Sewa Sanstha), Mangawan, Madhya Pradesh dated 30/09/2009 is against the Order No. No. WRC/APW07935/223815/2009/57099 dated 04/07/2009 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed. (H) (Co-Ed) course on the ground “The land ownership is not in the name of the Trust”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Shakti Shiksha College (Hirdey Sewa Sanstha) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 01/10/2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Shakti Shiksha College (Hirdey Sewa Sanstha), Mangawan, Madhya Pradesh was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 20-04-2010, 19-05-2010 and 18-06-2010 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity) but nobody appeared before the Council on that day also. AND WHEREAS according to appeal rules upto three chances are to be given to an appellant before deciding the case and the appellant had been given three opportunities but nobody appeared on all the occasions before the Council. the Council therefore decided to close the appeal file of the institution. Therefore the Council decided to dispose the appeal of the institution on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal and the documents annexed therewith and also the documents available in the file of the WRC pertaining to the institution. The appellant in the memorandum of appeal stated that the land is in the name of Shri. Vikas Tiwari, who is the Chairman of Society and the Chairman has no objection in using the land for college. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that as per NCTE Regulations 2007 which were applicable in the instant case, the appellant trust/institution shall have land either on ownership or on long term lease from Govt./Govt institutions. The land as admitted in the memorandum of appeal is in the name of an individual that is Mr. Vikas Tewari and this cannot be accepted as per the provision in the NCTE regulations. 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, 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 04-07-2009 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The President, Shakti Shiksha College (Hirdey Sewa Sanstha), 10/7, Mangawan, Rewa, NH - 7,, Mangawan - 486111, 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 Kalimpong Govt. Primary Teacher's Training Institute, Distt. Darjeeling, West Bengal dated 05/03/2010 is against the Order No. ERC/7-103.9.5.17/2009/2950 dated 13/01/2010 of the Eastern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the grounds “1) The compliance to the Show Cause Notice dated 19/11/2009 has not been done by the institution. 2) The institution has submitted a fresh application (ERCAPP123) as per NCTE Regulations, 2009. The fresh application submitted by the institution is being processed by the ERC. 3) Requisite number of teaching staff not appointed as per NCTE norms. 4) The Principal & Teaching Staff is not qualified as per the NCTE norms”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Kalimpong Govt. Primary Teacher's Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 10/03/2010 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 Kalimpong Govt. Primary Teacher's Training Institute, Distt. Darjeeling, West Bengal was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 19-05-2010, 18-06-2010 and 13-07-2010 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity) but nobody appeared before the Council on that day also. AND WHEREAS according to appeal rules upto three chances are to be given to an appellant before deciding the case and the appellant had been given three opportunities but nobody appeared on all the occasions before the Council. Therefore the Council decided to dispose the appeal of the institution on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal and the documents annexed therewith and also the documents available in the file of the ERC pertaining to the institution. The appellant in the memorandum of appeal submitted that (1) the institution furnished its reply to the notice dated 19-11-2009 of ERC; (2) As per State Govt. Education Deptt. The total sanctioned strength of academic staff is a Principal and four Lecturers. Out of five sanctioned posts, one post of principal and two posts of lecturers remained vacant and the vacant posts are being managed by ad-hoc appointments; (3) that appellant institution is an old institution established on 10th March 1950 by the State Education Department, West Bengal and the faculty had been appointed as per the State specified norms. The post of principal is lying vacant and Mr M. Bhujal, senior lecturer is performing the duty of Principal in-charge and he is being OBC candidate is qualified for the post of the principal as per NCTE norms. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the appellant has admitted that the institution does not have qualified and requisite faculty as per NCTE norms and therefore it 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, 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 13-01-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Lecturer-in-Charge, Kalimpong Govt. Primary Teacher's Training Institute, Ringkingpong Road, P.O. Kalimpong, Distt. Darjeeling - 734301, 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 J.K.S. Institute of Technical & Teachers Education, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh dated 18/05/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/APW07959/222469/130th/2010/65995 dated 19/03/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, withdrawing recognition for conducting D.Ed course on the ground: “The institution neither submitted the document mentioned in the show cause notice nor give plausible explanation in respect of grounds (i) & (iv) of the show cause notice”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, J.K.S. Institute of Technical & Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 24/05/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS J.K.S. Institute of Technical & Teachers Education, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 19-07-2010, 16-08-2010 and 16-09-2010 giving last opportunity (3rd & final opportunity) but nobody appeared before the Council on that day also. AND WHEREAS according to appeal rules upto three chances are to be given to an appellant before deciding the case and the appellant had been given three opportunities but nobody appeared on all the occasions before the Council. Therefore the Council decided to dispose the appeal of the institution on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal and the documents annexed therewith and also the documents available in the file of the WRC pertaining to the institution. The appellant in the memorandum of appeal stated that the appellant had already submitted to the WRC registered land documents, land use certificate, approved building plan, permission of local authority to occupy the building. The approval of SCERT for the staff of D.Ed. course is pending with the SCERT. It submitted to the WRC proper explanation for the show cause notice grounds. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that WRC vide its show cause notice dated 28-12-2009 inter-alia informed the institution that it contravened sub clause (13) of Clause 8 of the NCTE Regulations 2007 (i.e. upgradation of infrastructure facilities as per revised norms of NCTE) and also Clause 4.1 of appendix 2 of the NCTE Regulation 2007 (i.e. staff appointments and qualification). It also informed the institution to submit the documents related to land, building and approval of the staff. the Council perused the reply dated 16-01-2010 of the institution that was submitted to the WRC and noted that the institution did not submit documents sought in the show cause by the WRC, it just stated that the documents were submitted to the WRC before grant of recognition. It also stated in the appeal that approval of SCERT for the staff of D.Ed. course was pending with the SCERT. The institution did not furnish the details of land, building and faculty in its reply to the show cause notice. In view of this 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, 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 19-03-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Director, J.K.S. Institute of Technical & Teachers Education, Ekta Puri Colony, Gudi Guda Ka Naka Lashkar Kampoo, 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 Kamlesh Mahavidyalaya, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh dated 21/09/2010 is against the Order No. WRC/WRCAPP258/138/2010/69536 dated 28/07/2010 of the Western Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. course on the ground “The building of the proposed college does not exist.” AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Kamlesh Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 22/09/2010 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said Order. AND WHEREAS Kamlesh Mahavidyalaya, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 12-11-2010, 06-12-2010 and 28-01-2011 giving third and final opportunity, but nobody appeared before the Council on all the three occasions. AND WHEREAS according to appeal rules upto three chances are to be given to an appellant before deciding the case and the appellant had been given three opportunities but nobody appeared on all the occasions before the Council. Therefore the Council decided to dispose the appeal of the institution on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal and the documents annexed therewith and also the documents available in the file of the WRC pertaining to the institution. The appellant in the memorandum of appeal submitted that the building of the appellant in which the college is proposed to be run, was complete in all respects and before the application was made for recognition. The Society was running a school in that building which has been shifted to some other premises and existing building was augemented as per the NCTE norms for the purpose of starting the college for D.El.Ed. course. The visiting team that inspected the institution on 27-05-2010 visited the same building. WRC issued show cause notice on the ground that “the VT was mislead by the institution by showing school building as the college building, when in reality the college building does not even exist.” Appellant submitted the reply of show cause notice clarifying that the building of the appellant was earmarked for the college purpose with newly constructed/augmented building as per the NCTE Norms and the school is already shifted to the rented premises well before the time of inspection. The appellant also attached the building completion certificates given by the authorities; That, the WRC, without considering the reply/representation of appellant, passed the refusal order in a mechanical way vide order no. WRC/WRCAPP258/138/2010/69536 dated 28-07-2010. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the visiting team in its report dated 27-05-2010 inter-alia stated that the school building was repainted and shown to the team and the size of the rooms of the school was too small, even the number of the rooms was much less than NCTE Norms; and they did not recommend for opening up a college of education for running a D.El.Ed. course in a school building in which a school was being run since last 10 to 15 years. The appellant in its reply dated 16-07-2010 sent in response to the show cause

notice of WRC enclosed a rent agreement executed in favour of the society on 15-07-2010. From this document it was apparent that the appellant had been conducting the school in the building shown to the VT on 27-05-2010 as the rent agreement was made much after the date of inspection. 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 VT report the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC’s order dated 28-07-2010 was confirmed. NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


1. The Secretary, Kamlesh Mahavidyalaya, Plot / Khasra No. 567, Village - Raipura, PO./ Raipura Teh./Tal.Raun, Town Raun, Bhind - 477441, 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 Vineeth Education Society's Vineeth Teacher Training Institute, Bangalore, Karnataka dated 14/03/2008 is against the Order No. F.SRO/NCTE/D.Ed./2006-2007/12124 dated 26/09/2007 of the Southern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. course on the grounds “1) The built up area is 4500 sq.ft. not adequate for D.Ed. course. 2) The land and building accommodation is not as per NCTE norms. 3) The size of rooms not adequate. 4) There are only 1500 books available in the Library”. AND WHEREAS the Correspondent, Vineeth Education Society's Vineeth Teacher Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 19/03/2008 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 Vineeth Education Society's Vineeth Teacher Training Institute, Bangalore, Karnataka was asked to present the case of the appellant institution on 12-11-2010, 07-12-2010, 28-01-2011 and also on 14-02-2011 giving special opportunity, but nobody appeared before the Council on all the occasions. AND WHEREAS according to appeal rules upto three chances are to be given to an appellant before deciding the case and the appellant had been given three opportunities but nobody appeared on all the occasions before the Council. Therefore the Council decided to dispose the appeal of the institution on the basis of the written representation made in the appeal and the documents annexed therewith and also the documents available in the file of the SRC pertaining to the institution. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that 1) the appellant had earlier filed an appeal dated 14-03-2008 against the refusal order dated 26-09-2007, which was received in the NCTE on 19-03-2008; the appeal was late by five months and further the appellant also did not submit full appeal fee of Rs. 10,000/- rather submitted only Rs.1000/-. The Council vide letter dated 26-03-2008 informed the institution for submission of balance appeal fee of Rs.9, 000/- and also the reasons for delay. The appellant vide letter dated 11-04-2008 submitted the reasons for condonation of delay; however he did not submit balance appeal fee of Rs.9, 000/-. NCTE vide letter dated 21-04-2008 informed the institution for submission of appeal fee of Rs.9,000/-; when the institution did not remit the balance appeal fee of Rs.9,000/-, the Council vide letter dated 05-08-2008 informed the institution that the appeal has not been admitted for being incomplete and be treated as disposed accordingly. 2) that thereafter SRC, vide their letter dated 25-08-2010 forwarded a copy of the Court order dated 23-06-2010 of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The Hon’ble High Court had disposed of the writ petition No.1956/2008 with the directions that “if the petitioner files an appeal alongwith the necessary application for condonation of delay within fifteen days from today, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.” The appellant did not file afresh any appeal alongwith the necessary application for condonation of delay within 15 days as directed by the Hon’ble Court and also did not submit balance amount of

Rs.9,000/- towards appeal fee. However to avoid further delay in disposal of appeal, NCTE vide notice dated 12-11-2010 informed the institution for personal appearance on 25-11-2010 before the appeal committee alongwith the reasons of delay and for submission a DD of Rs. 9,000/- at the time of hearing. When the appellant did not turn up on that day, NCTE issued three more notices on 07-12-2010, on 28-01-2011, and also on 14-02-2011. But on all the occasions the appellant did not appear before the appeal committee for presenting its case. The Council observed that as per appeal rules three opportunities have to be given to the appellant for presenting its case personally before deciding the appeal and the appellant was given sufficient opportunities accordingly, but nobody appeared before the appeal committee on all the occasions. So, the Council decided to dispose of the appeal based on documents furnished in the earlier appeal and in the light of the Hon’ble Court directions dated 23-06-2010. AND WHEREAS the Council observed that the appellant vide his letter dated 11-04-2008 submitted the reasons for delay stating that “It was not possible to prefer the above appeal since some of the papers were misplaced. Thereafter, the appellant thought it expedient to file a writ petition in W.P. 1956/08 instead of preferring the above appeal. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka rejected the writ petition reserving liberty to the appellant to prefer above appeal. The inability and omission on the part of the appellant to prefer the above appeal within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.” the Council noted that the reasons submitted by the appellant for condonation of delay were not justifiable and hence they cannot be considered for condonation of delay of five months. The Council further noted the appellant did not file an appeal alongwith the reasons for condonation of delay afresh, incompliance with the directions of the Court order dated 23-06-2010. The appellant also did not make any correspondences with NCTE in reference to the NCTE’s notices dated 12-11-2010, 07-12-2010, 28-01-2011 and 14-02-2011. The appellant neither submitted any application for condonation of delay subsequent to the Hon’ble Court directions nor remitted the balance appeal fee of Rs.9,000/- and therefore it came to the conclusion that the appeal cannot be admitted as it is incomplete and further the delay caused in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Accordingly the delay was not condoned and appeal was not admitted.


1. The Secretary, Vineeth Education Society's Vineeth Teacher Training Institute, No. 1, 383, 'B', 2nd Main Road, Pillanna Garden, 3rd Stage,, Bangalore - 560045, Karnataka 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore - 560 031. 4. PS to Chairperson 5. The Secretary, Education (looking after Teacher Education) Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

f.no.89-1073/2010 appeal national council for teacher ... of spl. meeting _15th mar2011_.pdf ·...

Documents