MINUTES OF 164TH MEETING OF NRC HELD ON AUGUST 28-29, 2010
MINUTES OF 164TH MEETING OF NORTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE HELD FROM 28TH TO 29TH AUGUST 2010The 164th meeting of the Northern Regional Committee (NRC), National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) was held from 28-29 August 2010 at Conference Hall, NRC, NCTE, Jaipur.
In pursuance of the Gazette Notification No. 213 dated 25.08.2010, NRC has been terminated under Section 21(2)(a) of NCTE Act, 1993 and the powers and duties on behalf of the Northern Regional Committee shall be exercised and performed under Section 21(2)(b) by Shri Hasib Ahmad, Member Secretary, NCTE. Consequent upon his superannuation on the afternoon of 31st August, 2010, Shri Hasib Ahmad shall continue to exercise the powers and duties on behalf of the Northern Regional Committee under Section 21(2)(b) of NCTE Act, 1993.
The following member and convener were present:.
1.Shri Hasib Ahmad, Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi
2.Shri R.D. Sharma, Regional Director/ Convener, NRC, NCTE
With the permission of the Member Secretary, Sh. R.D. Sharma,(Convener) presented the Agenda before the Committee. Item-wise decisions taken as follows:
AGENDA ITEM NO.164.01.00CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF NRC
S. NO / AGENDA NO. / SUBJECT / DECISION OF NRC1 / 1 / The minutes of 163rd meeting and emergency meeting of NRC have been uploaded on the website. / Minutes are confirmed.
AGENDA ITEM NO.164.02.00CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT CASES
S. NO / AGENDA NO. / NAME OF THE INSTITUTION / GIST OF THE CASE / DECISION OF NRC2 / 1 / Shri Onkar Singh Memorial Women’s TeacherTrainingCollege, Pasand Nagar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan
(RJ-857,B. Ed. Course) / The Institution filed a writ petition no. 11083/2010 in the High Court of Rajasthan and the High Court has passed an order dt. 19.08.2010 which is as under:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Pareek wants time to file reply to the writ petition and the stay application. Put up after four weeks. Mr. Peush Nag undertakes that the land title which is in the name of the petitioner No. 2 will be transferred in the name of the petitioner No. 1 within a period of one month. Mr. Nag also undertakes that the petitioner will use the land only for the institution and not for the other purpose. In the meanwhile withdraw of the recognition of the petitioner institution for B. Ed. Course from the session 2010-2011 as contained in the minutes of Northern Regional Committee 163rd meeting held on July 29 to 31, 2010 (Annexure-20) will remain stayed. / Noted.
The matter is sub-judice. The NRC's Advocate must file reply to the Writ Petition within stipulated time and plead for vacation of stay, with the liberty to the institution to approach Appellate Authority under section 18 of the NCTE Act.
3 / 2 / Jawahar Lal Nehru Teacher’s Training College Sakatpura, Kota -324008 Rajasthan
(RJ-1089,M. Ed. Course)
(RJ-389, B. Ed. Course) / The Institution filed a writ petition no. 10958/2010 in the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur and the High Court has passed an order dt. 10.08.2010 which is as under:-
1. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma has supplied the copy of the writ petition to Mr. Sanjay Pareek. Mr. Sanjay Pareek wants to file reply to the writ petition and the stay application. Put up after four weeks. In the meanwhile withdrawal of the recognition of the petitioner institution for Shiksha Shastri Programme from the session 2010-2011 and M.Ed. Course from the session 2010-2011 as contained in the minutes of Northern Regional Committee 163rd meeting held on July 29th to 31st ,2010 (Annexure-12) will remain stayed. / Noted.
The matter is sub-judice. The NRC's Advocate must file reply to the Writ Petition within stipulated time and plead for vacation of stay, with the liberty to the institution to approach Appellate Authority under section 18 of the NCTE Act.
4 / 3 / RawalCollege of Education, Vill- Near Village Zakopur, The. Ballabhgarh, Distt- Faridabad, Haryana.
(HR-1767,B. Ed. Course) / The institution has served advance contempt notice dated 10.08.2010 which is as under:-
- That the justice has been delayed to my client on account of misreading or non-reading of relevant provision of regulations. The case be considered in the light of the aforesaid regulations and in the light of reply already submitted by my client to the observations made in 163rd meeting concluded on 31.07.2010.
- For the forgoing it is requested your goodself to take the matter of my client at the earliest in the forthcoming emergency meeting oft the NRC/NCTE and an appropriate order be passed in the light of the regulations stated above in the notice as in the light of reply dated 4.8.2010/7.8.2010 filed by my client to your goodself, failing which my client shall be constrained to approach the courts of law for filing a petition for statutory contempt committed by the Committee/Council by going against its own regulations at your costs and expenses.
The reply of the institution was considered by NRC in its 163rd meeting and it was decided to issue the show cause notice only on one account i.e. the land is not registered in the name of the institution. The reply to the show cause notice dated 04.08.2010 has been considered in the light of clause 8(7)(iv) of NCTE Regulations 2009 and it was decided to issue the Letter of Intent under clause 7(9) of Regulations 2009. (The question of transfer of land will arise after grant of formal recognition order to the institution and will be decided in terms of the provision under clause 8(7)(iv) ).
5 / 4 / J.R.MemorialCollege of Education, Near UmaBhartiSchool, Jhajjar Road, Rewari, Haryana
(HR-1033, D.Ed Course)
(HR-415, B.Ed Course) / The institution filed a writ petition no. 5394/2010 & CM No. 10632/2010 in the High Court of Delhi & the court has passed an order dated 11.08.2010 which is as under:-
1. The decision taken by NRC, NCTE in its 163rd Meeting held from 29th to 31st July 2010 to withdraw recognition to B.Ed Course from 2010-2011 of our college has been stayed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
2. You are requested to intimate and direct M.D.University, Rohtak to get our college name included for admission to B.Ed course for the session 2010-2011 as per the stay orders as early as possible because University has excluded our college name from the list of the colleges entitled for admission to B.Ed course session 2010-2011.
3. Please acknowledge. / Regional Director, NRC may intimate the position of the college to the University as per the Court’s directions.
6 / 5 / Asaram Agarwal Education & Research Society (E-Max College of Education), Vill- Chandigarh, Plot No. Sco 904, Post- Manimajra, Tehsil- Chandigarh, Distt- Chandigarh
(HR-1212,B. Ed. Course) / The institution vide CWP No. 15072/2010 has sought a relief from the High Court of Punjab, Haryana & Chandigarh for correction in the address of the institution.
Remarks:
The institution applied for B.Ed. course in the name of E-Max College of Education, Vill- Gola(PO) Badauli, Tehsil- Mulana, Dist- Ambala, Haryana on 12.12.2007. Some correspondence were made in the name of Asaram Agarwal Education & Research Society. The after consideration of VT the Show Cause notice was issued in the name of E-Max College of Education at the above address. But inadvertently the recognition order dated 09.07.2010 has been issued in the name of Asaram Agarwal Education & Research Society (E- Max college of Education) Vill- Chandigarh,Distt- Chandigarh.
Now the institution vide letter dated 17.08.2010 has requested to correct the address and issue recognition order accordingly.
In view of the above the matter may be considered for decision accordingly. / Issue a corrigendum for change of address. This is on the basis of verification of the original application as the institution initially applied for recognition of E-Max College of Education, Vill. Gola, P.O. Badauli, Distt. Ambala, Haryana and was sponsored by Asaram Agarwal Education & Research Society, Manimaji, Chandigarh.
7 / 6 / KhajanSinghGirlsDegreeCollege, VPO- Kagarol, Tehsil- Kheragh, District- Agra-283119, Uttar Pradesh.
(Course- B. Ed, UP-3476) / The said institution had applied for seeking recognition for the course B.Ed. in the office of NRC on 31.10.2008.
The application was rejected by NRC vide order No. F.NRC/ NCTE/UP-3476/ 162nd Meeting /2010/ 25720-726 dated: 16/07/2010 on the ground that the deficiencies communicated to the Institution through letter number NRC/NCTE/UP-3476/159 Meeting/2010/22189 dated 14/05/2010 still exist.
The said institution had filed a writ petition No. 43704/2010 in the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad against the order of NRC.
The Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad has passed order dated 02/08/2010 in the said writ petition. The same is as under:-
“This petition seeks the quashing of the decision taken by the Northern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as he ‘NCTE’) in its 162nd meeting held form 24th June to 27th June, 2010 by which the application filed by the petitioner-Institution for grant of recognition to B. Ed. Course was rejected on the ground that the deficiencies communicated to the Institution still existed.
It is pointed out by Shri P. S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, assisted by Shri Aditya Kant Sharma, learned counsel that the decision earlier taken by the Northern Regional Committee on 22nd June, 2009 was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 21st December, 2009 and the matter was remitted to the Northern Regional Committee for fresh decision. The Northern Regional Committee then issued a show cause notice dated 14th May, 2010 to the Petitioners to which a detailed reply dated 31st May, 2010 was submitted by the petitioner before the Northern Regional Committee along with documents but without taking into consideration the said reply and the documents, only a cryptic order has been passed by the Northern Regional Committee mentioning that the deficiencies still exist. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that all the deficiencies have been removed and the Northern Regional Committee committed an illegality in rejecting the application.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Respondent No. 2 is represented by Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, while respondent No. 3 is represented by Shri R. A. Akhtar.
It is the submission of Shri R. A. Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-NCTE that the petitioners can still challenge the decision taken by the Northern Regional Committee before the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the National Counsel for Teacher Education Act, 1993 as they had done earlier.
This submission of learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the decision taken by the Northern Regional Committee does not record any reason as to why the objections filed by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
In this view of the matter, the decision takes by the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE from 24th June to 27th June, 2010 is set aside. The Northern Regional Committee shall decide the application submitted by the petitioner-Institution for grant of recognition to the B. Ed. Course expeditiously, preferably within a month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioners.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.”
The original file of the said Institution along with the copy of Court order dated 02/08/2010 is placed on the table before NRC for taking decision in compliance of Court order dated 02/08/2010 in the matter. / The original file of the institution along with all other related documents, the order of the appellate authority dt. 21.12.09 which remitted the matter to NRC for fresh decision, the Show cause notice giving reasons on which the NRC took a view that the deficiencies still exist etc.,were considered. Thereafter the reply received from the Institution dt. 31.05.10 was carefully considered in the light of Hon'ble High Court order dt. 02.08.10.
(i) The first reason for the rejection of the said institution is that the land is not in the name of the institution; The observation is valid - but then that could have been accepted as the institution is yet to be recognized; provided the land was in the name of the society sponsoring the institution. A careful perusal of the land documents reveal that the land is in the name of Sh. Indrapal S/o Ramvir Singh whose designation has been indicated as Director of the Raghuram Educational Society which is sponsoring the institution. Thus the land is in the name of the individual but not in the name of the society as stipulated in the NCTE regulation.
There is an entry by name in the Khatauni produced by the petitioner in his reply to the Show cause notice. This entry has been matched with the registered land documents submitted along with the application wherein land has been registered in the name of Indrapal Singh, S/o Ramvir Singh which is not in accordance with the NCTE regulations 2009.
In the land documents, his designation as the Director of the society has not been mentioned. As such the land remain in the individual name and not in the name of the society. This would be in violation of Regulations.
(ii) The institution in its reply claimed that the building of the institution is complete, but then; the VTR in its report was categorical in its observation that the building is partially incomplete "and the final touches were to be given". The photographs submitted by the institution to claim that the building was complete are totally inadequate to establish that building is complete in all respect. Even the photographs submitted clearly shows that the windows of the institution are without any doors, the windows are open with iron grill only; which makes the class room & building totally unsuitable to run an Educational Institution.
(iii) The next deficiency pointed was that the multipurpose hall is small in size and without proper infrastructure, has been examined in the light of the reply received supported by photographs. Even if the claim that the size of the classroom/multipurpose hall is as per NCTE norms is accepted, the furniture of the multipurpose hall is not at all adequate. The same class room furniture is replicated in multipurpose hall, which makes the multipurpose hall unsuitable for the purpose for which the multi purpose hall is established in teacher education colleges.
The observations of the Visiting team in their report mentioned that the furniture in multipurpose hall is not appropriate, is therefore valid and is further strengthened by photos submitted by the institution in its counter claim.
(iv) The building completion certificate submitted by the institution has neither been prepared by an architect nor has been signed by the engineer of Rural Engineering Services Department. The building completion certificate submitted was simply signed by the Gram Pradhan. Therefore the Building completion certificate so submitted was inadequate as it also did not indicate the land and exact location of the land like plot number /Khatauni number etc.,
(v) The explanation of the institution with respect to the 15 computers that are available in the institution may be accepted, as the same is in consonance with the Visiting team report which has mentioned that there are 8 old and 7 new computers.
(vi) The contention of the institution that the land is consolidated in single piece is accepted as they do possess 2.04 hactres of land in khasra no. 132/1 on which building has been constructed which has been verified from the building plan submitted.
The claim of the institution that all of its labs. are developed and the reply has been substantiated by certain photographs. The same could not be established, as the institution did not submit proper supporting documents like list of equipments in each lab, copies of the stock registers wherein the entries of each item are mentioned which every institution must possess as an essential document. Even the photos submitted clearly indicate that the labs have not been properly developed and certain equipments are kept as displayed items on the tables in small rooms.
(vii) With regard to the class rooms & Black boards, the institutions claim that the class room is adequate and larger black board have been made available in the classrooms has been accepted.
(viii) The reply of the institution with regard to the observation that the books in the library are not entered in accession register and not arranged properly and the number of titles of books in the library are not as per NCTE norms; the same could not be established by the institution in a fair manner. Even if it may be accepted that institution has prepared the accession register. The list of books purchased and shown by way of bills from a book seller of Agra does not establish the fact that the books have been actually purchased by the institution; since the bills are undated and no indication has been given about actual purchase of these books ,this document is such which can be easily obtained from the book seller even without a purchase.
In view of the above and after considering overall situation of institution, the NRC came to the conclusion that the institution still lacks the basic requirements in instructional facilities , land not being in the name of society but in the name of the individual, nature of the building being incomplete, inadequate, and unsuitable to run the educational institution, inadequate laboratory facilities and inadequate library resources., the NRC felt that the institution does not deserve to be recognized as a teacher training institution to offer a B.Ed. programme.