minutes of 275th src meeting 01-02 dec, 2014 - 1 and minutes 2014/minutes/minutes of 275th... ·...

275th Meeting of SRC 1st – 2nd December, 2014

(S.Sathyam) Chairman

1

SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

BANGALORE

Minutes of the 275th Meeting of SRC held at the Conference Hall of NCTE,

Bangalore on 1-2 December, 2014

The following Persons attended the Meeting:-

1. Shri S.Sathyam I.A.S (Retired) - Chairman

2. Prof. K.Dorasami - Member

3. Dr.M.P.Vijaykumar, I.A.S (Retired) - Member

4 Prof. Sandeep Ponnala , - Member

5 Prof. M.S. Lalithamma. - Member

6. Dr. R. Ayyappan (TN). - Member

7. Shri. S.Jagannath Reddy (TG), - Member

8. Mr. A. Ajith Prasad (KA) - Member

9. M.S.S.Lakshmi Watts (AP), - Member

10. Dr. P. Revathi Reddy. Non-Member Regional Director - Convenor

1.The following Members did not attend the Meeting. Dr. (Smt.) Padma Sarangapani, Member, and the Representatives of the Govts. Of Kerala, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry & Andaman & Nicobar Islands.



2

SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

BANGALORE

DECISION OF 275th MEETING OF SRC-NCTE

1 Confirmation of Minutes of 274th Meeting held on 30-31 Oct, 2014

Confirmed

2 Action Taken Report (ATR) on the Minutes of 273rd Meeting held on 30th Sept, & 1st Oct, 2014.

Noted

Sl. No.

Code No Course

Name of the institutions

State

Remarks

1) APS07245 B.Ed

Viveka College of Education, Prakasam,

Andhra Pradesh.

AP

Viveka College of Education, D.No.16-137, Kothapeta, Vaddesangam,

Papayapalem Post, Chirala, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra

Pradesh.

Viveka Educational Society, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh had

submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of

recognition to Viveka College of Education, D.No.16-137, Kothapeta,

Vaddesangam, Papayapalem Post, Chirala, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam

District, Andhra Pradesh for B.Ed course of one year duration on 28.06.2006.

An inspection team was constituted by SRC-NCTE which visited the institution on

20.12.2006 to verify the essential documents as per Appendix -1B of NCTE

Regulations, Human Resources, infrastructural and instructional facilities provided

by the institution for the said course.

The report of the inspection team was placed before the Southern Regional

Committee in its 126th meeting of SRC held during 20th to 23rd February, 2007.

Upon consideration of the documents available in the original file related to the

institution, the Southern Regional Committee resolved to issue notice on the

following ground;

• The building facilities provided for the above programme are not only found old but also found inadequate according to NCTE norms.

Accordingly a notice was issued to the institution on 14.03.2007. The written



3

representation submitted by the institution on 15.03.2007 was considered by SRC

in its 131st meeting held on 10th & 11th April, 2007, and decided to refuse the

recognition for B.Ed course on the following reason;

• The building is not suitable for conducting the B.Ed programme as the management has constructed the building for school and hostel.

Accordingly a refusal order was issued to the institution on 19.04.2008. Aggrieved

by the refusal order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs. The

appellate authority in its order dated 08.08.2007 directed to SRC to grant

recognition to the institution immediately. In obedience to the appellate authority

order a conditional recognition letter was issued to the institution on 10.09.2007.

The institution has submitted reply on 17.09.2007 which was considered and

granted recognition to the institution on 17.09.2007.

The office of SRC has received a letter dated 06.03.2007 from the Government of

Andhra Pradesh pointing out certain deficiences followed by complaints from

different quarters. The matter was placed before SRC in its 150th meeting held on

28th-29th December 2007. After careful consideration of the complaints SRC

decided to conduct inspection under secton 17 of NCTE Act, 1993. Accordingly

the inspection of the institution was conducted by the expert team on 23.04.2008.

Upon consideration of the inspection team report of the inspection conducted

under section 17th and other documents furnished by the institution were placed

before SRC in its 161st meeting held during 6th and 7th August, 2008. The

Committee after careful consideration of all aspects including various provisions

contained in various section of NCTE Act 1993 decided to serve a Show Cause

Notice on the following grounds:-

• The institution has to submit modified absolute, unconditional, irrevocalble lease deed for a period of 30 years for proposed B.Ed course.

• The built up of 7690 sq.ft. not adequate for B.Ed course.

• The books in the library are not adequate for B.Ed course.

• The size if all rooms is not as per NCTE norms.

• The lease building is not suitable to run the B.Ed course.

• The immovable property rent aggreement not acceptable as per NCTE rules.

Accordingly a Show Sause Sotice was issued to the institution on 07.10.2008 and

10.10.2008. The institution has submitted reply to Show Cause Notice was placed

before SRC in its 166th meeting held on 18th and 19th October, 2008. The

Committee decided to withdraw the recognition of the institution on the follwing

grounds:-

1. The institution has submitted rental lease document for 30 years as per Regulation, 2005 and got recognition. The institution did not get registered unconditional, irrevocable, absolute lease, rather and argument is given that it is already taken care of as per the Rent Control Act, Andhra Pradesh. The institution did not adhere to the rules



4

and regulations and norms and standards of NCTE. 2. As per the building plan submitted along with application the institution

proposed a boys hostel with a plinth area 139.14 sq.mts. a girls hostel with a plinth area 139.14 sq.mts and admin block 612.92 sq.mts. total 891.20 sq.mts. for the B.Ed course whereas 1500 sq.mts.space is required for B.Ed course. The plan submitted by the institution does not indicate the same is meant for B.Ed course. The plan submitted by the institution does not indicate the same is meant for B.Ed course. The visiting team which visited the building identified 7690 sq.ft built up space only which is inadequate for running B.Ed course.

3. The management has started the B.Ed course in a rented leased building as per the Regulation dated 27.12.2005. In respect of norms and standards, the institution has to comply with any of the changes, before the commencment of the next academic session. The relevant part of the norms and standards, the para 13 of NCTE regulation dated 21.07.2007 reads as follows: "Whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for the course or training in teacher education, the institution shall comply with the requirement laid down in the revised norms and standards immediately but not later than the date of commencement of the next academic session, subject to conditions prescribed in the revised norms."

4. The institution has not taken any compliance effort in this regard. 5. The institution does not have adequate space for B.Ed course. Further

the room size is not adequate for an institutional purpose as per NCTE norms.

6. Building is not suitable and congenial for running B.Ed class. 7. Library does not possess adequate books relating to B.Ed course. 8. The institution still does not meet with the requirements of infrastructure

and instructional facilities as stipulated in the NCTE norms and standards with regard to books, journals and equipments in Science, Psychology and ET labs, which are inadequate and insufficient.

9. The institution violated the provisions contained under various sections of NCTE Act and regulations thereunder.

Accordingly a withdrawal of recognition was issued to the institution on 22.10.2008

vide order No. F.SRO/NCTE/Ref/2008-09/6226. for the proposed B.Ed course as

per section 15(3)(b) of NCTE ACT.

Aggrieved by the withdrawal order, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE

Hqrs and the Appellate authority of NCTE, New Delhi in its Appeal order dated

19.12.2008 rejected the appeal and the order of SRC was confirmed.

A Court Notice was received by this office on 15.01.2009 from the Hon'ble High

Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No.27859 of 2008

dated 23.12.2008 in which NCTE is the 2nd Respondent.

Accordingly, parawise comments was sent to Advocate on 23.02.2009.

On 02.02.2009, a letter from Mr. C.K. Ramaswamy, Under Secterary, NCTE-Hqrs

Vide No. 64-9/2009/NCTE/Legal/90332, dated 28.01.2009 with request for

necessary action to defend the case including on behalf of NCTE(Hq). A copy of



5

the Court Order dated 23.12.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.36520 of 2008 in W.P.No.27859

of 2008 was received by this office on 23.02.2009.

The Honb’le High Court order dated 23.12.2008 in W.P.M.P.No. 36520 of 2008 in

W.P.No. 27859 of 2008 is as under :-

"There shall be interim suspension as prayed for Notice."

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition No. 4682 of 2009, the High

court may be pleased to Vacate the interim orders dated 23.12.2008

passed in W.P.M.P.No. 36520 of 2008 in W.P.No. 27859 of 2008 and

dismiss the present Writ Petition.

The Honb’le High Court on 06.07.2010 in W.V.M.P.No. 2390 of 2009 in W.P.M.P

No.36520 of 2008, in W.P.No. 27859 of 2008 has passed an order as under :-

"WVMP No. 2390 of 2009 is filled to vacatc interim order, dated 23.12.2008

in WPMP No. 36520 of 2008.

The writ petitioner, which is running a B.Ed Colloege, filed the Writ petition

questioning order, dated 16.12.2008, passed by respondent No.2,

withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner-College from the academic

year 2008-09.

At the hearing, Smt. G. Jhansi, learned Counsel representing the learned

Standing Counsel for vacate stay applicants - respondents submitted that

the main reasons for withdrawing the recognition were that inadequate

space and failure of the petitioner to submit immovable property rent

aggrement as per the council's requirement.

N.Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to

a copy of the registered lease deed, dated 02-06-2006, and submitted that

petitioner has complied with the conditions in the regard. He further

submitted that the finding in the impugned order that the total space is only

891.20 square meters in contrary to the information furnished by

respondent No. 2 on 22-10-2008 under Right to Information Act to the

effect that the petitioner provided 1308 square meters.

While the respondents say that the lease deed should be unconditional,

irrevocable and absolute, according to the petitioner, it complies with all

these aspects need to be examined in the Writ Petition.

As the interim order is subsisting since 23rd December, 2008, and the

dispute mainly centers around the nature of the lease deed and the

inadequate space, I find the elements of balance of convenience and

irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner to continue the interim order.



6

WVMP is dismissed and WPMP is accordingly disposed of.

However, in view of the urgency pleaded by the learned counsel for the

respondents, post the Writ Petition for ' final hearing on 13.09.2010".

A letter was issued to the Advocate Shri. K. Ramakanth Reddy, on 16.05.2014

with request to provide the present status of WVMP 2390 of 2009 in WPMP 36520

of 2008 in WP No. 27859 of 2008 filed by the institution in the Hon'ble High Court

of Andhra Pradesh.

On 17.10.2014 an e-mail has been received from the Advocate Shri. Ramakanth

Reddy, dated 16.10.2014 pertaining to Viveka College of Education stating as

under:-

“WVMP 2390/2009 in WPMP 36520/2008 in WP27859/2008 was dismissed by

Hon’ble High Court on 06.07.2010 during the tenture of earlier standing counsel

Sri. B. Adninarayana Rao, Advocate.

On 07.11.2014 a court order was received through an e-mail from Shri

Ramakanth Reddy, dated 05.11.2014 is stated as under:-

"Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2.

The Petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent on

28.06.2006 for starting a college of education in the name of 'Viveka

College of Education' at Chirala after fulfilling all the requisite formalities as

per NCTE Regulations. The application of the petitioner was scrutinized as

per the NCTE Regulations which were published in the Gazette of India on

13.01.2006. After scrutinizing the application of the petitioner, the second

respondent sent a deficiency letter dated 08.08.2006. The petitioner stated

that it submitted registered rent agreement in English and they were asked

to submit English version of the lease deeds. He further stated that the

other deficiencies mentioned in the deficiency letter were fulfilled and

submitted to the second respondent on 20.08.2006. The second

respondent after satisfying with the submissions of the petitioner sent its

application to the State Government on 28.09.2006 for its

recommendations. But the State Government did not send any

recommendation within the stipulated period of 60 days. In such a case, it

shall be presumed that the State Government has no recommendations.

The State Government inspected the premises of the petitioner on

20.12.2006. It appears that the State Government sent a report on

06.03.2007 long after stipulated time. The second respondent, by the time

of sending the report, took the decision in Februray, 2007 in normal course

and consequently refused the recognition to the petitioner on 19.04.2008.

The report of the visiting team of the second respondent was placed before



7

the SRC in its meeting held on 20th / 23rd Februrary, 2007, pursuant to

which a show cause notice dated 14.03.2007 was issued under Section

14(3) (b) of the NCTE Act stating that the applicant does not fulfill the

requirements as per the norms and standards laid down by NCTE. The

petitioner preferred an appeal to the NCTE appellate authority against the

order dated 15.05.2007 and the NCTE appellate authority reversed the

order of SRC by its order dated 08.08.2007 directing the SRC to grant

recognition to the petitioner-institution and the SRC granted the conditional

recognition to the petitioner-institution on 10.09.2007. After fulfilling all the

formalities, the SRC granted unconditional recognition to the petitioner on

17.09.2007. The third respondent-University also gave affilation after its

inspection. On 03.10.2007 the State Government inspected the petitioner's

college second time and included the college in the counselling and allotted

students. Again the SRC visited the college on 23.04.2008 after the new

norms came into force on 21.07.2006. Later the counselling for B.Ed., was

commenced since 15.09.2008 and students were alloted to the petitioner-

institution. At that time a show cause notice dated 26.08.2008 issued to

the petitioner to submit explanation with regard to the various lapses in

providing infrastructure and the petitioner submitted its explanation on

10.10.2008 and the same was placed before the SRC in its meeting held

on 18th -19th October, 2008 and it was decided to withdraw the recognition

from the academic session 2008-2009 on the grounds mentioned in the

order dated 22.10.2008. Challenging the said order, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent

rejected the same, confirming the order of the SRC dated 22.10.2008.

Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.

This Court by order dated 23.12.2008 granted interim suspension of the

said order and by virtu of the same, the petitioner-institution is continuing

as on today.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the deficiencies pointed

out by the second respondent in its letter were fulfilled and there is no

complaint against the petitioner-institution for its sucessful continuation

pursuant to the earlier order of this Court. However, with regard to the

consideration of factual aspects, the second respondent only is the

competent authority to form an opinion on this aspect. In view of the same,

the petitioner is given liberty to file a detailed representation on the grounds

mentioned in the order of the second respondent dated 22.10.2008 within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along

with necessary material and on receipt of the same, the second respondent

shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with

law within a period of three months thereafter. Interim order granted by this

Court on 23.12.2008 shall continue till the disposal of the representation of



8

the petitioner by the second respondent.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous

petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

No order as to costs."

The Committee considered the matter, Court order dated 05.11.2014, decided that, as directed by the High Court advised Southernn Regional Office to ask the College to submit all relevant documents before 31 Jan, 2015.

2) APS09749 B.Ed

Prathiba College of Education, Kurnool, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

Prathiba college of Education, Plot No. Sy No. 153, Soharapuram, Kurnool District-518002, Andhra Pradesh An application was submitted by Sai Prathiba Educational Society, Prathiba college of Education, Plot No. 87-1328-A, Engineer Colony, Kurnool District-518002, Andhra Pradesh for grant of recognition to Prathibha College of Education, Sy No. 153, Soharapuram, Kurnool District-518002, Andhra Pradesh for B.Ed course in the office SRC- NCTE , Bangalore vide dated 31.03.2008. As per records, the file was under process and in the meanwhile, in view of the recommendation of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh not to further recognize/permit the institutions for conducting B.Ed, D.Ed, Physical Education, Language Pandit courses, a public notice was issued on 01.10.2008 to this effect that application for B.Ed, D.Ed, Physical Education, Language pandit Courses from the states of Andhra Pradesh will not be considered for the academic session 2009-2010 and all such applications shall be returned along with processing fees and documents. SRC in its 169th meeting held on 12-13th January, 2009 having considered the letter dated 07.01.2009 of State Government of Andhra Pradesh and decided to give effect to the decision of State Government of Andhra Pradesh as such with immediate effect. A letter dated 20.03.2009 forwarded by Principal Secretary of Education requesting not to accord further recognition/premises to the new colleges/private B.Ed, D.Ed, Physical Education, Language Pandit in the state of Andhra Pradesh as the above colleges are exceeding in numbers than required. Hence the application (APS0 9749) for recognition/permission for B.Ed course, received in the office of SRC on 31.10.2008 was returned along with documents, processing fee of Rs. 40,000 vide DD bearing no. 044670 dated 30.04.2009 and the application submitted by Sai Prathiba Educational Society, Prathiba college of Education, Plot No. 87-1328-A, Engineer Colony, Kurnool District-518002, Andhra Pradesh is here by closed. Accordingly, closure order was issued to the applicant institution on 05.05.2009 as per direction of Regional Committee. The institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

W.P.No.30729/2010. The Hon’ble High Court order dated 16.06.2011 is as



9

under:-

“ The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 1 in not considering its application dated 30.10.2008, to accord permission to start B.Ed college, in view of the directive of the state of the Andhra Pradesh in its policy, dated 07.01.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has bought to my notice order of this court in W.P.No. 6712 of 2009, dated 06.12.2009, which has also been followed another learned single Judge of this court W.P.No. 9360 of 2010 and passed order directing respondent 3 therein i.e., National Council for Teacher Education to consider the application of petitioner therein without reference to the policy of the State Government, dated 07.01.2009.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner without reference to the State Government’s Policy, dated 07.01.2009, within a period of two months from the date of receipts of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs”.

The Court order dated 16.06.2011 along with original file was placed before SRC for its direction. The SRC in its 211th meeting held during 21st -23rd September, 2011 decided to

arrange to file an Appeal against the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad

immediately and also to arrange for getting the judgment stayed with immediate

effect, in the light of High Court judgment WP No. 11831/2009 dt.

27/07/2011.(copy enclosed as per website information).

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to Shri.. P. Vinayaka

Swamy, the then Advocate, for NCTE in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh on 17.10.2011.

In the meanwhile, a letter was received by this office on 20/08/2014 from the

President/Correspondent, Sai Prathibha Educational Society, Plot No. 16 Nandyal

road, Kurnool, dated 16/08/2014 stating as under:-

"I invite your kind attention to the subject cited above where in my

application to offer a B.Ed Course dated 30/10/2008 was rejected keeping

in view of the policy of Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 07/01/2009.

Having been aggrieved by your decision, I filed W.P.No. 30729/2010 in

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which directed you to consider my

application without reference to the policy of the State Government dated

07/01/2009. In advert to the said judgment, I requested you to consider my

application with reference 1,2,3 and 4 cited above [(1). Judgment of the

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No.30729/2010, (2) My letter

dated 05/09/2011 to Regional Director SRC, NCTE. (3) My letter dated

24/12/2011 to Regional Director SRC, NCTE. (4) My letter dated



10

11/01/2014 to the Regional Director SRC, NCT]) and as on the day of

writing this letter, I have not yet received any communication from you.

In view of the facts mentioned above I am here with submitting request to

consider my application as per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and do justice."

The Southern Regional Committee in its 272nd Meeting held during 1st – 2nd

September, 2014 considered the matter, Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad,

judgment dated 27.07.2011, letter from the institution dated 16.08.2014, decided

and advised Southern Regional Office to ask our Lawyer to report immediately on

the status of our decision to file an appeal against the High Court Order.

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to the advocate Shri.

Ramakanth Reddy on 10.10.2014 requesting him to report the status of appeal

which was to be filed in W.P.No. 30729 of 2010 as per the decision of 211th

meeting of SRC.

On 27.10.2014, (in response to this office letter dated 10.10.2014), an e-mail is

received from Shri. Ramakanth Reddy stating as under :-

“ With reference to your letter cited with regard to the status of appeal

requested to be filed on the orders in WP mentioned in the subject, it is

informed that writ appeal is not filed by the then advocate Vinayaka Swamy

in the year 2011.Since there is a delay of more than three years it is well

advised to comply with the orders of the Hon’ble Court in the writ petition.”

The Committee considered the matter, e-mail dated 27.10.2014 from the Lawyer, decided that the irresponsibileness of the (then) lawyer representing SRC has caused this avaoidable embarrassment and hassle. Anyway, let us accept the present lawyer’s advice and advised Southern Regional Office to process the case further.

3) APS08856 B.Ed

C.K.S College of Education,

Vellore, Tamilnadu

TN

C.K.S College of Education, No. 75, R.S. Road, Gudiyattam, Vellore District, Pin-632602, Tamilnadu C.K.S College of Education, No. 75, R.S. Road, Gudiyattam, Vellore District, Pin-632602, Tamilnadu had submitted an application for B.Ed Course on 29.06.2007. The institution was granted recognition on 03.04.2008 with an annual intake of 100 students. The institution vide its letter dtd. 21.11.2011 has submitted proposal for shifting of premises for B.Ed and D.T.Ed courses. The SRC in its 206th meeting held on 09th-10th June, 2011 considered the VT report of the institution and permitted for shifting of premises for D.T.Ed course only as the inspection was carried out for D.T.Ed (APS04978) course. The institution was requested to submitted proposal for shifting of premises separately for B.Ed course on 17.02.2012. Accordingly, the institution has submitted documents and DD bearing no. 902501 dtd. 27.02.2012 for Rs. 40,000/-



11

towards shifting of premises and had stated that the C.K.S. College of Educaiton, Kakathoppu, Gudiyattam has shifted to the New Building constructed in 2009-2010 for B.Ed course. After completion of construction work, the C.K.S College of Education has been shifted to the New Building on 27.03.2010 new address to the C.K.S College of Education, Chettikuppam Post, (Via) Melalathur, Gudiyattam Taluk, Vellore District, Pin-635806. The SRC in its 222nd meeting held on 09th-10th May 2012 considered request of the institution vide letter dt. 21.11.2011 and all relevant documents and decided to cause shifting inspection of B.Ed (APS08856) course at the new premises and to examine whether the institution fulfills all the requirements as per the norms, for the B.Ed programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the institution, as per the norms and NCTE Act. Further, committee decided to inform institution to pay Rs. 10000/- towards inspection fee, as it has been raised to 50000/- with effect from 01.04.2012. Accordingly, the inspection of the institution was conducted on 12.06.2012. Both B.Ed and D.T.Ed courses are running in the same building. The SRC in its 229th meeting held on 30th-31st July, 2012 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show cause Notice under NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Show cause notice was issued to the institution on 29.08.2012. The institution had submitted its written representation on 05.10.2012. The SRC in its 235th meeting held on21-22nd Nov 2012 considered the reply of the institution vide letters dt. 05/10/2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under NCTE Act, for the following:

• The institution has submitted balance amount of Rs. 10000/- towards inspection fee. DD submitted to be revalidated.

• Photocopy of Non- encumbrance certificate appears to be over written, original up-to-date encumbrance certificate along with notarized English version issued by sub-registrar is to be submitted.

• Original approved blue print of the building plan is not submitted. The submitted building plan is showing the dimention of 3 floors only in the sheets. The building plan showing the existing/proposed construction for all 3 floors with proper earmarkation for both B.Ed and D.T.Ed courses is not submitted.

• Land usage certificate is not originally notarized. Moreoever, it is issued for “Exclusive utility purpose of standing and maintenance of CKS Educational Trust” instead of running institution. Sy.No. 86/2B is mentioned in LUC, whereas in other documents sy.No., 86/2 us shown.

• Staff list is not duly approved by affiliating body.

• Staff profiles in original is not submitted.

• The institution has not appointed Principal so far.

• Salary is being paid by cash not through Bank Cheque.



12

• No documentary proof is submitted towards appointment of Lecturer(s) in Fine Arts/Physical Education.

Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 31.12.2012. The institution had submitted its written representation on 07.01.2013. The SRC in its 241st meeting held on 29th – 31st March & 01st April, 2013 considered the written reply of the institution vide letter dt. 07.01.2013 on the above matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw recognition for the following reasons:-

• The institution has not submitted approved staff list for both B.Ed and D.T.Ed courses duly approved by the University/affiliating body.

• Notarized English version of Encumbrance certificate not submitted.

• No documentary proof is submitted towards appointment of Lecturer(s) in Fine Arts. Marks chard of Physical Education Lecturer has not submitted.

• No documentary proof is submitted for paying salary through Bank Cheque.

• Marks cards and experience certificate of Principal is not submitted.

• Staff profile as per Annexure I, II & III not submitted. Based on the above points the committee decides to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed & D.T.Ed courses run by the C.K.S. College of Education, No. 75, R.S. Road, Gudiyattam, Vellore District – 632 602, Tamilnadu, from the D.T.Ed academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed & courses, if any, to complete their course. Accordingly, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 10.05.2013. The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE, Hqrs and the Appellate Authority vide order no. F.No.89-430/2013-Appeal/14th Meeting- 2013 – A77084 dated 30.10.2013 received in the office of SRC on 08.11.2013 has stated as follows:

“after perusal of the documents, Memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC confirmed.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against”. The SRC in its 255th meeting held on 13-15 November 2013 considered the appellate authority order dated 30.10.2013 and the committee has noted the matter. In the meantime, a letter received from the Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 02.12.2013 stating that “…..W.P.No.31205 of 2013 filed by C.K.S.Educational Trust with a request to send me immediately parawise comments so as to enable me to prepare the counter affidavit and to do the needful. Please forward a copy of the original shifting application submitted by the petitioner in respect of D.T.Ed., course since the petitioner alleged that the said application is for both D.T.Ed and



13

B.Ed”. An interim court order in W.P.No.31205 of 2013 and MP 1 and 2 of 2013 dated 19.11.2013 received by SRC on 05.12.2013 stating as follows:-

“….Order: These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and these affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel for M/s.T.S.Baskaran, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr.G.Anandarajan, Standing Counsel takes notice for 3rd respondent in all the petitions and of Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Standing Counsel for NCTE in all the petitions the court made the following order:-

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.G.Anandarangan, learned standing counsel takes notice for 3rd respondent.The petitioner is permitted to serve notice on Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for NCTE indicating that matter will be taken up for hearing on 27.11.2013. in the meantime, the 3rd respondent is directed to keep the proceeding for withdrawal of affiliation pending. Post on 27.11.2013.”

Again, an interim court order in W.P.No.31205 of 2013 and MP 1 and 2 of 2013 dated 27.11.2013 received by SRC on 09.12.2013 stating as follows:-

“….Order: These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and these affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel for M/s.T.S.Baskaran, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr.G.Anandaragan, Standing Counsel takes notice for 3rd respondent in all the petitions and of Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Standing Counsel for NCTE in all the petitions the court made the following order:-

Post the matter on 03.12.2013. Interim Order is extended in the meantime.” A letter from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate dated 07.12.2013 received by SRC on 09.12.2013 along with counter affidavit. Accordingly, a letter was sent to Sri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 24.12.2013 along with duly signed counter affidavit. An interim court order in W.P.No.31205 of 2013 and MP 1 and 2 of 2013 dated 06.01.2014 received by SRC on 02.01.2014 stating as follows:-

“….Order: These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and these affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel for M/s.T.S.Baskaran, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr.G.Anandaragan, Standing Counsel takes notice for 3rd respondent in all the petitions and of



14

Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Standing Counsel for NCTE in all the petitions the court made the following order:-

Respondent has filed counter. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to go through the counter.

Post on 21.01.2014. Interim Order already granted is extended till then.”

Again, an interim court order in W.P.No.31205 of 2013 and MP 1 and 2 of 2013 dated 03.12.2013 received by SRC on 20.01.2014 stating as follows:-

“….Order: These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and these affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel for M/s.T.S.Baskaran, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr.G.Anandaragan, Standing Counsel takes notice for 3rd respondent in all the petitions and of Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Standing Counsel for NCTE in all the petitions the court made the following order:-

Learned counsel for the respondents requests four weeks time for filing counter. Post after four weeks for counter and disposal. Interim Order already granted is extended till then.”

An e-mail received from Sri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate dated 18.06.2014. A court order in W.P.No.31205 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 and 1 of 2014 dated 14.08.2014 received from Hon’ble High Court at Madras on 21.08.2014. The court order stating as follows:-

“…..In the result, I am inclined to allow the writ petition as prayed for by setting aside both the orders passed by the original authority and the Appellate Authority. Though a number of judgements have been cited by both the learned counsel, I am not referring to any one of them, as this writ petition could be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Further, all the judgements cited are distinguishable on facts and it is settled law that no judgement can be applied in a straight jacket formula when the facts are totally different.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, other miscellaneous petitions are also closed.”

The SRC in its 272nd meeting held on 1-2 September considered the matter, Hon’ble High Court, Madras order, dated 14.08.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to ask our Lawyer to advise on the desirability of filing a ‘review ‘petition or an ’appeal’. In the face of definite’ deficiencies’ the Court could not have quashed our order and restored recognition. There were errors apparent on the face of the record. In the meantime, a letter from Sri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate received on 02.09.2014 regarding filing an affidavit in respect of W.A.No._____ of 2014 to be



15

filed against the order in W.P.No.31205 of 2013. A letter was sent to Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 05.09.2014 informing the decision of 272nd meeting. An e-mail dated 09.09.2014 has been received from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate stating as follows:-

“…I have already sent original affidavit to be filed in support of the stay application, I am yet to receive back the same. Since 30 days limitation for filing writ appeal was expiring by 07.09.2014, I have filed the writ appeal on 05.09.2014, to save the limitation. As soon as I receive the duly signed affidavit from your office I will take steps to file the same and to move the writ appeal for admission.”

A letter to Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate was sent along with forwarding of signed affidavit on 16.09.2014. A letter dated 01.09.2014 received from NCTE-Hqrs on15.09.2014 requesting to challenge the order dated 14.08.2014 by filing Appeal/LPA immediately. Accordingly, a letter was sent to Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 24.09.2014 along with copy of NCTE-Hqrs letter dated 01.09.2014 An e-mail has been received from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 29.09.2014 regarding writ appeal is not numbered since court is on ‘Dhasara Vacation’ affidavit will be filed on 06.09.2014. An e-mail has been received from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 12.11.2014 stating as follows:-

“…writ petition was filed against your order of recognition of withdrawal of recognition is pertaining to both D.T.Ed and B.Ed course, the above mentioned writ petition W.P.No.31205 of 2013 is filed only in respect of B.Ed course. Inspite of production of several judgements by which similar writ petitions were dismissed, the learned judge allowed the subject W.P.No.31205 of 2013 on 14.08.2014. against the said order the above mentioned W.A.No.1412 of 2014 filed on 05.09.2014 and the same came up for admission today i.e., 12.11.2014. While admitting the writ appeal, interim stay of operation of the said order passed in W.P.No.31205 of 2013 has been granted. As soon as I receive the stay order copy I will forward the same to you.”

Now, a letter received from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 21.11.2014 along with court interim order in MP.No.1 of 2014 in W.A.No.1412/2014 dated 12.11.2014. the court order stating as follows:-

“…Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to pass an order of interim stay of operation of the order passed in W.P.No.31205 of 2013 dated 14.08.2014 pending WA.No.1412 of 2014.



16

ORDER: This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order:-

Notice. Interim stay. The Committee considered the matter, interim stay order dated 12.11.2014, and decided that: 1.The High Court order is noted. 2.Await further directions from the Court when the case is finally decided and 3.Advised Southern Regional Office to inform the University concerned of the High Court order.

4) APS04081 B.Ed

Best Teacher Education Institute,

Mayiladuthurai, Tamilnadu.

TN

Best Teacher Education Institute, Peninsula building, 26/54 Mayura Nathar North Street, Mayiladuthurai-609001, Tamilnadu

Best Teacher Education Institute, Peninsula building, 26/54 Mayura Nathar North Street, Mayiladuthurai-609001, Tamilnadu had submitted an application for D.T.Ed Course on 31.12.2004. The institution was granted recognition on 02.09.2006 with an annual intake of 50 students, with the condition to shift to own premises within 3 years.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, based on the inquiry report submitted by Sri. Sathyam, IAS (Retd) had directed NCTE that all the cases (including this) cleared by SRC in its 116th meeting held 22nd-23rd August, 2006 should be re-inspected and the maintenance of Norms and Standards should be verified. The above institution was one amongst 71 institutions, which was granted recognition in the 116th meeting. Based on the directions of MHRD, inspection under Section 17 of the above institution was carried out on 16.12.2008. The VT report, VCD, original application file along with other documents were placed before SRC in its 169th meeting held on 12th-13th January on 05.03.2009. The institution submitted its reply on 05.05.2009. The institution had submitted its written representation alongwith Rs. 40,000/- towards inspection fee on 01.05.2009. The institution filed a writ petition No. 8952/2009 in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras against the SRC letter dated F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/10562 dt. 05.03.2009. The court granted interim stay. Accordingly, a letter was issued to the Advocate to vacate the stay. The SRC in its 180th meeting held on 29th July 2009 considered the reply and decided to defer the matter and await for outcome of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP. No. 8952/2009, which the management had filed relating to the inspection of the institution. A letter was sent to the Advocate to inform the current status of



17

the stay, if any. The Inspection of the institution was fixed between 30th May to 4th June 2011. The same was intimated to the institution on 24.05.2011. Inspection of the institution was conducted on 30.05.2011. Pending receipt of information from Advocate VTR is placed before SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st-23rd September, 2011. The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st-23rd September, 2011 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show Cause Notice under NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Show Cause notice was issued to the institution on 28.11.2011. The institution had submitted its written representation on 02.01.2012.

The SRC in its 216th meeting held on 11th-12th January, 2012 considered the reply of the institution dt. 01.01.2012, VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve another Show Cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 25.02.2012. The institution had submitted its written representation on 21.03.2012.

The reply of the institution to the show cause notice was duly considered and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persist as under:

1. Certified copy of the sale deed from competent Govt. authority is not submitted. Notarised English version of the certified copy land documents not submitted. Land documents submitted is in individual name, which is not permissible as per NCTE norms.

2. Approved blue print of the building plan issued by competent civil authority is not given. In the building plan submitted, total earmarked land area is not given.

3. Original building completion certificate from competent Govt. authorized engineer is not submitted.

4. Encumbrance certificate in English version is not submitted.

The reply to the show cause notice is not satisfactory and unconvincing.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the SRC in its 223rd Meeting held on 29th-31st May 2012 decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to refuse and reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.T.Ed course.

Accordingly, rejection order was issued to the institution on 25.06.2012.

The institution preferred appeal to NCTE, Hqrs and the Appellate Authority vide order no. F.No.89-507/2012 Appeal/10th Meeting-2012 dtd. 11.12.2012 has stated as follows:-

“ after the perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserved to be accepted. The case is remanded to the SRC for further processing subject to production of a Building Completion Certificate in the prescribed format.



18

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Best Teacher Education Institute, Nagapattinam, Tamilnadu to the SRC, NCTE for necessary action as indicated above

The SRC in its 237th meeting held on 05th-06th January, 2013 considered the Appellate authority order dt. 11/12/2012 and decided to further process the application of the institution subject to production of Building Completion Certificate in the prescribed format.

The institution has submitted its written representation dated 27.12.2012 and 27.03.2013 received by SRC on 07.01.2013 and 28.03.2013 along with Building Completion Certificate.

Accordingly, the application has been processed as per the appellate authority order.

The matter was placed before SRC in tis 240th meeting of SRC 09th -11th March, 2012 due to shortage of time deferred the case and the SRC in its 241st meeting held on 30th -31st March & 01st April 2013 and decide to Find out from Advocate (i)What happened to the Stay & (ii) What is the latest position in the case. Report in the 242nd Meeting. Minutes not yet finalized.

Accordingly, a letter was sent to the advocate on 12.04.2013 to submit the latest position of the case regarding stay and reply is awaited.

The SRC in its 242nd Meeting held on 14th-16th April, 2013 and SRC decided to ascertain facts from lawyer and report on 30th April, 2013.

In this regard, the advocate has not yet replied. However, a Reminder letter was issued to the advocate to know the latest position of the stay on 29.04.2013.

The SRC in its 243rd meeting held on 29th- 30th April 2013 considered the matter and decided to remind the Advocate to ascertain the facts. Accordingly, a reminder letter sent to the advocate on 17.05.2013.

The advocate has not yet replied to this office letter dated 17.05.2013.

In the meantime, the institution vide its letter dtd. 31.05.2013 has stated that “we have furnished information regarding “Building completion certificate” three months ago under reference 2 and 3. As it is the admission time now, we request you to be kind enough to grant us recognition for D.T.Ed., course so as to enable to enroll fresher’s for the academic year 2013-2014”.

The SRC in its 247th meeting held on 20-22 June 2013 considered the matter and on scrutiny of all the records/documents of the institution submitted, the following deficiency is still persisting;

1. The Institution does not have title to the land; the land is in individual’s name, which is not permissible as per NCTE regulations 2009.



19

Further, the committee noted that, on many occasions letters were written to advocate from this office to ascertain the facts regarding obtaining ‘stay’ , again its decided to write to the lawyer to apprise the court of this position and seek vacation of stay and dismissal of the case; and allow us to proceed with action as per law.

In the meantime, an e-mail has been received from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 22.06.2013 stating the petitioner withdrew the earlier writ petition W.P.No.8952 of 2009 has filed fresh W.P.No.16610 of 2013.

A letter was sent to Sri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 08.07.2013 along with forwarding of counter affidavit pertaining to W.P.No.16610 of 2013 filed by Best Teacher Training Institute and requesting to defend the case on behalf of SRC-NCTE and NCTE-Hqrs.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 19.05.2014 and 01.09.2014 requesting to give original FDRs towards Endowment fund and Reserve fund.

A reminder letter was sent to Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 08.09.2014 requesting to provide the latest position of court case in WP No.16610 of 2013.

A court order in W.P.No.16610 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 dated 28.10.2014 received from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy on 21.11.2014. The court order stating as follows:-

“ORDER: The learned counsel for the petitioner has given a letter dated 20.10.2014 to the Registry, seeking permission of this court to withdraw the writ petition.

2. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.

The Committee considered the matter, Court order dated 28.10.2014, and advised Southern Regional Office to process the appeal-remand case after the new Regulations have been notified.

5) APS07517 B.Ed

Sri Pallavan College of Education,

Vellore, Tamilnadu.

TN

Sri Pallavan College of Education, No.1, Bharathiyar Salai,Vellore- 632001,Vellore District, Tamilnadu Pallavan College of Education, No. 1, Bharathiyar Salai, Vellore, Pin-632001, Tamilnadu was granted recognition for B.Ed course on 03.02.2007 with an annual intake of 100 students, with the condition to shift to own premises within 3 years. The institution vide its letter dated 03.08.2012 has submitted DD bearing no. 951530 dtd. 31.07.2012 for Rs. 50,000/- towards shifting of premises. The SRC in its 230th meeting held on 16th-17th August 2012, considered the request of the institution vide letter dt.08-08-2012 and all other relevant documents and decided to cause inspection, to examine whether the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms. Accordingly, the inspection of the institution was fixed between 10th-11th September 2012. The same was intimated to the institution on 04.09.2012. The inspection of



20

the institution was conducted on 18.09.2012. The SRC in its 235th meeting held on 21st-22nd November, 2012 considered the VT report of the institution and other related documents along with the original file of the institution for shifting to new/permanent premises and decided to permit shifting to new premises is permitted, subject to the condition that submission of approved staff list within 2 months as per NCTE norms. Accordingly, permit shifting order was issued to the institution on 15.02.2013. The institution has not submitted approved staff list even after stipulated period of 60 days. The SRC in its 254th meeting held on 25th-27th October 2013, considered the matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw recognition for the following reasons:- After inspection of the institution on 18-09-2012 for shifting, the committee in its 235th meeting held on 21-22nd Nov, 2012, permission was accorded to the institution for shifting to the new premises, subject to the condition that submission of approved staff list within 2 months as per NCTE norms, accordingly, shifting order was issued to the institution on 15.02.2013.

Even though, the institution was given sufficient time to submit the approved staff list within 2 months from the date of permission for shifting was given, the institution failed to submit the approved staff list as per NCTE norms till date. The institution has not submitted its reply even after a lapse of stipulated 2 months and after lapse of time period of more than 252 days (more than 8 months). Accordingly, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 08.01.2014. In the meantime, the institution has submitted its written representation on 05.03.2014 along with photocopy of approved staff list by Tamilnadu Teachers Education University dated 06.01.2014. This office has received an e-mail from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate dated 06.03.2014 along with counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent (SRC, NCTE). Accordingly, a letter to Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy was sent on 06.03.2014 along with forwarding counter affidavit. The SRC-NCTE has received an Office Memorandum from NCTE-Hqrs vide No. F.No.89-120/2014 Appeal/A84973 dated 25.03.2014/28.03.2014 on 01.04.2014. Accordingly, the original file was sent to NCTE-Hqrs on 16.04.2014. In the meantime, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras court order in W.P.No.6868 of 2014 and M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 has been received by SRC on 13.06.2014 stating as follows:-



21

“…..when the respondents are able to establish before this court that even though, the petitioner college was granted time till the commencement of the next academic session to give the approved staff list, they took ten months’ time to get the approved staff list, therefore, in my considered opinion, the respondents are justified in their action in withdrawing the recognition. Therefore, the question of non-issuance of show cause notice does not arise at this stage as the conditional order of shifting has not been complied with. This court only adds that now that the petitioner college has got its own building and also got the approved staff list, therefore, the first respondent should take into consideration for the grant of recognition and affiliation for the academic year 2014-15. It is always open for the petitioner to make necessary representation in this regard. I find no infirmity or illegality to set aside the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.” The matter was placed before SRC in its 269th meeting held on 1-2 July 2014 and Committee has noted the matter.

In the meantime, the institution has submitted its written representation on 30.06.2014 stating that “…….our College may kindly be permitted to admit the students for the B.Ed course for the academic year 2014-15 as a special case”.

Again, the institution has submitted its written representation on 15.07.2014 along with NCTE-Hqrs appellate authority order, approved staff list and affidavits of staffs. The institution has stating that “…..to consider our request favorably and grant suitable order to restore recognition to our college, so as to run the college continuously and smoothly.”

The NCTE-Hqrs. appellate authority order along with original file was received by SRC on 25.07.2014 stating as follows:-

“…..after perusal of the memorandum of appeal. affidavit, documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to consider the staff list approved by Tamilnadu Teachers Education University and take a fresh decision. The appellant is directed to forward the approved staff list to the SRC within 15 days of issue of orders in the appeal for SRC's consideration immediately. In the meanwhile the withdrawal order shall remain in abeyance.

The Council hereby remands back the case of Pallavan College of Education, Vellore, Tamilnadu to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.”

The SRC in its 271st meeting held on 1st August 2014 and the committee considered the matter and decided to process after notification of new Regulations.

In the meantime, the institution has submitted its written representation on 18.08.2014 stating as follows:-

“as per the appeal order from NCTE New Delhi, we have submitted our request letter (ref.3) along with appeal order copy and staff list approval from the



22

Tamilnadu Teachers Education University, Chennai (in original) and other connected documents, Annexure-I, Annexure-II, Annexure-III in original submitted to the SRC NCTE in person on 14.07.2014 (copy of acknowledgement herewith enclosed for your ready reference).

As we were eagerly awaited for a positive decision from your office, unfortunately our file has been kept pending, with a comment of “process after notification of new regulations”.

We submit to your kind notice that our college is an existing one and not a New proposed institution. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court directions as well as Chennai High Court directions, the new regulations which are to be published in future, only covers the pending applications and new colleges, not for existing colleges. Further we want to clarify that, the impugned order (APS07517/B.Ed/TN/2013-14/56045 dated 08.01.2014) has been set aside by the Appeal committee (Head Quarters) of NCTE, New Delhi and they given a specific line that “the appellant is directed to forward the approved staff list to the SRC within 15 days of issue of orders in the appeal for SRC’s consideration immediately. In the meanwhile the withdrawal order shall remain in abeyance.”With all the above facts the SRC-NCTE Bangalore has not considered our case as a existing institution and felt erroneously as a new case and put into the pending list along with the new cases as per the SRC’s 271st meeting held on 01.08.2014 vide item No.59.Now, we earnestly request your good self to review our file and consider our case as an existing one and pass favorable orders for the Restoration of the Recognition in respect of our Pallavan College of Education, Vellore, Tamilnadu at your earliest.”

The SRC in its 272nd meeting held on 1-2 September 2014 considered the matter, written representation of the institution vide letter dated, 18.08.2014 and it has decided as follows:- 1. In accordance with the instructions in the circular issued by Member Secretary., all appeal-remand cases have to be put on hold till the new Regulations are notified. Take action accordingly and inform the institution. 2. The appellate authority’s order runs counter to the Court Order. Draw this to

their notice and seek advice on further action to be taken.

Accordingly, the counter affidavit has been received from High Court Madras by e

mail on 19.09.2014.

Accordingly, a letter to Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy was sent on 22.09.2014 along with forwarding duly signed counter affidavit. A reply letter was received from K. Ramakrishna Reddy Advocate on 22.09.2014. A letter dated 16.09.2014 has been received from Tamilnadu Teachers Education University on 22.09.2014 and stated as follows: “…..the NCTE, SRC, Bangalore granted recognition to Pallavan College of Education, Vellore District for conducting B.Ed course for one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students.



23

Whereas in the reference 2nd cited, the Tamilnadu Teacher Education University, Chennai District has granted continuation of provisional affiliation to the said College during the academic year 2010-2011. Whereas in the reference 3rd cited, the NCTE, Bangalore has withdrawn the recognition granted to Pallavan College of Education, Vellore district since the Institution failed to submit the approved staff list as per NCTE norms till date. The Institution has not submitted its reply even after a lapse of stipulated 2 months and after lapse of time period of more than 252 days ( more than 8 months). Whereas the Syndicate at its meeting held on 11.07.2014 considered the subject matter and resolved as follows: “As per 17(3) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the affiliation granted to Pallavan College of Education (College Code :12919), Vellore District be withdrawn consequent to the withdrawal of recognition granted to the College by the NCTE and in this case since the affiliation has not been granted as on date, the application of the Management of the said College for grant of affiliation be summarily rejected in lieu of withdrawal of affiliation.” In accordance with the above decision taken by the Syndicate under the power

vested on it in Act the affiliation granted to the Pallavan College of Education,

No.1. Bharathiyar Salai, Vellore-632001 is withdrawal from the academic year

2014-2015.

The Management of the College is hereby strictly instructed that the said College

of Education shall not function as College of Education any more consequent to

the withdrawal of affiliation and shall not admit the students to B.Ed degree course

from the academic year 2014-2015.

The Correspondent/ Secretary of the College shall take note of the above decision

of the Syndicate of this University and shall abide by and adhere to the orders

strictly.

The SRC in its 273rd meeting held on 30 September & 1 October 2014 considered

the matter and decided as follows:-

1. The High Court has confirmed our order. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority has quashed our order. Ask NCTE (H'qrs) whether this was correct; and, what should be our action.

2. Dependnding on the advice received, if necessary, we may have to revise our earlier decision about processing the case after notification of new Regulations.

In the meantime, a court order in W.A.No.1354 of 2014 and M.P. No.1 of 2014 dated 10.10.2014 received by SRC on 27.10.2014. The court order stating as follows:-



24

ORDER: The learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/Writ petitioner submits that after the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellate authority has granted order in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner and thus, the appellant/writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and consequently, the writ appeal as well. An endorsement to this effect has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant.

2. Having examined all the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order passed in the writ petition, may affect the decision taken by the appellate authority. In such view of the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the writ appeal is also dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

The SRC in its 274th meeting held on 30-31 October 2014 considered the matter and decided that As per NCTE (hqrs) circular all ‘appeal remand’ cases have to be kept frozen until notification of new Regulations. Take action accordingly. A court order in W.P.No.25854 of 2014 and M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 dated 17.10.2014 received by SRC from Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The court order stating as follows:- “The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the order passed by the second Respondent withdrawing the affiliation granted to the petitioner’s college from the academic year 2014-15.

2. Heard Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

3. Now that the last date has been extended upto 20.10.2014, there cannot be any objection to a formal prayer sought by the petitioner.

4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to accept the eligibility applications. The petitioner shall submit the filled up forms on or before 20.10.2014. thereafter, they could be processed in accordance with law. This order shall not be treated as an order on merits regarding the eligibility of the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 are closed. A court order in Review Application No.261 of 2014 in W.P.No.6868 of 2014 dated 08.10.2014 received by SRC on 18.11.2014 from Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The court order stating as follows:- “ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this court to withdraw the Review Application. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. Accordingly, the Review Application stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.” The Committee considered the matter, Court order dated 08.10.2014 and advised Southern Regional Office to process the appeal-remand case after the new Regulations have been notified.



25

6) APS07156 B.Ed

Bharathi College of Teacher Training

Ducation, Tumkur

Karnataka KA

Bharathi College of Teacher Training Education, Tumkur,

Karnataka(APS07156)

Bharathi College Teacher Training Education, 4th cross, K.R. Extension, Tumkur

District-572102, Karnataka was granted recognition on 01.01.2008 with an intake

of 100 students.

This office is in receipt of a letter NO. TY:VCPS:2011-12.98 dt. 21.05.2011 from

the Vice-Chancellor of Tumkur University, Tumkur by enclosing a list of 19

institutions with the committee observations by conducting inspections.

The SRC in its 206th meeting held on 9-10th June 2011, noted the inspection report

of the Vice-Chancellor, Tumkur University, dt. 21.05.2011 and the deficiencies in

the 19 institutions in Tumkur District and decided to issue show cause notice

under Section 17 of NCTE Act.

Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the institution on 06.07.2011. The

institution submitted its written representation on 04.08.2011.

The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21-23rd September 2011, considered the

written reply and all other relevant documents and decided to cause inspection at

the premises Under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, the inspection of the

institution was carried out on 28.10.2011.

In the meanwhile, Tumkur University vide their letter received on 17.10.2011 has

conducted re-visits to the institution on 18.8.2011 and made certain observations.

The SRC in its 216th meeting of SRC held on 11th and 12th January, 2012 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 05.03.2012 for the following deficiencies:-

• The institution has not submitted Inspection fee of Rs. 40000/-.

• As per essential data, total built up area is only13,016 sq.ft. which is grossly inadequate as per NCTE norms for B.Ed course run by the institution.

• In the building plan submitted, the data are not clear and not readable.

• Original certified land documents issued by competent civil authority is not submitted.

• The area of class rooms, hall, Library and labs mentioned in the questionnaire and in the VT report are not at all tallying.

• Original Affidavit in the prescribed form on Rs. 100/- stamp paper duly attested by oath commissioner or Notary public is not submitted.

• Building completion certificate from competent Govt. authorized engineer is not submitted.

• Land usage certificate from the concerned Government authorities stating that the land is exclusively permitted/sanctioned for educational purpose only is not submitted.



26

• Non-Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar is not submitted by the institution.

• Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund respectively from Nationalised Bank in joint account is not submitted.

• Science lab, Psychology lab and ET lab needs to be strengthened.

• Principal is not qualified as per NCTE norms.

• The institution has not submitted the approved staff list from University with their experience certificate.

• Lecturer in Art Education (part time, Fine arts/performing art) and Director of Physical Education is not available.

• Scale of pay offered to the staff is not as per Central/State Govt/UGC guidelines.

• As per VT report, some of the appointments recently made, i.e, in the month of October and November 2011, it appears that appoints are made only for the visit purposes.

• As per the Photo provided by the institution along with the questionnaire, it looks like a residential building; there is no name board of the institution on the building. The name of the house is visible.

• In the document provided by the institution, the name of the authorized person is not written; all the signatures are in the Trust name with the signature of the Managing Trustee.

• Sports facility to be enhanced.

On 26.03.2012, the Principal of the institution requested to extend the last date to

submit the necessary documents. But, so far, the institution has not submitted

reply to the Show Cause Notice.

The institution has not replied to the show cause notice issued on 05-03-2012 till

date, for the deficiencies pointed in the notice:-

• The institution has not submitted Inspection fee of Rs. 40000/-.

• As per essential data, total built up area is only 13,016 sq.ft. which is grossly inadequate as per NCTE norms for B.Ed course run by the institution.

• In the building plan submitted, the data are not clear and not readable.

• Original certified land documents issued by competent civil authority is not submitted.

• The area of class rooms, hall, Library and labs mentioned in the questionnaire and in the VT report are not at all tallying.

• Original Affidavit in the prescribed form on Rs. 100/- stamp paper duly attested by oath commissioner or Notary public is not submitted.

• Building completion certificate from competent Govt. authorized engineer is not submitted.

• Land usage certificate from the concerned Government authorities stating that the land is exclusively permitted/sanctioned for educational purpose only is not submitted.

• Non-Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar is not submitted by the institution.

• Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund



27

respectively from Nationalised Bank in joint account is not submitted.

• Science lab, Psychology lab and ET lab needs to be strengthened.

• Principal is not qualified as per NCTE norms.

• The institution has not submitted the approved staff list from University with their experience certificate.

• Lecturer in Art Education (part time, Fine arts/performing art) and Director of Physical Education is not available.

• Scale of pay offered to the staff is not as per Central/State Govt/UGC guidelines.

• As per VT report, some of the appointments recently made, i.e, in the month of October and November 2011, it appears that appoints are made only for the visit purposes.

• As per the Photo provided by the institution along with the questionnaire, it looks like a residential building; there is no name board of the institution on the building. The name of the house is visible.

• In the document provided by the institution, the name of the authorized person is not written; all the signatures are in the Trust name with the signature of the Managing Trustee.

• Sports facility provided is not satisfactory. Based on the above points the committee decided to withdraw the recognition of

the B.Ed course run by the Bharathi College Teacher Training Education, Tumkur

District-572102, Karnataka from the academic year 2012-13, in order to enable the

ongoing batch of students in B.Ed. course, if any, to complete their course.

Accordingly, withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide No. APS07156-B.Ed./KA/ 2012-2013/44357 dated 26.07.2012. Aggrieved by the withdrawal order, the institution appealed to NCTE, HQ. On

13.9.2012, a letter is received from HQ Letter vide No.89-517/2012 Appeal

A57233 dated 04.09.2012 regarding the appeal filed by Bharathi College of

Teacher Education, Tumkur, Karnataka(APS07156-B.Ed.).

The original records pertaining to Bharathi College of Teacher Training Education,

Tumkur, Karnataka (APS07156-B.Ed.) along with comments of this office for

necessary action(APS07156 - B.Ed. course contains 9 pages of noting and 460

pages of correspondence) was sent to NCTE, HQ on 18.09.2012.

In the meanwhile, it is observed that the institution has approached Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore vide W.P.No.41463/2012 against SRC, NCTE

against the withdrawal order issued to the institution without exhausting the

channel of appeal.

On 1.11.2012, a letter dated 19.10.2012 is received from the Advocate stating that

“the above petition came up before the Court today for hearing. The matter was

heard at length. During the course of the arguments, it was pointed out on behalf

of the NCTE that, the writ petition itself is not maintainable as much the petitioner

has got alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under

Section 18 of the NCTE Act. It was further pointed out that in terms of the

aforementioned provision, the petitioner institution has already preferred an appeal



28

and the same is pending consideration. It was also brought to the notice of the

court that the petitioner has not replied to showcause Notice dated 5.3.2012

wherein several deficiencies were pointed out more particularly relating to the land

usage certificate from the concerned Govt. authorities permitting the use of the

land for educational prupose only. Notwithstanding the arguments advanced, the

court directed the respondent-NCTE to hold inspection in respect of the institution

within a period of 15 days, and further directed to consider the report or

recommendation of the inspection team immediately on the next meeting of SRC,

NCTE favourably. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of. In the present

case, the learned single judge, ought not to have entertained writ petition in view of

the pendency of appeal before the appellate authority. Even otherwise, the

conducting of inspection and considering the case of the petitioner favourably,

ought not to have been ordered. I am therefore of the view that, it is a fit case for

filing appeal challenging the order passed in the writ petition.

I have applied for certified copy of the final order, and the same will be sent to you

on its receipt.”

In the meanwhile, on 7.11.2012, a letter is received from the Managing Trustee of

Bharathi Education Trust, Tumkur as per the High Court order dated 2.11.2012

instructing SRC, Bangalore and Tumkur University to permit the college for

admission of students to this academic year 2012-13 and perusal of the matter.

He has enclosed a copy of the Court judgement dated 19th October, 2012.

As per the Copy of the court order dated 19.10.2012, the Hon’ble Court has stated

as under:-

“3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the institution is

being run since 2007-2008 and also the University of Tumkur has

conveyed its approval and also Government has approved admission of 25

candidates to this institution. In the meanwhile, on technical reason, the 1st

respondent-NCTE has communicated the impugned order at Annexure-L,

which is illegal and bad in law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that due to

various deficiencies being pointed out, & despite opportunity being given,

no steps have been taken. As such the 1st respondent is of the categorical

opinion, not to extend the grant for the academic year 2012-2013.

Accordingly, he has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. It appears as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the building is made available by the President of the very

college and that is on lease basis. The petitioner to take initiative, being

free grant institution, as such shall come forward with some permanent

arrangement for providing the basic infrastructure that is required, insofar

as providing the staff to the institution l ike Principal and several other basic



29

deficiencies being pointed out, be made good by the management within a

fortnight. However, it is hereby directed that the respondent authority shall

once again visit the institution and do inspection, if the same is complied

with, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and

verify and pass appropriate orders and consider the case of the petitioner

favourably as the college has commenced way back in the year 2007-2008

and after lapse of 5 years, de-recognition of the college may cause

prejudice to the management which has invested substantial amount.

In this view of the matter, the respondent to consider the application of the

petitioner at the earliest regarding recognition for the academic year 2012-

2013.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title by

impleading the Tumkur University as 2nd respondent. However, in the

event there is a delay caused for want of inspection and further

decision to be taken, the delay is condoned by extending some more

time for admitting the students.”

The Court order along with the request of the institution regarding admission to the

academic year 2012-13 was placed before 235th meeting of SRC held on 21st and

22nd November, 2012 wherein the Committee has decided to apply for stay and file

an appeal.

As per the decision of SRC, a letters were addressed to the Advocate on

29.11.2012 & a reminder on 21.12.2012 with a request to obtain stay for the Court

order and to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Court against the order and also to

defend the Court matter on behalf of NCTE and intimate further developments to

this office at the earliest.

This office has received a copy of the interim order dated 11.1.2013 of Hon’ble HC

of Karnataka on 21.1.2013 filed by Bharathi College Teacher Training Education,

4th cross, K.R. Extension, Tumkur District-572102, Karnataka against SRC, NCTE,

NCTE, New Delhi and Tumkur University where in it is stated that “the petitioner to

complete the admission for B.Ed. course for the current academic year, pending

disposal of the writ petition. However, the respondent-NCTE to hold investigation

and to report to this Court within 15 days.”

The institution has submitted a Demand Draft of Rs.40,000/- towards inspection

fee. Letters have been addressed to the advocate for vacating the stay granted to

the institution.

Note:

• The institution had earlier a Writ petition No.41463/2012 against NCTE, Bangalore and Tumkur University and the advocate is requested to obtain



30

stay to the order dated 30.10.2012 and also to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Court in the above matter as per the decision of 235th meeting of SRC held on 21st and 22nd November, 2012.

• The appellate authority vide order dated 11.12.2012 has confirmed the orders of SRC dated 26.7.2012 withdrawing the recognition of the institution. The order of appellate authority is already placed in 237th meeting of SRC held on 5-6 January, 2013, which is deferred to 238th meeting of SRC scheduled on 5th – 6th February, 2013.

The 240th meeting held on 09th – 11th March 2013 considered the Hon’ble High

Court of Karnataka order dt. 11.01.2013 and decided to cause inspection of the

institution to determine continuance of recognition.

The inspection of the institution was scheduled for 20th – 24th May 2013 and the

same was intimated to the institution vide this office letter F.No.APSO

7156/B.Ed/KA/2013-14/51619 dated 14/05/2013.

Accordingly, the inspection of the institution was carried out on 22.05.2013

The SRC in its 247th meeting held on 20-22 June 2013 considered the

direction of the Hon’ble High Court for inspection of the institution accordingly

inspection of the institution was carried out on 22.05.2013. Also considered

shifting inspection of VT report, VCD and all the relevant documents of the

institution and decided not to permit Bharathi College of Teacher Training

Education, Tumkur, Karnataka.

Further,

The Committee on the basis of VT report, VCD of the institution on the above

matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw

recognition APS07156-B.Ed course for the following reasons:-

1. After sale of the land to Bank of Baroda on 02.07.2009, the institution has no land (Sy.No. 26/2).

2. The Land is registered in the individual name Dr. P. N. Shanthakumar and not in the name of institution/Society as per NCTE Regulations 2009.

3. As per original encumbrance certificate submitted, the land was given to Bharathi Education trust in favour of the President on lease basis on 25/08/2008. Further on 02/07/2009, the land is mortgaged to Bank of Baroda, BH Road, Tumkur.

As per Regulations 8 (7) (i)

“No institution shall be granted recognition under these Regulations

unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution is in possession

of required land on the date of application. The land free from all

encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease from

Government or Government institutions for a period of not less than 30

years. In cases where under relevant State or Union Territory laws the



31

maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State

Government or Union Territory Administration law shall prevail. However,

no building shall be taken on lease for running any teacher training course”.

4. Building plan submitted is not bearing the name of the Institution nowhere. Name of the proposed course is also not mentioned.

5. Building completion certificate submitted is in the name of individual by name Dr. P.N. Shanthakumar, president, Bharathi Education Trust. Name of the course is also not mentioned in the BCC dt. 04/01/2013.

6. As per VT, duly approved staff list from the affiliating body/university is not submitted.

Based on the above points the committee decides to withdraw the recognition of

the B.Ed course run by the Bharathi College of Teacher training Education,

Tumkur District, Karnatak, from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the

ongoing batch of students in B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course.

But it is made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further

admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order.

The Affiliating body / Examining board / body be informed accordingly.

Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC

NCTE, Bangalore, if any.

In the meantime, the institution has submitted its written representation on

14.08.2013 regarding announcement of results.

As per decision of SRC, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on

26.08.2013.

An e-mail has been received from Advocate dated 11th September 2013. A letter

along with brief of the case was sent to Advocate on 19.09.2013.

An interim order was received from the Hon’ble High Court of Karntaka in

W.P.No.21571 of 2014 dated 15.05.2014 on 20.05.2014.

A letter was sent to Shri.P.S.Dinesh, Advocate on 27.05.2014 along with brief of

the case and interim order in W.P.No.21571 of 2014.

An e-mail has been received from Advocate 30.07.2014.

A letter was sent to Shri.P.S.Dinesh, Advocate on 30.07.2014 along with brief of

the case and interim order in W.P.No.21571 of 2014.

A letter from Shri.P.S.Dinesh, Advocate has received by SRC on 26.08.2014 along

with court order in W.P.No.21571 of 2014 dated 2nd August 2014. The court order

stating as follows:-



32

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to

direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

reconsidering the withdrawal of recognition and renewal of the affiliation of

the petitioner institution for the academic year 2013-14 for the B.Ed. course

after considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated

07.05.2014.

2.The petitioner claims to be running a Teacher Training Institute

and is imparting B.Ed. course. The recognition of the petitioner which had

been granted earlier has been withdrawn by the order dated 26.08.2013.

The petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 46151/2013 by assailing

the said order. This Court by its order dated 07.03.2014 refrained to

interfere with the same and as such withdrawal of the recognition for the

year 2013-14 has attained finality. The petitioner however contends, that

subsequent thereto, the petitioner has secured a gift deed dated

05.05.2014 in their favour and as such the property in question presently

stands in the name of the petitioner institution. It is in that view the

petitioner has stated that they have made the representation dated

07.05.2014 seeking restoration/reconsideration of the recognition of B.Ed.

course. The petitioner institution in that direction is also seeking

reconsideration of the said representation by respondent No.2.

1. At the outset, having noticed that the withdrawal of the recognition for the academic year 2013-14 has attained finality in view of the earlier order dated 07.03.2014 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 46151/2013, the consideration of the representation for restoring the recognition for the year 2013-14 would not arise at this juncture. All that is necessary to be considered by respondent No. 2 Is as to whether the petitioner institution satisfies the requirement as contemplated under the Regulations and if such compliance is made, the recognition is to be considered for the ensuing academic year, namely, 2014-15.

2. To enable such consideration, respondent No. 2 is directed to look into the representation dated 07.05.2014. Needless to mention that if the petitioner is required to submit the application and documents in a particular format or as required under the Regulations, the petitioner institution shall be intimated to do so and on complying with the requirement, respondent No. 2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Keeping in view that the admissions are to take place for the ensuing academic year if the petitioner satisfies the requirement, such consideration shall be made prior to the commencement of the admission process for the academic year 2014-15 and the result be intimated to the petitioner institution.



33

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

The SRC in its 272nd meeting held on 1-2 September 2014 considered the court

order in W.P.No.21571 of 2014 dated 2nd August 2014 2014 received by SRC on

26.08.2014 and the committee considered the court order and decided that “the

court order is for considering the case for 2014-15. That is not possible because of

the Supreme Court order freezing processing of all cases until notification of new

Regulations. Ask our Lawyer to file an affidavit explaining this hurdle.”

Accordingly, a letter was issued to Shri.P.S.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate on

08.09.2014 regarding to file an affidavit.

In response to this office letter dated 08.09.2014, an e-mail dated 11.09.2014 has

been received from Shri.P.S.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate stating as follows:-

“The subject WP is disposed off by the order of Learned Single Judge vide

order dated 02.08.2014. Under the Rules of Practice, no affidavit can be

filed in a disposed off matter. However, if aggrieved by the order of Ld.

Single Judge, the same has to be challenged in Writ Appeal within 30 days.

However, the issue with regard to consideration of applications currently

came up for consideration of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. 38510/2014, a

copy which attached for your kind reference.

Note: Advocate has sent an e-mail along with Court order in

W.P.No.38510/2014 in respect of Aristotle Teachers Training Institute,

Kolar District for reference to this matter.


13.10.2014 stating as follows:-

“…Hon’ble Court order dated 02.08.2014 and other relevant documents.

The NCTE SRC committee in its 272nd meeting on 1st & 2nd Sept2014 says

it cannot be considered because of Supreme Court order.

I submit that since ours is an existing college Supreme court ruling will not

apply to our institute.

Hence, I am submitting all the land and building documents along with

court order and request you to consider and reinstate recognition to our institute

from 2014-15.

The institution in its letter along with submission of following documents:-

� Photocopy of Court order in W.P.No.21571/2014 (EDN-REG-P) dated 2nd August 2014.

� Photocopy of Building Completion Certificate dated 26.05.2014 approved by Asst. Executive Engineer.



34

� Photocopy of Gift Deed (Land documents) dated 05.05.2014 The SRC in its 274th meeting held on 30-31 October 2014 considered the matter

and decided to process the documents and put up.

Accordingly, as per direction of SRC the documents are processed The Committee considered the matter, e-mail letter dated 11.09.2014 from the advocate and letter from the institution dated 13.10.2014 advised Southern Regional Office to put up the case in the next meeting when the new Regulations have been notified.

7) APS01292 D.T.Ed-AI

Infant Jesus Teacher Training Institute, Vellore,

Tamilnadu. TN

Infant Jesus Teacher Training Institute, No. 747, Ramanathapuram Road, Thiruvallam, Vellore – 635515, Tamilnadu.

Infant Jesus Teacher Training Institute, No. 747, Ramanathapuram Road, Thiruvallam, Vellore – 635515, Tamilnadu was granted recognition for the D.T.Ed. course for an intake of 50 on 20.01.2005 for the academic session 2004-2005.

The institution applied for additional intake on 28.12.2004. In obedience to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP NO.5556/2005, the inspection of the institution for additional intake was conducted on 20th November, 2005 which was considered by SRC in 105th meeting held on 02nd-03rd December, 2005 and decided to serve Notice on account of certain deficiencies and accordingly Notice was issued on 14th December, 2005 for the following deficiency:-

• The existing institution was recognized only during January, 2005 and additional intake can be considered only for 2006-2007.

The reply submitted by the institution was placed before SRC in its 106th meeting held on 15th-16th December, 2005 which noted that the existing teacher training institute was recognized only during January, 2005 and therefore any application for additional intake will be only considered for 2006-2007 as the institution had not completed stipulated three years period for additional intake.

Accordingly, decision of SRC, a letter was conveyed to the institution on 23rd December 2005. The appellate authority vide order dated 16th June 2008 reversed the order of SRC and directed to grant recognition to the institution for additional intake in D.T.Ed. course. As per the decision of appellate authority the institution was issued a letter on 15th July 2008 to appoint staff under para 7(11) of the NCTE regulations. The reply submitted by the institution was considered in 168th meeting held on 15th December 2008 when it was decided to grant formal recognition to the institution for D.T.Ed. additional intake course.

The State Government of Tamilnadu in its letter No.6987/UI/08-1 dated.20.03.2008 after an inspection by a Committee pointed out some deficiencies in 54 D.T.Ed colleges in the state including this college. The State Government has informed that these institutions are not maintaining norms and standards as prescribed by NCTE and deficiencies of individual institution were also submitted as annexure. The SRC in its 157th meeting held on 23rd-24th April, 2008 considered the complaint and decided to issue notice to these institutions



35

under NCTE Act, 1993 providing an opportunity for making written representation, if any, accordingly, notice under Section 17 was issued on 16.10.2008 for the following reasons:-

• Change of Management without obtaining approval from NCTE .

• Tin sheeted building provided for the TTI

• Without obtaining recognition order from NCTE and staff approval from DTERT, students have been admitted for 2005 – 2006.

The institution submitted its written representation vide letter dated.10.12.2008.

The SRC considered the reply / written representation submitted by the institution in its 168th meeting held on 15th December, 2008 and had sanctioned additional intake for the D.T.Ed. course thus making the annual intake of 100.

In the meantime, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 07th January, 2009 in W.P. No. 20342 of 2008 had already pronounced the judgment directing the respondents to publish the results of the examination during 2005-06 and the 2nd year exams during Sept. 2008 and consequently issue statement of marks for the D.T.Ed course within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

The Committee considered the above order in its 179th meeting of SRC held on 23rd July, 2009 the Committee decided to await the judgment in W.P. No. 20342/2008 filed by Director, DTERT, Chennai.

The matter was again considered by SRC in its 180th meeting held on 29th July 2009 wherein the Committee decided to cause inspection under section 17 of the NCTE Act after submission of necessary fees and documents for both the basic and additional unit of D.T.Ed. course.

The Chairman of the institution vide letter dated 9th March, 2009 represented that they had applied with the trust name as Mother Theresa Rural Development Trust and NCTE had changed the name as Matha Trust.

Accordingly, Corrigendum was issued vide order No.F.SRO/NCTE/D.T.Ed.-AI/2009/10897 dated 19th March, 2009 thereby correcting the trust Name as Mother Theresa Rural Development trust, Vellore District, Tamilnadu.

Mr. M. D. Einsteen, Correspondent in his representation dated 29th May 09 had questioned the Corrigendum issued by SRC vide order dated 19th March 09 regarding Name of the Trust and requested SRC to withdraw the Corrigendum dated 19th March 2009.

Further, Mr. A. P. Yesudoss, Chairman / Correspondent of the college vide his letter dated 8th Aug 2009 had represented SRC that while considering the representation made by Mr. M.D. Einsteen dated 29.05.2009, Notice may be issued to him and hear his objection before passing final order on the above representation dated 29.05.2009.

Mr. M.D. Einsten also filed a W.P.No.11685/2009 in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras against the said Corrigendum issued by SRC and the Hon’ble Court had



36

directed SRC to dispose of the representation dated 29.5.2009 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of reissuing of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as the fourth respondent i.e. Sh. A. P. Yesudoss.

The Committee considered the matter as stated above in its 183rd meeting held on 22nd September 2009 and gave opportunity to both the parties for personal hearing on 26.10.2009.

In view of the above, SRC in its 184th meeting held on 26th-27th October 2009 heard the arguments put forth by both the parties and considered them and all the relevant documents and found that the case involves Civil/Criminal issues relating to owners, among others, which only a Court of Law can decide.

Accordingly a letter was issued to the both the parties informing the decision of SRC on 05.02.2010.

Meantime, a court notice in W.P.No.3234/2010 filed by Shri. M.D. Einsteen in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras referring this office letter dated 05.2010 and appear before Hoi’ble High court in person or advocate on 07.06.2010, which was received on 13.05.2010. Accordingly, a letter was issued to the advocate on 25.05.2010.

A court order in W.P. No. 3234 of 2010 filed by Shri. M.D. Einsteen was received on 12.10.2010. The Hon’ble Court has directed as follows:

“….the 1st respondent is directed to pass a detailed order with reference to the averments made in the writ petition and also to take into consideration the decrees passed in the civil courts, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioner to submit all the documents once again before the Regional Committee, along with this order”.

The matter was placed before SRC in its 197th meeting held on 13th-14th October, 2010. The Committee after taking into account the decrees produced by the concerned petitioner, took a view that the Corrigendum issued stand valid. Since no change of management is permitted by SRC-NCTE.

The Committee also decided that taking into consideration of all the relevant aspects on the following grounds.

The name of the trust was Mother Theresa Rural Development Trust, Vellore District, Tamilnadu while originally applying to NCTE for recognition of the institution. The institution was issued recognition orders by the SRC-NCTE only to the Mother Theresa Rural Development Trust, Vellore.

• In case of any dispute relating to any change in the management/trust and its name the issue can be resolved only by a court of law.

• The earlier decision to revise the original name of the Trust from Mother Rural Development Trust to Matha Educational and Development Trust, Tiruchi District, Tamilnadu was taken inadvertently, as the dispute within the management on the issue was not properly brought to the attention by the parties of the dispute.



37

As decided by the Committee the Corrigendum issued vide No reply, file had to be close F.SRO/NCTE/D.T.Ed-AI/2009/10897 dated 19.03.2009 correcting the society “ Matha Educational and Development Trust, Tiruchi District, Tamilnadu” as “Mother Theresa Rural Development Trust, Vellore District, Tamilnadu” stands valid.

Accordingly, a detailed order was issued to the institution vide no. F.SRO/NCTE/TN/2010-2010/25280 dated 13.12.2010.

A court order dt. 17.08.2011 in W.P. No. 22416 of 2009 filed by Infant Jesus Teacher Training Institute reads as follows: “in the present case, the impugned order has not given the petitioner-institution any recognition for additional intake of students retrospectively and any challenge to the said order shall not be entertained by this Court in any circumstances. The petitioner has not made out any ground to grant approval retrospectively. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs ”.

A court order dt. 15.09.2011 in W.P. No. 1616 of 2011 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 filed by M.D. Einsteen reads as follows: “In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make an application under Regulation 8(11) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, in the prescribed format, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such application, seeking to change the name of management, enclosing the documents, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months thereafter. Consequently, M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed. No costs”.

Mr. A.P. Yesudas (4th respondent) has also made two complaints against Mr. M.D. Einsteen received in the office of SRC on 21.11.2011 requesting to reject the application of the Einsteen for the reasons mentioned therein.

Further Sri. M.D. Einsteen, Chairman, TheMatha Educational and Development

Trust, has submitted a letter dated 28.11.2011 and has stated that “ We now request you to kindly send us the prescribed format in order to make an application under Regulation 8(11) of NCTE Regulation, seeking to change the name of the management. Kindly note that we have submitted all other relevant documents along with our above referred letters. Once we obtain the prescribed format from you and submit the same within the period we will be completing formalities in all respect”.

The SRC in its 215th meeting held on 12th-13th December, 2011 after considering the above matter and decided that SRC will stand by its earlier decision and pass a speaking order to say:

(i) Regarding 8 (11) is about change of premises and not about change of management, where as 8 (11) reads/says “In case of change of premises, prior approval of the Regional Committee concerned shall be necessary, which could be accorded after due inspection of the institution at the new site. Application for change of premises, in triplicate, in the specified format along with other relevant documents shall be submitted



38

by the Institution to the Regional Office for prior approval of change of premises. The change can be permitted to a site which, if applied initially, could have qualified for establishment of an institution as per specified norms of National Council for Teacher Education. The change shall be displayed on website thereafter. The application for change of premises shall be accompanied by a demand draft of Rs. 40,000 (or as revised from time to time) of a Nationalised Bank drawn in favour of the Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education and payable at the city where the Regional Committee is located. The fee may also be paid online at the bank designated by National Council for Teacher Education”.

(ii) There is no ‘prescribed format’ as cited by the applicant;

(iii) The applicant can make a formal application, after following the procedure prescribed for change of management of Trusts or (preferably) obtain a decree from the Civil Court for the purpose.

A letter was sent to the advocate on 10.01.2012 requesting to get vetted the letter to be issued to the institution. The legal counsel vide letter dt 18.01.2012 received on 23.01.2012 had returned the letter after getting vetted the same.

Accordingly, a letter sent to the institution on 14.02.2012 stating the following:

“….the order passed in the above W.P.No. 1616 of 2011 is dated 15.09.2011. The order copy was made ready on 28.09.2011 and the NCTE Counsel has received the same on 30.09.2011. The NCTE received the copy of the said order on 03.10.2011. The petitioner’s Counsel and the petitioner also would have received the order copy on the same dates. The four weeks given for submission of application for change of management/trust ought to have been submitted on or before 04.11.2011. Whereas you have submitted a letter dated 28.11.2011 much after the said four weeks period granted by the Hon’ble High Court for submission of application. No order of the Hon’ble High Court granting extension of time for submission of application has been enclosed along with the said letter.

Strictly speaking the NCTE shall abide by the order of the Hon’ble High Court and is not bound to consider any letter of you after the four weeks time granted for submission of the application for change of management/trust.

Though the above mentioned fact is legally correct, NCTE without prejudice to the said contention is issuing this reply for your letter dated 28.11.2011.

The NCTE here by states that there is no specific format under Rule 8 (11) of the Regulations for change of management/trust etc., and the petitioner can submit detailed application by following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 8 (11). It is most important that apart from relevant documents both the parties have to make a common application signing and attesting by both the parties i.e., existing management and the new management so as to enable the NCTE to process the application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There cannot be any application by one party without consenting by the other party. It is a well known fact that any change of management/trust shall be by the existing



39

management or trust and by the proposed management or trust.

Once again we reiterate that this letter is issued prejudice to the contention that without proper order of extension form the Hon’ble High Court, Madras the belated application cannot be either received or considered since the same will amount to violation of the conditional order of the Hon’ble High Court”.

Further, it is noted that letter dated 14.02.2012 sent to Mr. M.D Einsteen was returned by post office on 23.02.2012. The same was re-posted on 02.03.2012 and returned again on 06.03.2012. Hence, no reply from Mr. M.D. Einsteen has received so far.

This office has received a representation dtd 02.03.2012 from Sri. Yesudass stating to afford an opportunity to make his submissions in connection with the application Sri M.D. Einsteen and treat the same as part and parcel of the application of the same.

On 05.10.2012 legal counsel for NCTE has requested to furnish a copy of the application said to have been submitted on 28.11.2012 under regulation 8(11) along with a copy rejection order dtd. 04.02.2012 which was forwarded to him vide this office letter dtd. 17.10.2012.

On 04.12.2012 this office has received letter from the legal counsel of NCTE forwarding the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. no. 1616 of 2011 dtd. 18.11.2012 the which status as under:

“….four weeks time as stipulated in the aforesaid order expired on 04.11.2011, but the application was filed only on 28.11.2011 after 24 days. It is further stated that the delay of 24 days was due to the illness of the petitioner and treatment undertaken, Hence, this application is filed seeking extension of time for 24 days, granted in the order dated 15.09.2011 in W.P. No. 1616 of 2011. No counter is filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow this application. The National Council for Teacher Education (Southern Regional) Bangalore is directed to dispose of the application made on 28.11.2011 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”

Copy of the application dtd. 28.11.2011 submitted by Sri M.D. Einsteenalongwith Hon’ble High Court judgmentdtd. 18.11.2012 is enclosed herewith.

The SRC in its 237th meeting held on 5th -6th January 2013, after considering the above matter and decided to reiterate earlier order that SRC will stand by its earlier decision.

The Madras High Court had given the applicant institution four week’s time to make another application. This time-limit expired on 4.11.2011. No further action now is, therefore, possible in this case.



40

In any case, Regulation 8 (11) of NCTE Regulations 2009 provides only for change of location and not change of management. Accordingly, as per the decision of SRC, a letter was issued to the institution on 13.03.2013. (Reply from the institution not received so for). A brief of the case was sent to the Advocate Sri. K. Ramakrishna Reddy on 19.09.2013. The SRC received a letter from Advocate Sri.K. Ramakrishna Reddy on 07.10.2013 with regarding contempt petition.No. 2184 of 2013 in W.P.No.1616 of 2011,filed by M.D. Einsteen- Infant Jesus Teacher Training Institute –Vs- NCTE. A letter to Advocate Sri. Ramakrishna Reddy was sent on 08.10.2013 to defend the case. A reminder letter was sent to Advocate Sri. Ramakrishna Reddy on 07.03.2014 along with duly signed counter affidavit. The original counter affidavit has been received from the Hon'ble High Court at Madras on 10.03.2014. A certified copy of Hon'ble High Court Order in Cont. P. No. 2184 of 2013 dated 27.06.2014.has been received on 31.10.2014. The Hon'ble High Court Order stated as follows:

“….the petitioner filed writ petitioner in W.P. No.1616 of 2011 seeking to quash the order dated 13.12.2010 of the first respondent National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore and also sought for a direction to the first respondent therein to declare that he owned Trust namely Matha Educational and Development Trust, Trichy District, Tamilnadu. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.09.2011 directing the petitioner to make an application under the Regulations in the prescribed format, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, and on receipt of such application, seeking to change the name of Management, enclosing the relevant documents, the first respondent therein was directed to consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law, and pass orders, within a period of four months thereafter. However, the petitioner did not file any application within the said period and he filed an application in M.P. No. 1 of 2012 in W.P. No. 1616 of 2011 seeking extension of time to make such application. This Court also extended the time by an order dated 08.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition stating that no order is passed on the application and the petitioner has also produced the acknowledgment. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore stating that they did not receive any application from the petitioner seeking change of Management and if he



41

produce any such application, they could act thereon. However, the petitioner is not able to produce the same.

In these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the contempt petition and the same is dismissed.

The Committee took note of the matter.

8) SRCAPP1820 M.Ed

C.K.S College of Education,

Vellore, Tamilnadu.

TN

C K S College of Education, Plot. No. 82,86/2, KalmaduguStreet,Kakathoppu Village, Chettikuppam Post, Gudiyattam town ans city, Gudiyattam Taluk, Vellore Dist.Tamilnadu-635806. CKS Educational Trust, Plot No. 82, Kalmudugu Road, Kakathoppu Village,

Chettijuppam Post, Gudiyattam Taluk, Vellore District, Pin-635 806,

Tamilnadu had applied for grant of recognition to CKS College of Education,

Plot/Khasara no. 82, 86/2, Kalmadugu Street, Kakathoppu Village,

Chettikuppam Post, GudiyattamTaluka, Vellore District, Pin-635 806,

Tamilnadu for M.Ed course of one year duration under section 15 (1) of the NCTE

Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE on-line on 18.12.2012 and

physical application has been received in the office of SRC on 19.12.2012.

The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State

Government for recommendation on 02.01.2013 followed by reminder on

14.03.2013. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 14.03.2013. The

institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 08.04.2013.

The reply of the institution to the show cause notice was duly considered by SRC

in its 243rd meeting held on 29th -30th April 2013 and the reply is unconvincing and

not satisfactory, deficiencies still persist as under:

1. In the approved building plan submitted, total earmarked area for the

proposed course (M.Ed) is not mentioned.

2. The institution has not submitted approved building completion certificate

from competent Govt. Engineer and in the building completion certificate

submitted, column No. 9 is corrected in the pen for M.Ed course.

3. Notarised land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating

that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the educational

purpose is not submitted.

4. Proof of completion of 3 academic sessions towards D.T.Ed course which

are already run by the institution from the affiliating body/State

Govt./examining body is not submitted.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected

& based on a collective application of mind, the committee has decided as per

NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition

of M.Ed course.



42

Accordingly,rejection order was issued to the institution on 01.06.2013.

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution, preferred appeal to NCTE,

Hqrs and the Appellate Authority vide order no. F.No.89-431/2013Appeal/14th

meeting-2013/ dated 30.10.2013 has stated as follows:-

“….after perusal of the documents, Memorandum of appeal,

affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral

arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the

SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal

deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC confirmed.

The Council hereby confirms the Order appealedagainst.”

The SRC in its 255th meeting held on 13-15 November 2013 considered the

appellate authority order and committee has noted the matter.

A letter from Advocate Sri. K. Ramakrishna Reddy received on 14.07.2014, along

with original counter affidavit filed by C.K.S. Educational Trust,Tamilnadu in the

Hon'ble High Court at Madras. Forwarded a duly signed counter affidavit to

Advocate Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy.

The SRC is in receipt of court notice in W.P.No. 11230 of 2014 received from

Hon'ble High Court of Madras on 30.07.2014. stating as follows:

“…that you, the respondent(s) 1 & 2 above mentioned, do sent for

our use in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, all and singular the said

records and orders with all things touching the same as fully and perfectly

as they have been made by you, and now remain in your custody or power

together with this our writ before 07.08.2014.

That you, the respondent(s) 1 & 2 herein, do appear before us

personally or by advocate on 07.08.2014 at 10.30 am and show cause why

this petition should not be complied with, and that we may cause further to

be done thereon what of right and according to law we shall see fit to be

done.

A brief of the case was sent to the advocate on 07.08.2014.

A certified copy of Hon'ble High Court order in W.P. No.11230 of 2014 dtd.

08.10.2014 has been received on 18.11.2014.

The Hon'ble High Court order stated as follows:

“….the petitioner has produced a building compilation certificate.



43

The said certificate also bears the date of inspection as 06.08.2010. the

total constructed area is mentioned in this certificate as 23923 Sq.Ft. in

ground floor and 16310.50 Sq.Ft. each in first and second floors, totaling to

56544 sq. Ft. this certificate almost corresponds to the details furnished in

the first certificate, except with one difference. The difference is the

inclusion of M.Ed course in column No.9.

Therefore, there is lot of room for suspicion about these compilation

certificates. In such circumstances, I cannot find fault with the respondents

for denying the recognition for M.Ed course.

In any case, the cut off date for processing the applications for the

academic year 2014-15 was over on 03.03.2014. The National Council for

Teacher Education has already submitted to the Supreme Court, a set of

new Regulations. The moment these regulations come into operation, the

web portal of the National Council for Teacher Education will be opened,

enabling the institutions like the petitioner to apply on line for the

recognition for the next academic year 2015-16. Before applying, the

petitioner shall comply with all requirements and keep all infrastructurein

tact.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the

petitioner to apply afresh for the next academic year, in accordance with

the regulations. No costs.

The Committee took note of the matter in Court order dated 08.10.2014.

9) SRCAPP1604 D.El.Ed Naren

College, Ranga Reddy

, Andhra Pradesh.

AP

Naren College, Khasara No. 234, Lemooru Village, Kandukur Post Office, Maheshwaram Taluka, Ranga Reddy District – 500 007, Andhra Pradesh Naren Educational Academy, Plot No. 9-15/b, 3rd Floor, K.K Arcade, Dilsukhnagar Village, P & T Colony Post Office, Saroor Nagar Taluka, Hyderabad City, Ranga Reddy District – 500 060, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to Naren College, Khasara No. 234, Lemooru Village, Kandukur Post Office, Maheshwaram Taluka, Ranga Reddy District – 500 007, Andhra Pradesh for D.El.Ed Course of two years duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 30.09.2011 and physical application has been received in the office of SRC on 07.10.2011. The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 09.11.2011/26.12.2011 (Reminder). A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 30.12.2011. The institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 13.02.2012. The SRC in its 219th Meeting of SRC held on 15th – 16th March, 2012 considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt. 13.02.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 14(1) of NCTE Act.



44

Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 09.04.2012.The institution has submitted its written representation on 27.04.2012. .. The Southern Regional Committee in its 222nd meeting held on 9th and 10th May,2012 considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt. 27.04.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under section 14 (1) of NCTE Act. Accordingly, a final show cause notice was issued to the institution on 11.06.2012. The institution has submitted a written representation on 28.06.2012. The reply of the institution vide letter dt,. 28.06.2012 to the show cause notice was

duly considered and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still

persist as under:

• Sale deed of land documents dt. 06.02.2012, which is registered after the date of on-line submission, which is not permissible as per NCTE Regulations.As per NCTE Regulations 2009, conditions of grant of recognition under Rule 8 (7) (i) & (ii) is

(i) No institution shall be granted recognition under these Regulations unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution is in possession of required land on the date of application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease from Government or Government institutions for a period of not less than 30 years. In cases where under relevant State or Union Territory laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government or Union Territory Administration law shall prevail. However, no building shall be taken on lease for running any teacher training course.

(ii) The society sponsoring the institution shall have to ensure that proposed teacher education institution has a well demarcated land area as specified by the norms. The teacher education institution shall not be allowed to have any other institution within its demarcated area or building and shall not have any other course(s) in its building.

• In the building completion certificate submitted, column No. 5 dt. Of land registration is shown as 29.01.2012, which is not tallying with the land documents registered date and type of roofing is not given.

• In the encumbrance certificate submitted, 60 Guntas on Sy.No. 234 is in favour of Society and 4 Acres is in favour of individual name, which is not permissible as per NCTE norms.

• Copy of affidavit is not submitted. Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected

& based on a collective application of mind, the SRC in its 226th meeting held on

09th-10th July 2012, committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to refuse

and reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.El.Ed course.

Accordingly, a rejection order was issued to the institution on 21.08.2012.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 04.10.2012 and

16.10.2012 requesting to re-consider application, Process further and do accord



45

permission/recognition to run D.Ed College.

The SRC in its 235th Meeting held on 21st -22nd November, 2012 considered the

request of the institution vide letter dt. 04.10.2012 & 16.10.2012 and decided to

confirm the earlier decision taken in 226th meeting held on 09-10th July 2012 to

refuse and reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.El.Ed course,

as there is no provision for reconsideration in NCTE Regulation 2009.

Accordingly, a letter was issued to the institution on 20-12-2012.

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC the institution filed an appeal before the

appellate authority, NCTE Hqrs.

The appellate authority order F.No.89-755/2013 Appeal/5th Meeting-2014/A88749

dated 21/05/2014 is received by this office on 16/06/2014 is as under:-

"SH. MD. Yadolla, Vice President, Naren College, Rangareddi, Andhra

Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 12-04-2014. In

the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that due to

closure of all offices in the Telangana Region on account of agitation, the

registration of land could be got done only on 06-02-2012 and according to

the guide-lines issued by NCTE, the applications of D.Ed. Colleges in

Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh can be considered as and when

requested to in the Building Completion Certificate submitted, column No.5

dated of land registration is show wrongly by over sight as 29-01-2012,

which is corrected later as 06-02-2012, and type of roofing mentioned in the

building completion certified is RCC (Issued in the format, prescribed by

Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Ral) is submitted to the Regional

Director, NCTE, Bangalore. The Encumbrance Certificate submitted earlier

is exhibitingthe true & correct view that 60 Guntas (i.e. about ONE and

HALF Acres) of land is transferred in favour of Society from 4 Acres

available in the name of the individual. Affidavit was already submitted. A

copy of same is submitted again on 04-10-2012.

The submission of the appeal has been delayed by one year one month and

eight days beyond the prescribed time limit of 60 days. The appellant

submitted that after receiving the refusal order, their

Secretary/Correspondent (Mrs. Arshia Nawsheen) went under depression

and was admitted in hospital for one month. The doctor advised to bring her

to the hospital after discharge twice a week for check up. On doctor's

advice they did not discuss this matter in their Society's meeting. She is still

taking pills to maintain her mental condition and due to unavoidable

circumstances they could not concentrate. Medical certificate are submitted

for consideration.

The Council noted that the appellant submitted copy of a Psychometric



46

Report dt. 18-09-2012 from a Psychotherapy Clinic, which diagnosed

depression and Psychosis in the patient. The Report also indicated that the

total duration of the illness is about six years. The appellant also submitted

a copy of a medical prescription dt.22-10-2012/08-12-2012 from a

Consultant Psychiatrist. Besides these documents, the appellant did not

submit any documents in support of hospitalization and other precaution to

be taken by the patient. The Council concluded that these submissions did

not dealy of over one year and one month in the submissions of the appeal.

The appeal could have been submitted by the other office bearers of the

Society. In these circumstances the Council decided not to condone the

delay. The appeal is, therefore, not admitted.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available

on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the

hearing, the Council decided not to condone the delay and therefore, the

appeal is not admitted."

The Southern Regional Committee in its 269th Meeting held during 1- 2 July, 2014

took note of the matter.

On 01.08.2014, an e-mail was received from the advocate Shri.Ramakanth Reddy

regarding the W.P. 21519 of 2014 filed by Naren Educational academy. A copy of

the Counter to be filed was enclosed. A duly signed counter affidavit was sent to

the advocate on 01.08.2014.

This office was in receipt of a court order dated 12.09.2014 in W.P.No. 21941 of

2014 filed by Gnanodaya Educational Society where in the Hon’ble Judge had

quoted the Court order in W.P.No. 21519 of 2014 pertaining to Naren Educational

Academy.

A letter was addressed to the advocate Shri.Ramakanth Reddy on 28.10.2014 with

a request to send a copy of the court order in W.P.No. 21519 of 2014 .

In the meantime, an office memorandum was received from NCTE, HQ on

07.11.2014 vide letter No. 91-13th Meeting/2014/Appeal dated 31.10.2014 with

a request to send the original file of Naren College, Khasara No. 234, Lemooru

Vilage , Kandukur post Office, Maheshwaram Taluka,Ranga Reddy District – 500

007, Andhra Pradesh along with comments of this office for necessary action.

Original file was sent to the Hqrs on 12.11.2014 and the appellate authority order

is awaited.

On 13.11.2014, an e-mail has been received from Shri.Ramakanth Reddy quoting

the order of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 21519 of 2014.

As per the mail,the Court order dated 11.09.2014 is as under :-

“ The petitioner, an Educational Society, which seeks to run a Diploma in



47

Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) Course is aggrieved by the orders passed by the

National Council forTeacher Education (NCTE), New Delhi, on 21.05.2014,

rejecting the application submitted by it to condone the delay in preferring the

appeal and rejected the appeal itself.

Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the

petitioner – Society has preferred the appeal interms of NCTE regulation No.18

challenging the correctness of the orders passed by the Southern Regional

Committee of National Council for Teacher Education on 21.08.2012. The

Southern Regional Committee has refused to consider the application of the writ

petitioner for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed Course of two year duration in terms

of and in accordance with Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher

Education Act, 1993. The appeal should have been preferred within 60 days as

per regulation No.18 but the petitioner has preferred the appeal on 13.12.2013.

Thus, there was a delay of one year one month eight days in preferring the said

appeal. According to the petitioner, the delay was attributable due to the illness of

the Correspondent of the Society who was subjectedto prolonged psychiatric

treatment and upon recovering from illness, the appeal has been preferred.

Before proceeding any further, I must necessarily deal with one of the contentions

canvassed by Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondents. Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, has brought to

my notice, in my opinion, very rightly an order passed by the Supreme Court on

10.09.2013 entertaining SLP.Nos.4247 –4248/2009 preferred against the

judgment rendered on 07.01.2009 and 16.01.2009 by the High Court of Bombay at

Nagpur. During the course of the said order, the Supreme Court has observed as

under:

“……….Those who are desirous of establishing teacher education

colleges/institutions shall be free to make application in accordance with the new

regulations. Their applications shall be decided by the competent authority keeping

in view the relevant statutory provisions. All the pending applications shall also be

decided in accordance with the new regulations.”

During the course of the said order, the Supreme Court directed the concerned

authorities, including NCTE, to notify the new regulations latest by 30.11.2013,

regulating the matters concerning grant of recognition for establishment of new

Teacher Training Colleges/ Institutions and permission to the existing

Colleges/Institutions to run Teacher Training Courses.

Shri.K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondents, has also pointed out that this time schedule has since been extended

upto 30.11.2014 and the new regulations are therefore likely to be promulgated

any time from now.

In view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 10.09.2013, the



48

NCTE, New Delhi ought to have kept the appeal of the writ petitioner pending

instead of considering the same and rejecting it on 21.05.2014. It ought to have

awaited promulgation of the new regulations on the subject. The NCTE should not

have decided the appeal of the petitioner when the Supreme Court directed that all

pending applications should be decided in accordance with the new regulations. I

am, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the NCTE, New Delhi, on

21.05.2014, runs contrary to the spirit of the order passed by the Supreme Court

on 10.09.2013. Therefore, the order passed by the NCTE is set aside. The matter

is remitted to the NCTE, New Delhi, with a direction that it shall take up the appeal,

together with condonation of delay application, filed by the petitioner - Society as

soon as it meets after the new set of regulations are framed and decide the same

on merits.

It shall also be open to the NCTE to demand payment of a suitable amount

representing penalty as a condition precedent for condonation of delay.

With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Miscellaneous applications,

pending, if any shall also stand closed. No costs.

So far, this office has not received certified copy. The Committee took note of the Court order dated 11.09.2014.

10) SRCAPP582 M.Ed

St. Charles College of Education, Madhural, Tamilnadu.

TN

St. Charles College of Education, Plot/Khasara No. 46/3, Plot No. 4:523, Thirunagar Post, Thanakkankulam Village, Madhurai Taluk & District-625006, Tamilnadu. St. Charles Society Madurai, Plot No. 4:523, Street/Road. Convent Road, Thiruvalluvar Nagar Village, Thanakkanakulam Post, Madurai Taluk & District-625006, Tamilnadu had applied for grant of recognition to St. Charles College of Education, Plot/Khasara No. 46/3, Plot No. 4:523, Thirunagar Post, Thanakkankulam Village, Madhurai Taluk & District-625006, Tamilnadu, for M.Ed Course for One year duration under Section 15(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 21.09.2011. The institution has submitted hard copy of the application on 30.09.2011. The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 25.02.2012. A reminder letter to the State Government was sent on 01.05.2012. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 27.02.2012. The institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 26.04.2012.

The SRC in its 222nd meeting held on 09th – 10th May 2012, considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt.26.04.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice. Accordingly, Show cause notice was issued to the institution on 11.06.2012. The institution submitted its reply on 27.06.2012.

The SRC in its 228th meeting held on 24th –25th July 2012 considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt. 27.06.2012 and all the relevant documentary



49

evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under section 14 (1) of NCTE Act, for the following:

• Original certified copy of the land documents from Govt. authority is not submitted.

• The institution has not submitted valid minority certificate issued by the competent authority from the State Govt. as M.Ed is banned in the State of Tamilnadu.

• NAAC certificate is not submitted.

Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the institution on 09.08.2012.

The institution has not submitted reply for Show Cause Notice even after the

expiry of stipulated time of 21 days from the date of issue of the notice.

The SRC in its 233rd meeting held on 26th – 28th September, 2012 considered the non-reply of the institution to the issue of show cause notice dt. 09.08.2012 and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to refuse and reject the application of the institution for recognition of M.Ed course.

Accordingly, a rejection order was issued to the institution vide no. F.No. SRCAPP582/M.Ed (Minority)/TN/2012-13/46911 dated 29.10.2012.

The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE, Hqrs and the Appellate Authority vide order no. F.No. 89-817/2012 Appeal/4th Meeting- 2013 dated 01.04.2013 has stated as follows:

“after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to the SRC to consider the reply of the institution and all other submissions and take further action as per the Regulations.

Now therefore, the Council hereby remands back the case of St. Charles College of Education, Madurai, Tamilnadu to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above”.

The matter was placed before SRC in its 243rd Meeting held on 29th – 30th April, 2013 and the committee decided to process and put up.

The SRC in its 245th meeting held on 19-21st May 2013 has considered the Appellate authority order dt. 01.04.2013 directing to consider the reply of the institution and all other submissions for necessary action, which are duly considered and decided to reject the application for the following deficiencies still persist as under:

• The applicant institution does not have title to land.

• The institution has not submitted valid minority certificate issued by the competent authority from the State Govt. as M.Ed is banned in the State of Tamilnadu.



50

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of M.Ed course.


Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order dated 01.07.2014 remanded as follows:

“……The Council considering all aspects of the matter concluded that legal advice on the point as to whether the question relating to ownership of land is relevant for considering grant of recognition to conduct M.Ed. course by an institution which is already running a recognized B.Ed Course may be sought. Final decision in the matter may be kept pending till the legal a dvice becomes available. the Council, in their meeting held on 27.06.2014 was shown the legal advice. According to that advice, NCTE Regulations, 2009 apply for commencement of a new programme as well and therefore, ownership of land is a relevant consideration for considering grant of recognition to conduct M.Ed course (which is an additional course), by an institution which is already running a recognized B.Ed course. In view of this legal opinion, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition on the ground that the applicant institution does not have title to land and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed. After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit.the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC is confirmed. The Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.

The SRC in its 271st Meeting held on 01st August, 2014considered the appellate

authority orderdt. 01.07.2014 and the committee noted the matter. The Private Court Notice in W.P. No. 13251 of 2014dtd. 13.08.2014 has been received from Advocate Isaac Mohanlal on 18.08.2014. A brief of the case was sent to the Advocate Sri. A.Shivaji on 26.08.2014, along with a private court notice. In the mean time the Court notice in W.P.(MD) No. 13251 of 2014 has been received from Hon'ble High Court Madurai Bench of Madras on 01.09.2014. A letter to Advocate Sri. A. Shivaji was sent on 08.09.2014, along with court notice received from Hon'ble High Court. A letter dated 02/04.09.2014 received from NCTE Hqrs. on 15.09.2014 to defend the case in W.P.No. 13251 of 2014.



51

A certified copy of Hon'ble High Court Order in W.P.No. 13251 of 2014 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014dtd.18.09.2014, has been received on 05.11.2014. The Hon'ble High Court Order stated as follows:

“…the application submitted by the petitioner for recognition was rejected by NCTE on the ground that land is not in the name of the petitioner. The available materials very clearly show that the land is in the name of Society. The statute only wanted the institution to prove that they are in possession of land. The title appears to be immaterial. The Supreme Court in its order dated 10.09.2013 in S.L.P. Civil Nos. 4247 and 4248 of 2009 made it very clear that all pending application shall be decided in accordance with the new regulations. When a request was made subsequently in W.P. (MD) No. 148 of 2014 to issue a direction to the NCTE to consider the application, the Supreme Court observed that pending applications cannot be considered till new regulations are finalized. Even after the order dated 24.03.2014, directing all applications to be kept pending, the appellate authority passed the impugned order. When there is a direction issued by the Supreme Court to keep all the application for recognition pending, the appellate authority was not correct in deciding the appeal on merits. The order passed by the Supreme Court with regard to recognition would equally apply to the appeals filed against the order refusing to grant recognition. These aspects appears to have been ignored by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The appellate authority ought to have kept the matter pending new regulations are finalized and notified.

In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The National Council for Teacher Education is directed to keep the appeal pending till new regulations are notified. The application should be considered on merits immediately after notifying the new regulations.

The writ petitioner is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

The Committee took note of the Court order dated 18.09.2014. Advised Southern Regional Office to process the case of the said institution if documents are submitted, as directed by the High Court, in time.

11) ----- ----

TNTET, Tamilnadu

TN

TNTET – Relaxation for Reserved Candidates Qualifying 5% Cance Judgment– Reg. An e-mail received from SRC, NCTE on 07.11.2014 from Sri. Ravi Chandran, along with Court Order in W.P Nos. 2677 and 4558 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 of 2014 in W.P. (MD)No.2677 of 2014 and 2 of 2014 in W.P. (MD)No.4558 of 2014, dated 25.09.2014. The Hon’ble High Court Order Stated as follows:



52

“……...Hence, W.P. (MD) No.4558 of 2014 is liable to be allowed, accordingly it is allowed. The Government order G.O.Ms.No.25, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 6.02.2014 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. However, if any selection has already been made on the basis of this Government order, persons who were selected for appointment on the basis of the impugned Government order shall not be affected. In other words, this order will have prospective application, in view of the fact that those who have reaped the benefit of the impugned order were not parties to this writ petition.

2. Consequent to the order passed in W.P (MD) No.4558 of 2014, the other

writ petition W.P.No.2667 of 2014 deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions in both the writ petitions are closed.

Note:-An email from Sri. Ravichandran received by SRC NCTE on 02.09.2014 was placed in 274th SRC meeting held on 30-31st October 2014 the decision was not taken. The Committee took note of the Court order dated 25.09.2014.

12) SRCAPP1027 D.EL.Ed

Care College of Education,

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh

AP

Care College of Education, Ts No. 1765, 1766 (11-2-16), RR Pet Street, Narasaraopet Village and Post Office, Narasaraopet Taluka and City, Guntur District - 522 601, Andhra Pradesh.

Care Educational Society, Plot No - 11-12-16, Ramireddypet Street, Narasaropet Village and Post Office, Narasaraopet Taluka and City, Guntur District - 522 601, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to Care College of Education, Ts No. 1765, 1766 (11-2-16), RR Pet Street, Narasaraopet Village and Post Office, Narasaraopet Taluka and City, Guntur District - 522 601, Andhra Pradesh for D.El.Ed Course of two years duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 29.09.2011 and physical application was received in the office of SRC on 04.10.2011.

The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 08.11.2011/22.02.2011 (Reminder). A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 29.12.2011. The institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 27.02.2012.

The SRC in its 220th Meeting held on 30th – 31st March, 2012 considered the reply of the institution dt. 27.02.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 14(1) of NCTE Act.

As per the decision of SRC,a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 26.04.2012. The institution submitted its written representation on 28.05.2012.

The institution submitted a reply for Show Cause Notice after the expiry of stipulated time of 21 days period.

The SRC in its 224th meeting held on 14th – 17th June 2012 considered the reply of the institution, which is received on 28/05/2012, i.e., after 32 (Thirty two) days from the date of issue of of show cause notice dated 26/04/2012 and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the



53

committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to refuse and reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.El.Ed course.

As per the decision of SRC, a rejection order was issued to the institution on 06.07.2012.

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE-Hqrs and the appellate authority in its order No. F.No.89-458/2012 Appeal A 56096 dated 16/08/2012 stated that “… the Council concluded that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.

The institution approached the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh vide W.P. No. 39729 of 2012.The Court order dated . 27.12.2012 in W.P.No. 39729 of 2012 in stated that:“………the 2nd respondent (i.e. SRC, NCTE Bangalore) is directed to consider the application of the petitioners (i.e Care College of Education), afresh duly taking into account the reply submitted by the petitioners (i.e Care College of Education). To pave the way for this, the impugned order, dated 16.08.2012, is suspended. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) weeks.

Post immediately after Sankranthi Vacation, 2013”.

The Hon’ble Court order was placed before SRC in its 237th meeting held on 5th and 6th January, 2013 and the matter was deferred to SRC 238th meeting, which was scheduled to be held on 5th and 6th February, 2013. The same was informed to the advocate on 8.1.2013.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 239th meeting held on 26th-27th February, 2013 considered the matter and all the relevant documentary evidences decided to Process and put up with details in the 240th Meeting.

As per the direction of SRC the application was processed.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 241st meeting held on 29th – 31st March and 1st April 2013, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Court in W.P.39729/2012, the matter pertaining to Care College of Education Guntur District – 522601, Andhra Pradesh, considered the reply of the institution submitted to the Show Cause Notice issued for clearance of the file along with the connected material, relevant documentary evidences . It was noticed that the reply to the show cause notice was not satisfactory and was unconvincing and that the following deficiencies were still remaining:-

• Certificate copy of registrar land documents issued by the competent authority & Notarized copy of English version is not submitted.

• Affidavit is incomplete. (First sheet only submitted).

• Building plan is not approved by Panchayath Secretary & as per building plan Multipurpose hall is 1150 it is less than 2000 Sq.ft.

• As per building completion certificate Narasaraopet Regn. District, Narasaraopet Sub District, Narasaraopet Municipally, Ramireddypet, Northern side of Railway Station Area, Northern side of Road leading to Allurivaripalem, Narasaraopet Municipal Old Ward No. 4, New ward No. 11, T.S.No. 1765 & 1766, D.No. 11-12-16, Daba House which is an extent of 2055.88 Sq.mts

• As per sale deed as mentioned as total extent 3183.33 Sq.Yds, as per



54

affidavit as mentioned as total area 2661.57 Sq.mts, & as per building plan as mentioned as total area 2506.26 Sq.Mts. to clarify.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.El.Ed course.

As per the decision of SRC , a rejection order was issued to the institution vide F.No.SRCAPP1027/D.EI.Ed/AP/2013-14/51502 dated 10.05.2013.

On 18.11.2014, an e-mail is received from Shri.Ramakanth Reddy regarding the writ petition W.P.No. 34744 of 2014 filed by Care College of Education , Narasaropet Village and Post Office , Guntur District ,Andhra Pradesh (SRCAPP1027) in the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

A copy of the affidavit filed by the institution is enclosed. The institution has requested for suspension of rejection order of SRC dated 10.05.2013 and reconsideration of the application afresh for the year 2015-16.A letter was addressed to the advocate ,Shri.Ramakanth Reddy on 21.11.2014.

On 25.11.2014, an e-mail has been received from the advocate Shri.K.Ramakanth Reddy stating that the W.P.No. 34744 of 2014 filed by care College of Education is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal.A copy of the Court order dated 18.11.2014 in W.P.No. 34744 of 2014 (website copy) is enclosed which is as under :-

“ Heard the Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr .K.Ramakanth Reddy ,learned Standing Counsel for the respondents .

2.This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the NCTE, dated 10.05.2013 , where under the Committee declined to grant recognition to the petitioner for the D.EI.Ed Course after dulyconsidering petitioner’s application. The order impugned states that various deficiencies were found when the said application of the petitioner was examined by the Committee in its meeting and hence, the reply given by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice was having not found satisfactory and convinced, the recognition was declined. Though the said order was passed as early as on `10.05.2013, petitioner questions the same in this writ petition.

3.It is not in dispute that under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, the order of NCTE is appealable and the petitioner is entitled to invoke the appellate authority remedy, if necessary by seeking condonation of delay.

4.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that all the documents are already submitted and are available with NCTE, but the order impugned is passed without proper verification of the said documents. If that be so, petitioner is at liberty to bring that aspect to the notice of the appellate authority, when the appeal is taken up and considered by such appellate authority.



55

Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to move the appellate authority, as directed above, and if such anappeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the same, in accordance with law, on merits, as earlier as possible. As asequel, the miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

The Court order dated 08.11.2014 has not been received by this office so, far.

The Committee took note of the Court order dated 18.11.2014. 13) SRCAPP707

M.Ed S.Preethi

M.Ed College for Women, Sivagangai , Tamilnadu.

TN

S. Preethi M.Ed College for Women, Plot/Khasar No. 201/1, 201/2A, 201/2C, 201/3,StreetNo.Sivagangai,ThirumansolaiPost, SivagangaiVillage,Sivagangai Taluk & District. Tamilnadu. SpreethiM.Ed College for Women, Plot/Khasar No. 201/1, 201/2A, 201/2C, 201/3, Street No.Sivagangai, Thirumansolai Post, Sivagangai Village, Sivagangai Taluk &District.Tamilnadu.Augustine Educational & Charitable Trust, Plot No. 201/1, 2A, 2C, 201/3, Sivagangai Main Road, Arasanoor Village, Thirumansolai Post, Sivagangai Taluk & District-630601, Tamilnadu had applied for grant of recognition to SpreethiM.Ed College for Women, Plot/Khasar No. 201/1, 201/2A, 201/2C, 201/3, Street No. Sivagangai, Thirumansolai Post, Sivagangai Village, Sivagangai Taluk & District. Tamilnadu, for M.Ed Course of One year duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 26.09.2011. The institution has submitted hard copy of the application on 28.09.2011. The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State

Government for recommendation on 10.10.2011. A reminder letter to the State

Government was sent on 23.12.2011. A deficiency letter was issued to the

institution on 02.12.2011. The institution has replied to the deficiency letter on

30.01.2012.

The SRC in its 218th meeting held on 28th February 2012 decided to issue a Show

Cause Notice to the institution. Accordingly, Show cause notice was issued to the

institution on 26.03.2012. The institution has submitted its reply on 20.04.2012.

The reply of the institution to the show cause notice was duly considered by SRC

in its 222nd meeting held on 09th -10th May, 2012 and the reply is unconvincing and

not satisfactory, deficiencies still persist as under:

• NAAC certificate is not submitted.

• The institution has not submitted valid minority certificate issued by the competent authority from the State Govt. as B.Ed is banned in the State of Tamilnadu.

• The Sy.Nos. given in land use certificate, affidavit are not matching with Sy,No. of land documents submitted.


& based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE

Regulations 2009, to refuse and reject the application of the institution for



56

recognition of M.Edcourse.

Accordingly, rejection order was issued to the institution vide order dated

11.06.2012.

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to

NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order F.No.89-323/2012

Appeal/7th Meeting dated 17/08/2012. Stated as follows:

“….after perusal of the documents memorandum of appeal, affidavit,

and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the

hearing, the Council concluded that there was no ground to accept the

appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and SRC’s order dated

11/06/2012 is confirmed.

The Council hereby confirms the order appealed against.

A letter from the Advocate Sri. P.R. Gopinathan received on 07.01.2014 along with affidavit of the petitioner, with the request to send parawise comments.

A letter received from Advocate Sri. P.R. Gopinathan on 06.03.2014.

A letter to Advocate Sri. K. Ramakrishna Reddy was sent on 06.03.2014, along with counter affidavit duly signed in respect of S. PreethiM.Ed College for Women, Sivagangai, Tamilnadu in W.P. No. 23339 of 2014 in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Tamilnadu.

A certified copy of Hon'ble High Court Order in W.P.No.23339 of 2012 M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012 dated 25.03.2014 has been received on 14.07.2014.

The Hon'ble High Court Order stating as follows:

“….the writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking to quash the impugned proceedings passed by the 1st respondent in F.No. 89-323/2012 Appeal/7th Meeting – 2012 dated 17/08/2012 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in F.No. SRCAPP 707 / M.Ed/ TN/ 2011-12/ 42350 dated 11/06/2012 and consequently to direct the respondents to grant recognition of the petitioner college for M.Ed., degree course for the academic year 2012-13 after due inspection and verification within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

Mr. G. Sankaran, learned council for the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 17.03.2014 seeking permission of this court to withdraw the writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

In view of the letter dated 17.03.2014 of the learned council and his endorsement, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.

The Committee took note of the Court order dated 25.03.2014. 14) APS05561

B.Ed Rajeev

Rajeev Memorial College of Teacher Education, Mattanur, Kannur, Kerala

Rajeev Memorial College of Teacher Education, Mattanur, Kannur, Kerala was



57

Memorial College of Teacher

Education, Kannur, Kerala

KL

granted recognition for B.Ed. course on 7.12.2007 with an annual intake of 100 students with a condition to shift to its own premises within 3 years( in case the institution is started in rented premises).. As per the decision of SRC in its 175th meeting, the SRC reviewed the files of the institutions who were granted recognition either in permanent premises or in leased premises. A list of such institutions was prepared and placed before SRC in its 176th meeting.

In the 176th meeting of SRC, it was decided to issue Show Cause Notice to the institutions which was issued on 2.7.2009 calling for documents for shifting of premises. The institution submitted its explanation to the Show Cause Notice on 28.7.2009. It was observed from the file and notings that a draft agenda item was prepared, however, no further course of action is available in the file, thereafter.

On 5.10.2011, a complaint against the above institution was received from Sri. Rajesh P.V., Advocate & Notary, Taliparamba, Kannur, Kerala on behalf of Sri. Prakashan.P. This office vide letter dated 21.10.2011 had requested the complainant to submit an affidavit of Rs.100/- on non-judicial stamp paper in respect of the complaint received on 5.10.2011.

Sri. P.V. Rajesh, Advocate & Notary submitted an affidavit on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper duly signed by the complainant Sri. Prakashan.P., S/o. Damodaran, Payyanadan House, Kannothumchal, Chovva P.O., Kannur-6, Kerala. The complainant requested not to recognize Rajiv Memorial College of Teacher Education, Mattanoor and not to give affiliation as well and to take immediate steps to close down the College since it is alleged that the institution is functioning without complying the terms and conditions fixed by Kannur University and NCTE. The affidavit along with the complaint is enclosed.

In the Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 28.7.2009, the institution had stated that the construction of the proposed new building had been started and was likely to be completed upto November, 2010.

The SRC in its 215th meeting held on 12-13 December, 2011 considered the complaint of Mr. Sri. Prakashan.P and decided that to register this as a shifting case, if a file is already pending, and also to cause inspection at the premises on receipt of Rs. 40.000/- towards inspection fee and to ascertain the facts of the complaint. Accordingly, a visit wasscheduled to the institution during 6th February, 2012 to 8th February, 2012. A letter to the institution was addressed vide letter No. APS05561/B.Ed./KA/2011-12/36061 dated 18.01.2012. A fax was received from the institution on 24.01.2012 stating that they are not ready for inspection as the permanent building for the College is under construction. The building will be ready for inspection by the end of May, 2012.

As per the decision of 215th SRC meeting held on 12th – 13th December 2011, the visiting team comprising of Dr. S. Thangasamy, Director and Professor, Centre for Educational Research, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai and Dr. C. Raja Moauli, Professor, Dept. of Education, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad was proposed to the institution during 6th to 8th February, 2012. On 14.2.2012, the Visiting team has submitted a blank report stating that the inspection may kindly be postponed.

The SRC in its 224th meeting held on 14th – 17th June, 2012 has considered the matter and decided to serve Final Show Cause Notice Under NCTE Act.



58

Accordingly Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 09.07.2012, the institution submitted its written representation on 30.07.2012.

The SRC in its 235th meeting held on 21st – 22nd November 2012,considered the reply of the institution dt.30-07-2012 and all other relevant documents and decided to cause inspection as per NCTE Act, to examine whether the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, for the proposed programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the institution, as per the norms.

Accordingly, an intimation letter was sent to the institution on 03/12/2012 .

An E-Mail dated 05/12/2012 is received by this office from the Principal, Rajeev Memorial College of Teacher Education requesting the postponement of inspection to February 2013 as they are not prepared for the inspection as the permanent construction of the building of the college has been 90 % completed. Another letter regarding postponement of inspection is received by this office on 07/12/2012..

An E-mail dated 10/12/2012 and 12/12/2012 from Mr. Balaramulu and Ms.Philomena Lobo is received by this office seeking clarification regarding the date of inspection.

The Inspection team members were informed to conduct the inspection as scheduled vide F.SRO/NCTE/KL/VT/2012/47730 dated 14/12/2012.

Another letter dated 21/12/2012 from the Principal, Rajeev Memorial College of Teacher Education is received by this office on 24/12/2012 requesting for postponement of inspection to February 2013.

On 30/01/2013 , E-Mails from Mr. Balarumulu and Philomena Lobo has been received by this office enclosing a brief report of visit to Rajeev Memorial B.Ed College, Mattanur, Kannur, Kerala

The report was as under :

“On 11th January, 2013,Friday,we visited the colleges at 9.00 a.m .We were received by a reluctant Principal, Dr.Pillai. To our great shock and surprise, we found that neither the management nor the Principal had mad any preparations for the visit of VT, though it was intimated to them well in advance by both your office and by us. The basic requirements of preparedness like, filling up of the Format supplied by you was not done. No records, be it of the building or academic were kept ready. In short, it was the Principal expected us not to conduct any inspection and asked us to get back.”

A blank inspection report and non filed questionnaire has been received by this office on 01/02/2013 along with the letter from the VT members enclosing a report and a few photographs stating that”

“ We visited the Rajeev Memorial College of Teacher Education, Mattanur, Kannur District ,Kerala, as reported by the Principal earlier, the college building is not completed nor the records were produced. They were not prepared for the inspection, still as per intimation we have visited the spot and saw that the college



59

is running in the first floor of a commercial complex.

We have enclosed a report regarding the visit, the letter given by the Principal of the College, the formats given by you for the inspection and TA and Honorarium bills

A copy of the report is enclosed.

A certificate from the Principal, Dr.Vijayan Pillai submitted along with the VT report has states that :

“ On the day of their visit, the Manager of Society was not present on our premises due to ill health. Since all the original records are with the Manager himself, I couldn’t produce any document regarding the building or others, for the perusal of the V.T , nor the application format was also filled up and kept ready for the inspection.

I hereby state that, all the relevant records will be produced for inspection once our building is ready and shifted to our new campus.”

The SRC in its 241st meeting held on 29th & 31st March 2013 & 1st April 2013 considered the Institution letter dt.11-01-2013 and all other relevant documents and decided to cause inspection in the month of April-2013 under NCTE Act, to examine whether the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, for the proposed programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the institution, as per the norms.

The inspection of the institution was scheduled for 27thMay, 2013 and the same was intimated to the institution vide this office letter F.No.APSO5561/B.Ed/KE/2013-14/51703 dated 16/05/2013..Accordingly, the inspection of the institution was carried out on 30.05.2013

The Southern Regional Committee in its 248th Meeting held on 13th – 15th July 2013 considered the VT report, VCD of the institution on the above matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw recognition for the following reasons:-

• Original certified copy of the land documents from Govt. authority is not submitted.The institution has submitted photocopy of the land documents, the land documents is in favour of in individual by name Prof. K.Lakshmana, which is not permissible as per NCTE Regulations 2009. Approved blue print of the building plan issued by competent civil authority is not submitted. In the building plan copy submitted, Institution’s name is not mentioned.

• Original building completion certificate from competent Govt. authorized engineer is not submitted.

• Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund from a Nationalized Bank in joint name is not given.

• Notarized land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the educational purpose is not submitted. Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer not submitted for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purposes.



60

• Up-to-date encumbrance certificate issued by sub-registrar is not submitted.

• Staff is not accordingly to NCTE norms.

• Original affidavit is not submitted.

Supreme Court order regarding time schedule to be followed by the institutions

Keeping in view, Supreme Court vide their order in Civil Appeal No. 1125-1128/2011 in SLP No. 17165-68/2009 filed by NCTE Vs ors, which reads as under:

“An institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfills the conditions specified in various clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the application by the Regional Committee and communication of the decision on the issue of recognition it strictly adhered to”.

Based on the above points the SRC decided to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by the Rajeev Memorial College of Teacher Education, Mattanur, Kannur, Kerala, from the academic year 2013-14 in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course. It was made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order.The Affiliating body / Examining board / body were informed accordingly. Further it was decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, if any.

Accordingly, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide F.No.APS05561 /B.Ed /KL / 2013-14/53312 dated 26.08.2013.

On 08.11.2013, an e-mail was received from K.Priyesh stating as under ;

“ We wish to inform you that Rajeev Memorial B.Ed College is still working in Kannur District without your recognition. Kindly , please give a direction to Kannur University to stop the college working illegally without your recognition and also please give direction to Rajeev Memorial B.Ed College to stop their cheating to students by taking admissions without your recognition. I got information from the local public that the college authorities still going forward by taking new admissions by hiding that they have no recognition from NCTE.

Kindly take necessary actions, otherwise we have to compel to forward this matter to newspapers, channels etc.”

The Southern Regional Committee in its 256th Meeting held on 4th – 6th December 2013 considered the matter, complaint through e-mail on the said college, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to send a copy of the complaint to the Affiliating University along with a copy of the order of withdrawal of recognition for needful action.

As per the decision of SRC, a letter addressed to the Registrar, Kannur University was sent vide F.SRO/APSO5561-B.Ed/KL/2013/55713 dated 27.12.2013



61

This office has not received any reply from the University so far.

In the mean time, the institution had filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the Appellate Authority, NCTE, New Delhi against the withdrawal order of SRC. On 13.03.2014, this office has received the appellate authority order No.F.No.89-667/2013 Appeal/2nd Meeting – 2014 dated 25.02.2014 remanding back the case of Rajeev Memorial College of Teacher Education, Thrissur, Kerala to the SRC, NCTE. The Council has made the following observations ; ‘The Council noted that the SRC conducted an inspection of the institution on 30-05-2013 and after considering the VT report and other documents decided to withdraw recognition and issued the order dated 27-08-2013 citing the reasons therein. the Council noted that the SRC, before withdrawing recognition, has not issued any show cause notice to the institution as required under the provisions of Section 17 of the NCTE Act. In the circumstances the Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to the SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant institution and take further action as per the provisions of the NCTE Act.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant institution and take further action as per the provisions of the NCTE Act.

The Council hereby remands back the case of Rajeev Memorial College of Teacher Education, Thrissur, Kerala to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above, ‘

The office memorandum (directive) from the NCTE Hqrs dated 25.04.2014 is as under ;

‘The appeal Committee is in agreement with the advice of the legal Counsel about continued consideration of the appeals received so far as also those to be received in future, in accordance with law and procedure. However, in cases where the Appeal Committee decided to remand them to the Regional Committees for such actions like re-issue of deficiency letter/show cause notice or to consider the submissions of the appellant etc. it is felt that it would suffice from the point of view of the committee to state in their minutes that the suggested actions are taken in accordance with the NCTE Regulations.

Since the revised Regulations are yet to be notified, it would be appropriate if the NCTE administratively informs all the Regional committees that further action on the appellate order in case of ‘remand’ should be taken only in the light of the revised regulations to be notified.’

In view of the above legal opinion and Appeal Committee’s decision, all the Regional Offices/Committees are directed to act upon the Appellate orders of remanded back cases accordingly.

The above matter was placed before SRC in its 269th Meeting held on 1- 2



62

July,2014 and the Committee considered the appeal remand order and directed SRO to process and put up after notification of new regulations.

On 06.01.2014 , a complaint from Shri.Ajaykumar.M, Kannur, Kerala State is

received alleging that the college is making admissions without the approval of

NCTE.(copy enclosed)

The Southern Regional Committee in its 271st Meeting held on 1st August , 2014 considered the matter, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process the case after notification of new Regulations.

Further, the Committee considered the complaint from the Shri. Ajaykumar, M. Kannur, Kerala State vide letter dated 06.01.2014, stated that the said college is admitting students now; Committee has noted that the said college recognition that was withdrawn has not yet been restored. Processing of the case after remand can take place only after notification of the new Regulations. Advised Southern Regional Office to inform the University not to allow admission at this stage. Also, the college is to be directed not to admit.

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to the Registrar, Kannur University on 18.09.2014 conveying the decision of SRC not allow admissions at this stage.

On 02.09.2014, a letter dated 30.08.2014 is received from advocate

Shri.V.M.Kurian regarding the W.P.(C) No. 21785 of 2014 in the High Court of Kerala filed

by Rajeev Memorial Charitable Society against Kannur University. A copy of the writ

petition W.P.(C ) No. 21785 of 2014 filed by the institution is enclosed.

The writ petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the Ext. P 15 communication of Kannur University to restrict admission in the academic year 2014 - 15. The petitioner impleaded NCTE as additional respondent as directed by the Hon’ble Court since the above said communication is based on Ext.P11 withdrawal order F.No .APS05561 / B.Ed /KL / 2013-14/53312 dated 26.08.2013 issued by SRC,NCTE. The above writ petition came up for impleading additional respondent (NCTE) on 29.08.2014. The advocate has taken notice notice on behalf of NCTE and has requested to forward necessary instructions in the matter for preparing Counter Affidavit.

A letter was addressed to the advocate, Shri. V. M. Kurian on 23.09.2014 with a request to file Counter Affidavit by taking the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court into account.

On 01.10.2014, this office has received a letter dated 29.09.2014 from the advocate , Shri. V. M. Kurian regarding W.P.(C) No. 25181 of 2014 filed by the institution. The letter is as under :-

“ The above writ petition (W.P.( C) No. 25181 of 2014) is filed by the petitioner to quash the communication F.SRO/NCTE/KL/APS05561/B.Ed/2014/59642 dated 18.09.2014 issued by the Regional Director, NCTE, directing the petitioner not to allow the admission of students without getting approval from SRC, NCTE. The above writ petition came up for admission before the Hon’ble Court on26.09.2014 and the Hon’ble Court has passed an interim order by staying above



63

communication for a period of 2 months. We have taken notice on behalf of you and writ petition is posted for filing Counter Affidavit. Please forward necessary instructions in the matter for preparing counter affidavit.

A copy of the affidavit filed by the institution [ W.P.(C ).No. 25181 of 2014] and other relevant documents are enclosed along with the letter.

A letter was addressed to the advocate , Shri.V.M.Kurian on 28.10.2014 along with the brief of the case requesting him to file a Counter affidavit by quoting Hon’ble Supreme Court directions

The Committee took note of the Interim Court order in the matter. Advised Southern Regional Office to process the said case as soon as the new Regulations are notified and put up in 277th meeting.

15) SRCAPP189 B.P.Ed

KKBPED College, Kadapa, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

KKBPED College, Plot No.241 and 261, Tadigotla Street, Tadigotla Village, KSRM Post Office, CK Dinne Taluk, Kadapa City & District-516003, Andhra Pradesh

Aishah Juwayriyah Minority Educational and Rural Development Society Kadapa, Plot No.7/477-5-2, Bhagya Nagar Colony, Chinna Chawk Post Office, Kadapa Taluk & City, Kadapa District-516002, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to KKBPED College, Plot No.241 and 261, Tadigotla Street, Tadigotla Village, KSRM Post Office, CK Dinne Taluk, Kadapa City & District-516003, Andhra Pradesh for B.P.Ed Course of one year duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 31.12.2012 and physical application has been received in the office of SRC on 04.01.2013.

The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 06.02.2013/10.04.2013 (Reminder). A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 10.04.2013. The institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 07.06.2013 and 17.06.2013. The reply of the institution vide letter dt. 07.06.2013 to the deficiency letter was duly considered by SRC in its 248th Meeting held on 13th – 15th July, 2013 and the reply was unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persisted as under:-

1. Approved building plan issued by competent civil authority is not submitted. 2. Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund from

a Nationalized Bank in favour of Society/college/institution name is not submitted.

3. Encumbrance certificate submitted is for only one Sy.No. 241. Whereas for Sy.No. 261 encumbrance certificate is not submitted.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of B.P.Ed course.

Accordingly, a rejection order was issued to the institution vide F.No.SRCAPP189/ B.P.Ed/AP/2013-14/53498 dated 05.09.2013.

In the meantime, a court order has been received from Hon’ble High Court of



64

Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 24415 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013 stating that “…issue of notice to respondents herein returnable in four weeks to show cause as to why this writ petition should not be admitted in the circumstances set out in the petition and the affidavit filed in the writ petition. And the court also permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out personal notice to the respondents by supplying the paper book in the Writ Petition through registered post and file proof of service”.

Accordingly, a letter was sent to the advocate on 18.09.2013.

An email letter was received from Sri Ramakanth Reddy, advocate, stating that “…kindly go through the attached counter affidavit and please ensure that the signed counter reaches Hyderabad by Saturday (26th October, 2013) as the counter has to be filed in the Hon’ble High Court on Monday morning at 10.30 a.m.

Accordingly, duly signed Counter Affidavit was sent to the advocate on 23.10.2013.

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the appellate authority in its order vide No.F.No.89-698/2013 Appeal/4th Meeting-2014 dated 28.04.2014 has stated as follows:

“…Committee noted that a deficiency letter dated 10.04.2013 was issued to the appellant institution seeking information and intimating certain deficiencies. The deficiencies were required to be removed within a period of 60 days. The appellant institution furnished a reply enclosing documents on 07.06.2013. Further vide its letter dated 17.06.2013 the appellant submitted copy of blue print duly approved by Panchayat Secretary, Kadapa. The appellant at the time of submission had provided copies of FDRs issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd, which were not accepted. Subsequently removing the deficiency FDRs from State bank of India were obtained and submitted on 14.06.2013. Committee also observed that Encumbrance certificate for both the Survey no. i.e Survey no. 241 and 261 are available on file having been enclosed to the letter dated 07.06.2013 of the appellant institution (pp. 63 & 66 / cor. Refers). Keeping in view that deficiencies pointed out in the deficiency letter were removed by the appellant institution well before the refusal of SRC. The council concluded to remand back case of SRC with a direction to process the application as per regulations.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to process the application as per regulations”.

The office memorandum (directive) from the NCTE Hqrs dated 25.04.2014 is as under ;

‘The Appeal Committee is in agreement with the advice of the legal Counsel about continued consideration of the appeals received so far as also those to be received in future, in accordance with law and procedure. However, in cases where the Appeal Committee decided to remand them to the Regional Committees for such actions like re-issue of deficiency letter/show cause notice or to consider the submissions of the appellant etc. it is felt that it would suffice from the point of view of the committee to state in their minutes that the suggested actions are



65

taken in accordance with the NCTE Regulations.

Since the revised Regulations are yet to be notified, it would be appropriate if the NCTE administratively informs all the Regional committees that further action on the appellate order in case of ‘remand’ should be taken only in the light of the revised regulations to be notified.’

In view of the above legal opinion and Appeal Committee’s decision, all the Regional Offices/Committees are directed to act upon the Appellate orders of remanded back cases accordingly.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 268th meeting held during 4-5 June,2014 considered the matter; the office memorandum (directive) from the NCTE Hqrs dated 25.04.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process the said application after notification of new Regulations as per NCTE (H.Q) instruction.

On 23.06.2014, the institution submitted a request for processing of the application as per the appellate authority order.

E-mails have been received on 10.11.2014 from the advocate ,Shri.Ramakanth Reddy regarding the writ petition W.P.No. 33398 of 2014 filed by Aishah Juwayriah Minority Educational and Rural Development Society, Kadapa wherein SRC-NCTE is the 1st respondent, NCTE –Hqrs is the second respondent and the State of Andhra Pradesh is the third respondent. The advocate had sought instructions in the matter.

On 21.11.2014, a Court order dated 11.11.2014 in W.P.No. 33492 of 2014 is received by this office from the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The institution has prayed for declaration of the action of the 1st respondent (SRC-NCTE) in not following the orders of the 2nd respondent (NCTE-Hq) as arbitrary and illegal and direct the 1st respondent to grant recognition to the petitioner to start B.P.Ed course

The Hon’ble High Court order dated 11.11.2014 is as under :-

“ In view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.A.Nos. 58-59 and Batch in SLP (Civil) Nos 4247-4248 of 2009, dated 03.07.2014, new regulations of NCTE are likely to be available by 30.11.2014 and the petitioners application shall thereafter be considered in terms of the new regulations.

The Committee considered the matter, Court order dated 11.11.2014 in the matter and advised Southern Regional Office to process the said case after the new Regulations have been notified.

16) SRCAPP1392 D.El.Ed

St. Marys D.Ed College,

Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh

St. Marys D.Ed College, Plot/Khasra No. 728/1,2,3, Podili Village and Post,

Podili City & Taluk, Prakasam District- 523240, Andhra Pradesh.

Joseph Sriharsha & Mary Indraja Educational Society, Street No. 5, Plot No. 102, High Court Colony, Vanasthalipuram Post & Taluk, Hyderabad City, Rangareddi District- 500070, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to St. Marys D.Ed College, Plot/Khasra No. 728/1,2,3, Podili



66

AP Village and Post, Podili City & Taluk, Prakasam District- 523240, Andhra Pradesh for D.EL.Ed Course of two years duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 30.09.2011 and physical copy received on 03.10.2011.


Government for recommendation on 18.10.2011/ 14.12.2011. A deficiency letter

was issued to the institution on 29.12.2011. The institution has replied to the

deficiency letter on 02.03.2012.

The SRC in its 221st meeting held on 19-20th April, 2012, considered the reply of

the institution dt. 02.03.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it

was decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 14(1) of NCTE Act.

Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 15.05.2012.

The institution has submitted its written representation dt. 05.06.2012.

The SRC in its 225th meeting held on 26th-27th June 2012, considered the reply of

the institution and decided and advised SRO to scrutinize the application in detail

and put up in the next SRC meeting.

As per the decision of SRC, the application was scrutinized and placed before

SRC in its 229th Meeting held on 30th-31st July, 2012 and the Committee duly

considered the reply of Show Cause Notice and observed that the reply was

unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persisted as under:-

1. Approved blue print of the building plan in the name of the proposed college issued by competent civil authority is not submitted.

2. Notarized land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the educational purpose is not submitted. Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer not submitted for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purposes.

3. Proof of completion of 3 academic sessions towards B.Ed course which is already run by the institution from the affiliating body/State Govt/examining body is not submitted.

Under the above grounds and as per 8 (3) of Regulations 2009:

“An institution can apply for one basic unit only of an additional course or for an

additional unit of the existing recognized course after completion of three

academic sessions of the respective course, for which the institution shall submit

application before the cut off date prescribed for submission of applications in the

year succeeding the completion of three academic sessions. Maximum intake

capacity of an institution taking into consideration of all courses, along with

additional intake, in any case, shall not exceed 300”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 31.1.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 1125-

1128/2011 in SLP No. 17165-68/2009 filed by NCTE Vs ors, which reads as

under:



67

“An institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfils the conditions

specified in various clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to

ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the

conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule

fixed for processing the application by the Regional Committee and

communication of the decision on the issue of recognition it strictly adhered

to”.


& based on a collective application of mind, the Committee decided as per NCTE


recognition of D.El.Ed course.

As per the decision of SRC, a rejection order was issued to the institution on

03/09/2012.


NCTE-Hqrs and the appellate authority vide its order No. F.No. 89-

508/2012Appeal/12th Meeting-2012 A 61771 dated 03/01/2013 stated that “…the

council concluded that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and

remand the case to SRC”.

The SRC in its 240th meeting held on 9th-11th March 2013, considered the

Appellate authority order dated 03/01/2013 and has decided to further process the

application of the said institution, for necessary action.

As per decision of SRC, the application was processed and placed before SRC in

its 244th Meeting held on 09th-11th May, 2013 and the Committee considered the

Appellate authority order dated 03.01.2013, reply of the institution to the Show

Cause Notice and observed that the reply was unconvincing and not satisfactory,

deficiencies still persisted as under:-

1. Certified copy of the land documents duly approved by the competent authority is not submitted.

2. Original approved blue print of the building plan in the name of the proposed college issued by competent civil authority is not submitted.

3. Proof of completion of 3 academic sessions towards B.Ed course which is already run by the institution from the affiliating body/State Govt/examining body is not submitted.


& based on a collective application of mind, the Committee decided as per NCTE

Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.Ed

course.

As per the decision of SRC, a rejection order was issued to the institution on

07.06.2013.

In the meantime, an e-mail letter has been received by SRC from the Advocate, in



68

W.P.No.16561 of 2013 filed by St. Mary’s D.Ed College, Prakasam District,

Andhra Pradesh.

A letter was sent to advocate for defending the case along with brief of the case on

20.06.2013.

A letter was received from Shri Ramakanth Reddy, Advocate through fax on

11.07.2013 stating that “the SRC reiterated what was set aside by the appellate

authority. Kindly place it before the SRC immediately as the matter is coming up

for hearing on Monday the 15.07.2013.”

The SRC in its 248th meeting held on 13th to 15th July, 2013 considered the matter

and decided to “inform the Lawyer about the grounds on which it rejected the

application. Further, the lawyer to be informed to defend our order in the Court on

15.07.2013 specifically citing the NCTE Regulations and the Supreme Court Order

about strict enforcement of Norms/Standards”.

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to the advocate on 17.7.2013

along with brief of the case. A duly signed counter affidavit was sent to the

advocate on 18.7.2013.

A Court Notice was received from the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on

28.10.2013 in W.P. No. 26127 of 2013 filed by the above said institution

wherein,the institution had prayed the Hon’ble Court to direct the 2nd respondent to

forthwith reconsider the application of the petitioners bearing number

SRCAPP1392 in terms of the order dated 3.1.2013 passed by the 1st respondent

and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, a letter to the advocate with a request to defend the case was sent

along with brief of the case on 4.11.2013.

The advocate has sent a mail on 4.11.2013 opining as under:-

“I am of the considered opinion that as the appellate authority order is binding on

the SRC, the whole issue along with the SRC order dated 13-15 July 2013(248th

meeting) should be sent to the appellate authority for its consideration in view of

the regulation 8(3) cited by the SRC and the result thereof as decided by the

appellate authority can be informed to the Hon’ble Court on the next date of

hearing. This exercise and order of appellate authority is essential as court is of

the opinion that SRC cannot reject any case on the same grounds negatived by

the Appellate authority in appeal.

The clarification or review order passed by the appellate authority in pursuance of

the above reference by the SRC can be placed before the Hon’ble Court on the

next date of hearing. This may be placed tomorrow before the SRC for its

consideration and reference to the Appellate authority/Head Quarters/or pass



69

appropriate orders in view of the above.”

Shri. Ramakanth Reddy, advocate had forwarded counter affidavit for attestation.

Accordingly, duly signed counter affidavit was sent to the advocate on 7.11.2013.

This office received a Court Order dated 13.04.2013 in W.P.No. 26127 of 2013

on 09.12.2013 wherein the Hon’ble Court had ordered as under :-

“…..At the hearing, it has come out that the academic year 2012-13, for which the

petitioners made application, has already expired and the new academic year

2013-14 is scheduled to commence in a month or two. The counter affidavit has

referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others in support of the plea that no

recognition for the year 2012-14 can be granted, as the cut off date, namely,

03.03.2013 for recognition has already been crossed. In my opinion, the said

judgment applies to the cases where recognitions are to be granted in ordinary

course of things. In the present case, on account of the highly unreasonable and

arbitrary conduct of respondent no. 2, the petitioners have been deprived of one

academic year. Had respondent no. 2 complied with the appellate order at the

earliest the petitioners would have been granted recognition on or before the cut

off date. The petitioners cannot be put to sufferance due to the reasons, which are

solely attributable to respondent no 2. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, it could be grave travesty of justice if the petitioners are not

permitted to start the course during the academic year 2013-14. As there is still

adequate time left for respondent no. 2 for completion of the formalities, this court

is inclined to accept the plea of the petitioners for giving appropriate directions to

respondent no. 2 to enable them to commence the course in the academic year

2013-14.

In the result, the impugned order of respondent no. 2(SRC-NCTE) is quashed and

the writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- against

respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is directed to forthwith consider the

application of petitioner no. 1 made for the academic year 2012-13 for grant of

recognition for the academic year 2013-14 by ignoring the reasons on which its

application was rejected. Respondent no. 2 shall depute an inspection team and,

after completing all the formalities, it shall complete the process of granting

recognition to the petitioners before the process of counseling is commenced for

the academic year 2013-14.

As a sequel, WPMP no. 32284 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief

shall stand disposed of as infructuous”.

A letter has been received from NCTE-Hqrs., on 16.12.2013 directed as follows;-

a) The petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal available

u/s 18 of NCTE Act, 1993 and approached directly to the Hon’ble Court.



70

b) The institution cannot be granted recognition for the academic session

2013-14 at this juncture under any circumstances, as directed by the

Hon’ble Court, in the light of the time schedule fixed by the Apex Court in

the matter of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahavidyalaya and ors.

c) The Hon’ble Court in the matter of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v.

subbash Rahangdale, (2012) 2 SCC 425, in para 87 inter-alia held the

following:-

“87(i) The Regional Committees established under section 20 of the 1993

Act are duly bound to ensure that no private institution offering or intending

to offer a course of training in teacher education is granted recognition

unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993

Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations. Likewise, no recognized

institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher education

shall be granted permission unless it satisfied the conditions specified in

Section 15(3)(a) of the Act and the relevant Regulations.”

It was also requested that Regional Director, SRC to file a Letter Patent

Appeal(LPA)/Writ Appeal against the above order immediately.

Accordingly, a letter was sent to the advocate on 17.12.2013 requesting the

advocate to file an LPA/Writ appeal against the order.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 257th Meeting held during 20 -22

October,2013 considered the matter, letter dated 16/12/2013 from NCTE (H'qrs)

New Delhi and decided to remind the Lawyer to file an appeal and obtain stay.

The matter to be pursued with the lawyer.

As per the direction SRC, a letter along with brief of the case was sent to

Advocate, Shri, K. Ramakanth Reddy on 22.01.2014 with the request to file an

appeal and defend the case on interest of SRC, NCTE and NCTE Hqrs.

A letter was received from K. Ramakanth Reddy, Advocate along with appeal

affidavit and Condone delay petition for signature of Regional Director, SRC,

NCTE on 29.01.2014 and a letter along with appeal affidavit and condone delay

petition duly signed was sent to the Advocate on 04.02.2014.

An e-mail letter has been received from the advocate on 16.04.2014 with the

request to present status of the application of the college. Accordingly, the brief of

the case was sent to the advocate on 21.04.2014.

On 28.04.2014 a Court notice dated 03.04.2014 was received from Hon.ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.M.P. No. 1243 of 2014 in WASR 14034 of 2014

between NCTE and the institution. Accordingly, a brief of the case was sent to the

advocate on 1.05.201 with a request to appear before the Hon’ble Court and



71

defend the case in the matter.

On 1.5.2014 a Contempt notice in CC No. 601 of 2014 filed by Joseph Sriharsha

Mary Indraja Educational Society in the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The Honorable High Court has directed to appear

in person before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on

06.06.2014 at 10.30 a.m.

As per the Hon’ble High Court Notice No.CC No 601 of 2014 dated 16.4.2014, Mr. P.

Sriraman, Under Secretary has appeared before the Court on 6.6.2014.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 266th meeting held on 2nd May,2014,

considered the matter, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh order dated

03.04.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to

1). Ask our lawyer to file a review application citing the Supreme Court order

(s) aboutnew Regulations.

2). If the review application filed succeeds, the appeal can be withdrawn.

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was sent to the advocate Shri.Ramakanth

Reddy on 26.05.2014 along with the brief of the case and to file an appeal as per

Hon’ble High Court order in C.C.No.601 of 2014 dated 16.04.2014.

On 12.6.2014, a letter was addressed to the advocate ,Shri. Ramakanth Reddy,

requesting him to furnish the present status of appeal filed and to inform the action

taken.

As advised by the advocate, Mr. P. Sriraman, Under Secretary appeared before

the Hon’ble Court on 13.6.2014 at 10.30 a.m. along with the original file of the

institution(SRCAPP1392).

An e-mail dated 11.6.2014 was received from the advocate Mr. Ramakanth Reddy on

12.6.2014. which is as given below:-

“I have gone through the note sent by you. The contempt case and the appeal

are going to be listed on 13.6.2014. Now, the SRC at its 266th meeting held on

2.5.2014 resolved to ask the lawyer to file a review petition citing the Hon’ble

Supreme “Court order. The SRC also resolved that in the event review

application succeeds, appeal can be withdrawn.

In this regard, kindly inform the SRC of my opinion which is as follows:-

‘The learned single judge in W.P.No.26127 of 2013 held that the judgement of

the Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. Stae

of UP and others’ regarding the cut-off date as no application to this case…’

Since, the Hon’ble Court considered the above judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi



72

Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of UP and others, the review petition is not

maintainable. Review petition is maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 only if,

the judgment is not considered.

Therefore, we will pursue the appeal and in the meanwhile subject to appeal,

the order should be complied. It should be clearly mentioned in the order that

the compliance is subject to Writ Appeal W.A.M.P. No.1243 of 2014 in

W.A.S.R. 14034 of 2014/S.L.P.

This may be placed before the SRC at the earliest to avoid contempt

proceedings. If necessary, an early meeting may be called.

This office was also in receipt of a letter from Shri. K. Ramakanth Reddy , advocate on

16.06.2014 extracted as under ;

3) CC601/14 was heard by the Hon’ble Court in the presence of Mr.Sriraman. To avoid contempt, NCTE should comply with the Hon’ble Court order subject to W.A.MP 1243/2014 and WASR 14034/2014. I informed the Hon’ble Court that subject to writ appeal the matter will be placed before SRC on 2nd – 3rd July meeting for compliance. The matter will be listed again on 07.07.2014.

As advised by the advocate, Mr. P. Sriraman, Under Secretary appeared before the

Hon’ble Court on 7.7.2014.

The SRC in its 269th meeting held during 1-2 July, 2014 considered the Court matter

and decided that

1. In pursuance of the Court Order, advised SRO to cause inspection of the institution.

2. Further, the Lawyer is to be advised to pursue the appeal. Further, the SRC in its 270th meeting held during 13th July, 2014 reconsidered the

matter and decided to ask the lawyer to appear before the Hon’ble Court and

explain difficulty of SRC in implementing this order because of the Supreme Court

directive with respect to the proposed new regulations.

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to the advocate on 18.7.2014

requesting to explain the difficulty in implementing this Court order because of the

Supreme Court directive with respect to the proposed new regulations.

On 18.7.2014, this office has received a Court order dated 7.7.2014 impleading

Smt.P.Revathi Reddy, Regional Director to appear before from the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh in CC No.601 of 2014 filed by Joseph Sri Harsha Mary Indraja

Educational Society, Hyderabad and St. Mary’s D.Ed. College, Prakasam Dt., AP.

Smt. P. Revathi Reddy, Regional Director and Sri. P. Sriraman, Under Secretary

appeared before the Hon’ble Court on 21.7.2014 in Contempt case No.601 of



73

2014 in WP No.26127 of 2013.

On 23.7.2014, this office has received an e-mail from Mr. Ramakanth Reddy,

advocate stating as under:-

“Writ Appeal WA 1033 of 2014 filed by NCTE in WP 26127 of 2013

against Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja & St. Marys D.Ed. College

was heard by the Division bench today.

The Division bench did not grant stay of writ petition order on various

grounds observing that there was delay by officers. Undertaking

given as per SRC 269th meeting dated 1-2 July to pursue the Court

order and simultaneously pursue Appeal.

Though appeal has to be considered independent of the contempt

case 601/2014, the Division bench rejected the stay application.

The contempt case is going to be listed on 28.7.2014. Therefore,

the SRC, the respondents in contempt Sri. Sriraman and

Smt.Revathi Reddy should immediately prefer SLP in Supreme

Court for stay of impugned orders.”

An e-mail is received from Mr. Ramakanth Reddy on 23.7.2014 stating as under:-

“The petitioner had filed writ petition WP 26127 of 2013, contending that the SRC

passed orders in violation of the remand orders passed by the Appellate authority.

1) The complaint was despite remand orders passed by the appellate authority the SRC again rejected the application of the petitioner on the same grounds rejected by the appellate authority.

2) The Hon’ble Single Judge in WP 26127 of 2013, by Judgement dated 13.11.2013 interalia held that the SRC is bound by the appellate authority order and since the delay is due to wrong action of SRC in disobeying the orders of Appellate authority the SRC should consider grant of recognition for the academic year 2013-14 though it was stated by the SRC-NCTE in its counter affidavit and during arguments that in view of MAA VAISHNO DEVI(Para 87) no recognition can be granted for the academic year 2013-14. Meanwhile, contempt case CC 601 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner. Presence of Sri Sriraman was ordered and the presence of Smt. Revati reddy was ordered since she took charge as Regional Director though the issue pertains to Sri. Sriraman time

3) It was clearly stated in the counter filed by Sri. Sriraman that as per Maa Vaishno Devi case (paragraphs 87.3 and 87.4) recognition cannot be granted for the year 2013-2014.

4) Challenging the said judgement Writ Appeal WA 1033 of 2014 was filed by NCTE-against-Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja & St. Marys D.Ed. College. The said appeal was heard by the Hon’ble Division Bench today.

5) The Hon’ble Division Bench did not grant interim stay of writ petition order passed in WP 26127 of 213, dated 13.11.2013 on various grounds observing that there was delay by officers. Undertaking given as per the SRC 269th meeting dated 1-2 July 2014 to (i) In pursuance of the Court



74

order cause inspection and (ii) advise Lawyer to pursue the Appeal. 6) Though Appeal WA 1033 of 2014 filed by NCTE-ought to have been

considered independent of the by giving among other the above said reasons.

The contempt case is going to be listed on 28-07-2014.

Therefore, the SRC/the respondents in contempt Sri. Sriraman and Smt.

Revati Redy should immediately prefer SLP in Supreme Court for stay order in

Writ petition and Contempt case CC 601 of 2014.

On 28-7-2014, the contempt case CC 601 of 2014 will be listed. On that day,

SRC will seek adjournment. Meanwhile, the SRC should take steps for inspection

and consideration of the case of the petitioner for the academic year 2013-2014 as

per court order subject to SLP/Writ Appeal. This has to be done in view of the

orders passed in WA 1033 of 2014 and pendency of CC 601 of 2014. It has to be

clearly mentioned that in view of the said Hon’ble Supreme Court orders the

consideration for the Academic year 2013-2014 is subject to SLP/Writ Appeal.

This has to be written as violating Maa Vaishno Devi case as per Paragraphs 87.3

and 87.4 is also a contempt of Supreme Court by SRC. Hence, immediately SLP

has to be filed.

The Certified copy of interim rejection order of the Division Bench may be

available by 28.7.2014.

The relevant papers have been dispatched by BLUE Dart Courier service to

SRC and HQ to enable the SRC/NCTE to get all the papers typed and kept ready

so that SLP can be filed immediately on receipt of certified copy of writ appeal

order dated 23.7.2014.”

In view of the above, a letter was addressed to Dr. B.P.Pandey on 23rd July,2014

requesting him to the SLP at the earliest in order to avoid contempt proceedings in

the above matter.

On 24.07.2014, a copy of the Writ Appeal No.1033 of 2014 against

W.P.No.26127 of 2013 along with the chronological running index of the case was

received by this office from Shri.Ramakanth Reddy..

On 25.07.2014 , an e-mail is received from Dr. B.P.Pandey, Under

Secretary(Legal), NCTE(HQ) requesting to file SLP through Shri.Gaurav Sharma,

Legal Counsel of NCTE at Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which is as under:-

“ I am directed to refer to your letter dated 23.07.2014 received through e-mail

in the matter mentioned above and convey the approval of the competent

authority to file Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in the matter mentioned above.



75

It is , therefore, requested to file SLP through Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Legal

Counsel of NCTE at Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. For this purpose, RD-

SRC may depute one of the senior officer(s) from SRC to brief the Legal

Counsel and ensure the filing of SLP within stipulated time under intimation to

this office.

This may be given Top Priority and the compliance report be sent immediately

for kind perusal of the competent authority.”

A copy of the affidavit (contempt application) in C.C.No.601/2014 filed by the

institution against Sri.P. Sriraman, Regional Director(I/c) forwarded by Shri

Ramakanth Reddy through Sri. P. Sriraman, Under Secretary, SRC, NCTE is

received by this office on 30.07.2014.

On 30.07.2014, a memo dated 18.07.2014 filed in the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra

Pradesh (USR No. 7704/2014 dated 18.07.2014) in W.A.M.P.No. 1243 of 2014 in

W.A.S.R.No. 14034 of 2014 is received by this office filed by the Counsel for the

appellant i.e.,NCTE and another in the Hon’ble Court which states as under :-

‘It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) 4247 – 4248 of 2009

by its order dated 10.09.2013 , inter alia directed the NCTE not process even

the pending applications until new regulations are framed by NCTE. The new

Regulations will be framed before November, 2014 and the Hon’ble Supreme

Court is monitoring the case.

The learned single judge by judgment in W.P.No. 26127 of 2013 dated

13.11.2013 that is after the Hon’ble Supreme Court order cited above directed

the NCTE to consider the case of the college /society for the academic year

2013-2014.

Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme court order in SLP © 4247 – 4248 of 2009

dated 10.09.2013 is filed for perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

Hence, this memo.’

On 05.08.2014, Court order dated 23.07.2014 in WA.M.P.No. 2369 of 2014 in

WA.No. 1033 of 2014 filed by NCTE against the institution is received from the

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh.

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in W.P. the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of

the impugned order, dated 13.11.2013 passed in W.P.No. 26127 of 2013 pending

disposal of W.A.No. 1033 of 2014 on the file of the High Court.

The Court while directing issue for Notice to the Respondents herein to Show



76

Cause as to why this application should not be complied with , made the following

order:-

“Now we are on the question of grant of interim relief of stay of operation of

the impugned judgment and order. While considering this aspect of the matter we

have to examine the act and conduct of officials of the appellants demonstrated

before the learned Trial judge where contempt proceedings were initiated. We feel

act and conduct of the official of the appellant subsequent to passing impugned

judgment and order is part of prima facie in the appeal. This subsequent act and

conduct I recorded hereunder.

By the impugned judgment and order dated 13.11.2013, the learned Trial

Judge was pleased to pass the following order :

“In the result, the impugned order of respondent No. 2(SRC-NCTE) is

quashed and the writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.

10,000/- against respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is directed to

forthwith consider the application of petitioner No.1 made for the academic

year 2012-13 for grant of recognition for the academic year 2013-14 by

ignoring the reasons on which its application was rejected. Respondent

no. 2 shall depute an inspection team and, after completing all the

formalities, it shall complete the process of granting recognition to the

petitioners before the process of counseling is commenced for the

academic year 2013-14.”

This impugned order was sought to be assailed in this appeal filed on

30.01.2014. At that time, since there was an office objection, the same was

returned and ultimately, it was resubmitted on 26.03.2014 by this time the

appeal became time barred. So an application for condonation of delay

was filed and the delay was condoned subsequently. Since no stay having

been granted, contempt application was filed on 03.04.2014. After

contempt application was filed, it appears that the appeal was dismissed

for default on 27.06.2014. It was restored on 09.07.2014. It further appears

that the contempt proceedings were proceeded till 07.07.2014 by which

time there is no appeal pending in this Court. After restoration of the

appeal, it appears that on 21.07.2014 contempt application was taken up

for consideration by the Trial Judge. We could get all these factual aspects

from the original records of the contempt proceedings, which were placed

before this Court. On 21.07.2014, the learned Trial Judge, while dealing

with the contempt case, recorded as follows:-

‘Smt.P.Revathi Reddy , the impleaded respondent is personally present

along with Mr.P.Sriraman, respondent No.1 herein.

Mr.K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for both these

respondents requested for a week’s adjournment finally in order to enable the



77

respondents to find the way to implement the order of this Court.’

Now, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the writ

petitioners/respondents that the aforesaid undertaking is clear expression of

the minds of the officials concerned to find out the way to implement the order. In

that view of the matter prima facie the appeal is not entertain able and

maintainable, and as the order has been accepted there cannot be any

grievance.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order itself

is bad in law and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court taken

note of by the learned Trial Judge.

We have heard the learned counsel on the question of grant of interim

relief. We are of the view prima facie that as undertaking is given to implement the

impugned judgment and order, appeal is not maintainable for the present.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that a decision

was taken by the appellant in its 269th Meeting of SRC-NCTE wherein it is

recorded as follows :

“Pursuance to the Court order ,Cause Inspection .Advise lawyer to pursue the

appeal.’

We are not examining whether it is discharge of undertaking given before

the learned Trial Judge. All that we observe aforesaid undertaking is clear

intention of acceptance of impugned order. If the appeal is ought to be

preferred then this sort of undertaking could not have been given. It is not the

ground before us that the undertaking was given in the fear of contempt.

Taking note prima facie of the factum of accepting the impugned judgment and

order for implementation of the same, we refuse to grant interim relief.

However, all points are kept open and every thing will abide by the result of the

writ appeal.

It appears that the contempt application has been assigned by the Hon’ble,

The Chief Justice to be decided by this Bench, but we think at present

contempt application is not required to be decided along with this appeal. We

release the same from our roster. The registry is directed to place the

contempt application before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice on administrative side

for passing appropriate order.

Learned Counsel for the Writ petitioners/respondents take notice of the appeal.

Liberty is given to the parties to make a mention for early hearing of the appeal.’

On 05.08.2014, a letter dated 25th /28th July, 2014 is received from



78

Dr.B.P.Pandey requesting to file SLP through Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Legal

counsel of NCTE at Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and compliance

report be sent immediately for kind perusal of the competent authority. As

advised, an e-mail was sent to the advocate Shri.Gaurav Sharma with a

request to file an SLP in the contempt case No. 601/2014 along with a

copy of the affidavit with regard to W.A.S.R.No. 14034 of 2014 , memo

copy pertaining to USR No. 7704/2014 dated 18.07.2014

An e-mail was sent to the advocate Shri.Ramakanth Reddy by Sri. P. Sriraman,

Under Secretary, SRC, NCTE on 19.08.2014 stating as under :

“As per the advise of Shri.Gaurav Sharma, Legal Counsel of NCTE(HQ) in

the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India, it was suggested to file a review petition in

CC No. 601/2014 in W.P.No. 26127/2013 in W.A.No. 1033/2014 pertaining to

SRCAPP1392,St.Joseph Sri Harsha Mary Indraja Education

Society,Vansthalipuram Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh State You are requested

to intimate the status of the review petition. In view of the order of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. Further, you are requested to intimate the action to

be taken by SRC,NCTE in the above said Contempt Case (CC No.601 of

2014)

On 20.8.2014, an e-mail dated 19.8.2014 was received from Shri.Ramakanth

Reddy stating the case status pertaining as under :-

‘Review petition has been filed. Regarding further action let us await the

same. If meanwhile contempt is listed we will inform the Hon’ble Court

about the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.09.2013 and the

Review application and we will follow the Hon’ble Court, which may not

direct us to violate 10.09.2013 order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.’

The information on the case status of Sri. Ramakanth Reddy was sent to

Dr.B.P.Pandey, Under Secretary(Legal), NCTE, New Delhi requesting to file SLP

in the matter in order to avoid contempt proceedings as under:-

“ As per the information received from the advocate ,Shri.K.Ramakanth Reddy,

legal Counsel for NCTE in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and

Telangana, the Review Petition is not heard till date as the Hon’ble Judge is on

leave till 20.08.2014 (today).The status of the Review Petition will be informed

as and when it is heard .In the meanwhile, you are hereby requested to file the

Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In order to avoid

contempt proceedings in the contempt case.”

On 21.08.2014, an e-mail was sent to the advocate , Shri.Ramakanth Reddy

requesting to send a copy of the Review Petition filed in the Hon’ble High Court

of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for needful action. Opinion of the Legal

Counsel was sought regarding implementing Court order(regarding conduct of



79

inspection) since SLP is not yet filed and Review Petition application has not

come up before the Hon’ble Court and Contempt Case (CC No. 601/2014) is

being heard shortly,. in order to avoid contempt proceedings.

On 22.08.2014, an e-mail is received from Shri Ramakanth Reddy stating as

under :-

“The learned single Judge said the matter has not been appealed in the

Supreme Court..There is no stay by Supreme Court and therefore order of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.09.2014 and SRC resolution to explain the

difficulty implementation of order does not arise.

The learned Judge directed that the RD and US should be present and explain

the time within which the Court order will be implemented.

In view of the above, inspection may be fixed for Wednesday. The RD will have

to be present in the Hon’ble court even on Thursday to attend and complete

paper work.

It may be mentioned in the letter being sent to the college informing that

inspection is subject to Writ Appeal/SLP.”

Accordingly, as per the advice of the Advocate, the inspection of the institution

is fixed on Wednesday, 27th August, 2014 and the same was intimated to the

institution vide this office e-mail dated 23.8.2014 and letters dated 25.08.2014.

On 25.08.2014 an e-mail is received from Shri. Ramakanth Reddy stating as under

(copy enclosed):-

I am of the considered opinion that :

1. SLP should be filed to get the contempt proceedings stayed at least untill

the Review petition in writ appeal is decided or at least writ appeal is decided.

This will be granted in all probabilities as the learned single judge order in

contrary to Hon’ble Supreme court orders in MAA VAISHNO DEVI CASE and

the case pertaining to stay of processing of all pending applications pending

framing of new regulations in SLP.No. 4247-4248 of 2009 dated 10.09.2013

and subsequent orders. If SLP is not filed w3e may incur displeasure of the

Hon’ble supreme court for not bringing this to their knowledge. This may also

amount to contempt of Hon’ble Supreme court orders in MAA VAISHNO

DEVI case and SLP .No. 4247 of 2009 dated 10.09.2013 and subsequent

orders.

2.Meanwhile, we can inspect the college pending writ appeal/SLP

Therefore immediately, we should inspect the college to avoid contempt and

simultaneously get a stay of contempt proceedings pending Writ appeal

/Review petition from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This should not be a



80

problem .If we don’t file SLP it may amount to contempt of Hon’ble Supreme

Court order by SRC-NCTE, as we are under a legal obligation to bring this

issue to the knowledge of the Hon’ble Supreme court which has been trying to

maintain standards in teacher education by supporting NCTE. Therefore this

has to be done. We cannot simply wait for review to be listed since this option

of filing SLP is available.

On 25.08.2014, a Court order dated 22.08.2014 in CC.No. 601 of 2014 from

the High court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the

State of Andhra Pradesh is received by this office.

The Hon’ble High Court order dated 22.8.2014 in the CC No.601 of 2014 of

Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy is as under :

“ Despite the order of the Division Bench declining to grant an interim order in the Writ Appeal filed against order dated 13.11.2013 and to interfere with the contempt proceedings, the Contemnors have not implemented the order of this Court. When this Court has expressed its utter displeasure at the attitude of the Contemnors, Mr. Satyanarayana Goud, learned Counsel representing them, submitted that he has also advised the Contemnors to implement the order of the court and that a statement on the time limit, within which the said order will be implemented, will be made on the next dated of hearing.

Post on 27.08.2014.

Both the contemnors shall be personally present on 27.08.2014.’

As per the email of the advocate dated 19.8.2014, it was suggested to await the decision of Hon’ble Court, but as per the Order, it appears as if the advocate has instructed to cause inspection and SRC, NCTE has not taken action Also it is observed from the Court Order dated 22.08.2014 that Mr. Ramakanth Reddy, Legal Counsel has not appeared before the Court even though it is a contempt case.

On 01.09.2014, the VT Report of the inspection of the institution conducted on 27.08.2014 is received by this office

Affidavits for filing SLP and Interim Application in SLP to be filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India were received from Shri. Prateek Bhatia on 01.09.2014 and the duly signed affidavits by the Regional Director were sent to Shri.Gaurav Sharma, the legal counsel for NCTE in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on 01.09.2014 with a request to file an SLP and an interim application in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

On 01.09.2014, a letter dated 30.08.2014 is received from the advocate ,Shri.Ramakanth Reddy along with a copy of the memorandum of review petition Review W.A.M.P.No. 2613 of 2014 in W.A.M.P.No. 2369 of 2014 in W.A.No.1033 of 2014 stating that he will be present in the Supreme Court on



81

the date of hearing of SLP for clearing doubt, if any. SRC in its 272nd meeting held during 1 -2 September,2014, considered the VT

report and related documents and decided as under :-

1.VT Inspection report is received. The only deficiency seen is absence of

Encumbrance Certificate. Therefore, ask them to produce latest

Encumbrance Certificate.

2.Thereafter, this case will have to be held on hold. Processing can revive

only after notification of the new Regulations, as directed by the Supreme

Court.

3.We had not given any undertaking to the single-judge bench. The

Division Bench’s observation in this regard is therefore, factually inaccurate.

In ourreview petition please add a prayer to correct this error

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to the advocate ,Shri.

Ramakanth Reddy on 04.09.2014

On 04.09.2014, a Court Order dated 27.08.2014 from the High Court of


Pradesh in C.C.No. 601 of 2014 is received by this office.The Court order is as

under :-

“ The respondents are personally present in the Court.

Sri. K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned Counsel representing the

respondents , stated that the process of implementation of the order of this

Court has been commenced with the inspection being held today and that the

SRC meeting is scheduled to be hide on 01-09-2014 and 02-09-2014.Leraned

Counsel has given firm assurance that a positive decision will be taken in the

proposed SRC meeting and that the decision in the SRC Meeting will be

reported to this Court immediately after holding of the said meeting. He

requested for adjourning of the case by two weeks for reporting compliance.

Post on 10-09-2014.

The presence of the respondents is dispensed with for the time being in the

hope that no further twists in the case would arise in the matter of

implementation of the order of this Court.”

A letter was addressed to Shri.Gaurav Sharma, legal counsel of NCTE in the Supreme Court of India on 04.09.2014 requesting him to inform whether an SLP has been filed in the Hon’ble Court as the matter was coming up on 10.09.2014 in the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad , As per the text message received from the advocate Shri.Gaurav Sharma , an e-mail was sent to Shri. Ramakanth Reddy on 09.09.2014 stating that an SLP has been filed on 09.09.2014 vide diary No. 300024 ,A duly signed affidavit was also



82

sent by mail to the advocate, Shri.Ramakanth Reddy to file Counter Affidavit in the matter , if required. On 10.09.2014, an e-mail was received from Shri. Ramakanth Reddy stating that CC 601 /2014 came up for hearing on 10.09.2014 and the order dictated in the Court is like : Ramakanth Reddy states that SLP is filed is Supreme Court and requests two weeks time. If the respondents do not comply with the order of this Court in 2 days the respondents will be sent to Judicial Remand.The matter will be listed on 12.09.2014.Order should be complied by Friday subject to SLP to avoid contempt. Simultaneously, a letter was addressed to the Dr.B.P.Pandey, Under Secretary,

NCTE-Hq on 10.09.2014 enclosing the mail received from Shri.Ramakanth

Reddy . He was informed that this office is compelled to comply with the Court

order and issue Letter of Intent to the College. His advise in the matter was

sought. A copy of the same was sent by e-mail on 10.09.2014.

As per the advise of the Chairman,SRC, NCTE, a Letter of Intent was issued to

the institution on 11.09.2014 mentioning the condition that the Letter of Intent is

subject to the result of W.A.No.1033 of 2014 filed before Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and Telangana State, Review Petition files in the subject case

and SLP filed vide Diary No.30024 dated 09.09.2014 in the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India.

On 11.09.2014 an e-mail was received from Shri.B.P.Pandey stating that

“ with reference to your e-mail dated 10.09.2014 in the matter , I am to convey the

approval of the competent authority to identify the Senior Counsel/Advocate for

this matter and send the name to this office for approval/ engagement

immediately.”

Further, it was informed that Shri. E. Manohar ,Senior Advocate, H.No. 1-1-

380/20/A/1 ‘Ashok Nagar Extension, Hyderabad – 500 020 was engaged to

appear before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 12.09.2014 and a

bill was received from Shri.E.Manohar amounting to Rs. 2, 25,000/- .(Rupees two

lakh, twenty five thousand only) on 15.09.2014.A copy of the bill was forwarded

to Shri. B. P. Pandey, on 22.09.2014 for approval of the same. So far the Court

order dated 12.09.2014 stating the appearance of Sr. advocate is not received by

this office.

On 15.09.2014 and 16.09.2014 , a Court order dated 10.09.2014 in CC.No. 601 of

2014 is received by this office .The Hon’ble High Court order dated 10.09.2014 is

as given below :-

“ Sri. K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents, requested

for two weeks adjournment, for filing SLP.

This Court has unequivocally declined this request, as during the past three



83

adjournments , the respondents have held out that they are in the process of

implementing the order of this Court. This Court is prima-facie of the

opinion that the respondents are unfair and trying to evade implementation of

the order of this Court. Having noticed the serious view of this Court, the

learned counsel for the respondents requested for two days’ adjournment to

advise his clients to implement the order of this Court and report compliance.

If compliance is not reported by the next date of hearing , this Court may

exercise the option of sending the respondents to judicial custody pending the

contempt case.

Post on 12.09.2014”

On 23.09.2014, this office has received an e-mail from the advocate ,Shri. Ramakanth

Reddy which is as under :-

“Since, 09-09-2014, the SLP diary number 30024, filed in the Hon’ble

Supreme Court regarding CC 601/ 2014 and connected writ petition / writ

appeal is showing “ under Scrutiny”. Since 18 days it is showing “ under

scrutiny” which is not normal. Kindly inform the concerned to comply the

defects and make arrangements to get it numbered. If the defects are

complied the case will be numbered and in all probabilities we will get a

stay in mentioning itself. This has to be done immediately as the

Hon’ble Supreme Court also has vacation from next week.”

In view of the above , a draft letter was addressed to the advocate ,Shri.Gaurav

Sharma on 24.09.2014 with a request to look into the matter, file SLP immediately

and inform the case status to this office.

In the meantime, on perusal of the website , it was noticed that an SLP is filed vide

No. 27026 of 2014 and is listed for hearing on 26.09.2014.Since the case was

coming up before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra pradesh on 26.09.2014, the

matter was informed to Shri.Ramakanth Reddy with a request to seek extension of

time in the matter.

As Mr.Gaurav Sharma , Legal Counsel of NCTE , in the Supreme Court of India

wanted to have the order for appearance of Sr. Advocate on 12.09.2014, the

same was informed to Shri.K. Ramakanth Reddy to send the order by e-mail on

26.09.2014.

Further , on 26.09.2014, an e-mail is received from Shri.K.Ramakanth Reddy

stating that the petitioner sought time to comply with conditions of appointment of

teaching staff and hence , matter has been adjourned to 10.10.2014.A copy of the

mail was forwarded to Dr.B,.P.Pandey for reference and needful action on

26.09.2014.



84

On 26.09.2014, an E-Mail is received from Shri.B.P.Pandey,Under

Secretary,NCTE-HQ stating as under :-

“ I am directed to refer to your letter No. 59658 dated 22.09.2014 received

through email dated 25.09.2014 in the matter mentioned above and to convey the

approval of the competent authority in NCTE for engagement of Shri.E.Manohar,

Senior Advocate, H.No. 1-1-380/20/A/1,Ashol Nagar Extension, Hyderabad for

defending the case @ Rs. 2, 25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand

only) as legal fees.

You are, therefore, requested to be in touch with the Senior Advocate

along with the Legal Counsel of NCTE at Hyderabad to defend the best interest of

NCTE and any development in the case may be intimated to this office from time

to time. “

On 29.09.2014, a Court order dated 26.09.2014 from the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in SLP( C).No. 27026 of 2014 ( arising out of impugned final judgment

and order dated 23.07.2014 in W.A.No. 1033/2014 passed by the High court of


Pradesh) is received by this office .( downloaded from the website)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 26.09.2014 is as under :-

“ Taken on board .

Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain ,learned Counsel , appears and accepts notice on

behalf of the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since the order impugned only directs to consider the case of the

respondents , no interference is called for. The same may be considered in

accordance with law within two weeks from today.

The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.”

The above ratification of issuance of LOI (to avoid Contempt Case) and the

Hon’ble Supreme Court order was placed before SRC in its 273rd Meeting held

during 30th September, 2014 and 1st October, 2014 and the Committee decided as

under :-

“1.High Court order to issue LOI was complied with as directed by the

Court.

2.Supreme Court has now closed the SLP saying SRC can ‘consider’ the

case in accordance with law. In terms of the Supreme Court order, we can

‘process’ such cases only after notification of the new Regulations to

‘process’ the case on merits in accordance with law .after notification of



85

the new Regulations.

3.The writ Appeal filed by us is pending. Let us await the decision therein.

Apprise the High Court of this position.”

On 07.10.2014, hard copy of the letter dated 25th September, 2014 from

Dr.B.P.Pandey, Under Secretary, NCTE(HQ) is received by this office regarding

approval of competent authority in NCTE for engagement of Shri.E. Manohar for

defending the case @ Rs. 2,25,000/- legal fee.

On 08.10.2014, an e-mail is received from Shri.Gaurav Sharma enclosing a copy of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 26.09.2014 in SLP ( C ) No. 27026/2014.the advocate has stated has under :- “ As per your instructions an SLP (C ) No. 27026/2014 was drafted and filed in

the matter above- mentioned, against the order dated 23.07.2014 passed in

W.A.No. 1033 of 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The above mentioned matter was listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.G.Gowda and Hon’ble Mr.

Justice A.K.Goel for mentioning on 26.09.2014.

The Hon’ble court after hearing the parties directed the Petitioner – SRC,NCTE , to consider the case of the respondent college in accordance with the law, within two months from the date of the order.

[ Please find attached a copy of the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the above mentioned matter

A letter was addressed to Shri. Ramakanth Reddy on 09.10.2014 conveying the decision of 273rd Meeting of SRC. A copy of the e-mail from Shri.Gaurav Sharma and the Court order dated 26.09.2014 were enclosed along with the letter and he same was also sent by e-mail to the advocate on 09.10.2014. As desired by the advocate, Shri.Ramakanth Reddy, copies of the LOI issued to the institution, Office memorandum of NCTE-Hq dated 16th April , 2014 and Office Memorandum of the NCTE-Hq dated 25th April, 2014 were sent by e-mail on 10.10.2014. Legal fees of the advocate , Shri. E. Manohar was paid by this office vide cheque No. 449970 dated 09.10.2014 and letter dated 10.10.2014. On 14.10.2014, an e-mail is received from Shri.Ramakanth Reddy in respect of C.C.No. 601/ 2014 arising out of the writ petition and writ appeal W.A. 1033/2014 and connected with SLP . No. 27026/2014 filed by Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja Educational Society and St. Marys D.Ed College. The advocate has stated as under :-

“ The C. C. No. 601/ 2014 arising out of the writ petition and writ appeal



86

W.A. 1033/2014 and connected with SLP .No. 27026/2014 was heard by the Single Judge of the High Court on 13.09.2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in SLP No. 27026 / 2014 , dated 26.09.2014 was placed before the Single Judge along with the resolution of the SRC dated 30th September – 1st October, 2014 passed in compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme court Order in SLP.No. 27026/ 2014 dated 26.09.2014.The single Judge is not closing the contempt case stating that the Supreme court has not said any thing about the contempt case and that the Supreme Court has not interfered with the High Court order by specifically mentioning the same in the SLP order. The contempt case C.C.No. 601/2014 has been adjourned by 4 weeks on 13.10.2014. I, therefore advise you to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking quashing / closing of the Contempt Case since the SRC complied the orders of the Hon’ble SC and passed a detailed resolution as per Law only in Supreme Court as we complied with orders of the Hon’ble Supreme court dated 26.09.2014. Immediate steps may be taken since the single judge might take serious action in the contempt case.”

A letter was addressed to Shri. Gaurav Sharma, Legal Counsel of NCTE in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, requesting him to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court and file an application for quashing the Contempt Case expeditiously as the case is adjourned by 4 weeks from 13.10.2014.A copy of the same was marked to Shri.B.P.Pandey. A copy of the e-mail dated 14.10.2014 of Shri. Ramakanth Reddy was forwarded to Shri. B.P. Pandey. Under Secretary, NCTE-HQ. On 09.10.2014, the institution has submitted a copy of the staff list approved by the District Education Officer, Ongole along with brief report on procedure of selection adopted by the institution . On 15.10.2014, the Chairman and Correspondent, St. Marys D.Ed College , Podili Village, Prakasam District- 523 240 has submitted a request for signature on FDR application form for creation of Joint FDRs for Endowment Fund and Reserve Fund.. On 20.10.2014, the institution has submitted a written representation as under :- “ We wish to inform your goodselves that pursuant to the grant of Letter of Intent by National Council for Teacher Education vide reference(1) cited, we have obtained the staff approval as per the norms of NCTE and SCERT,AP vide reference (2) cited. We have also uploaded the required information in the website of the college . We are herewith submitting the following for your perusal .



87

1. Staff approval for 1 Principal and 7 lecturers granted by SCERT,AP. 2. Joint Fixed Deposit Receipts for Rs. 5 lakhs towards endowment fund and Rs. 3 lakhs towards Reserve fund in the joint names of the Society and the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, Bangalore. 3. Annexure I, affidavit on Rs. 100/- stamp paper( management) in the prescribed format duly notarized. 4. Annexure II – Affidavits of Principal and lecturers on Rs. 20/- stamp papers in the prescribed format duly notarized. 5. Annexure III – Proforma with respect to details of Principal and Lecturers. 6. Encumbrance Certificate of the land of the institution up to 03.09.2014. We have complied with all the requirements as per the Letter of Intent granted to us vide reference (1) cited and we request you to kindly grant us Letter of Approval under the name and style of St.Mary’s D.Ed College from the academic year 2014-15 immediately so as to get affiliation from the State Government for inclusion in the Counseling for D.Ed course for the academic year 2014-15.” On 27.10.2014, the institution has submitted original Encumbrance Certificate up to 19.10.2014. On 27.10.2014, an e-mail has been received from the advocate ,Shri. Ramakanth Reddy enclosing a letter dated 24th October, 2014, Copy of the Hon’ble supreme court order in S.L.P. (C ) No. 27026 of 2014 and a copy of the Memo USR No. 3387 The letter dated 24.10.2014 from the advocate Shri. Ramakanth Reddy is as under :-

“The Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave Appeal(c) No.(s) 27026 of 2014 dated 26.9.2014 arising out of order dated 23.7.2014 in W.A. No.1033 of 2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, was filed on 10.10.2014, before the Hon’ble Single Judge along with the resolution of the SRC 273rd meeting held between 30th September and 1st October, 2014 in contempt case 601 of 2014(Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society). The Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave Appeal(C) No.(s) 27026 of 2014 dated 26.9.2014 along with the resolution of the SRC 273rd meeting held between 30th September and 1st October, 2014 was filed before the Hon’ble Single Judge on 10.10.2014 and was given USR Number 3387 of 2014. The same filed vide memo bearing USR No.3387 of 2014, became part of record in the contempt case No.601 of 2014. Since the case itself has been disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court nothing remains in the writ appeal. The said judgement is extracted below: “…Upon hearing the counsel the court made the following:

ORDER



88

Taken on board Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain, Learned Counsel, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. Since the order impugned only directs to consider the case of the respondents, no interference is called for. The same may be considered in accordance with law within two weeks from today. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.” . The contempt case 601 of 2014 came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Court on 10.9.2014 and the Hon’ble Court adjourned the matter by 4 weeks. The matter will be listed again on 14.11.2014. Now, let us know whether the SRC resolution dated 30th September and 1st October, 2014 is in accordance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 26.9.2014 and whether the SRC resolution dated 30th September and 1st October, 2014 amounts to contempt of the Hon’ble High Court order. Interpretation from our Counsel at Delhi should be obtained since you were informed by him that no clarification or petition for stay of contempt as advised by the Senior Counsel at Hyderabad Sri. E. Manohar, Ex-Advocate General is possible in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this regard I had mailed to you. In this regard you were also informed by Sri. E. Manohar, Ex-Advocate General. The SRC should obtain legal opinion from our learned Delhi Counsel Sri. Gaurav Sharma since he handled the case in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the above aspect and the same should be placed before the SRC in its next meeting. I will take the stand as opined by the said learned counsel and the SRC before the Hon’ble High Court. This will solve the problem.”

A letter was addressed to Shri. Gaurav Sharma , legal counsel of NCTE in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 27.10.2014 with a request to give his opinion by 29.10.2014 since contempt case C.C.No. 601/2014 is coming up for hearing on 14.11.2014 and the 274th Meeting of SRC is scheduled during 30th – 31st October, 2014.A copy of the same was sent by E-Mail also on 27.10.2014. Reply from the advocate is awaited. SRC in its 274th meeting held on 30th and 31st October, 2014 considered the matter and decided as under :-

1. High Court order is only to ‘consider for 2014-15’

2. Supreme Court has said, ‘Decide accordingly to Law’. Supreme

Court decision is ‘Law’ for us. Supreme Court has asked us not to process

cases until notification of new regulations. We will have to bear this in

mind.

3. But, before taking such a decision, as advised by Shri. Gaurav Sharma, Regional Director may discuss with our senior counsel and advise SRC.

As per the decision of 274th meeting of SRC, the matter was discussed with Senior



89

Legal Counsel, Shri. E. Manohar by the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE .A copy of the report of consultation was sent Shri.B.P.Pandey ,Under Secretary,NCTE Hqrs ,Shri.S. Sathyam, Chairman,SRC,Shri.Gaurav Shrama , Legal Counsel at the Supreme Court and Shri.Ramakanth Reddy on 05.11.2014. An e-mail dated 14.11.2014 was received from the advocate ,Shri.Ramakanth Reddy stating as under :-

“The contempt case CC.601/2014 came up for before the learned single

Judge of the Hon’ble High Court..I argued before the Hon’ble Court that the

Hon’ble Supreme court directed that the matter should be considered

within two weeks in accordance with law. Accordingly, SRC considered the

matter and passed a resolution as per the Hon’ble Supreme court order

dated 26.09.2014 in SLP.No. 270126 of 2014 .That the SRC at its 273rd

meeting held on 30t September and 1st October resolved that 1. High

Court order to issue LOI was complied with as directed by the Court.

2.Supreme Court has now closed the SLP saying SRC can ‘consider’ the

case in accordance with law. In terms of the Supreme Court order, we can

‘process’ such cases only after notification of the new Regulations to

‘process’ the case on merits in accordance with law .after notification of the

new Regulations. 3.Thewrit Appeal filed by us is pending. Let us await the

decision therein. Apprise the High Court of this position.” It was also

argued that SRC is bound by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

SLP No. 4247-4248 of 2009 dated 10.09.2009, wherein the Supreme court

directed the NCTE not to process any new or pending applications until

new regulations are framed. Since the order of the Supreme Court in SLP

.No. 27026/2014 dated 26.09.2014 directs NCTE to consider as per law the

above resolution was taken by SRC at its 273rd meeting held on 30th

September and 1st October. Thus the case was considered as per law in

line with the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments and that there is no flaw in

the decision. The 274th meeting of SRC was also placed before the Hon’ble

Court.

The judge was not convinced and went on saying the Supreme Court has

confirmed High court order and directed to consider as per law and that

means my order and it has nothing to do with the Hon’ble Supreme Court

order in SLP .No. 4247-4248 of 2009 dated 10.09.2009 .The judge said

SRC-NCTE has not obtained any order against contempt case CC

601/2014.The judge was serious and directed that if the order is not

complied immediately the judge would pass orders for deliberate contempt.

In that view of the matter I requested the Court some time for compliance

subject to SLP that should be filed by SRC/NCTE against the present order

dated 14.11.2014.

The true text of the order will be available by tomorrow and the same

should be challenged in the Hon’ble Supreme court as compliance of single



90

judge order amounts to contempt of Supreme Court order in SLP.No.4247-

4248 of 2009 dated 10.09.2009.Under threat of contempt against the

Regional Director time was sought to comply with the order since the

learned single judge felt it is a clear contempt. Hence any action towards

compliance can be taken subject to filing SLP in view of the above. This

may be discussed with our lawyer Mr.Gaurav Sharma also since filing of

SLP is a must and SRC is caught between the Devil and the deep sea.If

we comply we are committing contempt of order in SLP.No. 4247-4248 of

2009 dated 10.09.2009 and if do not comply we are committing contempt

in C.C.No.601/2014 as per the learned single judge.

Please treat this as urgent since the matter will be listed on 18.11.2014.The

matter may be discussed with Mr.Gaurav , learned advocate supreme

Court today itself and explore the possibility of filing SLP on monday itself

and mention on tuesday or any way in that direction.”

The mail received from Shri. Ramakanth Reddy (detailed above ) was forwarded to the advocate ,Shri. Gaurav Sharma on 14th November,2014. The mail received from Shri.Ramakanth Reddy was forwarded to the Members of the Southern Regional Committee on 14.11.2014 along with the following observation :- “ It is brought to the notice of the Committee that, the orders of the Hon’ble High court in W.P.No.26127 of 2013 is to grant formal recognition to the College for the academic year 2013-14.durng one of the hearing , the legal Counsel of NCTE has brought to the notice of the Court that the affiliation and admissions for the academic year 2013-14 are closed. Therefore , the Court has orally ordered for granting recognition for the year 2014-15 as the affiliation and admission process for 2014-15 is not over. The College has also in its reply to the LOI through the letter dated 20.10.2014 requested for grant of Formal Recognition for the year 2014-15. Early orders are solicited as the case is next listed on 18.11.2014 and as per the mail, the judge is serious and directed that if the orders is not complied immediately, the judge would pass orders of deliberate contempt.” An e-mail was sent to the advocate , Shri.Ramakanth Reddy on 15.11.2014 with a request to send the certified copy of the Court order in CC No. 601 of 2014 for filing SLP in the Supreme Court of India . Subsequent to the mails, the Chairperson, SRC has over telephone informed the Regional Director that SRC decided to issue Formal Recognition for the year 2014-15 as per the Court orders subject to the result of WA,SLP or any other case to be filed before the Hon’ble Courts. Further, the said decision may be placed before SRC in the next meeting for post facto approval. Formal Recognition order was issued to the institution vide F.SRO /SRCAPP 1392/D.EI.Ed/AP/2014/60165 dated 17.11.2014 for the conduct of D.EI.Ed course



91

of two years duration with an annual intake of 50 students from the academic session 2014-15 subject to the result of Writ appeal , Review Application in SLP No. 27026 of 2014 or any other case to be filed in the subject case before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and/or the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. On 26.11.2014, an email forwarded by Shri.Ramakanth Reddy is received by this office. Website copy of the Court order of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 18.11.2014 in C.C.No. 601 of 2014 is enclosed. The Court order dated 18.11.2014 in C.C.N0.601 of 2014 is as under :- “ This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order , dated 13.11.2014, in W.P.No. 26127 of 2013 by the respondent. After a see-saw of events and a number of opportunities presented to the respondents to implement the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondents have finally realizedandissuedorder vide F.SRO/SRCAPP1392/D.EI.Ed/AP/2014/60165 dated 17-11-2014. In view of this subsequent event, the contempt Case is closed and the respondents are discharged from the Contempt proceedings. As a sequel, Application No. 846 of 2014 , filed by respondent No.1, herein, is disposed of as infructuous.” The above matter is placed before SRC for post facto approval of Formal Recognition issued on 17.11.2014 and the C.C order for decision and direction. The Committee considered the matte, decided that:

1.The Formal Recognition issued as per Court Order is confirmed ex post facto, and 2. Advised Southern Regional Office to pursue the SLP.

17) APS01652 B.Ed

Sri. Satyam College of Education,

Bellary, Karnataka

KA

Sri. Satyam College of Education, #195C, 8th Cross, M.V.Nagar, Koppagal Road, Bellary-583103, Karnataka. Sri. Satyam College of Education, #195C, 8th Cross, M.V.Nagar, Koppagal Road, Bellary-583103, Karnataka was granted recognition for offering B.Ed with an intake of 100 students vide order dated 24.12.2005. As per decision of SRC in its 175th meeting the office of SRC has reviewed the files of the institutions which were granted recognition either in a rented premises pending construction of own building or in lease premises. A list of such institutions was prepared and placed before SRC in its 176th meeting held on 27-28 May 2009 wherein, it was decided that the institutions which have not shifted to the permanent premises even after the expiry of three years time limit be issued Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act for further action. Accordingly, a Notice was issued to the institution on 01.09.2009 for the following deficiencies:-



92

1. Demand Draft of Rs. 40,000/- towards inspection fee in favour of “The Member Secretary, NCTE” payable at Bangalore should be submitted.

2. Land documents of the new building/location for having own land in the name of the institution/Society/Trust.

3. Building plan of the new building duly approved by the Government authority. 4. Building Completion Certificate from the Government authorities in the

prescribed format (Format enclosed). 5. Land Usage Certificate from the concerned Government authorities stating that

the land is exclusively permitted /sanctioned for Educational purposes only should be submitted.

6. Encumbrance Certificate from the competent Government should be submitted.

7. Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 5 lakhs kept in Joint Account with SRC in Nationalised Bank for a period of 5 years towards Endowment Fund in Original should be submitted.

8. Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs kept in Joint Account with SRC in Nationalised Bank for a period of 5 years towards Reserve Fund in Original should be submitted.

9. Certificate of Registration/Bye-law of the Society/Trust should be submitted. 10. The affidavit in Rs.100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format with Notary

attestation (format enclosed). The institution did not care to respond to the notice issued on the institution even after lapse of one year six months. The SRC in its 203rd meeting held on 31st March & 1st April, 2011 considered the matter of over one and a half year non- response of the institution and decided to issue Final Show cause Notice. Accordingly, a Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 05.05.2011 for the following deficiencies:-

1. Demand Draft of Rs. 40,000/- towards inspection fee in favour of “The Member Secretary, NCTE” payable at Bangalore should be submitted.

2. Land documents of the new building/location for having own land in the name of the institution/Society/Trust.

3. Building plan of the new building duly approved by the Government

authority. 4. Building Completion Certificate from the Government authorities in the

prescribed format (Format enclosed). 5. Land Usage Certificate from the concerned Government authorities stating

that the land is exclusively permitted /sanctioned for Educational purposes only should be submitted.

6. Encumbrance Certificate from the competent Government should be submitted.

7. Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 5 lakhs kept in Joint Account with SRC in Nationalised Bank for a period of 5 years towards Endowment Fund in Original should be submitted.

8. Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs kept in Joint Account with SRC in Nationalised Bank for a period of 5 years towards Reserve Fund in Original should be submitted.

9. Certificate of Registration/Bye-law of the Society/Trust should be submitted.



93

10. The affidavit in Rs.100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format with Notary attestation (format enclosed).

The institution has submitted its written representation on 03.06.2011. The SRC in its 206th Meeting held on 9th – 10th June 2010, considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt.03.06.2011 and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve another Final Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, another Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 07/07/2011 for the following deficiencies:-

In the building plan submitted the Sy.Nos. Not mentioned. Building completion certificate from the competent Govt. Engineer is to be

submitted.Land Usage Certificate from the concerned Government authorities in English version is to be submitted.

Non-encumbrance certificate in English version is to be submitted. FDRs for Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards Endowment and reserve fund respectively

in original is to be submitted. The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st –23rd September, 2011 considered the reply of the institution, and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve another Final Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act which was issued to the institution on 29.11.2011 for the following deficiencies:-

Building completion certificate in the prescribed format from competent Government authorized engineer is not submitted. The institution submitted reply to the Final Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2011 which was received by this office on 28.12.2011.

The SRC in its 216th Meeting held on 11th – 12th January 2012 considered the written reply of the institution vide letter dt. 26.12.2011 on the above matter and also the relevant documents of the institution, and noted that the reply of the institution is not convincing and not satisfactory and the deficiencies still persists and decided to withdraw recognition of the institution for the following reasons:-

Building completion certificate in the prescribed format from competent Govern-ment authorized Engineer is not submitted.

Accordingly, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide order F.No.APSO1652/B.Ed/KA/2011-12/39212 dated 14/03/2012. Aggrieved by the Withdrawal Order of SRC-NCTE , the institution preferred an appeal to the Head Quarters and the Appellate authority vide its order No.F.No.89-222/2012/A56306 dated 17/08/2012 noted “that (a) recognition to the institution for B.Ed course was granted by the SRC vide order dated 24-12-2005 in rented premises,(b) SRC issued show cause notice asking the institution as to why it had not shifted to own premises,(c) the appellant vide reply dated 02-06-2011 informed SRC that they have constructed new building within a month the institution would be shifted to the new premises. Along with the reply a D.D of Rs.40,000/- was forwarded as inspection fee, (d) thereafter SRC by notice dated 29-11-2011 informed the appellant they have not submitted building completion certificate in the prescribed format from Competent Government Authorized Engineer. The Appellant in reply submitted building completion certificate issued by consulting Engineer. Now in the appeal he submitted the certificate issued by Asst. Engineer, P.R.E.



94

Subdivision, Bellary. The Council concluded that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and remand the case to the SRC for causing inspection of the new premises for ascertaining its suitability as per NCTE norms and standards and taking further decision thereafter. The institution was directed to send a copy of the building completion certificate issued by the Govt. authority to SRC”. The SRC in its 233rd meeting held on 26th – 28th September 2012, considered the appellate authority order dated 17/08/2012 and decided to further process the application for taking decision. As decided in the 233rd meeting of SRC and as per the orders of appellate authority, the application of the institution was processed. On perusal of the file, it is observed that the institution was withdrawn recognition for the following reason: Building completion certificate in the prescribed format from competent Government authorized Engineer is not submitted.

The Secretary and correspondent of the institution submitted a copy of the BCC dated 05/04/2012 recognised by this office on 17/09/2012. It is observed from the copy of the BCC & from the seal that it is not clear whether the BCC is approved by the Assistant Engineer as the seal states that it is approved by “Shaakaadhikaari” in Kannada which means “Section Officer”. The committee noted that the BCC submitted by the institute is not as per NCTE norms. The SRC in its 237th Meeting held on 5th – 6th January 2013 considered the Appellate authority order dt. 17/08/2012, reply of the institution vide letter dt. 17.09.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show cause Notice under NCTE Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 04/03/2103.The institution submitted a written representation on 21/03/2013 The SRC in its 244th meeting held on 09-11 May,2013 considered the written reply of the institution on the above matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw recognition for the following reasons:-

• The Building completion certificate submitted is in the name of the Society, not in the name of the institution as per NCTE regulations 2009. As per regulations 2009, regulation required that within 6 months of Formal recognition getting, title to land and building should be transferred to the name of the institution. In cases of shifting of premises, therefore, this should be so from day one. In other words, the building completion certificate should be in the name of the institution. In this case, it is not so. Based on the above points the committee decides to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed (APS01652), course run by the Sri, Sathyam College of Education, #195C, 8th Cross, M.V. Nagar, Koppagal Road, Bellary-583103, Karnataka, from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in



95

B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course. But it is made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining board / body be informed accordingly. Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, if any. As per the decision of SRC, the recognition of the institution was withdrawn vide order no. F.No. APS01652/B.Ed/KA/2013- Appeal/4th Meeting-2014 dated 07-06-2013. Again the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE. Hqrs and the Appellate Authority vide order no. F.No. 89-536/2013 Appeal / 4th Meeting-2014 dated 28.04.2014 received by this office on 05.05.2014 which is as under: “after perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to issue a Show Cause Notice indicating he above ground, which was not intimated to the appellant earlier and on the basis of which the withdrawal order was issued”. The SRC in its 268th meeting held on 04th 05th June, 2014 considered the office memorandum (directive) from the NCTE Hqrs dated 25.04.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process the said application after notification of new Regulations as per NCTE (H.Q) instruction. In the meantime the institution has submitted its written representation on 27.11.2014 along with a copy of Hon’ble High Court order in WP.No 109563/2014 dated 29.10.2014 and satiating as follows: “SRC has withdrawn our Sri Sathyam College of Education (B.Ed) recognition stating that Building Completion Certificate is in the name of society, demanding that the Building Completion Certificate should be in the name of institution. In this matter, we have appealed NCTE office New Delhi and attended the appeal on 07.03.2014. The committee has remanded the SRC’s withdrawal order vide its order dated 28.04.2014. Since there was no response from SRC, we have written a letter to SRC on 23.05.2014, submitting the corrected Building Certificate and requested SRC to take the necessary further action. We have waited for 2 months and we dint get any response from SRC. Again, on 07.08.2014 we have written a letter to NCTE, New Delhi to look into our matter and do the needful and the same has been copied to SRC, Bangalore. Since there was no response from either SRC Bangalore or NCTE Head office, and the admission time is getting over for the academic session 2014-15, in unavoidable circumstances we had approached the High COURT Bench in Dharwad and filed a petition on 29.10.2014. (Petition Number: 109563/2014(EDN-RES) The Honorable High Court at Dharwad, yesterday had issued an order stating that SRC, Bangalore should necessary action within 6 weeks fro the date of issuing the order. The order copy of the High Court has been attached for your reference.



96

We have already lost one academic year 2013-14 because of the erroneous decision taken by SRC. Since, the admission date is coming very near, we kindly request you to take necessary action as early as possible in our case and allow us to fill management quota seats for the academic year 2014-15 and publish our college name in the approved list of colleges list in the SRC website”. The Hon’ble High Court order stated as follows: “….It is clear that the order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-D withdrawing the recognition granted to petitioner- College has been set aside by the Appellate authority by its order at Annexure-F dated 28.04.2014. The appellate authority has remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in accordance with the observation made therein. I am of the view that respondent No.2 has to consider the matter at any early date. The second question is whether the petitioner can be permitted to admit the students to B.ED Course for the academic year 2014-15? Admittedly, respondent No.2 has not granted recognition to the petitioner- College to admit the students for the academic session 2014-15. It is well established that without permission of the competent authority, an Institution cannot admit the students to pursue a particular course. Undisputedly, the last date for admission to the B.Ed. Course for the academic year 2014-15 was 18.10.2014. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot be permitted to admit the students to B.Ed. Course either in the government quota or in the management quota for the academic session 2014-15. Therefore, I direct the second respondent to consider the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by respondent No.1 in the order at Annexure –F dated 28.04.2014 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs”. The Committee considered the matter, Court direction dated 29.10.2014 and the Institutions letter dated 27.11.2014 decided to: 1.Restore Recognition. 2.Shifting permitted. 3.The College will be required to adopt the norms & standards prescribed in the new Regulations (2014) within such time-limit as may be notified by NCTE (H'qrs).

18) SRCAPP762 D.Ed

Saketh College of

Elementary Education,

West Godavari,

Andhra Pradesh.

AP

Saketh College of Elementary Education, No.3-79, K.No.68/1, Main Road, Gavarvaram Village and Post, Koyyalagudem Mandal Taluk, & City, West Godavari District-534312, Andhra Pradesh.

Sri Venkatapathi Raju Educational Society, Plot No.3-79, Tadepalligudem Road, Gavaravram Village and Post, Koyyalagudem Taluk and City, West Godavari District-534312, Andhra Pradesh had submitted an on-line application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE on 27.09.2011 and Physical application on 28.09.2011 for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed course fo two years duration with an annual intake of 50 students, from the academic session 2012-2013 at Saketh College of Elementary Education, No.3-79, K.No.68/1, Main Road, Gavarvaram Village and Post, Koyyalagudem Mandal Taluk, & City, West Godavari District-534312, Andhra Pradesh and was granted formal



97

recognition on 27.08.2012.

On 03.11.2014 this office has received copy of PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR, S.C.E.R.T., T.S., HYDERABAD, Rc.No.741/B1/TE/SCERT/2012 dated 29/10/2014 regarding Verification of staff lists for D.Ed course of Private D.Ed College and Approval of staff of Saketh College of Elementary Education, No.3-79, K.No.68/1, Main Road, Gavarvaram Village and Post, Koyyalagudem Mandal Taluk, & City, West Godavari District-534312, Andhra Pradesh.

Approved staff list-Tentative is enclosed as Annexure-I.

Remarks:- Principal and Lecturer in Physical Education have crossed the age of superannuation.

The Committee considered the matter, decided to defer for consideration with respect to the new Regulations that are being notified by the NCTE (H'qrs). Further, advised Southern Regional Office to put up in the next meeting.

19) APS08534 B.Ed

Dr. K.S.P.R College of Education,

Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

Dr. K.S.P.R. College of Education, Kesanupalli Post, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh.

St. Joseph's Educational Society, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed-AI course of One year from the academic session 2008-2009 with annual intake of 100 students on 12.04.2007 and was granted recognition on 25.11.2008.

On 27.10.2014, a staff list dated 25.10.2014 for the academic year 2014-1015 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522510 (copy enclosed) as under:-

"With reference to the above, the University has verified from the records maintained by the Aforesaid College, found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed course for the Academic year 2014-15 are now working in Dr. K.S.P.R. College of Education, Kesanupalli Post, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh."

Note:-

As per the staff list submitted:-

1) Principal is not having Ph.D as per the NCTE Regulation 2009. 2) Part-time Lecturer in Art Education is not appointed.




98

20) APS07104 B.Ed A.M. Reddy College of Education, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. AP

A.M Reddy College of Education, Sy No.45/1, Petluvari Palem Panchayath, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh.

AM Reddy Educational Society, AM Reddy Nagar, Petlurivari Palem, Narasa Rao Peta, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to A.M Reddy College of Education, Sy No.45/1, Petluvari Palem Panchayath, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh for B.Ed. course on 31.03.2006 and was granted recognition on 05.09.2011 with an annual intake of 100 students. from the academic section 2007-08

On 29.09.2014, a letter dated 27.10.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar-522510, enclosing a staff list approved for the institution for the academic year 2013-14 (Copy enclosed) stating that:-

“With reference to the above, the University has verified from the records maintained by the aforesaid College, found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed. Course for the Academic year 2012-13 are now working in A.M.Reddy College of Education, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

Remarks of SRO:-

1. Part time lecturer in Art Education is not appointed. The Committee considered the matter, decided to defer for consideration with respect to the new Regulations that are being notified by the NCTE (H'qrs). Further, advised Southern Regional Office to put up in the next meeting.

21) APS00016 B.Ed

Repalle Christian College of Education,

Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

Repalle Christian College of Education, Repalle-522 265, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

Repalle Christian College of Education, Repalle-522 265, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh for B.Ed. Course of one year duration from the academic session 2001-2002 to the Southern Regional Committee on 18.12.2000. and was granted recognition on 07.02.2002

On 25.09.2014, a letter dated 27.10.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar-522510, enclosing a staff list approved for the institution for the academic year 2013-14 (Copy enclosed) stating that:-

“With reference to the above, the University has verified from the records maintained by the College, found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed. Course for the Academic year 2012-13 are now working in Repalle Christian College of Education, Repalle Post & Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.”

1. Principal is still doing Ph.D



99

2. Part time lecturer in Art Education is not appointed. The Committee considered the matter, decided to defer for consideration with respect to the new Regulations that are being notified by the NCTE (H'qrs). Further, advised Southern Regional Office to put up in the next meeting.

22) SRCAPP622 B.Ed Medarametla anjamma Mastan Rao College of Education, Guntur , Andhra Pradesh. AP

Medarametla Anjamma Mastan Rao College of Education, P.No.137/3A, Kesanupalli Village, Narasaraopet Taluk, Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh. Medaramentla Anjamma Mastan Rao Memorial Service Society, P.No.137/3A, Kesanupalli Village, Narasaraopet Taluka, Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh had submitted an on-line application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE on 23.09.2011 and physical application on 03.10.2011 for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed-Al course of two year duration with an additional intake of 50 students at Medarametla Anjamma Mastan Rao College of Education, P.No.137/3A, Kesanupalli Village, Narasaraopet Taluk, Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh and was granted recognition on 02.08.2012.

On 25.09.2014, a letter dated 27.10.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar-522510, enclosing a staff list approved for the institution for the academic year 2013-14 (Copy enclosed)stating that:-

“With reference to the above, the University has verified from the records maintained by the aforesaid College, found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed. Course for the Academic year 2014-15 are now working in Medarametla Anjamma Mastan Rao College of Education, Kesanapalli (Post), Narasaraopet (Mandal), Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh.”

Remarks of SRO:-

1. Part time lecturer in Art Education is not appointed. 2. Lecturer in physical Education Crossed the age of Superannuation.


23) APS04811 B.Ed

St. Mark NTR College of

St. Mark NTR College of Education, Krishnaveni Campus, Pedda Cheruvu,, Narasaraopet, Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh.



100

Education, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

St. Anthony’s Educational Society, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition (APSO4811) for St. Mark NTR College of Education, Krishnaveni Campus, Pedda Cheruvu, Narasaraopet, Guntur District-522601, Andhra Pradesh in B.Ed course of one year duration and was granted recognition on 09.03.2009. With an annual intake of 100 students.

On 27.10.2014, a Staff list dated 08.10.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522510 enclosing a staff list approved for the institution for the academic year 2013-14 (Copy enclosed) stating that:- "With reference to the above, the University has verified from the records maintained by the aforesaid College, found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed. Course for the Academic Year 2012-13 are now working in St. mark N.T.R. College of Education, Narasaraopet-522601, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.”

Remarks of SRO:- 1. Part time lecturer in Art Education is not appointed. The Committee considered the matter, decided to defer for consideration with respect to the new Regulations that are being notified by the NCTE (H'qrs). Further, advised Southern Regional Office to put up in the next meeting.

24) APS07854 B.Ed Anitha Venkateswara Rao College of Education, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. AP

Anitha Venkateswara Rao College of Education, D.No.1-2-3, Gangannammapet, Opp to RTC Bus Stand Out Gate, Tenali, Guntur-522201.Andhra Pradesh.

Viswa Educational Society, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh has submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Anitha Venkateswara Rao College of Education, D.No.1-2-3, Gangannammapet, Opp to RTC Bus Stand Out Gate, Tenali, Guntur-522201.Andhra Pradesh for Secondary (B.Ed) course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students. and was granted recognition on 08.01.2008.

On 08.10.2014, a letter dated 27.10.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar-522510, enclosing a staff list approved for the institution for the academic year 2013-14 (Copy enclosed)stating that:-

“With reference to the above, the University has verified from the records maintained by the aforesaid College, found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed. Course for the Academic year 2014-15 are now working in Anitha Venkateswara Rao College of Education, Opp.RTC Bus Stand Out Gate, Ganganammapet,Tenali-522201, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.”

Remarks of SRO:-

1. Part time lecturer in Art Education is not appointed.



101


25) SRCAPP624 B.Ed Dhanalakshmi College of Education, Guntur , Andhra Pradesh. AP

Dhanalakshmi College of Education, P.No.380,381, Muppalla Village, lpur Taluka, Guntur District-522661, Andhra Pradesh.

Sri Dhanalakshmi Education Development Society, P.No.380,381, Muppalla Village, lpur Taluka, Guntur District-522661, Andhra Pradesh had submitted an on-line application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE on 23.09.2011 and physical application on 03.10.2011 for grant of recognition for B.Ed course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students at Dhanalakshmi College of Education, P.No.380,381, Muppalla Village, lpur Taluka, Guntur District-522661, Andhra Pradesh and was granted recognition on 26.07.2012.

On 25.09.2014, a letter dated 27.10.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, of Acharya nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522510, enclosing a staff list approved for the institution for the academic year 2013-14 (Copy enclosed) stating that:- “With reference to the above, the University has verified from the records maintained by the aforesaid College, found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed. Course for the Academic year 2014-15 are now working in Dhanalakshmi College of Education, A.Muppala (Post), Ipur (mandal), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.”


26) APS07534 B.Ed Kasturi Bai College of Education for Women, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. AP

Kasturi Bai College of Education for Women, Dr No.4-9-6, Patel Nagar, 1st Line, Baptla, Guntur District-522101, Andhra Pradesh. Acharya Educational Society, Dr No. 15-42, Desaipet, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in the name of Kasturi Bai College of Education for Women, Dr No.4-9-6, Patel Nagar, 1st Line, Baptla, Guntur District-522101, Andhra Pradesh for seeking grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed Course of one year duration on 06.06.2006 and was granted recognition on 22.09.2011 with an annual intake of 100 students. from the academic section 2011-12.

On 27.10.2014, a letter dated 08.10.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522510 enclosing a staff list approved for the institution for the academic year 2013-14 (Copy enclosed) stating that:-



102

"With reference to the above, the University has verified from the records maintained by the aforesaid College, found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed. Course for the Academic Year 2013-14 are now working in Kasturi Bai College of Education for Women, Bapatla, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh”.


27) APS01313 B.Ed

Smt. Mannaru Yasodamma

Memorial B.Ed.

College, Prakasam,

Andhra Pradesh.

AP

Smt. Mannaru Yasodamma Memorial B.Ed. College, Addanki Road, Darsi (P.O.& M), Kandukur Revenue Division, Prakasam District, Darsi-523247, Andhra Pradesh.

Smt. Mannaru Yasodamma Memorial B.Ed. College, Addanki Road, Darsi (P.O.& M), Kandukur Revenue Division, Prakasam District, Darsi-523247, Andhra Pradesh has submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed course of one year from the academic session 2003-2004 with an annual intake of 120 students and was granted recognition on 13.10.2003.

On 20.10.2014 and 27.10.2014 , a staff list dated 25.09.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522510 (Copy enclosed) is as under:-

“The University has verified from the records maintained by the aforesaid College found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed. course for the Academic year 2012-2013 and 2013-14 are now working in Smt. Mannaru Yasodamma Memorial B.Ed. College, Addanki Road, Darsi (P.O.& M), Kandukur Revenue Division, Prakasam District, Darsi-523247, Andhra Pradesh."


28) APS08419 B.Ed

Geethika College of Education ,

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh

AP

Geethika College of Education, No.15-129, Rami Reddypet, Piduguralla Post, Guntur DIstrict-522413, Andhra Pradesh. Geethika Educational Society, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh has submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Geethika College of Education, No.15-129, Rami Reddypet, Piduguralla Post, Guntur DIstrict-522413, Andhra Pradesh for secondary B.Ed course of one year duration and was granted recognition on 18.10.2007 with an annual intake of 100 students.

On 27.10.2014, a letter dated 8.10.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522510 enclosing a staff list approved for the institution for the academic year 2013-14 (Copy



103

enclosed) stating that:- “The University has verified from the records maintained by the aforesaid College found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed. course for the Academic year 2014-2015 are now working in Geethika College of Education, No.15-129, Rami Reddypet, Piduguralla Post, Guntur DIstrict-522413, Andhra Pradesh." The Committee considered the matter, decided to defer for consideration with respect to the new Regulations that are being notified by the NCTE (H'qrs). Further, advised Southern Regional Office to put up in the next meeting.

29) APS08756 B.Ed Hindu College of Education , Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. AP

Hi Hindu College of Education, Opp. Sri Venkateshwara Vignana Mandiram Main Road, Guntur Distrist-522003, Andhra Pradesh.

Hindu College & High Schools Council, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh has submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed course of one year from the academic session 2008-2009 with an annual intake of 100 students and was granted recognition on 20.10.2008.

On 27.10.2014, a letter dated 25.09.2014 is received by this office from the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar-522510 enclosing a staff list approved for the institution for the academic year 2013-2014 (Copy enclosed) stating that:-

"The University has verified from the records maintained by the aforesaid College found that the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with qualifications shown against the names for B.Ed course for the Academic year 2013-14 are now working in Hindu College of Education, Opp. Sri Venkateshwara Vignana Mandiram Main Road, Guntur Distrist-522003, Andhra Pradesh."


30) APS00213 B.Ed

Vinukonda B.Ed College,

Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

Vinukonda B.Ed College , Narasaraopet, Revenue Division ,No.30-290,NRT

Road, Vinukonda,Guntur District – 522647,Andhra Pradesh

Vinukonda B.Ed College , Narasaraopet, Revenue Division ,No.30-290,NRT

Road, Vinukonda,Guntur District – 522647,Andhra Pradesh was granted

recognition for the conduct of B.Ed course on 31.12.2001 with a condition to shift

to its own premises within three years from the date of recognition( in case the

institution is started in rented premises)

The institution submitted a proposal for shifting the B.Ed course to the new

location along with a D.D of Rs. 40,000/- on 09.07.2009.Accordingly shifting



104

inspection was carried on 09.02.2011.

SRC in its 206th meeting held during 9th – 10th June 2011 considered the VT

Report ,VCD and all relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve

Show Cause Notice. Accordingly Show Cause Notice was issued on

07.07.2011.The institution submitted a written representation on 05.08.2011.

SRC in its 217th meeting held on 8th – 9th February, 2012 considered the reply of

the institution vide letter dated 05.08.2011 and all other relevant documentary

evidence and decided to allow for shifting of the institution to the new premises at

Vinukonda B.Ed College,Sy.No.72,65/1-1A, 65/1-1B, 65/1-1-2,Kanamarlapudi

Village,Savalayapuram Mandal,Vinukonda – 522646,Guntur District ,Andhra

Pradesh

As per the decision of SRC, shifting of premises was permitted vide this office

order dated 07.03.2012.

Now, on 27.10.2014, the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University,Nagarjunanagar

– 522510 has submitted the approved staff list of Vinukonda B.Ed College

comprising of one Principal and 10 lecturers.The Registrar has stated as under :-

“ the University has verified from the records maintained by the College

and found that

the teaching staff members as shown in the enclosed list with

qualifications shown against the names of Vinukonda B.Ed

College,Thimmayyapalem Road, Vinukonda – 522647, Guntur District.”

But, as per records , Vinukonda B.Ed College is functioning at Plot/Khasara No.

65-1-1-A, 65-1-1-B, 65-1-1-2,72, Street No. 24-186, Kanamarlapudi Village and

Post, Savalyapuram Taluk, Vinukonda City, Guntur District – 522647, Andhra

Pradesh

Further, the Principal does not possess Ph.d and part time lecturer in art education

is not appointed.

In view of the above discrepancy in the location of the college as per the letter

from the University and the records and the deficiency in the staff list , the above

matter is placed before SRC for decision and direction.


31) APS04266 D.Ed

Dr. K.S.P.R College of

Dr. K.S.P.R College of Education, No. 116/2001, Narasaraopet, Guntur, District-5226021, Andhra Pradesh St. Joseph's Educational Society, Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist, Andhra



105

Education , Guntur Andhra

Pradesh. AP

Pradesh has submitted an application for Dr. K.S.P.R College of Education, No. 116/2001, Narasaraopet, Guntur, District-5226021, Andhra Pradesh for grant of recognition to D.Ed course in the office of SRC-NCTE, Bangalore vide dated 15/10/2004 and was granted formal recognition for D.Ed course of two years duration with an annual intake of 50 students from the academic session 2012-2013 onwards. On 18/08/2014 this office has received copy of PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR, S.C.E.R.T., AP, HYDERABAD-1 Rc.No.577/A(B1)/TE/SCERT/2011 dated 12/08/2014 approval of staff lists for D.Ed course. The Southern Regional Committee in its 272nd meeting held on 1st &2nd September, 2014 considered the matter, proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh dated 12.08.2014 regarding approval of staff lists for D.Ed course in respect of the said college and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Notice Under NCTE Act. As per the decision of SRC, a Notice was issued to the institution on 09.10.2014. The institution has submitted a written representation on 07.11.2014 The Committee considered the matter, notice reply from the institution vide their letter dated 07.11.2014, advised Southern Regional Office to await SCERT certification.

32) APS02625 D.Ed

St. Paul’s Teacher Training

Institution, Prakasam

District, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

tution, R St. Paul’s Educational Development Committee, Giddalur, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh

St. Paul’s Educational Development Committee, Giddalur, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE seeking permission to start St. Paul’s Teacher Training Institution, Racherla Road, Giddalur, Prakasam District-523367, Andhra Pradesh for Elementary (D.Ed) Course of Two years duration from the academic session 2005-2006 with an annual intake of 50 students and was granted recognition on 26.08.2005 On 30.07.2014 this office has received copy of PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR, S.C.E.R.T., A.P., HYDERABAD RC.No.218/A(B1)/TE/AP/SCERT/ 12 dated 03.07.2014- Verification of staff list for additional intake to existing D.Ed Course in respect of St. Paul’s Teacher Training Institution, Racherla Road, Giddalur, Prakasam District-532367, Andhra Pradesh.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 272nd meeting held during 01st & 02nd Sept, 2014 considered the matter, proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh dated 03.07.2014 regarding verification of staff lists for additional intake to existing D.Ed course in respect of the said college and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Notice: - As per the decision of SRC, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 09.10.2014 The institution has submitted a written representation on 28.10.2014 Further As per the staff list of B.Ed Course, Principal is not having Ph.D & hence



106

not qualified as per NCTE Regulations, 2009

The Committee considered the matter, reply of the institution dated 28.10.2014 to the show cause notifice issued, decided that Appointments of Lecturer (English), Lecturer (Physical Education) and Lecturer (Art. Education) are not according to the norms under the 2009 Regulations. Further, advised Southern Regional Office to Inform the Institution accordingly, Thereafter, wait for notification of the 2014 Regulations for processing this case further. Put in the next meeting.


Aruna College of Elementary

Education, East

Godavari, Andhra Pradesh

AP

Aruna College of Elementary Education, R.S.No.344, Kondaguntur Village and Post Office, Rajanagaram Taluk, Rajahmundry (Nearest City), East Godavari District-533124, Andhra Pradesh. Bandila Hanumantharao Aruna Educational Society, Plot No. 16-137, Main Road, Dowlaiswaram Village and Post, Rajuhmundry (Nearest City), East Godavari District-533125, Andhra Pradesh had submitted an on-line application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE on 20.09.2011 and physical application on 26.09.2011 for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed course of two year duration with an annual intake of 50 students at Aruna College of Elementary Education, R.S.No.344, Kondaguntur Village and Post Office, Rajanagaram Taluk, Rajahmundry (Nearest City), East Godavari District-533124, Andhra Pradesh and was granted recognition on 05/10/2012 from the academic session 2012-2013. On 18/07/2014 this office has received copy of PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR, S.C.E.R.T., AP, HYDERABAD Rc.No.385/B1/TE/SCERT/2012 dated 15/07/2014 regarding approval of staff lists for D.Ed course subject to certain conditions. The Southern Regional Committee in its 272nd meeting held during 1st & 2nd September,2014 considered the matter, proceedings of the Director, SCERT, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh dated 15.07.2014 regarding approval of staff lists for D/Ed course in respect of the said college and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Notice Under Section 14 of NCTE Act:- As per the decision of SRC, a Notice was issued to the institution on 29.10.2014 The institution has submitted a written representation on 10.11.2014 The Committee considered the matter, reply of the institution dated 10.11.2014 to the notice issued, advised Southern Regional Office to await SCERT certification.

34) APS03617 B.Ed

R.V.S College of Education,

Dindigul, Tamilnadu.

TN

R.V.S College of Education, RVS Nagar, Kulathur, P.Paratpatti, Dindigul-624005, Tamilnadu. R.V.S College of Education, RVS Nagar, Kulathur, P.Paratpatti, Dindigul-624005, Tamilnadu had submitted an application for B.Ed course on 24-12-2004. The institution was granted recognition on 31.08.2006 with an annual intake of 100 students.



107

The direction of MHRD to re-inspect all the institutions granted recognition by SRC in its 116th meeting as per the recommendation of Sri Sathyam Committee reports. The inspection of the institution was carried out on 17.12.2008. The VT report was considered by SRC in its 170th meeting held on 16th 17th February 2009 and it has decided to issue Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 02.04.2009 for certain deficiencies. The institution had submitted its reply on 18.05.2009. The SRC in its 178th meeting held on 13th-14th July 2009 decided to issue notice under NCTE Act. The notice was issued to the institution on 17.08.2009. The institution has submitted written representation on 01.09.2009. The SRC in its 183rd meeting held on 22nd September 2009 decided to seek clarification. Accordingly a clarification letter was issued to the institution on 03.11.2009. The institution submitted its reply on 24.11.2009. The SRC in its 188th meeting held on 28th-29th January 2010 decided to call for clarification. Accordingly, clarification letter was issued to the institution on 02.30.2010. The institution submitted its reply on 15.03.2010. The SRC in its 190th meeting held on 29th-30th March 2010 considered the reply of the institution and it has decided to continue the recognition accorded to the institution. Accordingly, continue recognition order was issued to the institution on 18.05.2010. The institution vide its letter dated 21.11.2013 and has stated that: “We are presently running the B.Ed College at Dindigul, the following address. RVS College of Education, RVS Nagar, N.Pariapatti Post, Karur Road, Dindigul-624005. Due to some administrative compulsion the college is being shifted to new premises to the following address. RVS College of Education, RVS Nagar, RVS Mettu hostel, Kullathur Post, Karur Road, Dindigul-624005. The new campus is situated very close to the existing building. The land where the new building is situated is in the name of RVS Educational Trust and the above building is owned by us .The building is constructed as per the NCTE norms and is having all infra-structure facilities for running the B.Ed Colleges. We request you to kindly send all our future correspondence in the new address mentioned above”.



108

The SRC in its 259th meeting held on 17th-19th January 2014 ,considered the matter, letter from the institution dated 21.11.2013 and all relevant documents of the institution and decided that:

Collect the Inspection fee of Rs.50.000/- first The institution is to be directed to submit the following within 21 days of the receipt

of the notice, Duly filled in questionnaire along with all the necessary documents for land, building approval and completion certificate from a competent Govt. Engineer, FDR’s, up-to-date non encumbrance certificate and other relevant documents. All the documents to be fully analysed and to put up in April 2014 for all the 3 courses run by the institution Viz, D.T.Ed, B.Ed and M.Ed. courses.

After collecting the inspection fee and all documents as mentioned above, to

arrange for causing inspection of the institution for shifting. The institution has shifted to new premises without the prior permission of SRC

NCTE, Bangalore. This is against 8 (11) of NCTE Regulations 2009 ,which reads as under: “In case of change of premises, prior approval of the Regional Committees concerned shall be necessary , which could be accorded after due inspection of the institution at the new site. Application for change of premises, in triplicate, in the specified format along with other relevant documents shall be submitted by the institution to the Regional Office for prior approval of change of premises. The change can permitted to a site which, if applied initially, could have qualified for establishment of an institution as per specified norms of National Council for Teacher Education. The change shall be displayed on website thereafter. The application for change of premises shall be accompanied by a demand draft of Rs.50,000 (or as revised from time to time) of a Nationalized Bank drawn in favour of the Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education and payable at the city where the Regional Committee is located. The fee may also be paid online at the designated by National Council for Teacher Education”.

Accordingly, a letter was issued to the institution on 05.03.2014. The institution has submitted its written representation on 17.03.2014.

The SRC in its 269th meeting held on 04-05th July 2014 considered the matter , reply of the institution vide letter dated 17.03.2014 and all the relevant documentary evidence and it was decided to serve Show Cause Notice Under NCTE Act for the following:

Building completion certificate is not in the prescribed format.

Building completion certificate is not approved by competent authority,

Inadequate teaching staff. Accordingly a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution 07.08.2014.The institution has submitted its written representation on 01.09.2014 and the institution has submitted Revalidated D.Ds bearing Nos (865935636) and (865935675) of Rs. 25,000/- each. The SRC in its 273rd meeting held on 30th September and 01st October 2014,



109

considered the matter, written reply of the institution vide their letter dated 01.09.2014. all other relevant documents of the institution and noted that the Institution has not submitted the following documents: 1. Building Completion Certificate is not approved by competent authority. 2. Staff list is not approved by the affiliating authority. 3. Advised Southern Regional Office to ask them to submit these documents by 1 Nov 2014. for causing shifting inspection. The institution has submitted its written representation on 03.11.2014 (with reference to website in the decision of 273rd meeting of SRC) The Committee considered the matter, written representation from the institution vide their letter dated 03.11.2014, advised Southern Regional Office to await notification of the new Regulations and to put up the case in the next meeting.

35) APS02244 B.Ed

Vinootan Shikshana

Seva Samsthe

Rural College of Education,

Koppal, Karnataka

KA

Vinootan Shikshana Seva Samsthe Rural College of Education, Koppal, Koppal District-583231, Karnataka.

VinootanShikshanaSevaSamsthe®, Alwandi, Koppal District had submitted an application for B.Ed course of one year on 07.06.2007 for the grant recognition to VinootanShikshanaSevaSamsthe Rural College of Education, Koppal, Koppal District-583231, Karnataka. The institution was granted recognition on order no.9215 dated 09.02.2004 for offereing B.ED course with an annual intake of 100 students. In the meantime, a letter is received by this office from the Registrar, Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University, JnanaSagara Campus, Vinayaka Nagar, Cantonment, Bellary-583105 on 24.04.2014 regarding status of Rajeev Gandhi B.Ed., College as per records. The details of the letter is as under: "Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust, Dadegal, Koppal is running a B.Ed., College at Dadegal, Koppal District, Karnataka from 2006-07. On perusal of the reocrds submitted by the college, NCTE has granted recognition to VinootanShikshanaSevaSamsthe Rural College of Education, Koppal-583231 for B.Ed., course(APS02244) from the academic session 2004-05 vide letter No.FSRO/NCTE/B.Ed/2004-05/9215 dated 09.12.2004(encl 1). The same recognition letter and NCTE code is being use by Rajeev Gandhi College of Education B.Ed., Dadegal, Koppal (APS02244)(encl2-Letter head of the college). The trust has not submitted any letter from NCTE regarding the transfer of the college. They have submitted a letter obtained from Government of Karnataka(encl 3) The name of Rajeev Gandhi Rural College of Education B.Ed., Dadegal, Koppal, Karnataka is not found in the list of B.Ed., Colleges hosted on the NCTE Website, but the name of VinootanShikshanaSevaSamsthe Rural College of Education, Koppal -583231(APS02244) is found on the website. The matter has been reported by the LIC team sent by University to inspect the college (encl 4) Kindly inform the university about the status of the of Rajeev Gandhi College of Education B.Ed., Dadegal, Koppal as per NCTE records, so as to



110

enable the university to take further action on the college". The SRC in its 268th Meeting held on 4 – 5 June, 2014 considered the matter, letter dated 24.04.2014 & 15.05.2014 from the Registrar, Vijayanagar Sri. Krishnadevaraya University, and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show Cause Notice Under NCTE Act for the following :

NCTE has granted recognition to VinootanShikshanaSevaSamsthe Rural College of Education, Koppal-583231 for B.Ed course (APS02244) from the academic session 2004-05 vide letter No. FSRO/NCTE/B.Ed/2004-05/9215, dated 09.12.2004. Now the same recognition letter and NCTE Code is being used by Rajeev Gandhi College of Education B.Ed, Dadegal,Koppal (APS02244). The Trust has not submitted any letter to NCTE regarding the transfer of the college.

Later with effect from 2006-07 academic session the institute (APS02244) was transferred to Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose trust, Koppal, which is running the institution in the name of Rajeev Gandhi rural Education college Education (B.Ed) at R.D.T.E. building, near Dadegal, Gadag Road, Koppal-583231. On enquiry, it is found that the transfer was effected with out taking approval from NCTE. The College of Education is being run in a building where Diploma College, M.Com, NSW, & BSW courses are also run by another management. Presently the premises is used by two trusts for different courses.

Rajeev Gandhi Rural College of Education (B.Ed) at R.D.T.E building, Near Dadegal, Gadag Road, Koppal-583231 is being run without any grant of recognition from NCTE. This is a gross violation of NCTE rules and regulations. In view of the above, the Committee decided to issue a Show cause Notice to the institution as to why the recognition granted to VinootanaShikshanaSevaSamsthe be not withdrawn and thereby providing an opportunity to the institution to make a written representation within 21 days from the date of receipt of the Notice along with necessary certificates/documents in order to take a final decision in the matter; failing which action will be taken including the withdrawal of recognition granted to VinootanaShikshanaSevaSamsthe based on the records available with no further notice. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 21.08.2014. The institution (Rajiv Gandhi Rural Education Trust) has submitted its written representation on 12.11.2014. The Committee considered the matter, reply of the institution vide letter dated 12.11.2014, advised Southern Regional Office to await notification of the new Regulations and to put up the case in the next meeting.

36) APS08822 M.Ed

Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust M.Ed

College,

Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust M.Ed College, V.M. Sanklapur Building, Near Railway Station, Koppal-583231, Karnataka.

Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust, Koppal District, Karnataka had submitted an application for M.Ed course of one year on 07.06.2007 for the grant recognition to Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust M.Ed College, V.M. Sanklapur Building, Near Railway Station, Koppal-583231, Karnataka. The institution was granted recognition



111

Koppal, Karnataka.

KA

order no.5240 dated 22.11.2007 for offering M.ED course with an annual intake of 25 students. Further, vide order no. 20587 dated 23.08.2010 the enhancement of intake of 10 seats from existing 25 to 35 is permitted to the institution from the academic session 2010-2011. In the meantime, a letter is received by this office from the Registrar, Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Jnana Sagara Campus, Vinayaka Nagar, Cantonment, Bellary-583105 on 24.04.2014 regarding withdrawal of affiliation to Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust M.Ed College, Koppal-583231, Karnataka. The details of the letter is as under: "To bring to your notice that Vijaynagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Bellary is withdrawing affiliation granted to Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust M.Ed. College, Koppal, Karnataka(APS08822) for the following reasons:-

1. The college is not accreditated by NAAC. As per NCTE Regulation 2009, Regulation No8(5) "…All institutions having Master of Education and Maser of Physical education Course shall have to get NAAC accreditation with at least a letter grade B on or before the first day of April 2012, failing which recognition for Master of Education or Master of Physical Education granted to the institution shall stand withdrawn with effect from the academic session 2012-13".

2. NCTE has granted recognition to Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust M.Ed. College, VM Sanklapur Building, Near Railway Station, Koppalk-583231 (encl-1-NCTE Recognition order copy). But the College is being run in a building on Gadag Raod, Dadegal, Koppal District. The management has shifted the premises of the college ot a new location without approval from NCTE.

3. The M.Ed course is an extension of B.Ed., institute. As per university

records the B.Ed., course is run by Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & MUltipurpose Trust, Rajeev Gandhi College of Education, B.Ed., But there is no order from NCTE granting recognition to the trust for running the B.Ed., course. The trust is using the permission granted to Vinootan Shikshana Seva Samsthe Rural College of Education, Koppal-583231 for B.Ed., course (APS02244) and running the B.Ed., course in the name of Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust, Rajeev Gandhi College of Education, B.Ed(encl-2-Inquirty Report). For the above mentioned reasons the univesity is withdrawing affiliation granted to Rajeev Gandhi College of Education, B.Ed. Dadegal, Koppal. This is for your infromation and futher needful action".

The SRC in its 268th meeting held on 4-5 June 2014 considered the matter, letter dated 24/04/2014 from the Registrar of Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show Cause Notice Under NCTE Act for the following : • The college is not accredited by NAAC. As per NCTE Regulation 2009, Regulation



112

No8(5) "…All institutions having Master of Education and Maser of Physical education Course shall have to get NAAC accreditation with at least a letter grade B on or before the first day of April 2012, failing which recognition for Master of Education or Master of Physical Education granted to the institution shall stand withdrawn with effect from the academic session 2012-13".

• NCTE has granted recognition to Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust M.Ed. College, VM Sanklapur Building, Near Railway Station, Koppalk-583231. But the College is being run in a building on Gadag Raod, Dadegal, Koppal District. The management has shifted the premises of the college ot a new location without approval from NCTE.

• The M.Ed course is an extension of B.Ed., institute. As per university records the B.Ed., course is run by Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust, Rajeev Gandhi College of Education, B.Ed., But there is no order from NCTE granting recognition to the trust for running the B.Ed., course. The trust is using the permission granted to Vinootan Shikshana Seva Samsthe Rural College of Education, Koppal-583231 for B.Ed., course (APS02244) and running the B.Ed., course in the name of Rajeev Gandhi Rural Education & Multipurpose Trust, Rajeev Gandhi College of Education.

Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 21.08.2014. The institution has submitted its written representation on 08.09.2014. The Committee considered the matter, reply of the institution vide their letter dated 08.09.2014, advised Southern Regional Office to await notification of the new Regulations and to put up the case in the next meeting.

37) APS02008 D.Ed

Anjuman D.Ed College,

Dharwad, Karnataka

KA

Anjuman D.EdCollege, Anjuman Estate, Vijaya Road, Opp. To Old Bus Stand, Dharwad- 580 001, Karnataka. Anjuman-Islam, Dharwad, Karnataka had submitted an application to the Southern Regional committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to AnjumanD.Ed College, Anjuman Estate, Vijaya Road, Opp. to Old Bus Stand, Dharwad – 580 001, Karnataka for Elementary (D.Ed) Course of two and half years duration from the academic session 2004-05 with an annual intake of 50 students.

The application was processed and the inspection of the institution was conducted and finally SRC granted recognition for offering D.Ed course with an intake of 50 students from the academic session 2004-2005 on 03.12.2004 with a condition to shift the institution to its own premises / building within three years from the date of recognition. (in case the course is started in rented premises).

No shifting proposal has been received from the institution, so far, even after the laps of more than 9 years.

Now, the institution has submitted a letter dated 27.06.2014 received in the office of SRC on 21.07.2014 requesting as follows:

“With reference to the subject cited above, I would like to bring to your kind notice that, we are running D.Ed course from the year 2004 and have successfully completed two and half years till date.

The management has been very kind enough in providing a new



113

independent building in the same premises as per your norms and requirements. I am pleased to inform you that the college is equipped with adequate infrastructure as per the requirement of your good office and that of the Program concerned. The results of the eight batches is quite satisfactory and we will strive hard to continue the same and work towards overall academic excellence in making the above said institute a model institute.

Hence, we request your good office for renewal of the above said course.

This is for your kind information and perusal.”

The SRC in its 272nd meeting held on 01st -02nd September, 2014 considered the matter, letter from the institution dated 27.06.2014 requesting for renewal of the APS02008-D.Ed course.Thecommitteenoted that, the institution was granted recognition from the academic session 2004-05 on 3.12.2004, with a condition to shift the institution to its own premises / building within three years from the date of recognition. The institution has not shifted to its own building within three years from the date of recognition and even after a time period of more than 9 years and 9 months, and decided that the institution should shift to permanent building and advised Southern Regional Office to write to the institution and ask them to shift. Otherwise we will be constrained to take action for withdrawal of recognition w.e.f. 2015-16. Accordingly, as directed a letter to the institution was sent on 10.10.2014. Now the institution has submitted its letter dated 28.10.2014 received by SRC on 31.10.2014. stated as follows:

“….since 03.12.2004 the institution is running in its own premises not in rented or donated building. The present building is constructed for D.Edcollege in the premises of Anjuman-E-Islam Opp. To Old Buu stand, Dharwad. Since it is permanent own building then there is no necessary to the shift to other buildings. Please consider the case and renew the AnjumanD.Ed College Dharwad for further academic year.

The Committee considered the matter, reply of the institution vide thei letter dated 28.10.2014, advised Southern Regional Office to await notification of the new Regulations and to put up the case in the next meeting.

38) APS04507 B.Ed

Jeyasuriya Teacher

Education and Training

College, Villupuram ,

Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, Jeyasuriya Self Employment, No.3/139, JeyasuriyaMahal, Vignesh Nagar, Trichy Main Road, Villupuram District, Pin- 605 401, Tamilnadu Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, Jeyasuriya Self

Employment, No.3/139, JeyasuriyaMahal, Vignesh Nagar, Trichy Main Road,

Villupuram District, Pin- 605 401, Tamilnadu was granted recognition for



114

Tamilnadu TN

offering B.Ed course on 28.08.2006 with an intake of 100 students.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, based on the inquiry report submitted by Sri.Sathyam, IAS (Retd) has directed NCTE for taking action. In this regard, it has been envisaged that all the cases cleared by SRC in its 116th meeting held 22-23 August 2006 should be re-inspected and the maintenance of Norms and Standards should be verified.

The above institution was one amongst 71 institutions which was granted recognition in the 116th meeting. Based on the directions of MHRD, inspection under section 17 of the above institution was proposed on 18.12.2008. Whereas, the institution has approached the Hon’ble court in W.P. 29956/2008. The Hon’ble court in its interim order dated 18.12.2008 has issued stay for inspection.

The matter was considered by SRC in its 170th meeting held on 16-17 February 2009. SRC considered the directions of the Hon’ble court, application file and other materials available and decided to issue notice under section 17 of NCTE Act, calling the details of infrastructural & instructional facilities available with the institutions for running the above course. Further, SRC also decided to send the Questionnaire for obtaining the information.

The SRC in its 170th meeting held on 16-17 February 2009 considered the directions of the Hon’ble court, application file and other materials available and decided to issue notice under section 17 of NCTE Act, for the following reasons:-

1. Institution should submit the details of existing infrastructural & instructional facilities for the B.Ed course.

2. Questionnaire (enclosed) should be submitted with all the details. 3. The institution has to submit approved faculty list approved by the affiliating

body of all existing teacher education courses with details of each faculty member in the format enclosed.

Accordingly, a notice was sent to institution on 04.04.2009. Till date the institution has not submitted written representation to notice.

Now, the institution has submitted a letter on 14.08.2014 enclosing a letter addressed to Vice Chancellor, Tamilnadu Teachers Education University. The institution in its letter stating as follows:-

“….requesting for allotment of 100 B.Ed students (as per 28.08.2006 NCTE recognition order) under single window system for the academic year 2014-15 (Jeyasuriya College Education Villupuram, Tamilnadu, Seven year pending for affiliation 2006-2014 to advice, avoid earlier corrupt practice in Tamil Nadu Teacer Education University, Chennai-5)

….my request letter dated 06.08.2014 submitter to Dr.G.Visvanathan Ph.D., Vice-Chancellor, Tamilnadu Teachers Education University, Lady Willingdon College Campus, KamarajSalaji, Chennai-5, Tamilnadu for your kind consideration and favorable recommendation/orders please.”

The SRC in its 272nd meeting held on 1-2 September 2014 considered the institution letter received by SRC on 14.08.2014 and decided that “Many defects have been noticed. The institution has not respondent to our notice in this regard.



115

Issue show cause notice for withdrawal of recognition”.

Note: it is noticed from another file, the institution has given series of written representation was filed in the separate file, which was placed before 256th meeting of SRC (copy enclosed). The decision of SRC not known.

In the meantime, the NCTE-Hqrs has sent a letter dated 11.09.2014 received by SRC on 16.09.2014 regarding provisional affiliation and allotment of students to the Jeyasuriya College of Education, Distt. Villupuram, Tamilnadu for B.Ed course for the academic session 2014-15. The NCTE-Hqrs in its letter stating as follows:-

“…a copy of the letter mentioned under reference on the above subject, wherein the Chairperson of the aforesaid institution has informed to the NCTE that the affiliating university namely Tamilnadu Teacher Education University, Chennai, Tamilnadu has not been granting affiliation since the academic session 2006 to 2014 and also for the current session even after direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Chennai, Tamilnadu vide W.P.No.37660 of 2007 dated 06.01.2012. The management of the institution was also approach to the concerned university for grant of affiliation to the B.Ed course vide letter dated 06.08.2014, wherein he inform that he has been deposited the prescribed requisite processing fees of Rs.25,000 vide D.D.No.604155 dated 16.10.2012 to the University towards affiliation. But, the university has not respondent in respect to the affiliation so far, which is violation of provision of section 15(4) of NCTE Act, 1993. Since, the recognition has not been withdrawn by the office of Southern Regional Committee (SRC) (NCTE), Bengaluru so far and no adverse report received from the University for Action against the institution. Therefore, the concerned university has not withheld affiliation of the aforesaid course/institution since long without the legal and valid reasons. In the present case, you are requested to ascertain valid reasons in writing for stopping affiliation of this institution for B.Ed course from concerned university and consider the same if any adverse or positive in the meeting of the SRC, Bangalore for decision under the rules and directed to the university authority to follow the direction of SRC.

2. Therefore, you are requested to follow up this matter expeditiously and to furnish final report in the matter to the NCTE Hqrs, after seeking final decision of the university within a fortnight and to consider by SRC immediately after receipt of this letter.

3. This issues with the approval of competent authority.”

A letter dated 17.09.2014 received from Registrar, Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University received by SRC on 22.09.2014 stating as follows:-

“….the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bangalore has granted recognition to Jeyasuriya Self Employment Teacher Education Trust, Villupuram, Tamilnadu for offering B.Ed. Degree course in Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, Villupuram from the academic session 2006-2007, subject to fulfillment of the following:



116

a. The institution will ensue that Principal and seven faculty members duly approved by the affiliating University are in position for an intake of 100 students before commencement of the course and a report to this effect shall be sent to the SRC immediately.

b. The institution shall, within one month of the receipt of recognition order, convert the endowment fund account into a joint account to be operated along with an official of the SRC.

c. The institution shall shift to its own premises/building within three years from the date of recognition.(in case the courses is started in rented premises)

d. The institution shall comply with the various other norms and standards prescribed in the NCTE Regulations. 2. The management of the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training

College has submitted a fresh application on 16.10.2012 for provisional affiliation to offer B.Ed degree course for the academic year 2013-2014 in which the name of College of Education was mentioned as “Jeyasuriya College of Education”. In order to process the above application, the applicant has to pay Rs.25,000/- towards registration fee and Rs.50,000/- towards processing fee. But the above college has paid only Rs.25,000/- was paid to this University only on 26.09.2013.

3. Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University has appointed two member Inspection Commission on 04.09.2013 to inspect the college and in turn, on completion of inspection, the commission has submitted its report on 13.09.2013 with 24 deficiencies which includes non-availability of qualified Principal, Librarian and other faculties.

4. In this regard, the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College was informed through the University’s communication dated 24.09.2013 to rectify the above 24 deficiencies on or before 04.10.2013 to grant provisional affiliation to the college. (copy enclosed).

5. on 01.10.2013, the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College has rectified 16 deficiencies and leaving eight deficiencies as it is. In this regard, the university has addressed the college on 04.10.2013 once again to rectify the remaining 8 defects immediately, so that to grant provisional affiliation to the college. (copy enclosed).

6. Based on this University’s communication, the institution has rectified four more deficiencies leaving the following four deficiencies as it is without rectifying. The same was informed to the college through this university’s communication dated 29.11.2013 (copy enclosed).

a. Documentary evidence for appointment of qualified Principal. (School level experience certificate will not be considered).

b. Land area, whether wet or dry land (wet land conversion certificate issued by Directorate of Town and Country Planning in case if it is Wet Land as per the new Section 47(A) in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, vide notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 01.01.2011.

c. A certificate is required under Section 37 (B) of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Land fixation and Ceiling) Act, 1961, vide notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 10.06.2010.



117

Documentary evidence for payment of infrastructure and amenity charges as per Tamil Nadu Gazette Notification regarding Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges Rules 2008, vide notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26.01.2008.

7. It is pointed out that as per the norms of the NCTE, the institution shall ensure that Principal and seven faculty members duly approved by the affiliating University are in position for an intake of 100 students before commencement of the course and a report to this effect shall be sent to the Southern Regional Committee immediately.

8. Despite the above said norms of the NCTE, the Management of the College has not applied to the University for approval of qualifications of the Principal and faculty members appointed by them, so far which infers that the qualified Principal and faculty members are not in position in the College so far.

9. Further, the SRC, NCTE at its 272nd Meeting held on 1st – 2nd September 2014 on item no. 85 has taken decision as follows in respect of Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, Villupuram on the aspect of recognition granted to the College.

“ Many defects Have been noticed. The Institution has not responded to our notice in this regard, Issue Show Cause Notice for withdrawal of recognition.”

10. In addition to the above, the management of the Institution has filed a Writ Petition No: 28542 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court by challenging the noncompliance of deficiencies listed by the university and also praying direction to the University to grant affiliation to the College for the academic year 2013-2014 is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court has not yet passed the final orders in the said W.P and the Management of the College has not yet set right the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Commission by duly submitting the above said essential documents so far.

Under the above circumstances, the following inconsistencies still prevail in this issue.

The Hon'ble High Court has not passed the final orders in the said W.P. to enable the University to proceed further to grant fresh affiliation to the College.

The Management of the College has not furnished important documents in connection with the deficiencies which are essentially required for grant of fresh affiliation to the college.

The SRC, NCTE at its meeting held on 1st – 2nd September 2014, has taken a decision to issue to Show Cause Notice for withdrawal of recognition granted to the said College.

In these circumstances, this University is unable to grant the provisional affiliation to the above said Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, particularly due to noncompliance of deficiencies and submission of documents”.

A copy of letter to the Secretary, Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College dated 24.09.2013.

A copy of letter to the Secretary, Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College dated 04.10.2013.



118

A copy of letter to Dr.K.Rayar, dated 29.11.2013. Before issuance of show cause notice, the institution has submitted a series of written representations as follows:-

Date Received by SRC

Regarding Enclosures

12.09.2014

12.09.2014

(E-mail)

Provisional affiliation and allotment of student to the Jeyasuriya College of Education, distt. Villupuram Tamilnadu for B.Ed course for the academic session 2014-2015.

A copy of letter to Regional Director, NCTE dated 11.09.2014

15.09.2014

15.09.2014

(E-mail)

Request CBI enquiry & Ignore SRC, NCTE decision on 272nd meeting serial no.85

The copies of letters to Regional Director, NCTE dated 11.09.2014,14.09.2014.

A copy of court order in W.P.No.29956 of 2008 and MP.1/2008 dated 18.12.2008.

16.09.2014

16.09.2014

(E-mail)

Request for CBI enquiry for bribe and corrupt practice by present scr NCTE Chairman (S.Sathyam IAS) and present vice chancellor TNTEU, Tamil Nadu (Dr.G.Viswanathan)

A copy of letter to Shri.Santosh Panda, Chairperson, NcTEHq dated 15.09.2014

The copies of letters to Regional Director, SRC NCTE dated 11.09.2014,14.09.2014

A copy of letter to The Secretary to Governor, Governor’s Secretariat, Raj Bhavan, Chennai dated 12.09.2014 issued by TNTEU

16.09.2014

16.09.2014 (Fax)

--- A copy of letter to Shri.R.Sathyam, Chairman dated



119

16.09.2014.

A copy of letter to The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, GOI dated 15.09.2014.

16.09.2014

16.09.2014 --- A copy of letter to The Secretary to Governor, Governor’s Secretariat dated 12.09.2014

A copy of letter to Shri.R.Sathyam dated 15.09.2014

17.09.2014

17.09.2014

(E-mail)

Requesting to grant special permission for admitting 100 B.Ed students for academic year 2014-2015 (as per 28.08.2006 NCTE recognition order & deemed fit affiliation) under management quota or SWS. (Jeyasuriya College of Education, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu. 8 years pending to get permission). To avoid bribe & earlier corrupt practice carried by present Chairman SRC NCTE (S.Sathyam I.A.S) & present Vice Chancellor TNTEU, Chennai, Tamilnadu (Dr.G.Viswanathan)

A copy of Shri.K.RosaiahAvl, Excellency Governor of Tamilnadu dated 17.09.2014.

A copy of letter to Regional Director, SRC NCTE dated 11.09.2014 issued by NCTE-Hqrs

A copy of letter to The Secretary to Governor, Governor’s Secretariat dated 12.09.2014 issued by TNTEU.

14.09.2014

22.09.2014 Request, order for CBI enquiry- & Ignore SRC, NCTE Decision of 272nd meeting pg.No.17 serial no.85 code no.APS04507 course B.Ed JSET-ET VPM, Tamilnadu & Based on the Chennai High Court W.P.No.29956/2008 dated 18.12.2008. Stay Order & W.P.No.28542/2013 Notice-avoid bribe & earlier corrupt

A copy of court order in W.P.No.29956 of 2008 and MP.1/2008 dated 18.12.2008.

A copy of letter to Regional Director, SRC-NCTE dated 11.09.2014 issued by NCTE-Hqrs



120

practice carried by present Chairman SRC, NCTE (S.Sathyam I.A.S) & Present Vice Chancellor TNTEU, Chennai, Tamilnadu (Dr.G.Viswanathan)

15.09.2014

23.09.2014 Request, order for CBI enquiry- & Ignore SRC, NCTE Decision of 272nd meeting pg.No.17 serial no.85 code no.APS04507 course B.Ed JSET-ET VPM, Tamilnadu & Based on the Chennai High Court W.P.No.29956/2008 dated 18.12.2008. Stay Order & W.P.No.28542/2013 Notice-avoid bribe & earlier corrupt practice carried by present Chairman SRC, NCTE (S.Sathyam I.A.S) & Present Vice Chancellor TNTEU, Chennai, Tamilnadu (Dr.G.Viswanathan)

A copy of letter to Regional Director dated 14.09.2014

17.09.2014

23.09.2014 Requesting to grant special permission for admitting 100 B.Ed students for academic year 2014-15 (as per 28.08.2006 NCTE Recognition order & Deemed fit affiliation) under management quota or SWS. (Jeyasuirya College of Education, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu. 8 years pending to get permission). To avoid bribe & earlier corrupt practice carried by present Chairman SRC, NCTE (S.Sathyam I.A.S) & present Vice Chancellor TNTEU, Chennai, Tamilnadu (Dr.G.Viswanathan)

A copy of letter to Shri.K.Rosaiah, Avl, Excellency Governor of Tamilnadu dated 17.09.2014.

A copy of letter to Regional Director, SRC-NCTE dated 11.09.2014 from NCTE-Hqrs.

A copy of letter to The Secretary to Governor, Governor’s Secretariat dated 12.09.2014 issued by TNTEU.

20.09.2014

23.09.2014 Requesting to order for relaxation of 4 deficiencies (subject to condition) mention in the TNTEU, Chennai letter based on SLP

----



121

will be treated as deemed fit affiliation as per Supreme Court (SLP) Order No.13271/2004 & SLP No.C No.4247-48/2009 (JVC Matter) 10.09.2013 & SLP No.56-57/2014 dt. 08.01.2014, order Dt: 07.03.2014 & 24.03.2014., by this grant special permission for admitting 100 B.Ed students for academic year 2014-15 (as per 28.08.2006 NCTE Recognition order) under management quota or SWS.

20.09.2014

24.09.2014 Requesting to order for relaxation of 4 deficiencies (subject to condition) mention in the TNTEU, Chennai letter based on SLP will be treated as deemed fit affiliation as per Supreme Court (SLP) Order No.13271/2004 & SLP No.C No.4247-48/2009 (JVC Matter) 10.09.2013 & SLP No.56-57/2014 dt. 08.01.2014, order Dt: 07.03.2014 & 24.03.2014., by this grant special permission for admitting 100 B.Ed students for academic year 2014-15 (as per 28.08.2006 NCTE Recognition order) under management quota or SWS.

A copy of letter to Shri.K.Rosaiah, Avl. Excellency Governor of Tamilnadu dated 20.09.2014

A copy of letter to Regional Director, SRC-NCTE dt. 11.09.2014 received from NCTE-Hqrs

A copy of letter to The Secretary to Governor, Governor’s Secretariat dated 12.09.2014 issued by TNTEU

A copy of letter to The Regional Director, NCTE dated 17.09.2014 issued by TNTEU

A copy of letter to the Founder/Chairman, Jeyasuriya College dated 15.09.2014 issued by



122

TNTEU.

The copies of court case in W.P.No.28542/2013 pending , W.P.No.29956/2008 pending

Note: The outcome of the court case in W.P.No.29956 of 2008 filed by the institution is still pending before Hon’ble Court of Judicature at Madras.

The SRC in its 273rd meeting held on 30th September and 1st October 2014 considered the matter and decided as follows:-

1.) The problem relating to non-allotment of students is a dispute between the University and institution. We need not interfere in the matter. The institution can take recourse to relief available under Law. H’qrs may be informed accordingly.

2.) The institution has not responded to our communication dated 04.04.2009. They have not given any information or documents. They have not replied at all. They cannot take recourse to the ‘stay’ issued. That was only against cussing inspection. Issue show cause notice as already decided, for reply by 02.12.2014

Accordingly, as directed a Show Cause notice was issued to the institution on 17.10.2014.

In the meantime a letter to the Member Secretary, NCTE Hqrs. sent on 17.10.2014.

A letter from TNTEU addressed to the Deputy Secretary to Government, Higher Education (K2) Department dated 14.10.2014, received by SRC on 20.10.2014.stated as follows:

“….the copy of the letter dated 06.08.2014 submitted by Dr. K.Rayar, Founder/ Chairman/ Principal of Jeyasuriya College of Education, Villupuram District to the Government was received in this office with the reference cited above and examined in detail. The entire details of the above subject matter are furnished below for your kind perusal.

(A) The portion of the first paragraph of the above letter/ representation dated 06.08.2014 of Jeyasuriya College of Education is extracted below. “I humbly submit that Jayasuriya College of Education was granted recognition by the NCTE on 28.08.2006. (Enclosure1). After conducting inspection vide report dated 05.07.2006. (Enclosure2) and the formal affiliation was accorded to our institution by the Thiruvalluvar University by letter dated 22.01.2007.(Enclosure4). And our college was allotted with students under single window system for the year 2006 and 2007…”



123

a. As stated by the petitioner, the “Jayasuriya College of Education”

was not recognized by the NCTE so far. It is evident form the record of the NCTE maintained in the website www.srcncte.in under the head “Institution Recognition Granted/Withdrawn”. The petitioner has also not produced a copy of the recognition order granted by the NCTE in the name and style of “Jeyasuriya College of Education” as mentioned in the petition.

b. As stated by the petitioner, no formal affiliation was accorded to the

Jeyasuriya College of Education by the Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore on 22.01.2007. Actually, the application of this College for provisional affiliation was rejected by the University on 22.01.2007 due to deficiencies. It is evident from the fact that the management of the said College has challenged the above rejection order dated 22.01.2007 by filing Writ petition No.15941 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court, Chennai, Further the petitioner has also not enclosed a copy of any affiliation order said to be having as stated in the petition.

c. In the absence of affiliation, no College of Education can admit any

students in B.Ed. degree course under Clause 8(12) of the NCTE Regulations. Hence, the content of the petitioner in the above petition that in the absence of affiliation, the said College was allotted students under single window in the year 2006-2007 is also utter false information.

As explained above, all the above said information furnished in the

petition dated 06.08.2014 by Dr. K. Rayar of Jeyasuriya College of Education and submitted to the Government is totally false. But, the reasons for furnishing such false information to the Government and various authorities are not known and it could be apprehended that it is only to mislead the authorities.

(B) Further, in the first paragraph of the petition, the petitioner is seeking

affiliation from the University for conducting B.Ed degree course. In the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, the petitioner is requesting to allot 100 students for B.Ed course under single window counseling system for the academic year 2014-2015. As mentioned earlier, admission could not be made in the absence of affiliation under the Clause 8(12) of the NCTE Regulation. But for the reason best known to him, the petitioner is asking two different contradictory requests in the same petition, submitted to the Government and various authorities.

(C) n addition to the above, Dr.K.Rayar, the petitioner, is in the habit of petitioning false and baseless allegations against this university to various officials and also to the authorities of the National Council of Teacher Education, Government of India for the reasons best known to him.

(D) Under the above circumstances, as the management of the above College of is very often submitting petitions to the various authorities with distorted, false information and also some false allegations without supporting documents to substantiate the allegation made by him, the entire matter



124

relating to the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, Villupuram district is furnished below in detail for better understanding the entire matter of the said College and also to set right the records in order.

1. The Sothern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore has granted conditional recognition to Jeyasuriyaself Employment Teacher Education Trust, Villupuram, Tamilnadu for offering B.Ed Degree Course in Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, Villupuram form the academic session 2006-2007 vide Order No:F:SRO/NCTE/C.P.Ed.-AI/2006-2007/7300, dated 28.08.2006, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions and not in the name and style of “Jeyasuriya College of Education .”

a. The institution will ensue that principal and seven faculty members duly approved by the affiliation University are in position for an intake of 100 students before commencement of the course and a report to this effect shall be sent to the SRC immediately.

b. The institution shall, within one month of the recognition order, convert the endowment fund account into a joint account to be operated along with an official of the SRC.

c. The institution shall shift to its own premises/ building within three

years from the date of recognition. (in case the courses is started in rented premises)

d. The institution shall comply with the various other norms and standerds prescribed in the NCTE Regulations.

But till the management of the said college has not submitted the list of faculties including the principal appointed by them as per NCTE norms and standards/UGC guidelines to this University for the qualification approval which is mandatory under clause 7(9) of NCTE Regulations.

2. Under the Clause 8(12) of NCTE Regulations, the management of the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College has to obtain provisional affiliation form the University for conducting B.Ed degree course. Hence, the management of the College has submitted an application for provisional affiliation to the Chancellor of the University instead of Vice-Chancellor or Registrar of the University for the reasons best known to them. Hence, there was a delay in reaching the application to the Registrar, Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore and finally inspection was conducted in the premises of the College and rejected the request of the College for affiliation on 22.01.2007, due to deficiencies.

3. Aggrieved with the above rejection oreder dated 22.01.2007, the

management of the college has filed writ petition No:15941 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras against the Thiruvallur University. In turn, the Hon’ble Court has closed this writ petition on 02.11.2007 with the following observations.

“6…..under such circumstances, it will be fit and proper to issue a



125

direction to the second respondent the Registrar, Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2006 and if necessary, shall make inspection whether the originally noticed defects are rectified and affiliation can be granted or not and pass orders within a period of eight weeks here from.”

4. In obedience to the above order of the Hon’ble High Court,

Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore has conducted an inspection on 02.11.2007 and based on the deficiency report submitted by the inspection commission, the request of the college was rejected on 12.11.2007, since the deficiencies are still existed.

5. Once again, the management of the College has filed another writ

petition No:37660 of 2007 against the Thiruvalluvar University by challenging the above rejection order dated 12.11.2007. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court, Madras has passed the following order on 06.01.2012.

“3. From this, it is very clear that if the petitioner rectifies the mistake or the deficiencies as pointed out in the order, affiliation could be granted for the subsequent years. Therefore, there is no embargo for the petitioner to satisfy the requirement by rectifying all the defects as pointed out in the orders. Therefore, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the second respondent in the impugned order dated 12.11.2007.

4. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner to rectify all the defects as pointed out in the order and then approach the authority concerned and seek for affiliation. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed. No costs.”

As directed by the Hon’ble Court in the above order, the management of the said College has not rectified all the deficiencies, particularly, qualified principal and other faculties have not been appointed and submitted to the University so far, for the qualification approval in order to fulfill the mandatory provision. But the management of the said college disobeyed the above court order and making various false complaints to various authorities for the reasons best know to them.

6. The Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University Act, 2008 was enacted and Tamil Nadu Education University started functioning from 01.07.2008. As per section 54 of the said Act, on and from the notified date the colleges imparting courses of study in Teacher Education in the University area shall be disaffiliated from the university established under the any of the Acts specified I the schedule to which they were affiliated on the date immediately preceding such day and shall be deemed to be affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University. But, the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College was not affiliated to any of the universities on the prescribed date. Hence, this College can’t be deemed to have come under the purview of this University automatically. Under the said status, the said College has to apply for provisional affiliation afresh.



126

7. The management of the College has submitted a letter dated 05.06.2012 to this University seeking provisional affiliation without enclosures and prescribed fees. But, as there is a prescribed application for applying provisional affiliation and also prescribed fees, the management of the College was informed through this University’s communication dated 09.07.2012 to submit the application for provisional affiliation in the prescribed format with necessary fees.

8. Accordingly the management of the above College has submitted a fresh application on 16.10.2012 for provisional affiliation to offer B.Ed degree course for the academic year 2013-2014 in which the name of College of Education was mentioned as “ Jeyasuriya College of Education” whereas the NCTE has granted recognition to “Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College”. However, in order to process the above application, the applicant has to pay Rs:25,000/- towards registration fee and Rs.50,000/- towards processing fee. But the above College has paid only Rs: 25,000/- along with the application for provisional affiliation and the remaining amount of Rs: 50,000/- was paid to this University only on 26.09.2013, i.e. almost after one year after submission of application.

9. Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University has appointed two member Inspection Commission on 04.09.2013 to inspect the College and in trun, on completion of inspection, the Commission has submitted its report on 13.09.2013 with 24 deficiencies which includes non-availability of qualified principal, Librarian and other faculties.

10. In this regard, Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College

was informed through the University’s communication dated 24.09.2013 to rectify the above 24 deficiencies on or before 04.10.2013 to grant provisional affiliation to the college.

11. On 01.10.2013, the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College has rectified 16 deficiencies and leaving eight deficiencies as it is. In this regard, the University has addressed the college on 04.10.2013 once again to rectify the remaining 8 defects immediately, in order to grant provisional affiliation to the college.

12. Based on the University’s communication, the Institution has rectified four more deficiencies leaving the following four deficiencies as it is without rectifying. The same was informed to the College through this University’s communication dated 29.11.2013. But the management has not taken any step to rectify the deficiencies, even though the Hon’ble Court has directed the said College on 06.01.2012 to rectify the deficiencies and get affiliation.

a. Documentary evidence for appointment of qualified principal. (School level experience certificate will not be considered).

b. Land Area, whether Wet or Dry Land (Wet Land Conversion Certificate issued by Directorate of town and Country planning in case if it is Wet Land as per the new section 47(A) in the Tamilnadu Town and Country planning



127

Act 1971, vide notification in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette dated 01.01.2011.

c. A certificate is required under Section 37 (B) of Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Land fixation and Ceiling) Act, 1961, vide notification in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette dated 10.06.2010.

d. Documentary evidence for payment of infrastructure and amenity charges as per Tamilnadu Gazette Notification regarding Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges Rules 2008, vide notification in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette dated 26.01.2008.

13. It is pointed out that as per the norms of the NCTE, the institution shall ensure that principal and seven faculty members duly approved by the affiliating University are in position for an intake of 100 students before commencement of the course and a report to this effect shall be sent to the Southern Regional Committee immediately.

14. Despite the above said norms of the NCTE, the management of the College has not applied to the University for approval of qualifications of the principal and faculty members appointed by them, so far which infers that the qualified principal and faculty members are not in position in the College so far.

15. Moreover, the management of the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College has not obeyed the order dated 06.01.2012 of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in W .P.No:37660 of 2007 and not yet rectified the deficiencies.

16. As stated above, without obeying the order the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, the management of the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College has filed one more Writ Petition No.28542 of 2013 before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the noncompliance of deficiencies listed by the University and also praying direction to the University to grant affiliation to the College for the academic year 2013-2014 and the same is still pending before the Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble court has not yet passed the final orders in the said W.P and the Management of the College has not yet set right the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Commission by duly submitting the above said essential documents so far.

17. Further, the SRC, NCTE at its 272nd Meeting held on 1st-2nd September, 2014 on item no. 85 has taken decision as follows in respect of Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, Villupuram on the aspect of recognition granted to the college.

“Many defects have been noticed. The Institution has not responded to our

notice in this regard, Issue Show Cause Notice for withdrawal of recognition.” Under the above circumstances, the above subject matter along with the

representations received from Dr.K.Rayar, Jeyasuriya College of Education



128

was placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 24.09.2014 and resolved as follows.

“Resolved that the management of the College be directed to get clearance from the SRC, NCTE, Bangalore which has taken a decision in respect of the said college at its 272nd meeting of SRC on 1st& 2nd September, 2014 as follows.

“The committee considered the matter, letter dated 14.08.2014 from the Institution (with enclosures addressed to TNTEU, Chennai) decided that, many defects have been noticed. The institution has not responded to our notice in this regard, Issue show cause notice for withdrawal of recognition. Resolved further that the request of Founder/Chairman, Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College, Villupuram District to grant fresh affiliation for the year 2013-2014 be rejected and the Management of the College be directed to produce the following documents and rectify the defects pointed out hereunder.

1. Essentially, the college should have qualified principal and approved Faculty members as per the norms and standards of the NCTE laying down that “the Institution shall ensure that principal and seven faculty members duly approved by the affiliating University are in position for an intake of 100 students before commencement of the course and a report to this effect shall be sent to the SRC immediately. 2. The Petitioner College has the multipurpose hall without the required area (2000sq.ft.) for the students as required in the norms of the NCTE. 3. The instruments/equipments in the laboratory and furniture are very much inadequate. 4. There is no faculty for Arts & Crafts in the Petitioner College. 5. Most of the books available in the library are not related to Education discipline. 6. Latest journals and back volumes are not available. 7. Land Area whether Wet or Dry Land, Wet Land Conversion Certificate issued by Directorate of town and country planning in case if it is Wet Land as per the new Section 47(A) in the Tamilnadu Town and Country planning Act 1971, vide notification in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette dated 01.01.2011. 8. A Certificate under Section 37(B) of Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Land Fixation and Ceiling) Act, 1961, vide notification in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette dated 10.06.2010. 9. Documentary evidence for payment of infrastructure and amenity charges as per Tamilnadu Gazette Notification regarding Levy of infrastructure and Amenities Charges rules 2008, vide notification in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette dated 26.01.2008.

Resolved that the Management of the College be directed to apply for

the grant of fresh affiliation since it is not affiliated to any other University so far in the state and the application be considered after the final outcome of the pending W.P No.28542 of 2013 and clearance from the SRC, NCTE Bangalore with regard to action contemplated by the SRC, NCTE on 1, 2-09-



129

2014 in respect of the above College. Resolved also that on completion of the above compliance, an

Inspection Commission be constituted to cause a thorough inspection on the College with regards to each and every aspect essential for grant of fresh affiliation and the report be placed before the Syndicate.

Resolved also condemn the reckless and undisciplined behavior of

Dr.K. Rayar, Founder /Chairman of the said College, while visiting University Officials and dashing inside the Cabins/chambers of the University Officials violently pushing away the Security and other staff on duty and his act of writing numerous petitions to various authorities with distorted, twisted and false information, misleading the authorities and bringing down the image of the University before the eyes of public and students.

Resolved further that the Vice-Chancellor be authorized to take all

required and appropriate action against the Management of the Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and Training College and to instruct Dr.K.Rayar, Founder /Chairman of the said College to behave in disciplined manner.”

In this regard, the Management of “Jeyasuriya Teacher Education

and Training College” is informed separately to comply with the above decision of the Syndicate as resolved at its meeting held on 24.09.2014.

Above all, it is understood that the petitioner, Dr.K.Rayar was

imprisoned for criminal offence and also many cases are pending against him in various court due to disgusting activities and rude behavior of Dr.K.Rayar, Founder of the said College.

The SRC in its 274th meeting held on 30th -31st October, 2014 consider the matter and decided that seen No action is required. Pursue the Show Cause Notice issued by us to the institution. The institution has submitted its written representation on 10.11.2014. with regarding Jeyasuriya Teacher Education Training College (old) in the new name of Jeyasuriya College of Education (B.Ed) (A unit of JSETET) submission of reply to show cause notice F.No.SRO NCTE/APS04507/B.Ed/KA/2014-15/59945 dated: 17.10.2014. Stating as follows:

“….with due respect on above said facts, based on the reference: NCTE, Head Quoters, letter No. F.39-2/2014/NCTE/CDN(PI)/A94082 Dt. 11.09.2014 received on 12.09.2014 to Order for relaxation of 4 deficiencies (subject to condition) mention in the TNTUE, Chennai letter based on SLP will be treated as deemed fit affiliation as per Supreme Court (SLP) Order No. 13271/2004&SLP No. C.No.4247-48/2009 (JVC Matter) 10.09.2013 & SLP N.56-57/2014 Dt. 08.01.2014, order Dt. 07.03.2014 & 24.03.2014., by this grant special permission for admitting 100 B.Ed students for academic year 2014-2015 as per 28.08.2006 NCTE Recognition Order) Under Management quota or SWS. To avoid bribe and earlier corrupt practice carried by present CHAIRMAN SRC NCTE (S.SATHYAM I.A.S) & present VICE CHANCELLER, TNTUE, Chennai, Tamilnadu (Dr.G. Vishvanathan)



130

(Jeyasuriya College of Education, Villupuram, Tamilnadu.) and ignore the show cause Notice. ( copy enclosed).

Further the institution has submitted some relevant documents which is examined

Deficiencies pointed out by SRC

Enclosures

Institution should submit the details of existing infrastructural & instructional facilities for the B.Ed course.

The institution has submitted the Building completion certificate which is not approved by competent authority (copy enclosed). Approval B/P submitted.

Questionnaire should be submitted with all the details.

The institution has submitted filled Questionnaire (copy enclosed).

The institution has to submit approved faculty list approved by the affiliating body of all existing teacher education courses with details of each faculty member in the format enclosed.

The institution submitted the staff list which is not approved by the affiliating body (copy enclosed).

The Committee considered the written reply of the institution vide letter

dated 10.11.2014, on the above matter and also the relevant documents of

the institution and decided to withdraw recognition for the following

reasons:-

• Building Completion Certificate is not approved by competent authority.

• Staff list is not approved. It is also not in the prescribed format, essential details are not given.

• Principal is 76 years old and is not eligible as principal.

Based on the above points the committee decides to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by Jeyasuriya Teacher Education and



131

Training College, Jeyasuriya Self Employment, No. 3/139, Jeyasuriya Mahal, Vignesh Nagar, Trichy Main Road, Villupuram District, Pin-605 401, Tamilnadu, from the academic year 2014-15 in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed (APS04507) course, if any, to complete their course.

But it is made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order.


Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, after settlement of staff/faculty dues if any.

39) APS02027 APS02033 APS06127

B.Ed D.Ed D.Ed

Aristotle educational Trust, Kolar, Karnataka.

KA

Aristotle Educational Trust, Andersonpet, K.G.F-563113, Kolar District, Karnataka

APS06127/D.Ed

APS02027/B.Ed

Aristotle Educational Trust, Kolar District, Karnataka had submitted an application for grant of recognition to Aristotle D.Ed College, Andersonpet, K.G.F-563113, Kolar District, Karnataka for D.Ed course of Two years duration for the academic year 2006-07. The competent authority had constituted a visiting team to visit the institution and the visiting team had submitted its report which was placed before SRC in its 130

th

meeting held on 23 & 24 March 2007 and decided to issue a notice. Accordingly notice issued on 02.04.2004 and the institution has submitted its written presentation dated 05.04.2007 which was placed before SRC in its 131

st

meeting held on 10-11 April 2007 and the committee conclusion that recognition to the said institution be refused for the following reasons:

• As seen from the VCD, the space area provided for the proposed D.Ed course roofed with

Aristotle Educational Trust, Kolar District, Karnataka had submitted an application for grant of recognition to Aristotle College of Education, Andersonpet, K.G.F-563113, Kolar District, Karnataka for Secondary (B.Ed) course of one year duration for the academic year 2004-05 with an annual intake of 100 students. The institution was granted recognition on 29.11.2004 with a condition to shift to its own premises within 3 years from the date of recognition (in case the course is started in rented premises). As per the decision of 175

th meeting of

SRC held on 13-14 May 2009, the institutions where recognitions were granted in temporary premises with a condition to shift to permanent premises within period of three years time limit of grant of recognition as per NCTE Regulations 2002 notified in 18.11.2002 were considered. The SRC in its 176

th meeting held on

27-28 May 2009 considered matter and it was decided that institution which have not shifted to the permanent premises even after the expiry of three years time limit be issued notice u/s 17 of NCTE Act for further action. Further there is no action taken in the file.

APS02033/D.Ed



132

asbestos sheet which is not as per NCTE norms.

Accordingly, refusal order was issued to the institution on 19.04.2007. The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE-Hqrs vide order No.F.No.89-54/2007-Appeal dated 08.08.2007 stating that “…committee felt that re-inspection of the institution is necessary to determine as to whether the infrastructural and other facilities provided by the institution are as per the NCTE norms. Accordingly, it was decided to remand the case back to SRC for re-inspection of the premises of the institution on urgent basis.” In the meantime, the institution has submitted its written representation on 14.08.2007 regarding requesting for re-inspection of D.Ed college. The inspection of the institution was conducted on 30.08.2007. The VT report received by SRC on 05.09.2007 which was placed before SRC in its 141

st

meeting held on 6-9 September 2007 and the committee decided that to issue conditional recognition. Accordingly, a conditional recognition was issued to the institution on 10.09.2007. The institution has submitted its written representation on 12.09.2007. As per instructions of 131

st meeting

of SRC held on 10-11 April 2007 has decided to authorize the Regional Director to issue un-conditional recognition order to such institutions who submits the documents as per 7(11) of NCTE Regulations.

Accordingly, an unconditional recognition

was issued to the



133

institution on 17.09.2007.

While placing the Hon’ble High Court Order and the letter from the D.S.E.R.T with regard to application i.e. APS02033/B.Ed and the committee decided to cause composite inspection and inform SCERT that, since the ‘fee’ has been paid only now, inspection (as directed by the Court on 14.12.2012). The inspection of the institution was scheduled for 24th July, 2013 and the same was intimated to the institution vide this office letter F.No.APSO6127/2033/2031/2017/52831 dated 22.07.2013. Accordingly, the inspection (composite inspection) of the institutions was carried out on 24.07.2013 and the VT reports were received by this office on 25.07.2013. A comparative statement of the VT reports of the four institutions was placed before SRC in its 250th meeting held on 11-13 August 2013 and the committee decided to withdraw recognition for all courses w.e.f. 2013-14 for the following deficiencies:-

• Institution has submitted Land documents and it is in individual name.

• Building plan not approved by competent authority.

• Building Completion Certificate is not issued by competent authority.

• C.P.Ed. is not a stand aloneprogramme.

Accordingly, a withdrawal order was issued to the Institution on 30.09.2013 Aggrieved by the withdrawal order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order dated 21.05.2014 remanded as follows:

“….. Sh. L. Syed. Shahzadha, Secretary, Aristotle Teachers Training Institute KGF, Kolar, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant Institution on 11/04/2014. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that “earlier the land was standing in the name of the Secretary of the Trust and the said land is the Trust property. In this regard the Secretary has executed Registered Sale Deed dated 25/11/2013 in favour of the Trust, hence the land and building belongs to the trust who is the absolute owner. Authority to give building completion certificate is the City Municipality at K.G.F. within whose local jurisdiction the building is situated. The CMC



134

KGF has given the building completion certificate. Appellant is not continuing the C.P.Ed. program due to lack of admissions. The Council noted that the Southern Regional Committee (SRC), based on the observation and findings of the composite inspection carried out on 24/07/2013, decided to withdraw recognition for D.Ed. Committee further noted that the appellant Institution was not given reasonable opportunity for making a written representation under the proviso to section 17(1) of the NCTE Act. Committee, therefore, concluded to remand back the case to SRC with a direction to issue Show Cause Notice under section 17(1) before passing a reasoned order. After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to issue Show Cause Notice under section 17 (1) before passing a reasonable order. The Council hereby remands back the case of Aristotle Teachers Training Institute, Kolar, Karnataka to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above”

The SRC in its 271st meeting held on 1 August 2014 considered the appellate authority order dated 21.05.2014/06.06.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process the case after notification of new Regulations. In the meantime, the institution has submitted its written representation on 17.10.2014 stating as follows:

“it is known that NCTE had issued orders of withdrawal of recognition of our B.Ed., (APS02027) and D.Ed., (APS06127) courses and in this regard we had gone for an appeal to NCTE, New Delhi. The applied authority by accepting our explanation and perusal of documents produced by us, passed order on 21.05.2014 (06.06.2014) allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to your authority for further orders. In continuation of our previous court order, we do hereby submit the orders from the HOn’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore with regard to our



135

B.Ed (APS02027) and D.Ed., (APS06127) courses which is self explanatory for your kind consideration. We request your goodself to please acknowledge and comply with the order of HOn’ble High Court of Karntaka, Bangalore and to pass favourable recognition orders towards our B.Ed (APS02027) and D.ed., (APS06127) courses.”

Along with original certified court order in W.P.No.45451/2014 (EDN-REG-P) C/W W.P.No.45452/2014 (EDN-REG-P) dated 10.10.2014. The court order stating as follows:- “ORDER: The petitioners are before this court seeking for issue of mandamus. 2.Though a positive mandamus has been sought, what requires consideration at this juncture is to direct the second respondent to consider and dispose of the request of the petitioners in accordance with law since the matter has been remitted to the second respondent by the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. 3.Learned counsel for the second respondent however pointed out that the consideration by the second respondent was not possible at this juncture in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through its order dated 24.03.2014 in W.P.(Civil) No.148/2014. This aspect has already been taken note while disposing of W.P.No.38510/2014 (EDN-REG-P) dated 27.08.2014 and a direction was issued to consider and dispose of the matter. 4.Hence, in the instant petitions also a similar direction is issued to the second respondent to conclude the proceedings in the next sitting or on such other date to which the meeting may be adjourned in an expeditious manner. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.”

The matter was placed before SRC in its 274th Meeting on 30th & 31st October, 2014 and the committee considered and decided that:

1. Show Cause Notice (covering all three courses) for original, approved Building Plan and Building Completion Certificate certified by competent authority along with Sy.nos.

2. We have to pass an order for derecognition of the C.P.Ed course. Process separately for that.

Before issuance of notice, the institution has submitted its written representation



136

with photocopy of Building Completion Certificate and Original Building Plan.

Sl No.

Deficiency pointed Out by SRC

Written representation of the institution

Remarks

1 Show Cause Notice (covering all three courses) for original, approved Building Plan and Building Completion Certificate certified by competent authority along with Sy.nos

In its reply stated as follows: I also wish to bring to your kind consideration that we have already submitted the building Completion Certificate in original in the prescribed format as required by your good office and duly signed by the competent authority vide our letter N0.AET/NCTSRC03/14-15, dated 20.10.2014 duly acknowledged by your good office bearing No.139164, dated 29.10.2014 (copy enclosed) we wish to bring to your kind consideration that our Andersonpet area belongs to city Municipal limits where our college is situated and Survey Numbers are not applicable, Survey Numbers are only allotted for Revenue lands only, where as Khatha Number and Assessment Numbers are allotted to our building which is marked in the building plan.

1. The institution has submitted Building Completion Certificate dated 28.10.2014.

Issued by

Assistant Executive Engineer, City Municipal Council Robertsonpet, K.G.F.-22

SY. No. Not mentioned Location Street: Old Post

Office Road, Ward No.34 Andersonpet Municipality

Built Up Area

GF:12247sq.ft. FF:11221sq.ft. SF:11221sq.ft. Total:34689sq.ft.

Purpose Education Purpose only

Roofing RCC Ground floor RCC First floor RCC Second floor

Note: An additional land of 2,00,000 sq.ft (Two lakh Sq.fts) has been provided within Municipal limits in the heart of the city for future development.

2. The institution has submitted approved Original Building Plan dated 07.06.2006.

Approved by Assistant Executive Engineer, City Municipal Council Robertsonpet, K.G.F

SY. No. Khata No.786,779old/ No.296,289



137

The Court Order dated 14.11.2014 from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at

Bangalore in W.P. No.34702-34744/2014 received by SRC on 25.11.2014 Stated

as follows:

New

Khatha No Khatha No: 786,779 OLD,/ No.296, 289 New, Asst NO. 967,960 old/ NO.361,354 New

Extent 37800 sq.ft. Location Aristotle

Educational Institutions, Andersonpet,K.G.F-563113, Kolar District Karnataka

Built-up area Not Mentioned

Proposed for Aristotle Educational Institutions.

2 We have to pass an order for derecognition of the C.P.Ed course. Process separately for that.

In its reply stated as follows: We also wish to state that we are not conducting C.P.Ed., Course due to lack of admissions, hence we do not have any objection in withdrawing the recognition of the C.P.Ed., course. We have cleared all the deficiencies sought by your good office and request your goodself to kindly issue favorable orders in this regard.



138

“…Since this court had permitted them to appear for the examination subject to

result of these petitions and the petitions need consideration, the respondents are

directed to declare the results of petitioners No.2 to 43 which shall however remain

subject to result of these petitions and the petitioners shall not claim equity in the

event of failing in these petitions”.

The Committee considered the matter, reply of the institution vide letter dated 21.11.2014, and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Showcause Notice Under NCTE Act for the following :

• As per the Building Completion Certificate submitted by the institution, the total built up area is inadequate as per the norms and standards of 2009 regulations.

In view of the above, the Committee decided to issue a Showcause Notice to

the institution as to why the recognition be not withdrawn and thereby

providing an opportunity to the institution to make a written representation

within 21 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice along with

necessary certificates/documents in order to take a final decision in the

matter; failing which action will be taken including the withdrawal of

recognition, based on the records available, with no further notice.

40) SRCAPP190 B.Ed

Sathyabama College of Education,

Nagapattinam, Tamilnadu.

TN

Sathyabama College of Education, Plot/Khasara No. 162/5, Street No. 54,

Panangudi Village, Panangudi Post Office,Nagapattinam Taluk,

Nagapattinam District, Pin-611002, Tamilnadu.

Ramachandranar Educational Trust, Plot No.162/5, Panangudi Road, 54 Panangudi Village, Panangudi Post Office, Nagapattinam Taluk, agapattinam District, Pin-611002, Tamilnadu had applied for grant of recognition to Sathyabama College of Education, Plot/Khasara No. 162/5, Street No. 54, Panangudi Village, Panangudi Post Office, Nagapattinam Taluk, Nagapattinam District, Pin-611002, Tamilnadu for B.Ed Course of one year duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 31.12.2012 and physical application has been received in the office of SRC on 07.01.2013. The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 05.02.2013 followed by reminder on 24.04.2013. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 24.04.2013. The reply of the institution has been received on the 61st day from the date of issue of deficiency letter. Hence, the institution has submitted the reply after the stipulated period of 60 days. The matter was placed before SRC in its 248th Meeting held on 13th - 15th July, 2013 and decided to process. Accordingly, the deficiency letter has been processed and placed before the SRC in its 251st meeting held on 25-27th August, 2013 and the committee considered the matter, reply of the institution to the deficiency letter and all the relevant documents and decided to cause composite inspection for proposed B.Ed



139

(SRCAPP190) course & existing D.T.Ed (APS05996) course, under NCTE Act, and to examine whether the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, for the proposed programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the institution, as per the norms. The inspection of the institution was fixed between 17.10.2013 to 24.01.2014 VT was cancelled, re-scheduled on 25.01.2014 to 30.01.2014. The same was intimated to the institution on 20.01.2014. The inspection of the institution was conducted on 27.01.2014. The SRC in its 261st meeting held on 9-10 February, 2014 duly considered VT report, VCD of the institution and all the relevant documents of the institution and noted that:

“The management has suppressed the fact of having D.T.Ed course. Since the recognition of D.T.Ed course is not withdrawn till date and management has also not requested for withdrawal of the D.T.Ed course, the total built up are for both D.T.Ed and B.Ed course is inadequate.”

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE

Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of

B.Ed course. Accordingly, a rejection order was issued to the institution on 28.02.2014. The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order F.No.89-208/2014 Appeal/11th Meeting dated 15.10.2014 remanded as follows:

“…Ms. R. Neelamegam, P.R.O. and Sh. R. Rajindran, Correspondent, Sathyabama College of Education, Nagapattinam, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 09.09.2013. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that “the management has not suppressed the fact of having D.T.Ed course. Since the D.T.Ed course of the Sri Sreenivasar teacher training institute Panangudi, nagapattinam had already been closed and not running now and the same letter for withdrawal of D.T.Ed course was also submitted to the SRC NCTE. During inspection on 27.01.2014, the inspection authorities have also examined and mentioned in the V.T. Report, that the institution is not running the D.T.Ed course. The total build up area for B.Ed is adequate. Council noted the submission made by appellant with regard to closure of the D.T.Ed course. This was also reported by the Visiting Team. Committee further noted that before refusal, the appellant institution was not given opportunity to make a written representation against the proposed ground of refusal. Committee, therefore, concluded to remand back the case to SRC with a direction to issue Cause Notice and process the case as per Regulations. After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available on



140

records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to issue Show Cause Notice and process the case as per Regulations. The Council hereby remands back the case of Sathyabama College of Education, Nagapattinam, Tamilnadu to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated.” The Committee considered the matter, Appellate Authority’s order dated 15/10/2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process after notification of the new Regulations, as directed by NCTE (H'qrs).

41) SRCAPP2073 B.Ed

Indian College of

Education for Women,

Dharmapuri District,

Tamilnadu. TN

Indian College of Education for Women, Gopinathampatti Village, ParyapattiPutur Post Office, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Pin-636903.Tamilnadu.

Indian Educational Trust, Street/Road.G.K.Road, Gopinathampatti Village, Parayapattiputur Post Office, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Pin- 636903. Tamilnadu had applied for grant of recognition toIndian College of Education for Women, Gopinathampatti Village, ParayapattiPutur Post Office, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Pin-636903. Tamilnadu for B.Ed Course of one year duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 27.12.2012 and physical application has been received in the office of SRC on 31.12.2012.



12.04.2013. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 12.04.2013.

The institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 10.06.2013.

The reply of the institution vide letter dt. 30.05.2013 to the Deficiency letter was

duly considered by SRC inn its 247th meeting held on 20th -22nd June, 2013 and

the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persist as under:


• In the land usage certificate submitted, extent of land converted for educational purpose is not mentioned.

• Approved blue print of the building plan issued by competent civil authority is not submitted. Total built up area shown in the building plan is not tallying with the other documents submitted.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee, decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to refuse and reject the application of the institution for recognition of SRCAPP2073- B.Ed course.




141


NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order No.F.no.89-281/2014

Appeal/11th Meeting on 15-10-2014 remanded as follows:

“…..the Submission of the appeal has been delayed by 8 months and 19 days beyond the prescribed time limit of 60 days. The appellant submitted that the delay occurred due to hospitalization of their chairman, who could not be consulted for further action. The appellant also submitted a medical certificate to the effect that Shri. A.K. Palaniappan (Chairman) was under treatment in the hospital for diabetes and liver disease with jaundice from 25.09.13 to 24.05.2014. the Council, noting these submissions, decided to condone the delay and consider the appeal.

Sh.B.Raghuveeran, Academic Counselor and Sh. Moortym, Vice-Chairman, Indian College of Education for Women, Dharmapuri, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 10.09.2014. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that (i) earlier they submitted a building completion certificate from a Registered Engineer and later they have obtained the certificate from Asst. Executive Engineer, Rural Development on 17.07.2013; (ii) they have obtained land use certificate for 0.98 acres owned by the Society from Revenue Divisional Officer on 30.05.2014; and (iii) the blue print of the building plan submitted by them was approved by the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Dharmapuri on 28.12.2012 and countersigned by president, Gram Panchayat, Parayapatti, Pudur on 29.12.2012.

The Council noted that the SRC, before refusing recognition, did not issue, as required in the proviso to Section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, a show cause notice to the appellant, providing a reasonable opportunity for making a written representation. In the circumstances, the Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to the SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations.

The Council hereby remands back the case of Indian College of Education

For women, Dharmapuri, Tamilnadu to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as

indicated above.

The Committee considered the matter, Appellate Authority’s order dated 15/10/2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process after notification of the new Regulations, as directed by NCTE (H'qrs).

42) AOS00464 B.Ed

Sri Siddartha College of Education,

Sri Siddartha College of Education, Kunigal Road, Maralur, Tumkur District, Karnataka Sri Siddartha College of Education, Kunigal Road, Maralur, Tumkur District, Karnataka was granted recognition for B.Ed. course on 10.07.1996 with an



142

Tumkur, Karnatka

KA

annual intake of 100 students with a condition to shift to its own premises within 3 years. As per the decision of SRC in 175th meeting, the SRC reviewed the files of the institution who were granted recognition either in a permanent premises or in leased premises. The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st -23rd September, 2011 considered the letter dt.21.05.2011 from Vice - Chancellor, Tumkur University pointing out deficiencies in the 19 Tumkur University Colleges and also reply of the above institution dated 10.08.2011 and other documents submitted by the institution and decided to cause composite inspection for all the courses at premises Under Section 17 of NCTE Act, to verify whether the institution is maintaining instructional and Infrastructural facilities as per NCTE norms. The institution was directed to submit the essential documents within 30 days of the receipt of the notice, with Demand Draft of Rs.40,000/- inspection fee towards the all the courses being run, in favor of “The Member Secretary, NCTE” payable at Bangalore. The institution requested for postponement of the visit of NCTE, inspection team to the College. Vide its letter dated 15/11/2011.Accordingly, an inspection on the institution was carried out on 24.01.2012. The SRC in its 223rd meeting held on 29th – 30th May 2012 considered the VT report and VCD, and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 25/06/2012. The institution submitted reply vide letter dated 13.07.2012. The SRC in its 239th meeting held on 26th – 27th February 2013 considered the reply of the institution to the show cause notice dated 13.07.2012 and the reply was unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persisted as under:-

1. Original Certified copy of land documents is not submitted. 2. The name of the course is not mentioned in building plan, Original blue

print of building plan is not submitted. 3. Original Building Completion Certificate is not submitted. 4. As per copy of building completion certificate the built - up area is 1761.42

sq. mts. As per copy of building plan, the built-up area is 2624.03 sq. mts. Since the built-up area of Building Completion Certificate is not matching with the building plan. It is not known whether any other courses is offered in the building.

5. Original Affidavit is not submitted. 6. Original FDR’s are not submitted. 7. From the Non-Encumbrance Certificate, it is not known in whose name the

land is registered. 8. Not submitted any document proof for increasing the built-up area of

multipurpose hall as per NCTE norms. 9. Staff approval of the University is not submitted.



143

Based on the above points the SRC in its 239th meeting held on 26th – 27th February 2013 decided to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by the Sri Siddartha College of Education, Tumkur District, Karnataka from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course.

It was made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body/ Examining board/ body were informed accordingly. Further, it was decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, if any.

As per the decision of SRC, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide order no. F.SRO/NCTE/AOS00464/B.Ed/KA/2013-14/50334 dated 05.04.2013.

In the meantime, the institution has filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the Appellate Authority, NCTE, New Delhi against withdrawal order of SRC. The appellate authorityvide order F.No. 89- 377/2013/Appeal/14th Meeting 2013 dated 30.10.2013 has noted the submissions of the appellant and concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to SRC with a direction to re-examine all the documents submitted by the appellant and take a fresh decision in the meantime the order of withdrawal may be kept in abeyance.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 255th Meeting of SRC held on 13th – 15th November 2013 considered the Appellate authority order dated 30/10/2013, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process and put up the said case in the 257th meeting.

The institution had submitted its written representation on 18.11.2013 along with supporting documents.Accordingly, the application was processed.

In the mean time, simultaneously, the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 49492 -49496 and 49812-49813 of 2013 and 50291-50297 of 2013 filed by 7 institutions of Tumkur University wherein the said institution is the 3rd petitioner.

The Court Order dated 10.12.2013 received from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 49492 -49496 and 49812-49813 of 2013 and 50291-50297 of 2013 is as under :-

“These petitions coming on orders, on service of notice on respondent No. 3 , the learned senior advocate Shri. SubramanyaJois appearing for the Counsel for the petitioners states that notice to respondent No. 3, may be dispensed with an in the light of the circumstances that this court has already taken a view in similar circumstances in other batch of writ petitions, that these petitions may also be disposed of in the light of the same.

2. On the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the petitioners

are said to be running colleges of education, which have been duly recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) , a



144

statuary body of Government of India and are affiliated to the Tumkur University. It transpires that by virtue of the orders passed withdrawing recognition for the academic year 2013-14, which was not preceded by any notice or an opportunity of hearing, though there was a reply to the notice issued by the second respondent, the second respondent however, without affording an opportunity of hearing, has proceeded to pass several impugned orders in respect of the respective petitioners. It is that which is sought to be questioned by this common petition filed by the several institutions.

3. Having regard to the fact that there are no statement of

objections filed to the present petitions and that other respondents, though served, remaining unrepresented , the fact that there was no opportunity of hearing and that the objections filed by the respondents in so far as the show – cause –notice issued notice does not appear to have been considered.

The petition deserves to be summarily allowed and are accordingly

allowed. The impugned annexures are quashed. The respondents, however, are at liberty to consider the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the petitioners and afford an opportunity of hearing and to proceed further in accordance with law.”

The above court order was placed before SRC in its 257th Meeting held on 20th – 22nd December 2013 and the committee decided as under ;

‘A number of show cause notices have been given all these cases. Therefore, the Lawyer to be asked to file an appeal immediately in all the cases and obtain ‘stay’. The matter to be pursued with the Lawyer.’

Accordingly, a letter was sent to Mr.DineshKumar,advocate on 08.01.2014.

In the meantime the institution had submitted in its letter dtd.09.01.2014 received on 09.01.2014 with request to accord permission to make admissions for the academic year 2013-14.

On 09.01.2014, an E-Mail was received from Mr.DineshKumar,advocate stating as under :

‘I have gone through the order dated 10.12.2013. In my opinion, in view of the observations contained in Paragraph 3 of the order, it is not a fit case to file an appeal. The direction of the Hon’ble Court is to consider the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity of hearing.

It is therefore desirable to comply with the order instead of challenging the same in appeal.’

The above said opinion of the advocate was placed before SRC in its 259th Meeting held on 17th to 19th January 2014. The Committee has considered the matter and decided that ‘earlier decision taken in 257th meeting held on 20th -22nd Dec, 2013, to file an appeal through our Lawyer is revised. Even the Lawyer’s advice to file a petition for ‘review’ is put on hold.Further, it is decided by the



145

committee to issue notice in all the 7 cases (viz. APS01885, AOS0463, AOS00464, APS03424, AOS00302, APS03481& APS01767) for a personal hearing in 260th meeting.Further course of action will be decided after the personal hearing.”

As per the decision of SRC in its 259th meeting held on 17th – 19th Jan, 2014, notices were served to the said institutions for personal hearing in the 260th meeting of SRC

Accordingly, the representatives of six of the seven institutions, Viz,

i) APS01885,B.Ed,KalpathuruVidhyaSamsthe, Tiptur,KA

ii) AOS00463,B.Ed. SreeSiddaganga Education Society, Tumkur,KA.

iii) AOS00464,B.Ed. Sri Siddhartha Education Society, Maralur,KA

iv) APS03424,B.Ed. Indira Education Society, Tumkur.KA

v) AOSO0302.B.Ed. K.S.E.F. College of Education, Tumkur,KA.

vi) APS03481, B.Ed. Sri. T.V.V. College of Education, Tumkur.KA.

have appeared and given personal a hearing.

One College by name VidyavahiniSamsthe, (APS01767.B.Ed).Tumkur, KA, has not appeared for personal hearing inspite of being informed through e-mail, speed post & telephonic call.

As an introductory note the Chairperson, SRC has told to the representatives of the institutions that ‘that we (the Regional Committees) do not have the practice of personal hearing as per Regulations. However, in compliance to the directions of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, we have called you for personal hearing. You may say what all you want to say. It is entirely the discretion of the institution. But please submit in writing today after this hearing point wise what all submissions you wanted to make before SRC during the personal hearing session such that, later, there would not be scope either to the institution to say that SRC did not hear on these points or to the SRC that the institution has not submitted these points. You may also enclose what all documents you want to enclose to your written representation. Make a photocopy of your representation and take acknowledgement of SRO.’

The oral presentation made by the institution is recorded which is as under :-

The institution is represented by:

a. K N Rajashekar, Principal The Principal of the institution has made the presentation on behalf of the institute. He has said that

b. the institution has submitted all originals to SRC on 18.11.2013 c. regarding the FDRs SRO has sent a letter that Government and

Government aided colleges funded by Government need not submit FDRs and hence they being totally financed by the Government have not



146

submitted the FDRs d. they have shown only ground floor and the built up area of the ground floor

itself is sufficient for one unit of one course. The college is running only B.Ed course and it is not having D.Ed course.

The committee decided as under ;

‘Party appeared .Was given a personal hearing. Thereafter, they were advised to give a written submission of their presentation. Signed photocopy was returned as acknowledgement. Put up on file’

The institutionhas submitted a letter on 03.02.2014. The following documents were submitted by the institution on 18.11.2013 as it is an appeal remand back case i.e before the personal hearing.

a) The institution has submitted a notification under section 16(2) of the land acquisition Act,1894 dated 12.11.1991 published in the Gazette notification of the Government of Karnataka.

b) A possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Sub Division Office, Tumkur sub Division is submitted .

c) A copy of the layout approval order issued by the Commissioner, Urban Development

Authority, Tumkur subject to certain conditions is submitted

d) Approved blue print of the building for the existing ground and first floor and proposed second floor of the building is submitted

e) The institution has submitted a declaration dated 29.05.2013 stating that ‘ in the plan itself the provision was made for multipurpose hall and constructed the same. At any point of time we have not increased the area, but for the academic convenience were allocate the premises within the plan itself without altering the total built up area.

f) Copy of the approved staff list is submitted.

The SRC in its 261st Meeting considered the written representation and directed SRO to process and put up comparative statement of documents submitted earlier and not submitted at the personal hearing.

Accordingly, the file was processed.

The Committee in compliance to the Hon’ble High Court directions dated 10.12.2013; in its 257th meeting decided to give personal hearing. Accordingly, the said college was given a personal hearing in its 260th meeting held on 29-31st Jan, 2014 and advised to give a written representation.

The institution submitted its written representation along with the documents on 03.02.2014.

The reply submitted by the institution to the personal hearing was duly considered by the SRC in its 264th meeting held during 1-3 March, 2014 and found that the



147

reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persists as under:-

1. Staff list-both in terms of number and qualifications is not according to NCTE

Regulations.

2. Staff list is not also approved by competent authority.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the SRC in its 264th meeting held on 1-3 March, 2014 decided as per NCTE Regulations, to reject the application and advised SRO to reissue earlier decision of withdrawal of recognition.

As per the decision of SRC, a withdrawal order was reissued to the institution on 8.5.2014.

In the meantime, the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No. 9261-9269/2014 filed by 9 institutions of Tumkur University against the State of Karnataka and others wherein the institution is the 3rd petitioner and SRC, NCTE is the 4th petitioner. NCTE, New Delhi is not a party in the writ petition.

The Court order dated 16.04.2014 is as under:-

"….the matter having been heard earlier, the interim order stood vacated. The petitions were found to be not maintainable and it was adjourned at the request of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the petitioners Thereafter, the matter having been listed before the Court on several occasions, the counsel for the petitioner had sought repeated adjournments on the ground that it should be dismissed only in the presence of the Senior Advocate engaged in the case. Today when the matter is called out, a similar request is made.

2. Since the petitions have been heard at length and as there is no substance in the petitions, repeated request by the learned counsel for the petitioners to dismiss the petitions if at all only in the presence of the Senior Advocate engaged, is not a reason to adjourn the matter. The petitions are dismissed.

3. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as a last effort, states that he has made an application before the NCTE for re-consideration of the petitioners' case for recognition in the light of having complied with the norms prescribed by the NCTE.

If such an application has been made, it is for the NCTE to take further steps, in accordance with law and to expedite the same. With that observation, the petitions stand dismissed."

Further, the institution has submitted a representation dated 24.3.2014 which is received by this office on 4.4.2014 regarding the fulfillment of the deficiencies observed by NCTE and has referred WP No.9261-69/2014.

As per the representation, the institution has submitted as under:-



148

“With reference to the subject and reference cited above, I am to state that, the NCTE has made certain observations in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The Management has fulfilled the deficiencies made by the NCTE.

The institution had submitted in its written representation on 09.05.2014, along with records.

The SRC in its 267th meeting held on 12-13 May 2014, considered the matter, and decided that, the institution’s application dated 24.03.2014 was filed before their (re-issued) order dated 08.05.2014. There was, therefore, no application for ‘review’. Even otherwise, with respect to the Court’s order, it should be recognized that, under Law, this Committee did not have the power to ‘review’ its own orders.

Accordingly,a letter was sent to institution on 10.07.2014.

The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order No.F.No.89-262/2014 Appeal/11th Meeting on 15-10-2014 Remanded as follows:

“….Dr. Gurubasappa H.D., Principal, Sri Siddhartha College of Education, Tumkur, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 12.09.2014. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that “1. This college was admitted to Grant-in-Aid in April 1993 according to the Grant-in-Aid code of Government of Karnataka earlier to the establishment of NCTE. (Encl – 01) The then appointed staff members both teaching and non-teaching were approved as per the C & R rules of Government of Karnataka then existing in the year 1993, by DSERT, Karnataka. (Encl-02) At present there are 08 faculty members working in the college. Out of 08,05 lecturers namely Dr. Gurubasappa. H, Rajashekhar K.N., Latha B.S, Rangappa, S.K and Shashikumar S. were appointed earlier to April, 1993 and their posts were duly approved according to the C&R rules of the Govt. of Karnataka. Therefore, the question of ‘not qualified’ does not arise at all in respect of these lecturers. Later Siddaraju K.S. was appointed in April 2005 as per the then existing rules of NCTE. Recently two more lectures, namely Hemalathe G. and Savithe L.J. were appointed as per NCTE norms of 2009. The entire staff list has been approved by the Register, Tumkur University, The appellant in his letter dt. 12.09.2014 submitted that the first five lecturers were appointed prior to 1992. Some of them are having below 55% percentage marks. But at the time of their appointment, the percentage according to Govt. of Karnataka was 50. The College is now a grant-in-aid college getting salary grants. The staff are now Govt. employees and they cannot be removed. It is also submitted that they have been accredited by NAAC with Grade ‘B’”.

The Council noted that the SRC, after submission of the documents

by the appellant following personal hearing and before withdrawing recognition on the two grounds mentioned in the said order, has not issued a show cause notice to the appellant, as required under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, providing a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order. In the Circumstances,



149

the Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to the SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations. In the meantime, the order of withdrawal shall remain in abeyance.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents

available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations. In the meantime, the order of withdrawal shall remain in abeyance.

The Council hereby remands back the case of Siddhartha College

of Education, Tumkur, Karnataka to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.


43) AOS00463 B.Ed

Siddaganga College of Education, Tumkur,

Karnataka KA

Siddaganga College of Education, B.H. Road, Someshwarapuram post, Tumkur Dt. –572102, Karnataka.

Siddaganga College of Education, B.H. Road, Someshwarapuram post, Tumkur District – 572102, Karnataka was granted recognition for offering B.Ed course of one year on 24.07.1996 for a period of two years. The institution submitted a request for consideration of recognition for the year 1998-99 on 22.04.98 .

The institution was granted provisional recognition for the year 1998-99 on 09.06.98.

The institution submitted compliance reports on 15.12.98 and 11.03.99 and the institution was granted conditional recognition for the year 1999-2000 on 14.06.1999.

The institution submitted representations on 12.08.99,02.09.99,,06.01.2000, 10.03.2000 and 25.03.2000. Conditional recognition for two years 2000-2001 and 2001 – 2002 was issued to the institution on 11.04.2000. The institution submitted a compliance report on 03.07.2000.

The institution was granted recognition for B.Ed course of one year duration from the academic session 2000-2001 with an annual intake of 100 students subject to certain conditions on 12.07.2000 .

The intake of the institution was fixed at 100 on 17.01.2002 for the academic year 2001-2002..The institution submitted the appraisal report on 26.03.2000.The intake of the institution was fixed at 100 for the session 2001-2002 on 12.07.2002.

The institution submitted representations on 20.12.2002 and 30.10.2003 and the intake for the year 2002-2003 was fixed at 100 on 27.08.2003.

This office was in receipt of a letter NO. TY:VCPS:2011-12.98 dt. 21.05.2011 from the Vice-Chancellor of Tumkur University, Tumkur enclosing a list of 19



150

institutions with the committee observations by conducting inspections.

The SRC in its 206th meeting held on 9th -10th June 2011, noted the inspection report of the Vice-Chancellor, Tumkur University, dated. 21.05.2011 and the deficiencies in the 19 institutions in Tumkur District and decided to issue Show Cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. A show Cause notice was not issued to the institution as the inspection report of the University did not show any deficiencies.

The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st to 23rd September, 2011 decided to conduct inspections of the institutions which were mentioned in the report of the Tumkur University.

The inspection of the institution was scheduled between 18th November 2011 to 22nd November 2011 and the same was intimated to the institution vide this office letter dated 09.11.2011.

The institution submitted two written representations on 16.11.2011 and 17.11.2011 requesting for postponement of inspection.

The SRC considered the request and postponed the inspection date from 18.11.2011 to 2nd week of December 2011. Accordingly, the inspection of the institution was conducted on 24.01.2012.

The SRC in its 223rd meeting held on 29th –31st May,2012 considered the VT report, and all relevant documentary evidences and decided to issue Final Show Cause Notice to the institution for the following deficiencies:- [

1. Original certified copy of the land documents from Govt. authority is not submitted.

2. Original Approved blue print of the building plan from competent civil authority is not submitted.


4. Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund from a Nationalized Bank in joint account in favour of Society/college/institution name if not given.

5. Latest encumbrance certificate issued by sub-registrar is not submitted. 6. The Principal is not qualified for the post of Principal as he is not

possessing Ph.D qualification. 7. Notarised land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating

that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the purpose of educational institution only is not submitted. Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer not submitted for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purposes.

8. Multipurpose hall size is 1811 sq.ft. which is less than the requirement of 2000 sq.ft.as per NCTE norms.

9. Approved staff list from the affiliating body for the academic year is not submitted.

10. Most of lecturers are not qualified as they are not having 55% marks in MA.

Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 25.6.2012. The institution has submitted reply to the Final Show Cause Notice on 7.8.2012 .



151

The SRC in its 234th meeting held on 17th – 18th October,2012 considered the reply of the institution vide letter dated 07.08.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under NCTE Act.

Accordingly, a Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 22.11.2012. The institution submitted its written representation on 11.01.2013

The SRC in its 242nd Meeting held on 14th – 16th April 2013, considered the written reply of the institution in the above matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw recognition for the following reasons:-

• As per the land document submitted to this office(Copy-1) The President of the Town Municipal Council dated 1.8.1944, the land having Sy.No.31, TumkurKasabaHobli is sanctioned for the construction of a High School building in the name of Sri. SiddagangaMutt.The Copy of the Permission/ Licence for construction in favour of the Mutt of Tumkur City Municipal Office dated 9.10.1983 for property No.9377(copy -3) attested by the Notary is submitted. As per the copy of the Tax receipt dated 5.12.2012(Copy-4), approved by the City Municipal Corporation, the building is at 2805/365, BH Road, having 19896 sq.ft. Sy. Nos/KhataNos/Site Nos are different at the documents submitted in support of land and building.

• From the Original Building plan and BCC dated 20.10.2009 submitted to this office, it is not known whether the proposed III floor is constructed or not . As per Building plan and BCC at No.2805/365, BH Road, Tumkur, the site area is 2085.23 sq.mtrs. and built up area of 19896 sq.ft. is less for offering D.Ed./D.Ed.(AI)/B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses.

• Reserve fund of Rs. 3 lakhs meant for B.Ed. course is not submitted.

• Latest up-to-date Non-Encumbrance Certificate(Upto the year 2012) is not submitted.

• As per the land document submitted dated 1.8.1944, the land is allotted for the construction of a High School Building and not meant for offering teacher education programme. As per para 7(ii) of NCTE regulations, 2009, “The teacher education institution shall not be allowed to have any other institution within its demarcated area or building and shall not have any other course(s) in its building.”

• The appointment of Sri. R. Rudraradhya as Principal is not approved by the affiliating University.

• The institution has not appointed Physical Education instructor, Lecturer in Fine Arts as per NCTE regulations, 2009.

• No documentary proof submitted for construction of Fourth floor as submitted by the institution.

As per MIS records, the Mutt is offering the following courses at the same address apart from B.Ed. course :-

� Recognition is granted to D.Ed. course(AOS00499) on 15.11.2001 with an intake of 90 and D.Ed.(Addl. Intake) course(APS02451) on 27.12.2004 with an additional intake of 60 thus making the total intake of 150 for D.Ed course at Sri Siddaganga Teacher Training Institute, B.H. Road, Tumkur-



152

572102, Karnataka. � M.Ed. course (APS08931) is granted recognition on 30.8.2008 with an

intake of 25 and enhanced to 35 on 24.8.2010 at Sri. Siddaganga Education Society, B.H. Road, Tumkur-572102, Karnataka.

� As per NCTE regulations, 2009, the institution must have 3500 sq.mtrs. of land area and built up area for offering D.Ed. course, B.Ed. course and M.Ed. course. Since, the institution is also having D.Ed. Additional intake, the land area and built-up area of the Society/institution/Mutt is less and is not as per NCTE norms and regulations, 2009.

Based on the above points the committee decided to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by Siddaganga College of Education, B.H. Road, Someshwarapuram post, Tumkur Dt. - 572102, Karnataka. from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course.

It was made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining Board / Body were informed accordingly. Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, if any.

As per the decision of SRC, the recognition of the institution was withdrawn vide order no. F.No. AOSO 0463/B.Ed/KA/2013-14/51730 dated 17.05.2013.

The institution had filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the Appellate Authority, NCTE, New Delhi against the withdrawal order of SRC.

The institution had submitted written representations to Regional Director, SRC, NCTE and the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi requesting for renewal of recognition of the college on 11.06.2013 and 12.08.2013 respectively.

The appellate authority vide order F.No.89-469/2013 Appeal/14th Meeting – 2013 dated 30.10.2013 has made the following observations:-

‘‘…the Council noted that the institution is conducting the following courses with intake mentioned against each course.1) D.Ed(Basic+Additiona) – 150 2) B.Ed (Basic) -100 3) M.Ed (Basic+Addl) 35.As per NCTE norms the institution should have 4500 sq.mts of built up area for D.Ed(strength equal to 3 units),B.Ed and M.Ed.The required built up area , as per 2009 regulations, shall have to be increased to conform to the revised norms. The building completion certificate furnished by the appellant is only for a built up area of 3641.26

sq.mts, the Council accepted the clarifications furnished by the appellant with regard to the appointment of faculty prior to 2005 as per the qualifications prescribed in NCTE Regulations 2001.Committee finally concluded that the withdrawal orders dated 17.05.2013 of the SRC is justified on ground of inadequate built up area and hence confirmed.

After perusal of the Memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on record and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing , the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in withdrawing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be



153

rejected and the order of SRC confirmed.

The above decision of the appellate authority was placed before the 255th Meeting of SRC, held on 13th – 15th November 2013 and the committee noted the matter.

On,11.11.2013, the Hqrs vide their letter F-46-97/2013/ncte/vip/a76240 dated 22.10.2013, requested for comments regarding renewal of recognition of Siddaganga College of Education, B.H. Road, Someshwarapuram post, Tumkur Dt. - 572102, Karnataka A copy Ministry’s letter No. F.12-74/2013-EE-10 dated 08.10.2013 along with a copy of the FTS.No.110862 dated 16.09.2013 from Shri. G.S.Basavaraj,Member of Parliament

A reply in the matter was sent to NCTE Hqrs vide F.SRO/AOSOO0463/hq/VIP Reference / 2013 /55012 dated 21.11.2013

Further, the institution has approached theHon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 49492 -49496 and 49812-49813 of 2013 and 50291-50297 of 2013.

The Court Order dated 10.12.2013 from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 49492 -49496 and 49812-49813 of 2013 and 50291-50297 of 2013 is as under ;

“…these petitions coming on orders, on service of notice on respondent No. 3 , the learned senior advocate Shri. SubramanyaJois appearing for the Counsel for the petitioners states that notice to respondent No. 3, may be dispensed with an in the light of the circumstances that this court has already taken a view in similar circumstances in other batch of writ petitions, that these petitions may also be disposed of in the light of the same.

2. On the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the petitioners

are said to be running colleges of education, which have been duly recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) , a statuary body of Government of India and are affiliated to the Tumkur University. It transpires that by virtue of the orders passed withdrawing recognition for the academic year 2013-14, which was not preceded by any notice or an opportunity of hearing, though there was a reply to the notice issued by the second respondent, the second respondent however, without affording an opportunity of hearing, has proceeded to pass several impugned orders in respect of the respective petitioners. It is that which is sought to be questioned by this common petition filed by the several institutions.

3. Having regard to the fact that there are no statement of

objections filed to the present petitions and that other respondents, though served, remaining unrepresented , the fact that there was no opportunity of hearing and that the objections filed by the respondents in so far as the show – cause –notice issued notice does not appear to have been considered.

The petition deserves to be summarily allowed and are accordingly

allowed. The impugned annexures are quashed. The respondents,



154

however, are at liberty to consider the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the petitioners and afford an opportunity of hearing and to proceed further in accordance with law.”


‘A number of show cause notices have been given all these cases. Therefore, the Lawyer to be asked to file an appeal immediately in all the cases and obtain ‘stay’. The matter to be pursued with Lawyer.’

Accordingly, a letter was sent to Mr.Dinesh Kumar, advocate on 08.01.2014.

On 09.01.2014, an E-Mail was received from Mr.DineshKumar,advocate stating as under :

‘I have gone through the order dated 10.12.2013.In my opinion, in view of the observations contained in Paragraph 3 of the order, it is not a fit case to file an appeal. The direction of the Hon’ble Court is to consider the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity of hearing.


The above said opinion of the advocate was placed before SRC in its 259th Meeting held on 17th to 19th January 2014 .The Committee has considered the matter and decided that.

‘earlier decision taken in 257th meeting held on 20th -22nd Dec, 2013, to file an appeal through our Lawyer is revised. Even the Lawyer’s advice to file a petition for ‘review’ is put on hold.

Further, it is decided by the committee to issue notice in all the 7 cases (viz. APS01885, AOS0463, AOS00464, APS03424, AOS00302, APS03481& APS01767) for a personal hearing in 260th meeting.

Further course of action will be decided after the personal hearing.”

As per the decision of SRC in its 259th meeting held on 17th – 19th Jan, 2014, notice was served to the institutions for personal hearing in the 260th meeting of SRC


i) APS01885,B.Ed,KalpathuruVidhyaSamsthe, Tiptur,KA

ii) AOS00463,B.Ed. SreeSiddaganga Education Society, Tumkur,KA.






155


have appeared and given personal a hearing.

One College by name VidyavahiniSamsthe, (APS01767.B.Ed ).Tumkur, KA, has not appeared for personal hearing inspite of being informed through e-mail, speed post & telephonic call.


The oral presentation made by the institution was recorded which is as under

1. SreeSiddaganga Education Society – Tumkur Represented by:

1. Dr.RPittabuddi, Director & 2. Sri R Rudrarodhya, Principal The Principal of the institution has made the presentation on behalf of the

institute. He has said that

a. the only lapse as per them is that they do not have required built up area. For that they said they have requested the Appeal Committee, NCTE Head Quarters for closure of two units i.e. one unit of D.Ed. and one Unit of M.Ed. and continue three units. They have also produced before the Appeal Committee demarcated land document separating school and college.

The committee decided as under ;

‘ Party appeared .Was given a personal hearing. Thereafter, they were advised to give a written submission of their presentation. Signed photocopy was returned as acknowledgement. Put up on file’

The institution has submitted written representation along with the following documents on 03.02.2014.

a) A copy Form No.3(Rule 20) of Book No.10 of records of City Municipal Corporation

b) A copy Form No.3(Rule 20) of Book No.35 of records of City Municipal Corporation c) A copy of the building completion certificate dated 01.07.2013



156

d) Photocopies of the building plan of existing SiddgangaB.Ed,M.Ed and D.Edcollege

e) Photocopy of the FDRs f) A copy of the non encumbrance certificate for the period 01.04.84 to 13.01.2004 g) A copy of the office order dated 03.09.2013 appointing tow part time

teachers on temporary basis.

h) Copy of the withdrawal order of SRC,NCTE

i) Copy of the minutes of 242nd Meeting of SRC

j) Form 15 of the Government of Karnataka with regard to Khatha No. 2804. in the name of Lessee SreeSiddaganga College of Education (B.Ed,M.Ed and D.Ed)

k) Copy of the appointment order of the Principal, Sri.R.Rudraradhya

l) A copy of the lease deed dated 15.07.2013 between his holiness Sri.SivakumaraSwamigalu of Sree Sri Siddaganga Math and siddaganag Colleg of Education represented by its Secretary,Y.K.Nanjundappa.

The SRC in its 261st Meeting considered the written representation and directed SRO to process and put up comparative statement of documents submitted earlier and not submitted at the personal hearing. The Committee in compliance to the Hon’ble High Court directions dated 10.12.2013; in its 257th meeting decided to give personal hearing. Accordingly, the said college was given a personal hearing in its 260th meeting held on 29-31st Jan, 2014 and advised to give a written representation.


The reply submitted by the institution to the personal hearing was duly considered by the SRC in its 264th meeting held during 1-3 March, 2014 and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persists as under:-

1.2009 Regulations do not allow private lease. There is no formal lease- deed also. 2. BP is in the name of an individual. Also, not approved by competent authority.

3. Principal is not qualified; he has no Ph.D. degree.

4. They have multiple courses with total enrolment exceeding 300. They have not taken permission for closure of any of the courses.

5.Post Graduation Lecturers in Science are not according to NCTE



157

Regulations.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations, to reject the application and advised SRO to reissue earlier decision of withdrawal of recognition.

In the meantime, the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No. 9261-9269/2014 filed by 9 institutions of Tumkur University against the State of Karnataka and others wherein the institution is the 2ndpetitioner and SRC, NCTE is the 4th respondent. NCTE, New Delhi is not a party in the writ petition No.9261-9269/2014. The Court order dated 16.04.2014 states as under:-

"…the matter having been heard earlier, the interim order stood vacated. The petitions were found to be not maintainable and it was adjourned at the request of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the petitioners Thereafter, the matter having been listed before the Court on several occasions, the counsel for the petitioner had sought repeated adjournments on the ground that it should be dismissed only in the presence of the Senior Advocate engaged in the case. Today when the matter is called out, a similar request is made.

2. Since the petitions have been heard at length and as there is no substance in the petitions, repeated request by the learned counsel for the petitioners to dismiss the petitions if at all only in the presence of the Senior Advocate engaged, is not a reason to adjourn the matter. The petitions are dismissed.

3. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as a last effort, states that he has made an application before the NCTE for re-consideration of the petitioners' case for recognition in the light of having complied with the norms prescribed by the NCTE.


Remarks of SRO As seen from the records, there is no application from the institution which is pending with the SRC as on 16.4.2014 as submitted by the petitioner institution in W.P.No.9261-9269/2014.

The SRC in its 267th meeting held on 12th – 13th May, 2014 considered the matter. In the Hon’ble High Court, the Counsel for petitioners, as a last effort, stated that he had made an application before the NCTE for re-consideration of the petitioners case for recognition in the light of having complied with norms prescribed by the NCTE.

The Hon’ble Court in their order dated 16.04.2014 stated that, if such an application had been made, (as mentioned above), it was for the NCTE to take further steps, in accordance with law, and to expedite the same. With that observation, the petitions were dismissed.

As seen from the records of this office (SRCNCTE), no application was/has been



158

received from the Institution. The question of reconsideration, therefore, does not arise. The committee accordingly decided to close the case.

A letter intimating the decision of SRC was sent to the institution on 11.07.2014.

The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order No.F.no.89-290/2014 Appeal/11th Meeting on 15-10-2014 remanded as follows:

“….. Dr. R.C. Pujjaboddi, Director, SreeSiddaganga College of Education, Tumkur, Karnataka Presented the case of the appellant institution on 12.09.2014. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the land is in the name of SreeSiddaganga Education Society, SreeSiddaganga Math, bearing Survey No. 31 and Khatha No. 2804/A/1364/1413. English version of upto date encumbrance certificate and other documents are also enclosed. Building plan is in the name of SreeSiddaganga College of Education B.H.Road, Tumkur, and the plan is approved by the competent authority. Copy of the English version is enclosed. As per NCTE Norms, Principal with Ph.D in Education is appointed. Copy of the appointment order in English version along with service certificate is enclosed. We have a multipurpose hall with area of 22x9=198 sq. mts.(2130.48 sq.ft.) No other courses are being conducted in the demarcated land and building except B.Ed College. M.Ed unit attached to B.Ed College is closed. Appointment of lecturers teaching science subjects is made as per NCTE norms 2005. Copy of the same is enclosed.

The Council noted that the SRC, after submission of the documents by the appellant following personal hearing and before withdrawing recognition on the five grounds mentioned in the said order has not issued a show cause notice to the appellant, as required under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, providing a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order. In the circumstances, the Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to the SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations. In the meantime, the order of withdrawal shall remain in abeyance.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations. In the meantime, the order of withdrawal shall remain in abeyance.

The Council hereby remands back the case of Siddaganga College of Education, Tumkur, Karnataka to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.




159

44) SRCAPP2154 M.P.Ed

Karnataka State

Women’s University, Bijapur ,

Karnataka KA

Karnataka State Women’s University (Jnanashakti Campus), Department of Studies in Physical Education and Sports Sciences (M.P.Ed) Plot No. 11A, Bijapur Village and Post, Bijapur District – 586108, Karnataka.

Karnataka State Women’s University (Jnanashakti Campus) Department of Studies in Physical Education and Sports Sciences ( M.P.Ed ) Plot No. 11A, ( Jnanashakti Campus) Bijapur Village & Post, Bijapur District – 586108, Karnataka,had applied for grant of recognition to Department of Study in Physical Education and sports sciences ( M.P.Ed ) Plot no. 11A, Bijapur Village & Post, Bijapur District – 586108. forM.P..EdCourse of two year duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 22.07.2013 and physical application has been received in the office of SRC on 26.07.2013. The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 29.10.2013. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 21.10.2013. The Southern Regional Committee in its 251th Meeting held on 25th – 27th August 2013 considered the application and it has decided to process. As per latter No. F.49-15-2013-N & s/A73915 dated 12 September 2013 the Department of Higher Education Ministry of HRD. Govt. of India vide its letter no.46-32013 desk dated 27.08.2013 has requested for grant of relaxation as per the provisions of the Regulations. In each application of the Central Universities in order to expedite the recognition process the Central Universities to commence the teacher education courses at the earliest. The SRC in its 256th meeting held on 04th – 06th December 2014 considered the matter and all relevant documents and decided to cause inspection under section 14 to examine whether the Central Universities & State University (Govt. Only) applied for the session 2014-15, fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, for the proposed programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the Universities/institution, as per the norms.

The inspection was scheduled during 10th and 11th January 2014 and the same was informed to the University.

Accordingly, the inspection of the University was carried out on 10th- - 11th January 2014

The SRC in its 260th meeting held on 29th – 31st January 2014 was duly considered VT report, VCD of the University/Institution and all the relevant documents of the Universityand deficiencies still persist as under:

The University/Institution is already running the M.P.Ed Course. And, as stated by the V.T. Inspection Report, they seek regularization.

Again, as per VT Inspection report B.P.Ed and M.P.Edare in 2 different places 10 kms apart. It is considered inappropriate to run the two courses like that.

As per VT inspection report, the building is incomplete, it is still under



160

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the University/institution for recognition of M.P.Ed course.

Accordingly, a rejection order was issued to the university on 03-03-2014. Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the university preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order No.F.no.89-206/2014 Appeal/11th Meeting on 15-10-2014 remanded as follows:

“…..Dr. N. Chandrappa, Chairman and Sh. Rajashekara, Liaison Officer, Karnataka state women’s University, Bijapur, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 10.09.2014. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the University had applied for recognition M.P.Ed. course along with B.P.Ed. Course on 07-09-2009 with requisite fees and complying all the conditions. It is at the advice of the NCTE Regional Authority: the applicant university did not press for recognition of M.P.Ed as to get final recognition of B.P.Ed. Course. However, both the courses were commenced with a hope of getting final recognition. It is submitted that the M.P.Ed. Course is having the entire infrastructure as per guidelines of NCTE. Now, both the courses, i.e. B.P.Ed. &M.P.Ed.are conducted in University campus in a new independent building. The Building Committee completion Certificate issued by Residential Engineer of University, Possession certificate issued by syndicate of Karnataka State Women’s University. Approved plan of the building, positive photo copies of existing B.P.Ed. &M.P.Ed.building and Letter of Regional NCTE authority Bangalore advising applicant university to apply for M.P.Ed. course after securing recognition of B.P.Ed. course are enclosed.

The Council noted that the SRC after conducting an inspection of the institution on 10-11 January, 2014 and before refusing grant of recognition, did not issue, as required in the proviso to Sections 14/15(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, a show cause notice to the appellant, providing a reasonable opportunity for making a written representation. In the circumstances the Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to the SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations.

The Council hereby remands back the case of Karnataka State Women’s University,

Bijapur, Karnataka to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.

The Committee considered the matter, Appellate Authority’s order dated

15/10/2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process after

notification of the new Regulations, as directed by NCTE (H'qrs).



161

45) APS03481 B.Ed

Sri T.V. Venkataswamy College of Education, Tumkur, Karntaka

KA

Sri T.V. Venkataswamy College of Education, Madhugiri-572132 Tumkur District, Karnataka

Sri T.V. Venkataswamy College of Education, Madhugiri-572132 Tumkur District, Karnataka was granted recognition on 13.07.2000 with an annual intake of 100 students for B.Ed course with the condition to shift the premises into its own building. This office is in receipt of a letter NO. TY:VCPS:2011-12.98 dt. 21.05.2011 from the Vice-Chancellor of Tumkur University, Tumkur by enclosing a list of 19 institutions with the committee observations by conducting inspections.

The SRC n its 206th meeting held on 9-10th June 2011, noted the inspection report of the Vice-Chancellor, Tumkur University, dt. 21.05.2011 and the deficiencies in the 19 institutions in Tumkur District and decided to issue show cause notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the institution on 08.07.2011. The institution has submitted its written representation 08.08.2011.

The SRC considered the written reply and all other relevant documents and decided to cause inspection at the premises Under Section 17 of NCTE Act. The institution is directed to submit inspection fee of Rs. 40,000/-.

Accordingly, the inspection of the institution was carried out on 29.10.2011. in the meanwhile, Tumkur University vide their letter received on 17.10.2011 has conducted visits to the institution during 15-19 and 27th of July, 2011.

The SRC in its 216th meeting considered the VT report, VCD and other documentary evidences and decided to issue show cause notice., under section 17 of the NCTE act.

Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 14.03.2012. The institution was submitted written representation on 16.04.2012.

The SRC in its 223rd meeting held on 29th – 31st May 2012 considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt. 16.04.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Final Show cause Notice Under NCTE Act.

Accordingly, final show cause Notice was issued to the institution on 25.06.2012 The institution submitted reply vide letter dated 21.08.2012 The reply of the institution to the show cause notice dt. 13.07.2012 was duly considered and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persist as under:

1. As per BCC dated 18.7.2012, the built up are is 1278.48 sq. mts. As per NCTE norms

1500 sq.mts of built up area is required for offering B.Ed Course.

2. The land is in the name of individual & not in the name the institution / Society as

per NCTE norms & regulations 2009, the land should be in the name of the

institution. The institution has not submitted land documents duly certified by the



162

Sub- Registrar.

3. As per Building Completion Certificate, the total built up area comes up to

1278.48 sq.mts. It does not match with building plan which says the built up area is

1476 sq.mts Sy no.is not mentioned in BCC.

4. Latest Original Non- Encumbrance Certificate is not submitted.

5. Reserve fund of Rs,3lakhs is not maintained by the institution.

6. An invoice dated 25.07.2012 worth Rs.2,902/- towards purchase of Physical

Education equipments is submitted as documentary proof. An invoice dated

21.07.2012 worth Rs 9,423/- towards purchase of Science lab equipment is

submitted as documentary proof..

7. No documentary proof provided for the appointment of Principal as per NCTE

norms. Principal is not having Ph.D & hence not qualified as per NCTE norms.

8. No satisfactory proof has been submitted regarding shifting of I grade college

elsewhere.

9. First page of staff approval list is not signed by the authority.

10. Lecturer in foundation / fine Arts /are not appointed.

Based on the above points the SRC in its 239th meeting held on 26th – 27th February 2013 decides to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by the Sri T.V. Venkataswamy College of Education, Madhugiri – 572132, Tumkur District, Karnataka from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course.

It was made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining board / body were informed accordingly. Further, it was decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, if any.

As per the decision of SRC, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide order no. F.SRO.NCTE/APS03481/B.Ed/KA/ 2013-2014/50355 dated 05.04.2013.

In the meantime the institution had filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the appellate Authority, NCTE, New Delhi against the With drawl order of SRC,

The appellate authority Vide order No. F. No. 89-397-2013 appeal/14th meeting -2013 dated 30.10.2013 noted that ``the appellant institution which was granted recognition on 13-07 -2000 does not have the requisite built up area of 1500 sq. mts. as per the NCTE Regulations 2009 even now. The appellant is still planning to construct additional accommodation for which he has enclosed a copy of the building plan. The appellant also stated that the documents have been submitted to civil authorities for approval. The institution is not only short of requisite accommodation for conducting B.Ed. course but has not provided proof for shifting to another institution, namely First Grade College, which according to the VT report was functioning in the same premises. The appellant has not appointed a regular principal possessing the qualifications prescribed in the NCTE Norms. The



163

appellant has not produced a copy of registered land document and has only expressed his readiness to execute specific registered documents to an extent of 2500 sq. mts. the Council, from the response of the appellant to the grounds of withdrawal noted that inadequacies both in infrastructural and instructional facilities still exist despite the SRC having issued two show cause notices. In these circumstances the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in withdrawing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.

After perusal of the documents, Memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on record and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing , the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC confirmed.

The Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against “

The above decision of the appellate authority was placed before SRC in its 255th Meeting held on 13th – 15th November 2013 and the committee noted the matter. Further, the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 49492 -49496 and 49812-49813 of 2013 and 50291-50297 of 2013


“ These petitions coming on orders, on service of notice on respondent No. 3 , the

learned senior advocate Shri. Subramanya Jois appearing for the Counsel for the

petitioners states that notice to respondent No. 3, may be dispensed with an in the

light of the circumstances that this court has already taken a view in similar

circumstances in other batch of writ petitions, that these petitions may also be

disposed of in the light of the same.

2. On the facts of the present case , it is noticed that the petitioners are said to be

running colleges of education, which have been duly recognized by the National

Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) , a statuary body of Government of India

and are affiliated to the Tumkur University. It transpires that by virtue of the orders

passed withdrawing recognition for the academic year 2013-14, which was not

preceded by any notice or an opportunity of hearing, though there was a reply to

the notice issued by the second respondent, the second respondent however,

without affording an opportunity of hearing, has proceeded to pass several

impugned orders in respect of the respective petitioners. It is that which is sought

to be questioned by this common petition filed by the several institutions.

3. Having regard to the fact that there are no statement of objections filed to the

present petitions and that other respondents, though served, remaining

unrepresented , the fact that there was no opportunity of hearing and that the

objections filed by the respondents in so far as the show – cause –notice issued



164

notice does not appear to have been considered.

The petition deserves to be summarily allowed and are accordingly allowed. The

impugned annexures are quashed. The respondents, however, are at liberty to

consider the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the

petitioners and afford an opportunity of hearing and to proceed further in

accordance with law.”



Accordingly, a letter was sent to Mr.Dinesh Kumar ,advocate on 08.01.2014.

On 09.01.2014, an E-Mail was received from Mr.Dinesh Kumar ,advocate stating as under :

‘I have gone through the order dated 10.12.2013.In my opinion, in view of the observations contained in Paragraph 3 of the order, it is not a fit case to file an appeal.The direction of the Hon’ble Court is to consider the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity of hearing.


The above opinion of the advocate was placed before SRC in its 259th Meeting held on 17th to 19th January 2014 .The Committee has considered the matter and decided that

‘earlier decision taken in 257th meeting held on 20th -22nd Dec, 2013, to file an appeal through our Lawyer is revised. Even the Lawyer’s advice to file a petition for ‘review’ is put on hold. Further, it was decided by the committee to issue notice in all the 7 cases(viz. APS01885 , AOS0463, AOS00464, APS03424, AOS00302, APS03481 & APS01767) for a personal hearing in 260th meeting.

Further course of action will be decided after the personal hearing.”

As per the decision of SRC in its 259th meeting held on 17th – 19th Jan, 2014, notice was served to the institutions for personal hearing in the 260th meeting of SRC


i) APS01885,B.Ed,Kalpathuru Vidhya Samsthe, Tiptur,KA

ii) AOS00463,B.Ed. Sree Siddaganga Education Society, Tumkur,KA.





165



have appeared and given personal a hearing. One College by name Vidyavahini Samsthe, (APS01767.B.Ed ).Tumkur, KA, has not appeared for personal hearing inspite of being informed through e-mail, speed post & telephonic call.


The oral presentations made by these institutions are recorded which are as under:

Represented by:

1. Sri C Rajanna, Principal The Principal of the institution has made the presentation on behalf of the institute.

She has said that :

a. the land is in the name of the individual i.e. the President of the Society and it is being transferred to the institution.

b. the required land area as per norms is 1500 Sq.mts but it has only 1400 Sq.mts. however, if time is given, they shall make up the deficit.

c. the first grade college of the society is moving to another building and this institution shall move to the first grade college building

d. the Principal of the college was appointed during the year 1996 and at that time, the qualification of Ph.D. was not an essential qualification for the Principal.

After the presentation, the institutions have requested for time till 03.02.2014 for submitting written representation. The Committee permitted and asked SRO to give signed photocopy of representation as acknowledgement for putting up in the file.

The committee decided as under;

‘Party appeared .Was given a personal hearing. Thereafter, they were advises to give a written submission of their presentation. Signed photocopy was returned as acknowledgement. Put up on file’

Accordingly, the institution has submitted its written representation on 03.02.2014, The committee in its 261st Meeting considered the written representation and directed SRO to Process and put up comparative statement of documents



166

submitted earlier and not submitted at the personal hearing.

Accordingly, the file is processed



The reply submitted by the institution to the personal hearing was duly considered by the SRC in its 264th meeting held during 1-3 March, 2014 and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persists as under:-

1. No new land document has been furnished. Land is in the name of an individual.

2. Built-up area us less by 222 sq.mtrs. We cannot go by what is proposed to be constructed in future.

3. Proof for shifting of the Ist Grade College from the premises is not yet submitted.

4. Principal post is vacant. I/c Principal is not qualified. 5. Staff list is not in accordance with NCTE norms.


As per the decision of SRC, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 8.5.2014.

In the meantime, the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No. 9261-9269/2014 filed by 9 institutions of Tumkur University against the State of Karnataka and others wherein the institution is the 6th petitioner and SRC, NCTE is the 4th Respondent. NCTE, New Delhi is not a party in the writ petition No.9261-9269/2014.

The Court order dated 16.04.2014 states as under:-

"The matter having been heard earlier, the interim order stood vacated. The petitions were found to be not maintainable and it was adjourned at the request of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the petitioners Thereafter, the matter having been listed before the Court on several occasions, the counsel for the petitioner had sought repeated adjournments on the ground that it should be dismissed only in the presence of the Senior Advocate engaged in the case. Today when the matter is called out, a similar request is made.

2. Since the petitions have been heard at length and as there is no substance in the petitions, repeated request by the learned counsel for the petitioners to dismiss the petitions if at all only in the presence of



167

the Senior Advocate engaged, is not a reason to adjourn the matter. The petitions are dismissed.

3. 3. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as a last effort, states that he has made an application before the NCTE for re-consideration of the petitioners' case for recognition in the light of having complied with the norms prescribed by the NCTE.


Remarks of SRO

As seen from the records, there is no communication from the institution regarding the application submitted in view of the above Court order.

The SRC in its 267th Meeting held on 12th – 13th May 2014, considered the matter. In the Hon’ble High Court, the Counsel for petitioners, as a last effort, stated that he had made an application before the NCTE for re-consideration of the petitioners case for recognition in the light of having complied with norms prescribed by the NCTE.


As seen from the records of this office (SRCNCTE), no application was/has been received from the Institution. The question of reconsideration, therefore, does not arise. The committee accordingly, decided to close the case.

The decision of SRC was intimated to the institution on 06.08.2014

The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order F.No.89-291/2014 Appeal/11th Meeting dated 15.10.2014 Remanded as follows:

``.....Sh. R.C. Vijaya Kunnathin, Secretar and Sh. Rajanna C. Principal, Sri T.V. Venkataswamy College of Education, Tumkur, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 12.09.2014. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that ``the management authorities have transferred the land measuring 2500 sq mts in favour of Principal Sri T.V. Venkataswamy College of Education, Madhugiri /572132, Tumkur District, Karnataka. The College authorities are presently constructing building of 234 sq, mts attached to the existing construction work is under progress. The building is expected to be completed within 05 months. Relevant Photocopies of constructing Building is here with enclosed. We will upload the photocopies of progressive construction of building in future. As per VT report and BCC report Ground floor of the building belongs to our college itself. Only some periods of UG course is conducting classes whenever our college is in leisure time. So question of shifting does not prevail. Previously we were misinterpreted about the shifting of classroom of the college. Principal post is vacnt. College authorities have requested the concerned



168

authorities to permit to appoint the principal. Any how we have appointed I/C qualified principal as per NCTE norms. The staff members of the College except Smt. B.J. Sowmya were appointed before 01.04.1993. They were appointed as per the norms of that time. At the same time all the posts were approved by the concerned authorities while admitting the college for salary grants. Smt. B.J. Sowmya’s Appointment is governed by the 2009 NCTE Norms. The appellant in his letter dt. 12.09.2014 submitted that all the staff members except Smt. B.J. Sowmya were appointed before 1.04.1993 as per grant-in-aid norms approved by the Govt. of Karnataka. However, the staff members have been instructed to improve their qualifications as per NCTE norms. They may be provided one month time to fulfil the deficiencies”. The Council noted that the SRC, after submission of the documents by the appellant following personal hearing and before withdrawing recognition on the five grounds mentioned in the said order has not issued a show cause notice to the appellant, as required under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, providing a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order. In the circumstances, the Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to the SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations. In the meantime, the order of withdrawal shall remain in abeyance.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the appellant and take further action as per the Regulations. In the meantime, the order of withdrawal shall remain in abeyance.

The Council hereby remands back the case of Sri T.V. Venkataswamy College of Education, Tumkur, Karnataka to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated


46) SRCAPP2022 B.Ed

MGVC B.Ed College, Bijapur ,

Karnataka, KA

MGVC B.Ed College, Plot /Khasra No. 2149, Ward No.2, Muddebihal Village, Post & Taluk, Bijapur District – 586212, Karnataka SGVC Vidya Prasarak Trust, Muddebihal, Bijapur Road, Muddebihal Village and Post & Taluk, Bijapur District – 586212, Karnataka had applied for grant of recognition to MGVC B.Ed College, Plot /Khasra No. 2149, Ward No.2, Muddebihal Village, Post & Taluk, Bijapur District – 586212, Karnataka for B.Ed Course of One year duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 29/12/2012 and physical application has been received in the office of SRC on 04/01/2013. The SRC in its 238th Meeting held on 5th – 6th February , 2013 considered the matter and on careful perusal of the original file of the institution and other related documents, NCTE Act 1993 regulations and guidelines and decided to reject the application on the following grounds ;-



169

� Copy of registered land documents issued by the competent authority indicating that the Society/Institution applying for the course possessed land on date of the application is not submitted ,as per para7[1-A(i)] of NCTE regulations 2009.

Accordingly, a rejection letter was issued to the institution vide

F.No.SRCAPP2022(2013-14)/B.Ed/KA/2013-14/49758 dated 19/03/2013.

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in W.P.No.101191

of 2013 vide order dated 1st day of July, 2013 has ordered as under:-

“ Since the petitioner is stated to have produced copies of the registered land records issued by the competent authority in his favour, the Respondent No.3 shall consider the same in accordance with law. To avoid any confusion, the petitioner shall send one more set of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority along with the covering letter to the third respondent , who will consider the same as per law without raising the objection relating to delay in submitting the records. Petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations.”

The Southern Regional Committee in its 249th Meeting held on 24th – 26th July,2013 considered the Hon’ble High Court direction vide order dated 1-07-213 to reconsider the case in accordance with law. Law requires that the application should be accompanied by a copy of Land documents to show title to the land held by the applicant. Subsequently, this shall be replaced by a certified copy. The application was not accompanied by a certified copy; it was only a photo-copy. Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered strict enforcement of Regulations in their order

Keeping in view, Supreme Court vide their order in Civil Appeal No. 1125-1128/2011 in SLP No. 17165-68/2009 filed by NCTE Vs ors, which reads as under:-

“An institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfills the conditions specified in various clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the application by the Regional Committee and communication of the decision on the issue of recognition it strictly adhered to”.

The SRC considered the above facts and decided to process the case further. As per the decision of SRC, the application was scrutinized and a deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 24.09.2013. The institution has submitted written representation to the deficiency letter on 13/11/2013.



170

The SRC in its 256th meeting held on 04-05th December,2013 considered the reply to the deficiency letter from the institution vide letter dated 13/11/2013 and all other relevant documents and decided to cause inspection under section 14 (1) of NCTE Act, to examine whether the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, for the proposed programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the institution, as per the norms. As per the direction of SRC, intimation for inspection was issued to the institution on 20.01.2014. The inspection of the institution was conducted on 27/01/2014 and the VT report received in the office of SRC on 03.02.2014. The SRC in its 262nd meeting held on 17-19 February 2014, duly considered VT report, VCD of the institution and all the relevant documents of the institution and deficiencies still persist as under:

• Multipurpose hall size is not of adequate size. As per VT inspection report, the size of the multipurpose hall is only 1042.49 sq.ft, which is less than the requirement of 2000 sq.ft as per NCTE norms 2009.

• Built up area is inadequate for B.Ed and D.Ed course.

• As per Building Completion Certificate 1st and 2nd floors are available, wrong information about first floor. On observation as per VCD, it clearly shows that there is no first floor.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of B.Ed course. Accordingly, a rejection order was issued to the institution on 11.03.2014

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order F.No.89-250/2014 Appeal/11th Meeting dated 15.10.2014 remanded as follows:

``.....Dr. Satish S. Jigginni, President, MGVC B.Ed. College, Bijapur District, Karnataka presented the case of the appellant institution on 11.09.2014. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that ``SGVC Vidya Prasarak Trust has taken cognizance of the inadequacy of the `Multipurpose hall’ The Trust is providing a building of its own for the purpose of `Multipurpose hall’ measuring the size 2801.72 sq ft. The details of the building are annexed along with the resolution of the Trust starting that this building is handed over to the proposed B.Ed college for its exclusive use. The built up area for the proposed B.Ed. College as declared by the Trust is 18525.53 sq.ft. The present `Multipurpose hall’ with the size 2801.72 sq.ft (which is mentioned above in point No. 1) is in addition to the existing built up area 18525.53 sq.ft. The Trust while submitting its application both Online (29.12.2012) and physical application (04.01.2013), for starting of new B.Ed. Course has not stated in its proposal to house its on going D.Ed. Course in the newly constructed building. In fact, the Trust had submitted its application to organize the B.Ed. course separately and independently in the building. Hence, now, the present built-up area of 21327.25 sq.ft. (18525.53+2801.72) is sufficient to house its proposed B.Ed. College as per



171

the

NCTE norms. In respect of the third deficiency, the Trust shall bring to your kind notice the following explanation as clarification. In the Building Completion Certificate issued by the Junior Engineer TMC Muddebihal, under Sl.No. 10, the document speaks about the Ground Floor and First Floors. Further, there are two separate, but adjacently built Ground Floors namely Main Building and Side Building each measureing, Main Building 12001.82 sq.ft b. Side Building 4973.34 sq.ft. On the side building, there is the fist floor construction, measuring 1550.37 sq.ft. In this first floor building there is `Library’ of the proposed B.Ed. college. This was visited by the Visiting Team members during their visit. The Trust, herewith, is providing the photo and the video clipping of the first floor building as supporting evidences. If the NCTE wishes to cross validate the supporting evidences that are provided by the Trust, they may do so.’’

Council noted that three reasons have been cited in the refusal order dated 11.03.2014 issued by SRC. The inadequate size of multipurpose hall as noticed and reported by the Visiting Team is admitted by the appellant. The appellant during the course of appeal hearing submitted that an alternative space measuring 2801 sq. feet is available in the proposed campus for B.Ed. course which can be utilised as Multipurpose Hall. Council noted that the appellant institute had mentioned in its application the existence of D.El.Ed. Course recognised in 2004 and has also stated that proposed B.Ed course is proposed to be located in a separate building built for the purpose. The Visiting Team in its inspection report dated 27.01.2014 has nowhere mentioned that academic and infrastructural facilities for B.Ed. Course are being shared or any other course is being conducted in the proposed building. One ground of refusal i.e. built up area is inadequate for B.Ed. & D.E.l.Ed course is therefore, unfounded and not sustainable.

Council accessed to the copy of original application alongwith enclosures submitted at the time of seeking recognition. The copy of application was found lying below the relevant file. The appellant at the time of making application had enclosed zerox copies of few photographs. These photographs reveal existence of first floor on one of the unit. This may or may not have been observed in the VCD. This is further substantiated through entries of B.C.C. dated 6.11.13. The building Completion Certificate is issued by Town Municipla Council and it mentions built up area of 1550 Sq. feet on first floor. The allegation of having furnished wrong information, is therefore, not sustainable. Council considered all the three grounds of refusal and concluded that the case be remanded back to SRC with a direction to get a re-inspection done, on pament of fee by the appellant institution to assess the suitability of multipurpose hall.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the case be remanded back to SRC with a direction to get a re-inspection done, on pament of fee by the appellant institution to assess the suitability of multipurpose hall.

The Council hereby remands back the case of MGVC B.Ed College,Plot /Khasra No. 2149, Ward No.2, Muddebihal Village, Post & Taluk, Bijapur District – 586212, Karnataka to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated.



172

The Committee considered the matter, Appellate Authority’s order dated

15/10/2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process after

notification of the new Regulations, as directed by NCTE (H'qrs).

47) SRCAPP681 D.El.Ed M.V.R

Institute of Teacher Training, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh

AP

M.V.R Institute of Teacher Training, K. No.50, Plot No. 19-9-3E/5, 19th Street, Tirupati Village, Head Post, Tirupati (Urban) Taluk, Chittoor District-517501, Andhra Pradesh

Mandyam Educational Society, No. 19-9-3E/5, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati Village, Head Post Office, Tirupati (urban) Taluk, Chittoor Disrict-517501, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to M.V.R Institute of Teacher Training, K. No.50, Plot No. 19-9-3E/5, 19th Street, Tirupati Village, Head Post, Tirupati (Urban) Taluk, Chittoor District-517501, Andhra Pradesh for D.El.Ed Course for two years duration under Section 15(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 25/092011. The institution had submitted hard copy of the application on 27/09/2011. The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 08/11/2011 followed by reminder on 03/01/2012 a deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 23/12/2011.The institution had not submitted reply for deficiency letter even after stipulated period of 60 days (111 days). As per sub-clause (1) of clause 7 of NCTE Regulation 2009, the applicant institutions is required to submit deficiencies to the Southern Regional Committee Office within 60 days from the date of receipt of communication of deficiencies, failing which the application will be treated as rejected and closed, no extension of time will be granted and any submission received after 60 days will be treated as invalid and not entertained. The Southern Regional Committee in its 221st Meeting held on 19th-20th April, 2012 noted the non-submission of reply to the DL letter by the institution and decided to refuse and reject the application for recognition of D.El.Ed course. Accordingly, a rejection letter was issued to the institution vide no. F.No.SRCAPP681 (2012-13)/D.El.Ed/AP/2012-13/41834 dated 30/05/2012. Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE-Hqrs and the appellate authority in its order No. F.No. 89-397/2012 Appeal / 8th Meeting-2012/A57074 dated 05/09/2012 stated that “…the council concluded that there was adequate justification to accept the appeal and remand the case to SRC for considering the reply of the institution and for taking further decision thereafter. The institution is directed to submit a copy of the reply dated 15/02/2012 again to the SRC”. The SRC in its 233rd meeting held on 26th-28th September, 2012, considered the Appellate authority order dt. 05/09/2012 and decided to process the file of the institution on merit as per Regulations. As per the decision of SRC the application was processed and placed before SRC in its 234th Meeting held on 17th-18th October, 2012 wherein the committee considered the matter and decided to process further. In Para 4 of the order dated 05/9/2012. The appellate authority directed the



173

institution to submit a copy of the reply dated 15/02/2012 again to SRC. Although, the institution vide letter dated 2/11/2012 has submitted a copy of the letter dated 15/02/2012 but without any supporting documents. A letter was sent to institution on 21/11/2012. Accordingly, the institution has submitted written representation on 30/11/2012. The reply of the institution was placed before SRC in its 237th meeting held on 05th-06th January 2013, considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt. 30/11/2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under section 14 (1) of NCTE Act, for the following:

As per notarized copy of Gift deed total site area is not mentioned.

Blue print of building plan is submitted it is approved by commissioner Tirupati Municipality and earmarked area for proposed course is not given.

Notarized copy of upto-date encumbrance certificate is required.

In the affidavit Sy.No. is not mentioned.

Original FDR’s of Rs.5.00lakhs and Rs.3.00lakhs is not submitted.

The institution is already ruining B.Ed course, as admitted vide letter dated 15/02/2012 (P-222/c), land area of 2705 sq.mts and built up area 2342.55 sq. mts is grossly inadequate to run B.Ed & D.Ed course).

Land use certificate is not notarized.

Proof of completion of 3 academic session of B.Ed course grant on 17/09/2010 (P-107/c) is not submitted.

Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 21.02.2013. The institution has submitted its written representation on 12.03.2013.The reply of the show cause notice was placed before SRC in its 242nd Meeting held on 14th-16th April, 2013. The reply of the institution to the show cause notice was considered by SRC in its 244th meeting held on 09th & 11th May,2013 and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, in view of the deficiencies:-

As per Supreme Court direction norms/standards should be strictly applied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court order states: Supreme Court vide their order in Civil Appeal NO. 1125-1128/2011 in SLP No. 17165-68/2009 filed by NCTE Vs ors, which reads as under:

An institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfils the conditions specified in various clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the application by the Regional Committee and communication of the decision on the issue of recognition it strictly adhered to”.

The reply to the show cause notice is not satisfactory and unconvincing. Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.El.Ed (SRCAPP681) course.



174

Hence, as per the decision of SRC, a rejection order was issued to the institution on 03.06.2013.

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal

to NCTE-H’qrs and the appellate authority vide order No. F.No.89-282/2014 Appeal/11th meeting -2014 dated 15.10.2014 has stated that,

“The Correspondent, MVR Institute of Teacher Training (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 03.07.2014 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. The submission of the appeal has been delayed by 10 months and 23 days beyond the prescribed time limit of 60 days. The appellant in

their letter dated 10.09.2014 submitted though their application was rejected by the SRC In their 244th Meeting held on 9.11 May, 2013, they did not receive any communication. The appellant approached SRC office on 11.06.2014, got a copy of the rejection order on that day itself and thereafter appealed. According to the appellant the delay was on account of non-receipt of any communication from SRC. The Council, noting the submissions of the appellant, decided to condone the delay and consider the appeal.

Ms. Sushma Ramana Reddy, Director, MVR Institute of Teacher Training, Chittoor, and Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 10.09.2014. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that 1. the Appellant Institution is having permanent (pucca) building with a total (pucca) building with a total built up space of 25,205 sqft. It was mentioned in the notarized copy of the English version. The Respondent have rejected the file, without verifying the documents submitted by the Appellant Institution. 2. the appellant Institution has earmarked the Building portion for the new D.Ed. course proposed in the Blue Print itself issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Tirupati. Respondent have rejected the file on the ground of not proposed earmarked area, for the proposed course without properly referring the Documents submitted by the Appellant Institution. The earmarked area is mentioned in the Blue Print. 3.It is respectfully submitted for the 3rd reason that notarized copy of up to-date EC was submitted by the Appellant Institution at the time of Deficiency reply letter. In the early notice and previous refusal order itself the respondent unmindful of the facts and even without verifying the documents to that effect had mechanically passed the rejection order by citing flimsy reasons, against which the appeal was preferred and the Appellant authority has rightly remand back the matter for recognition. 4. In this regard it is submitted that the Institution submitted affidavit mentioning Sy. No.50,.D.No,19-9-3E15 Motherland Campus, Thiruchanur Road, Tirupati, Chittoor Dt, Andhra Pradesh. Hence on what basis such remarks have been made by Respondent in the rejection order is totally not known as such it is unreasonable. Hence this reason in a



175

generalized statement without any material for rejection cannot be sustained in view of the facts as evidence from the affidavit. 5. In this regard the Appellant Institution submitted F.D.’s of 5 lakhs and 3 lakhs Xerox copies at the time of application .In the early notice and refusal order itself the respondent unmindful of the facts and even without verifying the documents, passed the rejection order. 6. It is submitted that the Appellant Institution is having B.Ed. Course, it was running at another address. We applied this application and mentioned Address and built up area is only for D.Ed. course. The Respondent from the beginning has been wrongly Issuing the rejection and withdrawal of the recognition to the Appellant Institution. As such impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. With regards to the 7th reason in the rejection order that Appellant Institutions. Was submitted land use certificate with notarized. Hence on what basis such deficiency pointed out and not satisfactory and unconvincing of Respondent. 8. It is submitted that the Appellant B.Ed. Institution was Completed 4. Academic years and entered in the 5th Academic year. We have submitted Documents to the respondent. But without verifying the Documents, the Respondent issued rejection order to the Appellant Institution.

The Council noted that SRC issued a show cause notice dated 21.02.2013 on eight grounds and the appellant institution submitted a reply thereto which was received on 12.03.2013 From the file of the SRC it is observed that the reply was compared with the grounds of the show cause notice and the only concluding remarks related to (i) non-submission of original FDRs for Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs and (ii) non- submission of proof of completion of three academic sessions of B.Ed. It therefore appears that these two grounds only remain. The SRC, however, in their refusal order date.03.06.2013 stated that the reply was unconvincing and not satisfactory and all the eight deficiencies still exist. In these circumstances, the Council concluded that the matter deserved to be remanded to the SRC with a direction to re-consider the matter taking into account the submissions made in the appeal also and take fresh decision.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to SRC with a direction to re-consider the matter taking into account the submissions made in the appeal also and take a fresh decision.

The Council hereby remands back the case of MVR Institute of Teacher

Training, Andhra Pradesh to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above”.




176

48) APS00807 B.Ed Oriental College of Teacher Education, Calicut, Kerala KL

Oriental College of Teacher Education, Poonath, Post, Naduvanoor(via), Calicut Dt., Pin-673614, Kerala

Fathima Memorial Educational Trust, Calicut, Kerala had submitted an application for grant of recognition to Oriental College of Teacher Education, Poonath,Post, Naduvanoor(via), Calicut Dt., Pin-673614, Kerala for Secondary(B.Ed.) course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students. The institution was granted recognition on 23.10.2006 from the academic session 2006-07 with a condition to shift to its own premises since the institution is started in rented premises. On 10.5.2011, a complaint was received from Sri. Abdul Gafoor T.P., Thaniparambil House, Pembra, Kozhikode regarding the functioning of Oriental College of teacher education. The complainant had alleged that “though the college has started its functioning four years ago, the management has not started the construction of the new building yet. We know that our batch is the fourth batch of the college. The last 4 years, the college has not provide minimum facilities to the students. The college is now functioning on a rented building. NCTE has given them 3 years time to complete the building work. The construction work has not started yet. We understood that the management of the college has no intention to start the work. So affiliation for this batch from the University has not issued yet. Though the Management has collected huge amounts from the students they are not giving minimum facilities to us and so we complained to the Universities about this. So, we the students of the College requested the NCTE authorities to take necessary action against the management of the College otherwise they will continue the process of admission of next batch and the students of the coming batch will be cheated.”Again, on 1.8.2011, a complaint is received from Sri. Asokan MC, Manager, KET College of Teacher Education, Kokkalloor P.O., Balussery via, Kozhikode, Kerala against the College. The complainant has alleged that “the College has been functioning in a temporary rented building since 2006 October. Though the College started five years ago, the management of the College has no intention to construct the permanent building yet and they are collecting huge amount from the students as fees. Now, the management of the college has given advertisement for admission to 2011-12 batch. NCTE has issued public notice to students informing that not to join such colleges. The College is affiliated to Calicut University. The syndicate meeting of the University held on 3.2.2010 decided to conduct inspection in various B.Ed. colleges for verification of the infrastructure and other facilities available in the B.Ed. Colleges. University has issued notice to them to shift to permanent site at the earliest. But after the verification and inspection the said College was working as usual on a rented building without providing minimum facilities to the students. All other colleges except the said college who got permission from NCTE after 2006 had



177

constructed permanent building as per NCTE norms and reported to the NCTE for inspection. The above said college is violating the rules of NCTE and it is doubted that the University authorities has given them all possible help to run the College. So, we request the Hon’ble Regional Director to conduct an immediate enquiry about the functioning of the said college at the earliest and take necessary action for the violation of the NCTE rules”. On receipt of the complaint, this office has issued a letter to the complainant to submit an affidavit on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper on 29.8.2011. On 5.9.2011, Sri. Ashokan M.C., Manager, KET College of Teacher Education has submitted the complaint on a original affidavit of Rs.100/- stamp paper. Further, again on a complaint is received on 27.10.2011 from Sri. Asokan MC, Manager, KET College of Teacher Education, Kokkalloor P.O., Balussery via, Kozhikode, Kerala against the college on an original affidavit of Rs.100/- stamp paper stating the following:- “Oriental College of Teacher Education Poonath Po, Naduvannor via APSO No.00807 dated 23.10.2006 is now working on a temporary rented commercial building without providing necessary facilities directed by NCTE and violating the rules of Calicut University and State Government. I have submitted a complaint (Affidavit) on 2.9.2011 regarding the illegal functioning of the said College, but no action was taken against the College. Now, I would like to submit more details about the College.

As I have filed a suit against the illegal functioning of Oriental College of Teacher education, in the High Court of Kerala on 30th August, 2011 the Court directed to the concerned authorities to take appropriate action against my complaint.

Calicut University Registrar directed the Management of the College to

shift the College to the permanent building on 14.09.2011 and report to them within ten days. But violating all these orders, the College is now working in the same temporary building and they have no intention to construct the permanent building. The Management has started admission for 2011-12 Batch (fifth batch). So I humbly request to take action against the illegal functioning of the College at the earliest to avoid cheating of the students.” The SRC in its 217th meeting held on 8-9 February, 2012 considered the request of the institution vide letter dated 18.1.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, Notice was issued to the institution on 14.03.2012. The institution has submitted its representation on 9.4.2012.



178

The SRC in its 222nd meeting held on 09th –10th May 2012 considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt. 09.04.2012 and all other relevant documentary evidences and decided to cause shifting inspection at the new premises as per NCTE Act and as per request of the institution, on payment of Rs. 50000/- towards inspection fee and to examine whether the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the institution, as per the norms. Accordingly, the inspection of the institution was carried out on 30.05.2012.

The SRC in its 228th meeting held on 24th -25th July 2012 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under NCTE Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 16/08/2012.The institution has submitted a written representation on 27/09/2012

The reply of the institution to the show cause notice dt. 27.09.2012 was duly considered and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persist as under:

Original Certified copy of land documents in the name of the institution is not submitted, as per regulations 2009.

Approved blue print of the building plan issued by competent civil authority is not submitted. In the copy of the building plan, the name of the college, site area and course name is not mentioned.

Building plan is in the name of Fathima Memorial Educational Trust and not in the name of the college.

From the copy of the building plan it is not known whether the building is offering only Teacher Education Programme or not.

Built up area mentioned in the building plan (3922.27 sq.mts) does not match with that of the Building Completion Certificate (16,166 sq.ft).

As per Non Encumbrance Certificate and Land Use Certificate submitted, land is in the name of Mr. Shoukathali, Secretary, Fathima Memorial Educational Trust .The land should be in the name of the institution as per NCTE regulations 2009.

Based on the above points the SRC in its 239th meeting held on 26th – 27th February 2013 decided to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by the Oriental College of Teacher Education, Calicut District, Kerala from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course. It was made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining board / body were informed accordingly. Further, decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, if any. As per the decision of SRC, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution



179

vide order no. F.SRO.NCTE/APS00807/B.Ed/KL/ 2013-2014/50382 dated 05.04.2013. In the meantime the institution had filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the appellate Authority, NCTE, New Delhi against the Withdrawal order of SRC,

It was seen from the file that a Writ Petition No. 28660/2012 is filed by Abida. T and Others Vs Calicut University and others in the Hon,ble High Court of Kerala Praying to quash clause 5.2.1(iv) in Ext. P5 Prospectus published by the Director of Collegiate Education. Thiruvananthapuram wherein SRC, NCTE is the Second respondent. A letter is addressed to the advocate Shri. V.M. Kurian to defend the case in the interest of SRC, NCTE and NCTE, New Delhi vide this office No. F. KL/APS0 0807/SRO/NCTE/2012/47886/ dated 27.12.2012. The appellate authorities Vide order No. F. No. 89-381-2013 appeal/14th meeting -2013 dated 30.10.2013 noted that the appellate has enclosed only copies of some documents which are both in the regional language and English and which do not meet the grounds cited in the order. He has not submitted certified copy of the land document and approved copy of building plan showing the name of the college. In the copy the building plan there is over-writing. In these circumstances, the council concluded that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed. After perusal of the documents, Memorandum of appeal. Affidavit, the documents available on record and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC confirmed.

The Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against “

The SRC in its 255th meeting held during 13th to 15th November, 2013 has noted the matter. In the mean time the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court at Ernakulam in W.P.No. 27304 of 2013

A court order dated 18th November, 2013 in W.P.(c) No.27304 of 2013 filed by the Oriental College of Teacher Education is received by this office from the advocate, Sri.V.M.Kurian on 6.1.2013 wherein NCTE, New Delhi is the 1st respondent and RD, SRC, NCTE is the 2nd respondent. The extract of the Court order dated 18.11.2013 reads as under:-

“6. Pursuant to order dated 11.11.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.15280/2013 producing all the relevant documents as Exts. P9 to P15. With reference to the said documents produced, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, all the defects have already been cured and the matter ought not to have been finalized by the 1st respondent by a cursory order in the form of Ext. P7, which is sought to be intercepted by this Court.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents submits that the version of the petitioner that al the relevant documents had been



180

produced ( to establish the case of the petitioner as to the complete transfer of the property stated as effected by the Trust in the name of the petitioner) is not fully correct, in so far as Ext. P10 transfer effected by the Trust in the name of the petitioner, is only with regard to the ‘land’ involved; Whereas nothing is mentioned with regard to the building in Ext. P10. However, the fact remains that, the entire land which was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the Trust stands already transferred to the institution, as borne by Ext.P10. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the only objection pointed out vide Ext.P5, at serial No.6, was that the land should be in the name of the institution as per the NCTE regulation, 2009. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that, copies of some documents served were in the vernacular, as a result of which, the correctness of the same could be ascertained earlier and that the English translation was submitted only subsequently. It is also open for the concerned parties to produce additional materials, if any, so as to establish the ownership of the building as well so as to be in conformity with the statutory requirements as per the NCTE norms. Having regard to the facts and figures, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent in the light of the relevant documents already produced and the explanation submitted from the part of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application preferred by the petitioner for shifting the college, in the light of the above documents produced and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within ‘one month’ from the date of Receipt of a copy of this judgment. So as to enable the 2nd respondent to pursue such exercise, Exts. P5 and P7 are set aside. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgement along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.”

The Southern Regional Committee in its 259th Meeting held on 17th to 19th January 2014 considered the matter, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala order dated 18/11/2013 in W.P. (c) no. 27304 of 2013 and decided that our earlier decision of defending the case through our Lawyer is revised. Further, it is decided by the committee to issue notice to the said college (Petitioner) for a personal hearing in 260th meeting. Further course of action will be decided after the personal hearing. As per the decision of SRC, a notice for personal hearing was issued to the institution on 22.01.2014.

The representative of the institution appeared before the Committee on 30th January, I,e during the 260th Meeting of SRC held on 20th and 30th January,2014 and presented the case. As an introductory note the Chairperson, SRC has told to the representatives of the institutions that ‘that we (the Regional Committees)



181

do not have the practice of personal hearing as per Regulations. However, in compliance to the directions of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, we have called you for personal hearing. You may say what all you want to say. It is entirely the discretion of the institution. But please submit in writing today after this hearing point wise what all submissions you wanted to make before SRC during the personal hearing session such that, later, there would not be scope either to the institution to say that SRC did not hear on these points or to the SRC that the institution has not submitted these points. You may also enclose what all documents you want to enclose to your written representation. Make a photocopy of your representation and take acknowledgement of SRO.’ The oral presentations made by the institution was recorded which is as under The institution was represented by

Secretary of the Institution & Administrative Officer

The presentation was made by the Administrative Officer. He has said that

the institution was not aware that certified copy meant that it should be certified by Sub registrar and hence have given

the building plan and the permit are changed to the name of the manager of the society and approved by the Secretary of the Panchayat. It is clearly mentioned inn the building plan that that it is for teaching course only and an affidavit is also being submitted

regarding built up area we have only B.Ed course and the available built up area is 16160 Sq.ft. there is 2922 sq mts of built up area for D.Ed, B.Ed and M.Ed but have not started D.Ed and M.Ed.

the land and EC is changed to the name of the society

all the deficiencies are addressed before appearing before the Appeal Committee except the notarized version of the documents

The institution submitted the following documents on 30., 01.2014 during the personal hearing.

Certified copy of the land document with its English version was submitted.A copy of the gift deed executed by Fathima Memorial Educational Trust in favour of Oriental College of Teacher Education dated 27.01.2014

A copy of the building permit dated 14.10.2011 issued to Shaukat Ali, Secretary, Fathima Memorial Educational Trust.

Six photocopies of the building plans in the name of Fathima Memorial Educational TrustAn affidavit stating that the plan approved in the name of Fathima Edcuational Trust and transferred to the Manager, Oriental College is meant for Teacher Education Programmes

5. Possession and enjoyment certificate issued by Village Officer dated 17.05.2013 in favor of Oriental College of Teacher Education

A photocopy of Non –Encumbrance Certificate dated 06.05.2013 for



182

the period 01.01.1999 to 02.05.2013 reflecting to transactions.

The committee decided as under ; ‘Party appeared .Was given a personal hearing. Thereafter, they were

advised to give a written submission of their presentation. Signed photocopy was returned as acknowledgement. Put up on file’

The institution has submitted a written representation on 03.02.2014.

Accordingly, the institution has submitted its written representation on 03.02.2014.The SRC in its 261st Meeting considered the written representation and directed SRO to process and put up comparative statement of documents submitted earlier and not submitted at the personal hearing. Accordingly, the file is processed. The Committee in compliance to the Hon’ble High Court directions dated 10.12.2013; in its 257th meeting decided to give personal hearing. Accordingly, the said college was given a personal hearing in its 260th meeting held on 29-31st Jan, 2014 and advised to give a written representation. The institution submitted its written representation along with the documents on 03.02.2014.

The reply submitted by the institution to the personal hearing was duly considered and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persists as under.

The Title deed submitted is dated 29.4.13. This is long after the application. According to NCTE Regulations, they should have had title at the time of application.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided in its 264th meeting held on 1-3 march,2014 as per NCTE Regulations, to reject the application and advised SRO to reissue earlier decision of withdrawal of recognition. As per the decision of SRC, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 01.05.2014.

Aggrieved by the withdrawal order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE-H’qrs and the appellate authority vide order No. F.No.89-268 /2014 Appeal/11th meeting -2014 dated 15.10.2014 stated that,

The Correspondent, Oriental College of Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 02/06/2014 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.

Sh. Shoukathali, Secretary, Oriental College of Teacher Education, Kozhikode, Kerala presented the case of the appellant institution on 12.09.2014. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the NCTE granted recognition to the Oriental College of Teacher Education on the application submitted by the Fathima Memorial



183

Educational Trust. The Title Deed had been in the name of the trust since then till the NCTE asked for changing the title Deed from the name of the Trust to that of the college. Following the NCTE direction, the trust transferred the land to the name of the College and the same was communicated to the NCTE with relevant documents. The appellant also submitted that the College started functioning in 2006 and in the NCTE Regulations, 2002, there was no requirement of the College being in ownership of the land. The application for shifting of the college was preferred on 14.03.2012 and on that date the land was under the possession and title of M/s Fathima Memorial Educational Trust and that fulfilled the requirement of NCTE Regulation of 2009 according to which the institution or society sponsoring the institution should be in possession of the land on the date of application.

The Council noted that the submissions of the appellant deserved to be accepted as the land in question which is reported to have been in the name of the sponsoring Trust has been transferred in the name of the College. the Council therefore concluded that the appeal deserved to be accepted and the order of the SRC reversed.

The Council hereby reverses the Order appealed against.


49) SRCAPP1136 D.E.C.Ed Mahendra College of

Elementary Teacher

Education, Srikakulam,

Andhra Pradesh.

AP

Mahendra College of Elementary Teacher Education, Khasara No. 238/4, Plot No. 10-446, Pathapatnam Village, Post & Taluk, Srikakulam District-532213, Andhra Pradesh.

Sri Radha Krishna Educational Society, Plot No. 10-26, Pathapatnam Village, Post & Taluk, Srikakulam District-532213, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition Mahendra College of Elementary Teacher Education, Khasara No. 238/4, Plot No. 10-446, Pathapatnam Village, Post & Taluk, Srikakulam District-532213, Andhra Pradesh, for D.E.C.Ed Course for Two years duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 29.09.2011. The institution has submitted hard copy of the application on 30.09.2011.

The Application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 28.10.2011. A reminder letter to the State Government was sent on 08.12.2011. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 30.12.2011. The institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 27.02.2012.

The SRC in its 220th meeting held on 30-31st March 2012 has considered the reply of the institution dt. 27.02.2102 and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 14(1) of NCTE Act, for the following:



184

In the approved building plan submitted, total earmarked built up area for the proposed course is not mentioned.

In the Building Completion Certificate submitted, type of roofing is not mentioned.

Notarised land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the purpose of educational institution is not submitted. Proceedings from the revenue divisional office not submitted.

In the Affidavit submitted, total built up area is not mentioned and column No. 1 & 5 is not duly filled up.

Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer not submitted for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purposes.

Details of other teacher educational courses being run by the institution in the same building/premises is not given.

The institutions request for change of course from D.E.C.Ed to D.El.Ed cannot be acceded. Change of course from D.E.C.Ed to D.El.Ed is not permissible as per Regulations at a later date.

Reply to the deficiency letter is incomplete and not satisfactory. As par the decision of SRC, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 26.04.2012. The institution has not submitted reply for Show Cause Notice even after the expiry of stipulated time of 21 days from the date of issue of the notice. Keeping in view, Supreme Court vide their order in Civil Appeal No. 1125-1128/2011 in SLP No. 17165-68/2009 filed by NCTE Vs ors, which reads as under: “An institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfills the conditions specified in varius clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfills the conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the application by the Regional Committee and communication of the decision on the issue of recognition it strictly adhered to”. The committee considered the matter, as the institution has not submitted reply even after stipulated period of 21 days from the date of issue of show cause notice letter dt. 26.04.2012 and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per clause 7(1) of NCTE Regulations 2009, to refuse and reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.El.Ed course.



185

Accordingly, a rejection order was issued to the institution vide No. F.N. SRCAPP1136/D.El.Ed/AP/2012-13/46750 dt. 16.10.2012. The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE (HQ), and the Appellate Authority vide order NO. F.No. 89-738/2012 Appeal/14th Meeting - 2012, dt. 01.02.2013 and has stated as follows: “after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, Committee, therefore, concluded that the matter may be remanded back to the SRC to consider the reply of the institution to be re-submitted. The Appellant is also directed to send his reply once again to the SRC immediately. Now therefore, the Council hereby remands back the case of Mahindra College of Elementary Teacher Education, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh to the SRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above”. In obedience to the Appellate authority, the application is being procecced. The Committee considered Appellate Authority order dt, 08/01/2013 to consider the reply of the institution and noted that the institution has not submitted reply as per the direction of the Appellate authority and the deficiencies are still persists as under:

• Original building completion certificate from competent Govt. engineer is not submitted in proper format and the BCC submitted is written by pen. Notarised land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the educational purpose is not submitted. Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer not submitted for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purposes. Original Affidavit on Rs. 100/- stamp paper in the prescribed format with notary attestation tis noit submitted.

As per the on-line application, the institution had applied for D.E.C.Ed course. No D.E.C.Ed course is offered anywhere in the Andhra Pradesh region.

The committee considered the non-reply of the institution to the issue of show cause notice dt. 26/04/2012 and also as per the direction of Appellate authority the institution has not submitted its reply, with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided in its 241st Meeting held on 29th & 31st March, 2013 & April 2013 as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.E.C.Ed (SRCAPP1136) course.

As per the decision of SRC, a rejection order was issued to the institution on 18.05.2013

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal

to NCTE-H’qrs and the appellate authority vide order No. F.No.89-209/2014



186

Appeal/11th meeting -2014 dated 15.10.2014 stating that,

“The Correspondent, Mahendra College of Elementary Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 21/04/2014 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 Order.

The submission of the appeal has been delayed by 8 months and 25 days beyond the prescribed time limit of 60 days. The appellant in his letter dated 08.09.2014 submitted that the delay occurred as himself, the correspondent, was suffering from prolonged illness on account of severe disc prolapse sciatica. The appellant, in support of his illness, produced a medical certificate dated 21.03.2014 from Civil Surgeon, Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, wherein it is stated that the patient was not in a position to move from bed during treatment and he became fir from 23.03.2014, the Council noting these submissions decided to condone the delay and consider the appeal.

Sh. S. Madhu Babu, Correspondent & Sh. S.P. Mishra, Office Incharge, Mahendra College of Elementary Teacher Education , Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on .In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that they replied to the show cause notice dated 26.04.2012 on 08.05.2012 and without giving a show cause notice the SRC issued the refusal order dated 18.05.2013

The Council noted that the SRC in their earlier order dated 16.10.2012 refused recognition on the ground that the appellant did not reply to their show cause notice dated 26.04.2012 even after the stipulated Period of 21 days from the date of issue of the notice. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of the SRC and the Council in their appellate order dated 8/14-1-2013, finding that the stated reply of the appellant dated 08.05.2012 was not in the file of the SRC, remanded the matter to SRC to consider the reply of the institution to be resubmitted. The appellant was also directed to resubmit his reply to SRC immediately. the Council noted that the appellant did not resubmit his reply to SRC as per the Council’s Order and in the circumstances the SRC refused recognition. In the appeal the appellant has not stated anything about his non- submission of his reply to SRC as per the appellate Order. In the circumstances, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council Concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC is confirmed

The Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.”




187

50) SRCAPP1823 B.Ed-AI Arcot Sri

Mahalakshmi Womens College of Education,

Vellore, Tamiolnadu.

TN

Arcot Sri MahalakshmiWomens College of Education, Khasara No. 415/5,

Plot No. 413/3A & B, Villapakkam Village and Post Office, Arcot City and

Taluk Vellore District – 632521, Tamilnadu.

Mahalakshmi Educational Trust, Arcot-Arni Main Road, Villapakkam Village, Arcot City and Taluk, Vellore District – 632521, Tamilnadu had applied for grant of recognition to Arcot Sri MahalakshmiWomens College of Education, Khasara No. 415/5, Plot No. 413/3A & B, Villapakkam Village and Post Office, Arcot City and Taluk, Vellore District – 632521, Tamilnadu for B.Ed-AI Course of one year duration under Section 15(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 18.12.2012 and physical copy on 19.12.2012. The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 02.01.2013 followed by reminder on 14.03.2013. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 14.03.2013. The institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 25.04.2013.

The SRC in its 243rd meeting held on 29th- 30th April 2013 considered the reply of the institution to the deficiency letter, the deficiency pertaining to the following are not met with:

1. The building plan is approved in Regional language, total earmarked built up area and land area is not mentioned.

2. In the affidavit submitted by the institution, total built up area is not mentioned. 3. In the building completion certificate submitted, location of the land address is

not mentioned. 4. In the encumbrance certificate submitted, total extent of land area is not

mentioned. Notarised English version of encumbrance certificate is not submitted. The encumbrance certificate submitted is in regional language.

5. Proof of completion of 3 academic sessions towards B.Ed &M.Ed courses which are already run by the institution, from the affiliating body/State Govt/examining body is not submitted.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the SRC in its 243rd meeting held on 29th – 30th April 2013 decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of B.Ed-Al course.

The institution vide its letter dt. 09.05.2013 has stated that “we had not applied any Additional intake for the M.Ed., course. But NCTE Amendment regulation, 2010 in the Gazette of India on 26th July 2010. The amendment stipulates that the intake be increased from existing 25 to 35 students from the session 2010-11. This has been misunderstood by SRC, NCTE that we got recognition for M.Ed Additional Intake and it has not completed 3 academic years, once again we request your good self that ArcotMahalakshmi College has not granted any M.Ed Additional Intake and only got the enhancement of intake from 25 to 34 by NCTE. Hence we request your good office to kindly reconsider the decision of 243rd meeting of SRC, NCTE on 29th -30th April, 2013 decided to reject our application by stating the reason that “on the date of application three year gap after M.Ed-AI was not there”.



188

As per records recognition to M.Ed course has been granted on 06.11.2007.

The above matter was placed before SRC in its 245th meeting held on 19th-21st May, 2013 and it has decided that SRC’s decision dt. 29th - 30th April, 2013 was erroneous. It is reconsidered. The case is reopened for further processing.

In the meantime the institution by seeing the website, submitted documents on 03.07.2013.

The SRC in its 249th meeting held on 24th -26th July 2013, considered the written representation of the institution vide letter dated 09.05.2013 and also the relevant documents pertaining to B.Ed-Al, deficiencies still persist as under:

• In the Building plan submitted, total earmarked built up area for the proposed course B.Ed-Al and existing courses are not mentioned.

• As per the records part of the land is mortgaged, which is not permissible as per NCTE regulations 2009.

• Built up area for B.Ed-Al course is inadequate.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the Committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to reject the application of the institution for recognition of B.Ed-Al course.


Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order No.F.No.89-666/2013 Appeal/11th Meeting on 15-10-2014 has confirmed the order of SRC.

“…… After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC is confirmed.

The Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against.


51) AOS00302 B.Ed

K.S.E.F College of Education, Tumkur,

Karnataka KA

K.S.E.F College of Education, Northern Extension Tumkur District-572106, Karnataka K.S.E.F College of Education, Northern Extension, Tumkur District-572106, Karnataka had submitted an application for starting B.Ed course on 13.02.1996. The institution was granted recognition on 24.07.1996 with an intake of 100 students. This office had received a letter No.TY:VCPS:2011-12:98 dated 21.05.2011 from the Vice-Chancellor, Tumkur University, Tumkur by enclosing a list of 19 institutions with the committee observations by conducting inspections.

SRC in its 206th meeting held on 9th -10th June, 2011 considered the VT report,



189

reply of the institution vide its letter dated 03.06.2011 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to issue show cause notice under section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 07.07.2011. The institution had replied vide letter dated 10.8.2011.

The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st –23rd September, 2011 considered the letter dated 21.05.2011 from vice-chancellor, Tumkur University pointing out deficiencies in the 19 Tumkur University colleges and also reply of the above institution dated 10.08.2011 and other documents submitted by the institution and decided to cause composite inspection for all the courses at premises under Section 17 of NCTE Act, to verify whether the institution is maintaining instructional and infrastructural facilities as per NCTE norms. The institution vide letter dated 19.10.2011 was also informed.

Accordingy, the inspection of the institution was carried out on 31.10.2011.

In the meantime, Tumkur University vide their letter received on 17.10.2011 has conducted visits to the institution during 15th –19th and 27th of July, 2011 and made some observations.

The SRC in its 215th meeting held on 12th –13th December, 2011 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under section 17 of NCTE Act, and Notice was issued to the institution on 13.02.2012. The institution has submitted its written representation on 19.03.2012.

The SRC in its 221st meeting held on 19th – 20th April, 2012 considered the reply of the institution dated 19.03.2102 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act.

Accordingly, a final show cause notice was issued to the institution on 22.05.2012. The institution has submitted replies vide letters dated 23.07.2012 and 27.06.2012 The reply of the institution vide letter dt. 23.07.2012 & 27.06.2012 to the show cause notice was duly considered and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persist as under: 1. The institution has not submitted Notarised English version of the certified copy

land documents. 2. The institution has not submitted approved blue print of building plan .In the

copy of building plan submitted, site area, survey number and total built up area is not mentioned.

3. As per the BCC, built up area is 5661 sq.ft., hence the built up area is not as per NCTE norms. As per NCTE norms, 1500 sq.mts of built up area is required.

4. Original Notarised land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office

stating that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the educational purpose is not submitted. Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer not submitted for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purposes.

5. No documentary proof is submitted towards purchase of equipments to



190

strengthen the labs. 6. The institution has 1+ 5 faculty members. As per the NCTE norms, there should

be 1+7 faculty members. 7. The latest staff list approved by the University is not submitted. 8. Lecturers in Foundation/Fine Arts/Physical Education are not appointed.

Based on the above points the committee decides to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by the K.S.E.F College of Education, Northern Extension, Tumkur Dt. – 572106, Karnataka from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course.

It was made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining board / body were informed accordingly. Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore if any.

As per the decision of SRC, the recognition of the institution was withdrawn vide order no. F.No.APS00302/B.Ed/KA.2013-14/50634, dated 12.04.2013.

In the mean time, the institution had filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the appellate Authority, NCTE, and New Delhi against the Withdrawal order of SRC.

It was observed from the file, that there is management dispute filed in the court of the City Civil judge at Bangalore on O.S No.8054/ 1997. I,A. No. 13( Pg-604/C).

The appellate authorities vide order No.F.No.89- 398/2013/Appeal/14th Meeting-2013 dated 30.10.2013. noted that “the appellant himself admitted that he did not send certain documents to the SRC in reply to the show cause notice issued. The Council also noted that the appellant institution is deficient in a vital Infrastructure facility, namely, built up accommodation for running a B.Ed. college. The institution is having just 5661 sq. ft as against the requirement of 1500 sq. mts of built up area as per the NCTE norms and the appellant is only proposing construction of first floor. On the instructional front also the appellant institution does not have the full complement of teaching staff duly approved by the affiliating body as per the norms. In these circumstances the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in Withdrawing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.

After perusal of the documents, Memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on record and after considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in withdrawing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC confirmed. The Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against ’

The above decision of the appellate authority was placed before SRC in its 255th Meeting held on 13th – 15th November,2013 and the committee noted the matter.

Further, the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in



191

W.P. No. 49492 -49496 and 49812-49813 of 2013 and 50291-50297 of 2013.


“These petitions coming on orders, on service of notice on respondent No. 3, the learned

senior advocate Shri. Subramanya Jois appearing for the Counsel for the petitioners states

that notice to respondent No. 3, may be dispensed with an in the light of the

circumstances that this court has already taken a view in similar circumstances in other

batch of writ petitions, that these petitions may also be disposed of in the light of the

same.

2. On the facts of the present case , it is noticed that the petitioners are said to be running

colleges of education, which have been duly recognized by the National Council of Teacher

Education (NCTE) , a statuary body of Government of India and are affiliated to the

Tumkur University. It transpires that by virtue of the orders passed withdrawing

recognition for the academic year 2013-14, which was not preceded by any notice or an

opportunity of hearing, though there was a reply to the notice issued by the second

respondent, the second respondent however, without affording an opportunity of hearing,

has proceeded to pass several impugned orders in respect of the respective petitioners. It

is that which is sought to be questioned by this common petition filed by the several

institutions.

3. Having regard to the fact that there are no statement of objections filed to the present

petitions and that other respondents, though served, remaining unrepresented , the fact

that there was no opportunity of hearing and that the objections filed by the respondents

in so far as the show – cause –notice issued notice does not appear to have been

considered.


impugned annexures are quashed. The respondents, however, are at liberty to consider

the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the petitioners and

afford an opportunity of hearing and to proceed further in accordance with law.”



Accordingly, a letter was sent to Mr.Dinesh Kumar, advocate on 08.01.2014.

On 09.01.2014, an E-Mail was received from Mr.Dinesh Kumar advocate stating as under :

‘I have gone through the order dated 10.12.2013.In my opinion, in view of the observations contained in Paragraph 3 of the order, it is not a fit case to file an



192

appeal.The direction of the Hon’ble Court is to consider the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity of hearing.


The above opinion of the advocate was placed before SRC in its 259th Meeting held on 17th to 19th January 2014 .The Committee has considered the matter and decided that

‘Earlier decision taken in 257th meeting held on 20th -22nd Dec, 2013, to file an appeal through our Lawyer is revised. Even the Lawyer’s advice to file a petition for ‘review’ is put on hold.

Further, it is decided by the committee to issue notice in all the 7 cases(viz. APS01885, AOS0463, AOS00464, APS03424, AOS00302, APS03481 & APS01767) for a personal hearing in 260th meeting. Further course of action will be decided after the personal hearing.”

As per the decision of SRC in its 259th meeting held on 17th – 19th Jan, 2014, notice was served to the institutions for personal hearing in the 260th meeting of SRC on 22.01.2014.


i) APS01885,B.Ed,Kalpathuru Vidhya Samsthe, Tiptur,KA ii) AOS00463,B.Ed. Sree Siddaganga Education Society, Tumkur,KA. iii) AOS00464,B.Ed. Sri Siddhartha Education Society, Maralur,KA iv) APS03424,B.Ed. Indira Education Society, Tumkur.KA v) AOSO0302.B.Ed. K.S.E.F. College of Education, Tumkur,KA. vi) APS03481, B.Ed. Sri. T.V.V. College of Education, Tumkur.KA. have appeared and given personal a hearing.

One College by name Vidyavahini Samsthe, (APS01767.B.Ed ).Tumkur, KA, has not appeared for personal hearing inspite of being informed through e-mail, speed post & telephonic call.

As an introductory note the Chairperson, SRC has in 260th Meeting of SRC held on 20th and 30th January,2014 told to the representatives of the institutions that ‘that we (the Regional Committees) do not have the practice of personal hearing as per Regulations. However, in compliance to the directions of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, we have called you for personal hearing. You may say what all you want to say. It is entirely the discretion of the institution. But please submit in writing today after this hearing point wise what all submissions you wanted to make before SRC during the personal hearing session such that, later, there would not be scope either to the institution to say that SRC did not hear on these points or to the SRC that the institution has not submitted these points. You may also enclose what all documents you want to enclose to your written representation. Make a photocopy of your representation and take acknowledgement of SRO”.



193

The oral presentations made by this institution are recorded which is as under:

Represented by:

1. Dr. M. Hema Latha, Principal & 2. Deputy Director of Public Instruction & President of the Association

The Principal of the institution has made the presentation on behalf of the institute.

She has said that:

a. the institution is a federation and not a self financing institution. It is running only B.Ed. course. It is totally financed by the Government but still they have submitted the FDRs

b. the institution is collecting fee only as per Government norms c. the institution has already written to the Government for taking over the

institution by the Government d. the major deficiency with regard to the institution is that it has only 5600

Sq.ft. of built up area as against the required 16000 Sq.ft. a new building is proposed to be constructed but money is the major constraint as is collecting fee as per Government norms

e. the Nagar Sabha has given land to the institution as can be seen in the Nagar Sabha’s order and the building plan shows the Nagar Sabha number

f. another deficiency is that only 1+5 staff is available and the institution is about to appoint the required staff during the first week of February.

After the presentation, the institutions have requested for time till 03.02.2014 for submitting written representation. The Committee permitted and asked SRO to give signed photocopy of representation as acknowledgement for putting up in the file.

The institutions have on 03.02.2014 submitted the written representations along with the following documents: a) Photocopy of the notarized land document – sale deed dated 28.08.1985 in

favour of Karnataka State Education Federation College of Education b) Photocopy of notarized English version of Non Encumbrance Certificate for the

period 01.04.2004 to 14.04.2011. c) Form 15 pertaining to the property for the period 01.04.1985 to 13.01.2004 d) Photocopy of the Building Completion Certificate dated 10.07.2009 e) Photocopies of the building plans. f) Photocopies of Fixed Deposit Receipts. g) A copy of the endorsement dated 14.10.2011 containing the khatha record of

the land in the year 1990-91 h) Commencement certificate issued to Secretary K.S.E.F College from the Office

of the Tumkur Urban Development Authority dated 03.11.1989 to construct building for public purpose.

i) Copies of bills towards purchase of books j) Copy of the staff list and their individual profiles.

The committee decided as under;

‘Party appeared, was given a personal hearing. Thereafter, they were advises to give a written submission of their presentation. Signed photocopy was returned as



194

acknowledgement. Put up on file’

Accordingly, the institution has submitted its written representation on 03.02.2014, the SRC in its 261st Meeting considered the written representation and directed SRO to Process and put up comparative statement of documents submitted earlier and not submitted at the personal hearing.

Accordingly, the file is processed



The reply submitted by the institution to the personal hearing was duly considered and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persists as under.

1. Inadequate built-up area. 2. EC is not up-to-date. 3. There is no approved staff list. 4. Reject their application and reissue our earlier decision.


As per the decision of SRC, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 8.5.2014.

In the meantime, the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No. 9261-9269/2014 filed by 9 institutions of Tumkur University against the State of Karnataka and others wherein the institution is the 5th petitioner and SRC, NCTE is the 4th respondent. NCTE, New Delhi is not a party in the writ petition No.9261-9269/2014.

The Court order dated 16.04.2014 states as under:-

"The matter having been heard earlier, the interim order stood vacated. The petitions were found to be not maintainable and it was adjourned at the request of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the petitioners Thereafter, the matter having been listed before the Court on several occasions, the counsel for the petitioner had sought repeated adjournments on the ground that it should be dismissed only in the presence of the Senior Advocate engaged in the case. Today when the matter is called out, a similar request is made. 2. Since the petitions have been heard at length and as there is no substance in the petitions, repeated request by the learned counsel for the petitioners to dismiss the petitions if at all only in the presence of the Senior



195

Advocate engaged, is not a reason to adjourn the matter. The petitions are dismissed. 3. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as a last effort, states that he has made an application before the NCTE for re-consideration of the petitioners' case for recognition in the light of having complied with the norms prescribed by the NCTE.


Remarks of SRO As seen from the records, there is no application from the institution which is pending with the SRC as on 16.4.2014 as submitted by the petitioner institution in W.P.No.9261-9269/2014.

The Committee considered the matter. In the Hon’ble High Court, the Counsel for petitioners, as a last effort, stated that he had made an application before the NCTE for re-consideration of the petitioners case for recognition in the light of having complied with norms prescribed by the NCTE.


As seen from the records of this office (SRCNCTE), no application was/has been received from the Institution. The question of reconsideration, therefore, does not arise. The committee accordingly, decided to close the case. A letter intimating the decision of SRC was sent to the institution on 11.07.2014

The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs. and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order dated 15/10/2014 received by SRC on 30.10.2014 has confirmed the order of SRC.

“...Council noted that the appellant institution is functioning from a building, the built up area of which, as per BCC, is only 5661 sq. feet (approximately 560 sq. Meters). As per NCTE norms the minimum built up area should be 1500 sq. meters for a single unit of B.Ed course. The appellant institution has been unable to provide adequate build up area despite this deficiency having been pointed out on several occasions through show cause notice. The plea of the appellant, that construction of first floor on the existing building is going to start soon, is not found acceptable as the appellant is still not sure when the construction will actually start and by which date they will be able to meet the requirements of NCTE regulations.

During the course of appeal presentation, the appellant furnished copy of certificate of NIL Encumbrance dated 07.04.2014 and letter dated 5.07.2014

issued by Dy. Registrar,

Tumkur University conveying approval of teaching staff. Committee concluded that



196

even if these documents are accepted in compliance of the deficiencies, the appellant institution does not qualify on grounds of inadequate built up area. Committee, therefore, concluded to confirm the withdrawal order dated 4/8.05.2014 issued by SRC. After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC is confirmed.” The Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. The Committee took note of the matter.

52) APS03424 B.Ed

Indira College of Education,

Tumkur Karnataka

KA

Indira College of Education, Behind Tiles Factory, Upparahally, Tumkur, Karnataka Indira College of Education, Behind Tiles Factory, Upparahally, Tumkur, Karnataka was granted recognition on 18.07.2000 with an intake of 100 students with the condition to shift to own premises within 3 years. The institution was also offering D.Ed. course for which recognition was refused on 30.1.2006 (the appellate authority has confirmed the order of SRC). This office was in receipt of letter No.TY:VCPS:2011-12:98 dated 21.05.2011 from the Vice-Chancellor, Tumkur University, Tumkur by enclosing a list of 19 institutions with the committee observations by conducting inspections. The SRC in its 206th meeting held on 9th -10th June, 2011 noted the inspection report of the Vice-chancellor, Tumkur University, dated 21.05.2011 and the deficiencies in the 19 institutions in Tumkur District and decided to issue show cause notice under section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 08.07.2011. The institution had replied vide letter dated 10.8.2011.

The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st –23rd September, 2011 considered the

letter dt.21.05.2011 from Vice-Chancellor, Tumkur University pointing out

deficiencies in the 19 Tumkur University colleges and also reply of the above

institution dated 10.08.2011 and other documents submitted by the institution and

decided to cause composite inspection for all the courses at premises under

Section 17 of NCTE Act, to verify whether the institution is maintaining instructional

and infrastructural facilities as per NCTE norms. The institution was also directed

to submit certain documents within 30 days of the receipt of the notice, with

Demand Draft of Rs.40,000/- inspection fee towards the all the courses being run,

in favour of “The Member Secretary, NCTE” payable at Bangalore.

Accordingly, the inspection of the institution was carried out on 01.11.2011.



197

In the meantime, Tumkur University vide their letter received on 17.10.2011 had

conducted re-visit to the institution during 15-19 and 27th of July, 2011 and made

certain observations.

In the meantime, R.O.,NCTE, HQ vide letter dated 3rd November, 2011 had forwarded a complaint dated 30.7.2011 made by Sri. V.N. Ramesh, No.45, 3rd Cross, Ashok Nagar, B.H.Road, Tumkur against 5 institutions(including this) with direction to seek the comments from the institution on the complaint. The complainant brought to the notice of NCTE about the gross irregularities in the functioning of Divya B.Ed. College and also other B.Ed. Colleges(including this) in Tumkur. He alleged that inspite of good reputation of Tumkur University affiliated teacher education colleges, a few black-sheep like Divya College of Education, Nayala College of Education, Akshaya College of Education, Bharathi College of Education and Indira College of Education are bringing a bad name to other colleges in Tumkur. He had requested to initiate immediate action in the better interest of the students career and lives. The SRC in its 215th meeting held on 12th –13th December, 2011 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show cause Notice under section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 14.02.2012. The institution submitted its written representation on 20.03.2012.

Note: The Management is also offering D.Ed. course by name Indira Teacher Training Institute(APS03425) in the same building in Tumkur. Indira Teacher Training Institute was served Show Cause Notice on 15.6.2011 for certain deficiencies. Since there was no reply to the Show Cause Notice, the matter was placed before 220th meeting of SRC held on 30th –31st March, 2012. The SRC having considered the matter decided to withdraw recognition for D.Ed.(APS03425) and B.Ed.(APS03424) courses with effect from 2012-13. Whereas, while considering the recognition for B.Ed. Course, the Committee in its 215th meeting held on 12th –13th December, 2011 decided to serve Show cause Notice under section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution for B.Ed. course on 14.02.2012. The institution submitted its written representation on 20.03.2012 for B.Ed. course. Hence, the written representation was placed as above. The SRC in its 222nd meeting held on 9th -10th May considered the written reply vide letter dt.20.03.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Final Show Cause Notice was issued on 20.03.2012. The institution has submitted a written representation on 02.07.2012 The reply of the institution to the show cause notice dt. 02.07.2012 was duly considered by SRC in its 239th Meeting held on 26th – 27th February 2013 and the reply was unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persisted as under:



198

• As per NCTE regulations, 2009 lease from a private person is not allowed. The land and building should be in the name of the institution.

• No documentary proof is submitted towards appointment of qualified Principal.

• Approved staff list is not submitted.

• The documents like BCC, Building plan etc are submitted for leased premises only which is not allowed as per NCTE norms.

• Lecturer in Fine Arts is not eligible as per extant NCTE norms as he is not having MA degree in Fine Arts. Staff profile and affidavits are not submitted for both the newly appointed lecturers.

• No documentary proof has been submitted regarding adopting pay scales of UGC/State/Central Government to staff members as per NCTE regulations, norms and standards

Based on the above points the Southern Regional Committee decided to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by the Indira College of Education, Tumkur District, Karnataka from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course. It was made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining board / body was informed accordingly. Further, decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, if any.

As per the decision of SRC, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide order no. F.SRO.NCTE/APS0 3424/B.Ed/KA/2013-14/50383 dated 05.04.2013. The institution has filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the Appellate Authority , NCTE, New Delhi against withdrawal order of SRC. Accordingly, the original file of the institution was sent to the Hqrs on 02.08.2013.

Further, the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 49492 -49496 and 49812-49813 of 2013 and 50291-50297 of 2013 The Court Order dated 10.12.2013 from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 49492 -49496 and 49812-49813 of 2013 and 50291-50297 of 2013 is as under :- “These petitions coming on orders, on service of notice on respondent No. 3 , the

learned senior advocate Shri. Subramanya Jois appearing for the Counsel for the

petitioners states that notice to respondent No. 3, may be dispensed with an in the

light of the circumstances that this court has already taken a view in similar

circumstances in other batch of writ petitions, that these petitions may also be

disposed of in the light of the same.

2. On the facts of the present case , it is noticed that the petitioners are said to be

running colleges of education, which have been duly recognized by the National

Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) , a statuary body of Government of India

and are affiliated to the Tumkur University. It transpires that by virtue of the orders



199

passed withdrawing recognition for the academic year 2013-14, which was not

preceded by any notice or an opportunity of hearing, though there was a reply to

the notice issued by the second respondent, the second respondent however,

without affording an opportunity of hearing, has proceeded to pass several

impugned orders in respect of the respective petitioners. It is that which is sought

to be questioned by this common petition filed by the several institutions.

3. Having regard to the fact that there are no statement of objections filed to the

present petitions and that other respondents, though served, remaining

unrepresented , the fact that there was no opportunity of hearing and that the

objections filed by the respondents in so far as the show – cause –notice issued

notice does not appear to have been considered.


impugned annexures are quashed. The respondents, however, are at liberty to

consider the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the

petitioners and afford an opportunity of hearing and to proceed further in

accordance with law.”

The above court order was placed before SRC in its 257th Meeting held on 20th – 22nd December 2013 and the committee decided as under ; ‘A number of show cause notices have been given all these cases. Therefore, the Lawyer to be asked to file an appeal immediately in all the cases and obtain ‘stay’. The matter to be pursued with the Lawyer.’

Accordingly, a letter was sent to Mr.Dinesh Kumar ,advocate on 08.01.2014.On 09.01.2014, an E-Mail was received from Mr.Dinesh Kumar ,advocate stating as under : ‘I have gone through the order dated 10.12.2013.In my opinion, in view of the observations contained in Paragraph 3 of the order, it is not a fit case to file an appeal.The direction of the Hon’ble Court is to consider the objections filed to the original notice after re-issuing notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity of hearing.


The above opinion of the advocate was placed before SRC in its 259th Meeting held on 17th to 19th January 2014 .The Committee has considered the matter and decided that ‘earlier decision taken in 257th meeting held on 20th -22nd Dec, 2013, to file an appeal through our Lawyer is revised. Even the Lawyer’s advice to file a petition for ‘review’ is put on hold. Further, it is decided by the committee to issue notice in all the 7 cases(viz. APS01885 , AOS0463, AOS00464, APS03424, AOS00302, APS03481 & APS01767) for a personal hearing in 260th meeting. Further course of action will be decided after the personal hearing.”



200

As per the decision of SRC in its 259th meeting held on 17th – 19th Jan, 2014, a notice was served to the institutions for personal hearing in the 260th meeting of SRC on 22.01.2014. Accordingly, the representatives of six of the seven institutions, Viz, i) APS01885,B.Ed,Kalpathuru Vidhya Samsthe, Tiptur,KA ii) AOS00463,B.Ed. Sree Siddaganga Education Society, Tumkur,KA. iii) AOS00464,B.Ed. Sri Siddhartha Education Society, Maralur,KA iv) APS03424,B.Ed. Indira Education Society, Tumkur.KA v) AOSO0302.B.Ed. K.S.E.F. College of Education, Tumkur,KA. vi) APS03481, B.Ed. Sri. T.V.V. College of Education, Tumkur.KA. have appeared and given personal a hearing. One College by name Vidyavahini Samsthe, (APS01767.B.Ed ).Tumkur, KA, has not appeared for personal hearing inspite of being informed through e-mail, speed post & telephonic call. As an introductory note the Chairperson, SRC has in 260th Meeting of SRC held on 20th and 30th January,2014 told to the representatives of the institutions that ‘that we (the Regional Committees) do not have the practice of personal hearing as per Regulations. However, in compliance to the directions of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, we have called you for personal hearing. You may say what all you want to say. It is entirely the discretion of the institution. But please submit in writing today after this hearing point wise what all submissions you wanted to make before SRC during the personal hearing session such that, later, there would not be scope either to the institution to say that SRC did not hear on these points or to the SRC that the institution has not submitted these points. You may also enclose what all documents you want to enclose to your written representation. Make a photocopy of your representation and take acknowledgement of SRO”. The oral presentations made by these institutions are recorded which are as under: APS03424,B.Ed. Indira Education Society, Tumkur, Karnataka.

a) An affidavit from the General Secretary regarding possession of land b) A notarized photocopy of the lease deed dated 05.03.2012 between Indira

Education Society and Sri .Shivamurthy for a period of 30 years. c) A copy of the request letter addressed to the Registrar for approval of staff

list. As per the decision of SRC, a notice for personal hearing was issued to the institution on 22.01.2014.

The committee decided as under; ‘Party appeared .Was given a personal hearing. Thereafter, they were advises to give a written submission of their presentation. Signed photocopy was returned as acknowledgement. Put up on file’



201

Accordingly, the institution has submitted its written representation on 03.02.2014, The committee in its 261st Meeting considered the written representation and directed SRO to Process and put up comparative statement of documents submitted earlier and not submitted at the personal hearing. Accordingly, the file is processed The Committee in compliance to the Hon’ble High Court directions dated 10.12.2013; in its 257th meeting decided to give personal hearing. Accordingly, the said college was given a personal hearing in its 260th meeting held on 29-31st Jan, 2014 and advised to give a written representation. The institution submitted its written representation along with the documents on 03.02.2014. The reply submitted by the institution to the personal hearing was duly considered by the SRC in its 264th meeting held during 1-3 March, 2014 and the reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persists as under:-

1. The institution does not have title to the lands. In March 2012, they cannot register a lease-deed; NCTE Regulations do not permit that. In this case, the lease deed is limited to the building

2. The Institution had applied for permission to shift. They cannot shift in 2012 to a leased building.

3. Staff list is not approved by competent authority; it is not also in accordance with NCTE norms.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations, to reject the application and advised SRO to reissue earlier decision of withdrawal of recognition. As per the decision of SRC, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 25.4.2014. In the meantime, the institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No. 9261-9269/2014 filed by 9 institutions of Tumkur University against the State of Karnataka and others wherein the institution is the 4th petitioner and SRC, NCTE is the 4th respondent. NCTE, New Delhi is not a party in the writ petition No.9261-9269/2014. The Court order dated 16.04.2014 states as under:- "The matter having been heard earlier, the interim order stood vacated. The petitions were found to be not maintainable and it was adjourned at the request of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the petitioners Thereafter, the matter having been listed before the Court on several occasions, the counsel for the petitioner had sought repeated adjournments on the ground that it should be dismissed only in the presence of the Senior Advocate engaged in the case. Today when the matter is called out, a similar request is made.



202

2. Since the petitions have been heard at length and as there is no substance in the petitions, repeated request by the learned counsel for the petitioners to dismiss the petitions if at all only in the presence of the Senior Advocate engaged, is not a reason to adjourn the matter. The petitions are dismissed. 3. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as a last effort, states that he has made an application before the NCTE for re-consideration of the petitioners' case for recognition in the light of having complied with the norms prescribed by the NCTE.

If such an application has been made, it is for the NCTE to take further steps, in accordance with law and to expedite the same. With that observation, the petitions stand dismissed." Remarks of SRO As seen from the records, there is no application from the institution which is pending with the SRC as on 16.4.2014 as submitted by the petitioner institution in W.P.No.9261-9269/2014. The SRC in its 267th Meeting held on 12th – 13th May, 2014 considered the matter. In the Hon’ble High Court, the Counsel for petitioners, as a last effort, stated that he had made an application before the NCTE for re-consideration of the petitioner’s case for recognition in the light of having complied with norms prescribed by the NCTE. The Hon’ble Court in their order dated 16.04.2014 stated that, if such an application had been made, (as mentioned above), it was for the NCTE to take further steps, in accordance with law, and to expedite the same. With that observation, the petitions were dismissed. As seen from the records of this office (SRCNCTE), no application was/has been received from the Institution. The question of reconsideration, therefore, does not arise. The committee therefore, decided to close the case. As per the decision of SRC a letter intimating the decision of SRC was sent on 22/07/2014. The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs. and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order dated 15/10/2014 received by SRC on 30.10.2014 has confirmed the order of SRC. “....The Council noted that all the three grounds on which recognition has been withdrawn are valid. The land and building has been leased by an individual and therefore it cannot be considered as the own land of the institution. The lease is reported to be limited to the building only. Further the approval of staff list has been obtained after withdrawal and making of appeal in the circumstances the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in withdrawing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC confirmed.



203

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC is confirmed. The Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against. The Committee took note of the matter.

53) APS05312 D.T.Ed

Sri Venkateshwar

a Teacher Training Institute,

Thiruvallur, Tamilnadu.

TN

Sri Venkateshwara Teacher Training Institute, Indira Gandhi Street, Chittoor Road, K.G. Kandigal, Thiruttani, Thiruvallur, Pin – 631205, Tamilnadu.

Sri Venkateshwara Teacher Training Institute, Indira Gandhi Street, Chittoor Road, K.G. Kandigal, Thiruttani, Thiruvallur, Pin – 631205, Tamilnadu had submitted an application for seeking grant of recognition for D.T.Ed course on 02.01.2006.

The application was processed and recognition to the institution for D.T.Ed course was granted on 17.11.2006 with an annual intake of 50 students. As per the recognition order the institution was required to shift to its own premises within three years from date of recognition.

The institution vide its letter dated 23.08.2010 submitted Rs. 40000/- in favour of Member Secretary, NCTE for getting permission to shift the institute to the newly constructed building. The committee considered the matter in its 196th meeting held on 15th-16th September 2010 and decided to cause inspection for shifting of premises.

The inspection was carried out on 19.11.2010. The SRC in its 199th meeting held on 22nd-23rd December 2010 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show Cause Notice under NCTE Act.. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 02.02.2011. The institution submitted its reply on 03.03.2011.

The institution has replied vide letter dt.. 03.03.2011 for the deficiencies pointed in the show causenotice and committee considered the replies and noted the following;

• The building plan is not submitted by the institution with approval of competent Govt. authority.

• Duly filled in questionnaire is not submitted.

• Affidavit on Rs. 100/- by the competent authority in the prescribed format is not submitted.

• Building completion certificate from the Govt. competent authority is not submitted.

• The management has not submitted the fixed deposits in joint name towards Endowment fund & Reserve fund from a Nationalized Bank for Rs. 5 lacs and 3 lacs respectively is to be submitted.

• Language Learning Lab is not available.

• Educational Technology Lab is not shifted from the old building. No documentary proof is submitted for having shifted the Educational Technology Lab.



204

The SRC in its 202nd meeting held on 14th-15th March 2011 considered the reply to the Show Cause Notice Dt. 03.03.2011 and as the reply was not satisfactory, the committee decided to withdraw the recognition of the D.T.Ed course run by Sri Venkateshwara Teacher Institute, Thiruvallur, Tamilnadu, from the academic year 2012-13, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in D.T.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course. Accordingly, order withdrawing recognition was issued to the institution on 18.04.2011.

A court order has been received on 12.06.2012 and the judgment dt.27.04.2012 reads as under:

“…in such circumstances, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned of order of the first respondent dt.18.04.011, and to remit the matter back to the first respondent (SRC,NCTE), to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, to the show cause Notice, dt.2.2.2011, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner institute. The said process shall be completed by the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands ordered. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is enclosed.”

Accordingly, the matter was placed before SRC in its 224th meeting held on 14th-17th June 2012 and the committee decided to call for submission of additional written explanation if any from the management and further on receipt of the application, the petitioner will be given an opportunity for personal hearing; before taking a decision. Accordingly, a letter was sent to the institution on 25.06.2012.

In response to the letter, the institution submitted written representation vide letter dt.07.07.2012. The institution has submitted a point wise reply on the grounds on which the recognition was withdrawn by the SRC in its 202nd meeting held on 14th-15th March 2011.

The SRC in its 231st meeting held on 22nd-23rd August, 2012 considered, the order of Hon’ble High court of Tamilnadu dt.27.04.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show Cause Notice under section 14 (1) of NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 13.09.2012. The institution submitted its written representation on 05.10.2012.

The SRC in its 234th meeting held on 17th-18th October, 2012 considered the written representation of the institution vide letter dt. 05/10/2012 and other relevant documents, along with the original file of the institution and decided to permit shifting to the new premises subject to submission of approved staff list within 60 days from the receipt of this letter. Accordingly, shifting order was issued to the institution on 04.12.2012.

The institution vide its letter dtd. 07.01.2013 has stated that ‘ we submit the approved staff list for favour of information and as required by the NCTE-SRC, Bangalore-72.’

Sl. No. Name of the Post Name of the approved staff



205

1 Principal G.NarasimhuluMandadi

2 Telugu Lecturer Shri. Narasimhulu

3 English Lecturer V. Sampoornam

4 Mathematics Lecturer K.Hema Reddy

5 Science Lecturer N.Koteeswara Rao

6 Social Science Lecturer C. Madhava Raju

The Southern Regional Committee in its 244th Meeting held during 17-18 October 2012 considered the written reply of the institution on the above matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw recognition under NCTE ACT for the following reasons:-

As per the direction of the committee in its 234th meeting, the institution was permitted to shift to the new premises subject to the condition that approved staff list to be submitted within 60 days of the receipt of the letter dt.04.12.2012. But the institution has not submitted duly approved staff list from the affiliating body for the course being run till date. Before shifting to the new premises, the institution should already have approved staff list when the institution was running at the old premises. Keeping in view, Supreme Court vide their order in Civil Appeal No. 1125-1128/2011 in SLP No. 17165-68/2009 filed by NCTE Vs others, which reads as under:

“…an institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfills the conditions specified in various clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the application by the Regional Committee and communication of the decision on the issue of recognition it strictly adhered to”.

Based on the above points the committee decided to withdraw the recognition of the D.T.Ed course run by the Sri Venkateshwara Teacher Training Institute, Indira Gandhi Street, Chittoor Road, K.G. Kandigal, Thiruttani, Thiruvalur,-631205, Tamilnadu, from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in D.T.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course.

As per the decision of SRC, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide F.No. APS05312/D.T.Ed/TN/2013-14/52053 dated 01.06.2013

The institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.No. 18655 of 2013.

On 17.07.2013, a letter was received from Mr.K..Ramakrishna Reddy, advocate enclosing a copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner .i.eSriVenkateshwara Teacher Training Institute, Indira Gandhi Street, Chittoor Road, K.G. Kandigal, Thiruttani, Thiruvallur, Pin – 631205, Tamilnadu and a copy of the counter affidavit to be filed in W.P.No. 18655 of 2013.

A letter was addressed to the advocate Sri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy on 26.07.2013



206

enclosing the duly signed counter affidavit in W.P.No. 18655 of 2013 .

On 02.09.2013, a court order dated 05.08.2013 in W.P.No. 18655 of 2013 was received by this office which read as under ;

“…the teachers employed by the petitioner should be qualified teachers. The petitioner is involved in training future teachers. Therefore, these candidates should be given teaching by qualified faculty members .The condition regarding approval of staff list produced by the petitioner dated 31 May 2013 was not the approved staff list, it cannot be said that NCTE erred in withdrawing the recognition. Therefore, I do not see any merits in the contention raised by the petitioner.”

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs, consequently, M.P.No. 1/2013 is also dismissed.’

On 01.10.2013, a copy of the Court order in W.A.No. 1702 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 dated 23.08.2013 is received by this office . The Court has made the following observations ;

“….though statutory appeal is available to the appellant/writ petition as against the impugned order passed by the 1strespondent, it has not chosen to avail the said remedy and instead filed the writ petition.

This court , on an independent application of mind and careful consideration of the materials placed before us, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learning judge and finding no merits in this writ appeal, this writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

On 18.02.2014, the institution has submitted a written representation stating us under ;

“…with reference to the above, we pray to submit that we have admitted students in 1st year for the year 2013-14 under management quota as per the quota accepted by the management and SCERT, Chennai – 06.

In the meantime, we have received withdrawal letter dated 01.06.2013 without any prior notice to the above institution.

The ongoing students are attending the classes regularly who are admitted under management quota for the year 2013-14.

The same has been represented to the Director, SCERT .,Chennai-06 on 09.12.2013.The Director of SCERT assured to save the life of ongoing students if permission is given by NCTE-SRC ,Bangalore – 72 for the 1st year ongoing students.

In view of the above, we beg NCTE-SRC to give life to the on going students if permission is given by SRC,NCTE. Bangalore – 72 for the 1st year ongoing students.

In the above circumstances, we request to kindly permit the ongoing 1st



207

year students for the year 2013-14 admitted before withdrawal letter under management quota , may please ne considered sympathetically.”

The institution has submitted another written representation on 17.02.2014 which is as under;

”…regarding staff list furnished we wish to submit that Mrs.G.P.Premaleela , approved science lecturer , has applied for long medical leave from 30.11.2011 under medical grounds and hence in her vacant place Mr.N.Koteeshwara Rao was posted from 01.12.2011 temporarily and his approval proposals were submitted to SCERT,Chennai on 05.12.2011 itself. The appointment of Mr.N.Koteeshwara Rao was also recommended by the Principal, DIET, Thirur to SCERT, Chennai in written, after the verification of all his original certificates.

In the mean time , while giving list of staff mistakenly Mr.N.koteeshwara Rao’s name has been given instead of Mr.G.P.Premaleela who is an approved staff gone on medical leave. Subsequently G.P.Premaleela joined on duty on 30.01.2013 after het medical leave.”

The institution has submitted the following details of staff ;

Sl. No.

Name of the Post Name of the approved staff

1 Principal G.NarasimhuluMandadi

2 Telugu Lecturer D.Venkatesan

3 English Lecturer V. Sampoornam

4 Mathematics Lecturer K.Hema Reddy

5 Science Lecturer G.P.Premaleela

6 Social Science Lecturer C. Madhava Raju

The institution has submitted a copy of the letter addressed to the Principal, D.I.ET on 25.03.2013 .The institution has enclosed a copy of the student list whose admissions have been made in the year 2013-14.

The institution has submitted a written representation on 26.02.2014 which is as under ;

“We submit that the representation has been submitted to the Director, SCERT, Chennai – 6 on 20.02.2014 requesting to permit the ongoing students to undergo teaching practice.

However, Director, SCERT, Chennai informed us to get permission letter from NCTE –SRC, so that we will help the students to appear in the Govt. Exams for the year 2013-14 , ongoing students.

In the above circumstances, we request the Regional Director, NCTE-SRC to help the ongoing students of I year for the year 2013-14 admitted before 01.06.2013.”



208

Note of SRO:

1. Withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide F.No. APS05312/D.T.Ed/TN/2013 14 /52053 dated 01.06.2013.Recognition of the institution was withdrawn from the year 2013-14. 2 .The institution has not approached the appellate authority, after withdrawal of recognition. 3. The institution has made admissions for the year 2013-14 , prior to the issue of withdrawal order. 4.The institution has approached the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.18665 of 2013. 5. NCTE has filed writ appeal in the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A.No.1702 of 2013. The court orders are as mentioned above 6. The institution has submitted approved staff list comprising of one principal and 5 Lecturers.

The SRC in its 266th meeting held on 2nd May, 2014 considered the letter from the institution dated 18.02.2014 & 26.02.2014 seeking permission for the ongoing 1st year students of D.T.Ed course who were admitted under management quota before withdrawal letter issued to the institution, decided to allow the request of the institution for continuation of the students in the 1st year of D.T.Ed course who were admitted before issue of withdrawal order of NCTE. A letter intimating the decision of SRC was sent to the institution on 15.05.2014. The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the NCTE Appellate Authority in its order dated 15.10.2014. order stated as follows: “…sh. K. Sathyataj, correspondent, Sri Venkateshwara Teacher Training Institute, Thiruvallur, Tamilnadu presented the case of the appellant institution on 12.09.2014. in the appeal and during personal presentation and in the letter dt. 12.09.2014 the appellant submitted that “ recognition was withdrawn in the SRCs order dt.01.06.2013 without giving any show cause notice; the institution is running with good results since 2006-07 and the institution may be allowed to continue to admit students from 2014-15 by cancelling the withdrawal order.”

The Council noted that the SRC last withdrew recognition of the appellant institution in their order dt.01.06.2013 on the ground that “as per the direction of the SRC in its 234th meeting, the institution was permitted to shift to the new premises subject to the condition that approved staff list to be submitted within 60 days of the receipt of the letter dt.04.12.2012. But the institution has not submitted duly approved staff list from the affiliating body for the course being run till date. Before shifting to the new premises, the institution should already have approved staff list when the institution was running at the old premises.” An earlier withdrawal order dt.18.04.2011 was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Council also noted that after the issue of the withdrawal order dt.01.06.2013, the appellant filed a writ petition No.18655 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the order. The Hon'ble High Court in their order dt.05.08.2013, finding no merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner and holding that it cannot be said that the NCTE erred in withdrawing the recognition dismissed the petition. The appellant thereafter filed a Writ Appeal WA No. 17702 of 2013 and M.P.No. 1 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras to set aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court



209

dt.05.08.2013 in W.P.No. 18655 of 2013. The Hon'ble High Court passed the following order on 23.08.2013. “22) Though statutory appeal is available to the appellate /writ petitioner as against the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, it has not chosen to avail the said remedy and instead filed the writ petition. 23) this Court, on an independent application of mind and careful consideration of the materials placed before us, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Judge and finding no merits in this writ appeal, this Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

The Council noted that following the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dt.23.08.2013, the appellant wrote letters to the SRC requesting permission to continue the first year (2013-14) students of D.T.Ed admitted under management quota before the issue of the withdrawal order dt.01.06.2013. The SRC in their 266th meeting held on 02.05.2014 considered the matter and decided to accede to the request. SRC issued a letter dt.15.05.2014 communicating their decision. The Council noted that the matter having been finally disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in their orders dt.05.08.2013 and 23.08.2013 there is no scope for any appeal further. In the circumstances the Council concluded that the request contained in the so called Appeal dt.10.07.2014 for admitting students in the first year of D.T.Ed in the academic session 2014-15 cannot be accepted.

After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the request contained in the so called Appeal dt. 10.07.2014 for admitting students in the first year of D.T.Ed. in the academic session 2014-15 cannot be accepted.


54) SRCAPP 639 D.El.Ed

Venkatagiri Teacher Training

Co0llege, Nellore, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

Venkatagiri Teacher Training College, Plot No.62, Street No.1, Upadhyayanagar, Venkatagiri, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524132

Shiva Educational Society, Plot No.62, 1st line, Upadhyaya nagar, Venkatagiri, Nellore, Pradesh-524132 had applied for recognition to Venkatagiri Teacher Training College, Plot No.62, Street No.1, Upadhyayanagar, Venkatagiri, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524132 to D.El.Ed course online on 22.09.2011 for two duration under Section 14 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 and received in the Southern Regional Committee. NCTE on 03.10.2011.

NCTE-H’qrs had directed to process the applications in accordance with NCTE Regulations 2009, it amndment Notified on 26th November, 2010 which reads as follows:-

2(B) for sub Regulation (1-A) the following shall be submitted namely.”1(1-A) (1) the application shall be summarily rejected under one or more of the following circumstances:-



210

The processing fee, as provided under Rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 is not furnished on or before the date of submission of online application.

Hard copy In triplicate of the online application is not dispatched within 7 days

of the submission of the online application.

Copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority indicating that the society. Institution applying for the Course possessed land on the date of application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of online application.

The SRC considered the matter in 213th Meeting held on 6th -7th November, 2011 and on careful perusal of the original file of the institution and other related documents, NCTE Act 1993, Regulations and guidelines from time to time laid on the table, the Regional Committee decided to reject the application on the following grounds:-

Hard copy submitted after the stipulated period of 7 days from the date on online submission.

Accordingly, a rejection letter was issued to the institution videF.No.SRCAPP639/(2012-13)/D.El.Ed/AP/2011-12/36202 dated 23/01/2012, along with returning of Processing of fee of Rs.40,000/-and the Original FDR’s of Rs.5 Lakhs and Rs.3 Lakhs submitted by the institution.

Now, the institution has filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the Appellate Authority, NCTE, New Delhi. Against the rejection order of SRC.

As per the decision of SRC, a rejection order was issued to the institution on 23.01.2012

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE-H’qrs and the appellate authority vide order No. F.No.89-272/2014 Appeal/11th meeting -2014 dated 15.10.2014 stating that, “The Correspondent, Venkatagiri Teachers Training College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), Preferred an appeal dated 11.06.2014 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1933 against the said Order.

Sh.B.N.Naik, Correspondent and Sh. V.V. Ramana Reddy, Principal (Retd),

Venkatagiri Teachers Training College, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh presented

the case of the appellant institution on 09.09.2014. In the appeal and during

personal presentation it was submitted that “Shiva Education Society has

applied for D.El.Ed course online on 23.09.2011. We tried to submit the



211

hard copies on 29.09.2011 in person through our messenger. Unfortunately

he could not trace the correct address because of changing of address. We

ourselves went personally and submitted hard copies on 03.10.2011

without any difficulty.”

Council noted that there is an approximate delay of 2 years and 2 months in

filing appeal against the impugned order dated 23.01.2012. No reasons for

this inordinate delay are mentioned in the Memoranda of Appeal. The

appellant also could not give any satisfactory explanation for delay. During

the course of appeal presentation the appellant mentioned that appeal was

sent to the office of SRC in February, 2012 which also could not be

substantiated by him. Being time barred, Committee decided to reject the

appeal.

On perusal of the Memoranda of Appeal, affidavit, documents on record

and oral arguments advanced during the hearing, committee decided that

the appeal is time barred and hence not admitted.”


55) SRCAPP2187 B.Ed

Adikavi Nannaya

University, East

Godavari, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

Adikavi Nannaya University , Plot No. 001,Rajahmundry Village, Post and Taluk, East Godavari District – 533105,Andhra Pradesh

Adikavi Nannaya University , Plot No. 001,Rajahmundry Village, Post and

Taluk, East Godavari District – 533105,Andhra Pradesh was granted

recognition for conducting B.Ed course of one year duration with an intake of 100

students from the academic session 2014-15 on 26.02.2014.

On 15.09.2014, a complaint letter dated 12.09.2014 was received by this office

from Dr. Ramireddy Sivarami Reddy, B.Nidamanuru Post, N.G.Padu Mandal,

Prakasam District-523183, Andhra Pradesh regarding irregularities in Adikavi

Nannaya University, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh as under:-

"The process of introduction of Department of Education in a University involves

existence of demand from public and a proposal from the parent University viz.,

Andhra University addressed to the AKNU. In the present case there was no such

proposal or demand. This is because of existence of around 66 B.Ed colleges in

the two districts (East and West Godavari) which are more than sufficient to meet

the existing demand. There was no permission from the State Government also.

Despite this the department of Education was introduced in AKNU contrary to the

requisite procedure. Further a professor from the parent University should be

nominated as Dean and Chairman, Board of Studies, before starting the process

of recruitment of faculty. Deviating from the norm, the AKNU has started the

process of faculty recruitment by giving an advertisement in the local edition of



212

local Telugu Daily and in one national paper.

The advertisement was published on 8th February, 2014 and the last date of

submission of applications was 13th February, 2014 which is also a deviation from

the standard rule of giving 30 days time for any post of recruitment in the

University. There was also gross negligence in not following the roaster points

(100 point scale) in the advertisement by not indicating the number of vacancies

against each social category of the post.

Also the applicants were informed over telephone on 14th February, 2014 evening

to attend the interview on 15th February, 2014 morning, which is also against the

standard rule of giving two weeks time.

The interview board consisted of the following personnel:

1. Prof. K. Raghu Babu, ( Prof. of Engineering Chemistry) Registrar, Aknu.

2. Dr. Digumarti Bhaskara Rao, Principal of Private Un-aided college viz.,

R.V.R. College of Education, Guntur.

3. Shri I.N.G.S. Prasad, Lecturer in Education, Govt. IASE, Rajahmundry.

4. Shri Burayya, Retired Principal if DIET.

5. Dr. Moses, Lecturer in Chemistry, Principal Govt. Degree College.,

Mandapeta, E.G. Dist.

The selection committee should consist of persons indicated in the enclosed

copy of G.O.Ms.No. 14 dated 20th February, 2010 of Government of Andhra

Pradesh, (Page Nos. 56 to 58) which was not adhered to by the AKNU. This is

gross violation of the established rules and regulations of the A.P. Universities

Act.

Further the list of selected candidates was released on the night of 15

February, 2014 and the candidates were asked to report for duty on Sundary,

the 16th of February, 2014 to submit joining reports and the joining date is

indicated as 17th February, 2014. The joining reports along with copies of the

appointment letters were sent to NCTE. However, only one person viz.,

Head/Principal Dr.Kondru Subbaroa has actually joined and the remaining

candidates were asked to continue in their respective previous employment

till further notice. Thereafter, from 1st August, 2014 the remaining selected

candidates were taken into employment. It is also informally understood that

these candidates have not apparently reported to the affiliated body, the

University, the regulatory body NCTE-SRC Bangalore and the concerned

college managements through registered post. This leads to the case of dual

employment status to all these candidates.

The counseling for admission to the B.Ed one year course is starting from 21



213

of September, 2014. It is requested that the process of counseling may be

stalled immediately as this is the last batch for one year B.Ed program in the

country and the existing recruited faculty are not competent to the already

deteriorated teacher education programs in the state. Also there is a petition

filed by the undersigned on the irregularities in the recruitment of staff which is

pending in the High Court.

Pending decision from the High Court and the gross irregularities in the entire

process of creating of the department and the recruitment, it is requested to

take appropriate immediate action."

On 08.10.2014,a letter was addressed to the Complainant seeking an affidavit and

proof of identity .On 28.10.2014, the complainant has submitted a duly signed

affidavit on Rs. 100 /- stamp paper along with the below mentioned documents :-

(1) A copy of the advertisement dated 07.02.2014 calling for applications from

eligible candidates for the position of Assistant Professors (Ad-hoc) purely on

temporary basis in the Department of Education for the academic year 2014-15.

(2) A copy of the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor dated 12.02.2014

regarding advertisement to be published in the news paper calling for qualified

subject teachersand constitution of a Committee to scrutinize the applications

received.

(3) A copy of the writ petition W.P.No. 16625 of 2014 filed by the Complainant

in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad against the University (1-R), The

Government of Andhra Pradesh (2-R) and R.Sambasiva Rao, Assistant Professor

(3-R)

(4) A copy of the abstract of the Education Department , Government of

Andhra Pradesh with respect to Selection Committee specifications.

The complainant has filed a Writ Petition No. 16625 of 2014 and the matter is

pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

In view of the above, the complaint matter along with supporting documents is

placed before SRC for its consideration and decision.

The Committee considered the matter, complaint dated 12.09.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to send the complaint to the University for their specific comments.

56) ----- ---

Manjunath. B, Hagaragi,

Complaint against Gulbarga University Gulbarga

A complaint letter dated 04.09.2014 from President Manjunath B. Hagaragi, JKRV Organization, received by SRC–NCTE on 10.09.2014 with a request to taken



214

Gulbarga. KA

action against Gulbarga University Gulbarga. A letter was sent to President Manjunath B. Hagaragi, JKRV Organization, on 22.09.2014 for veracity of the complaint letter asking to submit an affidavit and information. The affidavit was received by SRC on 30.10.2014 along with relevant documents from President, Manjunath B. Hagaragi, JKRV Organization, in the affidavit stating as follows: I, Manjunath B. Hagaragi, State President of JKRV Organization Gulbarga Age: Major, Occ: SocialWork, R/o Basava Tower, 1st Floor, Tank Band Road, Near Kalyani Kalyana Mantapa, Gulbarga, do hereby state oath as under:- As per your Letter No.F.SRO/NCTE/KA/Complaint/201-15/59653, dated 22.09.2014 I stand by whatever is written in my earlier letter dated 04.09.2014 submitted to your office.

Regarding allegation of No.5: In many of the colleges there is not teaching and training of activates regularly and seriously been conducted. Instead, the old records are building up every year in place of original records without undergoing training

This is because of constitution of B.Ed coordination Boards for moderation of internal assessment activities as per the wish and will of the university authorities and Teacher education colleges as against the course regulation No.10 governing B.Ed degree semester course (Kindly refer page No.40 of the enclosures): and refer enclosures from page 01 to 41: the boards constituted from page 09 to 37 were against the course regulations and page 01 to 09 are as per the regulations.

Regarding allegation Nos.01 to 04 and 06 written in the letter dated 04.09.2014: I have sought all the local enquiry committee reports of all the teacher education colleges from the university through RTI letter dated 19.08.2014 I will submit all the documents showing the status of teaching staff, building , other infrastructural facilities available at different teacher education colleges as soon as I receive the documents from the university for your perusal.

I also assure you that whenever your team visits university for enquiry we will extend our cooperation and help so as The Committee considered the matter, complaint dated 04.09.2014, affidavit dated 30.10.2014 , decided and advised Southern Regional Office to ask the complainant to give more specific allegations.

57) APS03247 APS08842

M.Ed M.Ed-AI

St. Xavier’s Collge of

Education, Tiruneveli, Tamilnadu.

St. Xavier’s College of Education, Palayamkottai – 627002, Tiruneveli District, Tamilnadu. Sl No

Details of the Institution Status



215

TN 1 APS03247-M.Ed St. Xavier’s College of Education, Palayamkottai Tamilnadu

Recognition was granted to St. Xavier’s College of Education, Palayamkottai – 627002, Tiruneveli District, Tamilnadu for M.Ed with an intake of 25 students on 06.06.2004 (as per MIS).

2 APS08842-M.Ed-AI St. Xavier’s College of Education, Palayamkottai Tamilnadu

The Society of St. Francis Xavier, Palayamkottai, Tamilnadu has submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant recognition to St.Xavier’s College of Education, palayamkottai Post, Tiruneveli District-627002, Tamilnadu for M.Ed (Additional Intake) course of one year for additional intake of 25 students on 21.06.2007. The application of the institution scrutinized and after the inspection of the institution finally SRC had granted recognition for M.Ed course of one year duration with an annual intake of 50 students which includes the existing intake of 25 students and an additional intake of 25 on 11.12.2007.

A complaint has been received from A. T. Jai Prasad, Asst. Professor, St. Xavier’s College of Education, Palayamkottai – 627002, Tiruneveli District, Tamilnadu on 05.08.2014 complaining against the St. Xavier’s College of Education that the college had taken recognition from NCTE showing him in staff list as a lecturer for M.Ed course in 2004 and for M.Ed – AI in 2007 assuring him that they would appoint him as a permanent lecture post and will offer UGC Scale pay in future. But the management after getting recognition for two courses showing his name as a lecturer and after taking his long time service, till date they had not appointed him as a permanent lecturer and allowing him to work only as a management staff for a low salary (Copy enclosed). Note: As per the staff list submitted by St. Xavier’s College of Education for M.Ed course A. T. Jai Prasad is shown as lecturer. The SRC in its 272nd meeting held on 01st -02nd September,2014 considered the

complaint from A.T. Jai Prasad, Asst. Professor of the said college vide his

complaint letter dated 05.08.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office

to ascertain veracity of complaint. Further, to ask the complainant to file an

affidavit confirming his complaint.



216

Accordingly, a letter was sent to A. T. Jai Prasad, Asst. Professor, St. Xavier’s College of Education, Palayamkottai – 627002, Tiruneveli District, Tamilnadu, on 10.10.2014 asking him to submit an affidavit. The affidavit was received by SRC on 03.11.2014 along with relevant documents from A. T. Jai Prasad, Asst. Professor, St. Xavier’s College of Education Tamilnadu, stating as follows:

“……I would like to submit the details along with the documentary proof and proof of my identity. I have enclosed an affidavit on Rs.10/- stamp paper ascertaining the complaint under my signature and the copies of evidences required by you for your perusal and favorable disposal”. The Committee considered the matter, complaint dated 05.08.2014, affidavit dated 03.11.2014 , decided and advised Southern Regional Office to send the complaint to the University for examination and comments.

58) APS09595 D.Ed

Seyyid Madani

Charitable Trust,

Dakshina Kannada,

Karnataka. KA

SeyyidMadani Charitable Trust, SeyyidMadani D.Ed. College, 17/103/6, Block No.17, Ullal Village of Mangalore Taluk, Ombathukere, Ullal, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada -575020,Karnataka. SeyyidMadani Charitable Trust(R), Ullal, Mangalore, Karnataka has submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition for conducting D.Ed course with an annual intake of 50 on 05.09.2008. The application was processed, inspection was conducted and finally,SRC NCTE granted recognition to SeyyidMadaniD.Ed. College, 17/103/6, Block No.17, Ullal Village of Mangalore Taluk, Ombathukere, Ullal, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada -575020, Karnataka. for conducting D.Ed course of two years duration with an annual intake of 50 students from the academic session 2009-2010, on 30.07.2009. Now, the institution has submitted its letter dated 11.11.2014 received by SRC on 17.11.2014, stated as follows:

“… I hereby applying your esteemed office to grant permission to close our SayyidMadaniD.Ed College, Ombhathukere, Ullal, since it has no admission from last 2 years onwards. Therefore, we may use that investment for other educational purposes. So, kindly grant the permission to close the D.Ed College permanently and kindly allow to withdraw the security amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Your kind consideration and immediate actions are highly appreciated.

The Committee considered the Institutions request for closure of D.Ed

course and decided to permit the closure by withdrawing the recognition for

(APS09595) D.Ed course with effect from 2014-2015, in order to enable the

ongoing batch of students in D.Ed, course, if any, to complete their final

year course.




217



Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited

with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, after ensuring settlement of all staff and faculty

claims, if any.

59) APS05560 D.Ed

Sarvodaya D.Ed College, Chitradurga, Karnataka

KA

Sarvodaya D.Ed College, Pavagada Road, Parusharampura-577538, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, Karnataka. Sarvodaya Educational Trust, Karnataka had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Sarvodaya D.Ed College, Pavagada Road, Parashurampura, Challakere- Taluk, Chitradurga District-577538, Karnataka for Elementary (D.Ed) course of two years duration with an annual intake of 50 students. The institution was granted recognition for D.Ed course on 26.04.2007. The institution has submitted its letter dated 19.08.2014 received by SRC on 26.08.2014, stated as follows:

“…..Sarvodaya Educational trust , Parashuramapura, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District have started 2006-07 the 1st year D.Ed., College as we have obtained the admission regularly during the year 2011-12 from rural side abutting the same and during the year 2012-13 to 2014-15 we have not admission even little admission as per reference mentioned above. Therefore your authority to permit to withdraw the amount which was deposited in SBI Challakere, Chitradurga District in joint Account which were in fixed deposit, Rs.5 lakh and 3lakh =8 Lakhs amount in the name of institution and do the needful action in this matter. The amount deposited in joint account under No.TD cs /0010587102 an TD cs/001 0587101 and I have enclose the copy of order copy and zerox copy of F.D. certificate. I hope that your authority may kindly be look into the matter and do the needful in this regard.

Now, the institution has submitted its written representation on 28.10.2014 and 07.11.2014, along with a photocopy of DSERT letters (Un-signed) and Original FDRs. And the letter stated as follows:

“….Sarvodaya D.Ed College ParusharampuraChallakere (T) Chitradurga (D). SarvodayaD.Ed College was stopped and FDRs of 5 lakh and 3lakh back to the institution. The institution submits the DSERT copy and DIET copy enclosed and No due certificate is attached and original FD is enclosed here. Than the enquiry the matter and back both FD 5 lakh and 3 lakh.




218




year course.




Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, after ensuring settlement of all staff and faculty claims, if any.

60) APS07300 B.Ed

Pasha Educational

Training Institute,

Hyderabad, Andhra

Pradesh. AP

Pasha Educational Training institute, 8-2-672, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500035. Andhra Pradesh Pasha Educational Trust, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Pasha Educational Traininginstitute, 8-2-672, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500035. Andhra Pradesh for Secondary (B.Ed) course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students and was granted recognition on 15.10.2007. The institution vide letter dated 27.07.2008 requested to change the name of the college from Pasha Educational Training institute to Pasha College of Education. The Southern Regional Committee considered the request letter in its 164th meeting held on 20th September, 2008 and permitted the applicant society to change the name of the institution from Pasha Educational Training Institute to Pasha College of Education & order regarding changing of name is communicated to the institution on 30.09.2008 On 27.10.2014 the Principal Pasha College of Education, 8-2-672, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034, Andhra Pradesh dated 20.10.2014 has submitted a request as under:- “Pasha College of Education is established in the year 2007 dated 15.10.2007 through the grant of recognition by NCTE vide order No.13018. Since then, it is functioning in the leased campus at H.No.8-2-672, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034. At the time of establishment it was stated that we will be shifted to own campus which was proposed to be constructed at Nallavelly village of yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. But due to lack of development in that area, we would like to shift to our own campus located at Deenadayal Nagar, Neredmet which comes under Malkajgiri Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. Hence I request you give us necessary and guidance regarding shifting details enclosed. “ The Committee considered the matter, request of the institution vide their letter dated 27.10.2014 for shifting of the said institution to their own campus, decided that request for permission to shift can be considered subject to adherence to norms & standards notified in the new Regulations. Institutions may be advised to apply accordingly.



219

61) APS01215 APS07895 APS01029

B.Ed M.Ed

D.T.Ed Arcot Sri

Mahalakshmi Women’s College of Education,

Vellore, Tamilnadu.

TN

Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Women’s College of Education, Arani Main Road, Vellapakkam-632521, Vellore District, Tamilnadu

APS01215/B.Ed APS07895/M.Ed APS01029/D.T.Ed



220

Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi

Women’s College of Education, Arani Main Road,

Vellapakkam-632521, Vellore District, Tamilnadu

had submitted an application to the

Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of

recognition for Secondary (B.Ed)

Course of one year

from the academic session 2005-06.

The institution was granted recognition for B.Ed course with an annual intake of

100 students on 04.01.2006 with a condition to shift to its own premises within three years

from the date of recognition (in case the course is started in temporary premises).

The institution has submitted its written representation on 25.09.2007

regarding shifting of premises.

Further there is no action taken in this

file.

Mahalakshmi Educational Trust

had submitted an application to the Southern Regional

Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Arcot

Sri Mahalakshmi Women’s College of

Education, Arcot-Arani Main Road, Vellapakkam-

632521, Arcot Taluk, Vellore

District, Tamilnadu for M.Ed Course of one year duration

with an annual intake of 25

Students. The institution has

granted recognition for M.Ed course with an annual intake of 25 students on 06.11.2007.

Enhancement of intake of 10 seats from existing 25 to 35 was granted on

25.08.2010.

Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Women’s Teacher Training

Institute, Arni Main Road, Near Arcot, Villupakkam Post-632521, Vellore District,

Tamilnadu had granted recognition for Elementary course of two years duration

from the academic session 2004-05 with an annual intake

of 100 students (which includes the existing intake of 50 and an additional unit of 50) on 10.12.2004 with a condition to shift to its own premises within

three years from the date of recognition (in case the course is started in temporary

premises). The institution has submitted its written representation on 24.09.2007 regarding shifting

premises. Further there is no action taken in this file regarding shifting of premises.

The institution has submitted its written representation dated 10.02.2014 received by SRC on 10.03.2014 with request to

change of name in the FDR’s. (from “Mahalakshmi Educational Trust to Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Womens Teacher Training Institute”)

The matter was placed before SRC in its 267th meeting held on

12th -13th May, 2014 considered the institution requisition letter

and decided to issue letter permitting change of name in the FDR’s.

Accordingly, permission letter

was issued to the institution on 19.06.2014.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 10.11.2014 for D.T.Ed



221

B.Ed and M.Ed courses requesting for change of management. Further it states as

follows:

“We would like to bring to your kind notice that our Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi

Women’s College of Education is proposal to be transferred to Sri Matha

Bhuvaneshwari Educational Trust with similar objects. We are herewith

submitting the necessary documents for the same. Hence we humbly

request your good self to pass necessary orders approving the change in

management.”

The institution has enclosed relevant documents is as follows:

1. Photocopy of Resolution.

2. Photocopy of Minutes of the meeting of the Mahalakshmi Educational

Charitable Trust held on 25.10.2012 at 10.00 AM in their office under

the president ship of its Chairman K.R Bhaskar.

3. Photocopy of Recognition orders of Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Women’s

College of Education for B.Ed (APS01215) M.Ed (APS07895)

Enhancement of intake of 10 seats M.Ed (APS07895), D.T.Ed

(APS01029).

4. Photocopy of Memorandum of Understanding.

5. Photocopy of Trust Deed, etc...

The Committee considered the matter, letter from the institution dated 10.11.2014 regarding change of management, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process after notification of the new Regulations.

62) APS02409 B.Ed

Sri Sadashiva B.Ed College,

Bagalkot, Karnataka.

KA

Sri Sadashiva B.Ed College, Lokapur Road, Basavanagara, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District-587313, Karnataka.

Sri Sadashiva B.Ed College, Lokapur Road, Basavanagara, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District, Pin – 587313, Karnataka has submitted application for offering B.Ed course on 31.12.2003. The institution was granted recognition for offering B.Ed course with an intake of 100 students vide order dated 03.02.2006 with a condition to shift to its own premises/building with 3 years from the date of recognition.

The institution in its letter dated 01.10.2009 has submitted a proposal for shifting of premises along with Rs.40,000/- towards shifting fee. Accordingly, inspection was carried out on 17.10.2010

The SRC in its 198th meeting held on 24-26 November 2010 considered the VT report and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to issue



222

show cause notice. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the institution on 11.01.2011. The institution has submitted its written representation on 11.02.2011.

The SRC in its 201st meeting held on 22-23 February 2011 considered the written representation, VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to issue Final Show cause notice. Accordingly, Final Show cause notice was issued to the institution on 25.03.2011. The institution has submitted its written representation on 28.04.201

The SRC in its 205th meeting held on 18-19 May 2011 considered the written representation and decided to serve another Final Show cause Notice. Accordingly, another final show cause notice was issued to the institution 15.06.2011. The institution submitted the written representation on 20.07.2011. The Committee considered the written reply of the institution Dt. 21.07.2011 on the above matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw recognition for the following reasons:-

• Land documents in the name of the Society/Trust/Institution is not submitted. The institution has submitted only an affidavit instead of sale deed/registered gift geed.

Based on the above points the committee decides to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by the Sri Sadashiva B.Ed College, Lokapur Road, Basavanagara, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District-587313, Karnataka, from the academic year 2012.13, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed, course, if any, to complete their course. But it is made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining board / body be informed accordingly. Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore. Accordingly, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 12.10.2011. The institution in its letter dated 16.10.2012 submitted a copy of court order in W.P.No.68435/2012 satiating as follows:

“Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the appellate authority-respondent no.2, to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously. A copy of the appeal memorandum dated 22.12.2011 is produced as Annexure-B. On the facts of the case and in view of the urgency pleaded, I deem it appropriate to direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order and a copy of the appeal



223

memorandum to the Appellate Authority”. Petition disposed of.

Aggrieved by the withdrawal order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs and the Appellate Authority order dated 06.03.2013 stated that confirms the SRC’s Order.

Shri M.B Kanavi Advocate, in its letter dated 28.06.2013 enclosed a copy of W.P.No 79186/2013 with request to send parawise comments. The institution has prayed in the affidavit as follows:

“Pending disposal of the above writ petition it is respectively prayed before this Hon’ble Court to stay the operation of the order dated 12.10.2011 bearing F.No.APS02409-B.Ed/KA/2011/30792 passed by the 3rd respondent confirmed in order dated 06.03.2013 bearing F.No.89-731/2012Appeal/3rd Meeting-2013/A64200 passed by the 2nd Respondent marked at Annexure-A & E respectively or in alternative the petitioners institution may be allowed to admit the students for B.Ed Course for academic year 2013-14, in the interest of justice”.

Parawise comments sent to Advocate on 18.07.2013

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad order in W.P No.79186/2013 dated 16.07.2013 received by SRC on 02.08.2013 stating as follows:

“The petitioner is at liberty to approach the NCTE, in accordance with law, for grant of recognition to the petitioner to run B.Ed course, after complying the lacuna pointed out in the impugned withdrawal order dated 12/10/2011. If any application is made in this behalf by the petitioner, in accordance with law, the NCTE is at liberty to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the law laid down by various judgments of the Supreme Court on the aspect of grant of recognition”.

The matter was placed before SRC in its 252nd Meeting held on 13th-14th

September, 2013 and the Committee considered and has noted the matter, also Hon’ble High Court order dated 16/07/2013 and decided that SRC is not required to initiate any action. The institution has submitted its written representation on 02.12.2013 with a request to allotte admission.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 10.11.2014 along with relevant documents, and stating as follows: “…Our college Shri Sadashiva B.Ed College Mudhol. District, Pin-.Bagalkot (APS02409) has been withheld for the admission from 2012-13 because on 17.10.2010. Our college has been visited by VT members of NCTE they submitted report to you that, the land is not registered on the institute name or the land is not registered in the name of institute.



224

Now District Commissioner gave us permission to transfer the land registration to the institute, under the Act 1961, Sec 109 (copy attached) for this process a letter is given to the Taluk Submitted-Registrar by District Commissioner. This is a online process and will take at least 20 to 30 days. Then we will submit registration papers to you.

Sir, ours is an only one B.Ed college in Mudhol Taluk and is a site of necessity for many poor students. So please allow us on CONDITION to take admissions for this academic year (2014-15) oblige”. The institution has submitted its written representation dated 17.11.2014 received by SRC on 17.11.2014 along with court order in W.P.No 79186/2013 dated 16.07.2013 relevant documents and stating as follows:

“…..Our management is submitting additional information along with documentary evidence regarding change of land from individual name of our president into society name where all most all steps are near completion for registration of land sale deed in the name of our society in submitted-Register office at Mudhol.

Mean time our Management is making all sincere efforts to register the land in the name of our society. In our Bagalkot District Mudhol Taluk is very backward place where so many SC/ST, and other Backward merit students and also lady students are losing B.Ed Degree opportunities because in this area our Sadashiva B.Ed College is the only one B.Ed College in entire Taluk. Hence our management is submitting once again the above documents relating to registration of land in the name of our society as early as possible. Therefore once again to request you madam, kindly consider our request and issue order for continuation of recognition of our Sadashiva B.Ed. College from the academic year 2014-15 with a strong condition to submit the registered sale deed within three months to enable as to make admissions from 2014-15 and oblige”. The Committee considered the matter, written representation dated 17.11.2014 and Court order dated 16.07.2013, decided that, wheneve they are ready with title to land, etc., they can make a fresh application under the new Regulations.

63) APS09050 SRCAPP500

B.Ed B.Ed

Rosammal Memorial Minority

College of Education, Tuticorin,

Tamilnadu. TN

Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education, Tuticorin, Tamilnadu

Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education (For Women) No.85/2C

Poopalaraverpuram, Tuticorin – 628001, Tamilnadu has submitted an application

to the SRC of NCTE for grant of recognition for B.Ed course Dt. 26.9.2007 which

was received on 28.9.2007. The application was possesses and the deficiency

letter was issued on 10.10.2007 providing 90 days time to submit the documents.

Whereas, the institution has not made any reply. Hence, after completion of 90

days, the application file was closed and communicated to the institution vide letter

dt.12.05.2008.

The institution has filed WP 19506 of 2008 before the Hon’ble High court of



225

Madras, wherein the Hon’ble court has directed to consider the application and

pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

Based on the court order a letter was issued to the instituted dt. 15.10.2008

seeking the required documents for further processing of the application. The

institution has submitted reply in its letter dt. 31.10.2008. The reply was scrutinized

and found that the documents submitted are not complete. A reminder letter was

sent to the institution on 1.1.2009.

Meanwhile, the institution has filed one more WP 168 of 2008 before the Hon’ble

High Court of Madras. The Hon’ble Court has directed SRC to consider the

application of the petitioner dt. 26.9.2007 and the compliance report submitted on

31.10.2008. In the 170th Meeting to be held 16th-17th Feb, 2009 and pass orders

on the same in accordance with Law within a period of 8 weeks.

Further, the institution in its letter dt. 31.10.2009, has made a reply to this office

reminder letter dt,1.1.2009 . On verification of the documents, it is found that the

institution has not submitted land documents for having registered in the name of

the institution or trust. Whereas, the encumbrance certificate submitted for the

year 1997 shows the name of the institution along with two other individuals,

building completion certificate issued by the PWD Engineer for Rosammal

Memorial Minority College of Education. Further, the land usage certificate issued

for college purpose and the letter has been issued to the Rosammal Memorial

Minority College of Education (Women).

As per the directions of the Hon’ble court, the application filed dt. 28.9.2007 and

the compliance of the institution dt. 31.10.2008 along with original file, Court order,

letter dt. 30.10.2008 along with documents were placed before SRC in its 170th

meeting held on 16-17 Feb. 2009 and SRC decided to reject the application for the

following reason.

� The institution has not produced documentary evidence for possessing land in the name of the institution or trust.

Accordingly a refusal order was issued to the institution on 13.4.2009.

Refusal order in respect of Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education,

Tuticorin, Tamilnadu for B.Ed course was issued on 13.4.2009.

Aggrieved by the refusal order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to

NCTE-Hqrs. The appellate authority in its order F.No.89-379/2009-Appeal/99399

dated 7.8.2009 confirms the order appealed against.

A court notice was received in W.P. no. 24907 of 2009 filed by Rosammal

Memorial Minority College of Education enclosing a copy of writ petition filed by

the institution. In response to the writ petition, a letter was issued on 14.12.2009 to

Shri. M.T. Arunan, Advocate enclosing a brief of the case and a copy of appeal

order dated 7.8.2009.



226

Shri. M.T. Arunan, Advocate has forwarded a court order on 23.12.2009 in W.P.

No. 24907 of 2009 dated 18.12.2009 filed by the institution. The Hon’ble court has

ordered as follows;

“This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first

respondent to pass orders on the petitioner’s appeal dated 16.4.2009.

On notice, the Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that

within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the

petitioner’s appeal dated 16.4.2009 will be disposed of.

Recording the above submission made by the Learned Counsel for the

respondents 1 and 2, this writ petition is closed. No costs”.

A copy of written representation addressed to the Member Secretary, NCTE, New

Delhi has been received from the institution on 29.12.2009 enclosing a copy of

court order in W.P. No. 24907 of 2009 and Lease Deed. A copy of the same court

order was received from the petitioner’s advocate on 29.12.2009.

A letter dated 1.1.2010 was issued to the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi

informing that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has passed a judgment on

18.12.2009 in the above writ petition directing the 1st respondent (Member

Secretary, NCTE-New Delhi) to pass orders on the petitioner’s appeal dated

16.4.2009 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. A

copy of the court order has enclosed with the letter for direction in the matter. So

far this office has not received any reply from the NCTE-Hqrs., New Delhi.

Petitioner’s Counsel Shri. P. Munusamy forwarded a Contempt Petition no. 193 of

2010 against W.P. No. 24907 of 2009 which was received on 3.3.2010 states that

the matter is posted on 11.3.2010 for your appearance.

Shri. Arunan, Advocate has forwarded a copy of writ petition no. 4419 of 2010 filed

by Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education against NCTE. The matter

came up on 3.3.2010 and the same is adjourned to 10.3.2010. W.P.No. 4419 of

2010 filed by the above mentioned institution received on 12.3.2010 states

that“……..it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature

of a writ calling for the records from the first respondent relating to the impugned

order in F.No.89-379/2009-Appeal order dated 7.8.2009, quash the same and

further direct the first and second respondent to grant recognition to the petitioner

institution to start a one year B.Ed Degree course from the academic year 2010-

2011 without insisting on NOC from the 3rd Respondent and pass any other further

or other orders this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of

the case and thus render justice”.



227

A court order in W.P. No. 44815 of 2002 has been received on 15.3.2010. The

court order states as “……seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. He has

also made an endorsement to that effect. Permission is granted, and the writ

petition is dismissed as withdrawn”.

Shri M.T. Arunan, advocate has forwarded a letter dated 11.3.2010 enclosing a

copy of additional affidavit of the petitioner in W.P. no. 4419 of 2010. In the

affidavit the petitioner states that has filed the afore said writ petition for

Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the 1st Respondent in

F.No.89/379/2009 appeal dated 7.8.2009, quash the same and further direct the

first and second respondent to grant recognition to the petitioner institution.

The petitioner humbly states that the only ground on which the Appellant Authority

rejected the appeal was that the petitioner has not submitted the land documents

before the original authority at the time of main application. The appellate authority

had taken a stand that the land documents were submitted subsequently.

The petitioner humbly states that he is willing to re-submit a fresh application for

recognition within one week from today and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

direct the 2nd Respondent to receive the applicant and pass orders within

prescribed time limit and thus render justice.

The above said institution has re-submitted the application in-triplicate for B.Ed

course on 17.3.2010 along with D.D. of Rs. 40,000/- and DD. Rs. 1000/- along with

court order in W.P.No. 4419 of 2010, which states as follows; “…….In view of the

said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of granting permission to the

petitioner to submit a fresh application for recognition within one weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent is directed to

receive the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, within a

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the

petitioner”.

The file was forwarded to NCTE-Hqrs for further consideration. The appellate

authority vide order dated 24.09.2010 reversed the order of the SRC dt.

04.05.2010 with the direction to process the fresh application on merits, by treating

the application for establishment of a minority educational institution of Christian

minority. The institution if recognized on merit, would obtain a minority status

certificate from the concerned authority of the State Government and would abide

by its obligation as a minority institution.

The institution vide letter dated 05.10.2010 submitted its written representation.

The institution has submitted application for B.Ed course on 12.10.2010 but not

submitted in on-line mode. SRC considered the appeal order in its 197th meeting

held on 13th-14th October 2010 and decided to process the application. The



228

documents dated 05.10.2010 & 12.10.2010. The Committee also considered

Appellate order Dt. 24.09.2010 and all the relevant documentary evidences in its

198th meeting held on 24th-26th November 2010 and it was decided to serve Show

cause Notice on the following deficiencies.

• The institution has not submitted application on-line.

• As per affidavit submitted on 12.10.2010, total area of land is 13680.774 sq.ft which comes to 1270.91 sq.mtrs. As per NCTE norms regulations, total land area required for B.Ed college is 2500 sq.mtrs.

• As per affidavit, Plot No/ Khasra No, where the college is proposed to start is not mentioned.

• The institution has submitted two lease deeds (private) dt. 3.10.2007 & 21.04.2009 for a period of 35 years & 29 years in the name of Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education (Women), which is not acceptable as per NCTE Regulation.

• Land usage certificate is submitted in Tamil version, English version to be submitted.

• Copy of Building Plan submitted is not approved by Government Competent Authority. As per Building Plan total built up space is 2647.04 sq.mtrs at D.No.85/2C, Boopalarayerpuram in Sy.No.5842, Ward No.4, Block No.49, Tuticorin. But Building Plan submitted with initial application is approved by Government.

• As per the norms, the institution should possess own land and own permanent building complete in all respects, on the date of application.

• FDR of Rs. 300000/- submitted towards reserve fund is of not joint account. FDR of Rs. 500000/- towards endowment is not submitted.

• Building Completion Certificate is not submitted.

Accordingly show cause notice was issued to the institution on 06.01.2011. The

institution submitted its reply on 10.01.2011.

From the original file of the institution, it is observed that:

In the initial application dated 26.9.2007 as well as the application re-submitted in obedience to the court order, the institution in the column 2.1, against the name of the Society/Trust has mentioned as “Individual Management”.

Eligibility Criteria in Para 4(4) of NCTE regulation 2009, states as “Self financed educational institutions established and operated by ‘not for profit’ Societies and Trusts registered under the appropriate laws” can apply for starting an Institution.

The institution in its reply dated 10.1.2011 admitted that the land is in the name of the individual and the name of the Correspondent is Shri. A.A.J. Ashokar. The correspondent has the lands in his name and the same is leased to the institution. Since the title owner is the correspondent of the institution and the institution is run by an individual, the same is well within the rules of NCTE Regulations. Only lease from third parties are not acceptable but in the present case, the land is owned only by the correspondent and the institution is run by the individual.



229

2. As per lease deed the building is in lease. “As per Regulation clause 4 of 2009 the college proposed to be set up by an individual is not eligible to do so”.

The institution has submitted Private Lease Deed dated 3.10.2007 for a period of 35 years at Sy.No.1210/1A1, 1A2, 1B with total extent of 4 acres 34 cents

Private Lease Deed dated 21.4.2009 for a period of 29 years at Sy.No.5842 part, 5844, 5844/1A1A, 1B, 5847 part with total extent of 1 acres 12.50 cents and RCC building with 2 floors constructed thereon bearing door no.85/2C

As per NCTE regulation 2009 para 8 of sub Para 7(i) states as follows;

“No institution shall be granted recognition under these Regulations unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution is in possession of required land on the date of application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease from Government or Government institutions for a period of not less than 30 years. In cases where under relevant State or Union Territory laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government or Union Territory Administration law shall prevail. However, no building shall be taken on lease for running any teacher training course”.

The institution in its reply admitted that the land and building is owned by the correspondent of the institution and he runs the institution and it not by any agency, trust or society. The institution is run by an individual namely, the correspondent and the entire building and land is owned by the correspondent and not by the third parties. The correspondent has given the building and land by way of lease to the institution for a long period. The building is also completed and the completion certificate dt.23.1.09 clearly shows that the entire building consisting of more than 2500 sq.mtrs is already completed. FDR of Rs. 3 lakhs submitted is not in joint account.

The committee after going through the written reply of the institution vide letter dt. 10.01.2011 for the show cause notice issued dt. 06.01.2011, refused to grant recognition of the institution for the B.Ed course for the following deficiencies still persisting:

� As per the affidavit submitted the land area is only 13680.774 sq.ft, which is inadequate for the B.Ed course as per the NCTE norms. The minimum required land is 2500 sq.meters.

� The institution has submitted two private lease deeds, which is not in accordance with the NCTE regulations. As per the regulations, the land must be on ownership basis or leased govt. land; no private lease is permissible.

As per the decision of SRC in its 200th meeting held on 20th and 21st January, 2011

a refusal order was issued to the Rosammal Memorial Minority College of

Education, Tuticorin, Tamilnadu on 3.3.2011 for B.Ed course.

The institution submitted application with D.D. of Rs. 40,000 and a court order



230

dated 6.4.2011 in W.P. No. 6188 of 2011 filed by Rosammal Memorial Minority

College of Education, Tuticorin District, Tamilnadu, the court has directed that

“……however liberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for

transferring the lands in the name of the institution and thereafter make necessary

application to the authorities concerned under the Act by complying with the

various requirements and if such application is made, it is for the second

respondent to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. At this stage, the

learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after taking necessary steps,

application will be made within four weeks. It is made clear that on such

application being made, the second respondent shall take decision expeditiously,

in the manner known to law”

The matter was placed before SRC in its 204th meeting held on 27th and 28th April,

2011. The Committee considered the matter and decided to process the

application on submission of original application and related supporting documents

as per the regulations within four weeks from the date of confirmation of the

minutes.

As per decision of SRC, the application was processed and the following

deficiencies were found;

1. As per the new regulation the application was not submitted on line mode. 2. As per the new regulation the application should submit 1st October, 2011 3. The institution has not submitted Building Completion certificate. 4. The institution has not submitted Land use certificate. 5. The English version of land document is registered on 11.4.2011. 6. Approved building plan submitted is not clear.

Meantime, a letter from NCTE-Hqrs. received on 24.5.2011 stated that the Hon’ble

Court in W.P. No. 6188 of 2011 filed by Rosammal Memorial Minority College of

Education, whereby the Hon’ble court directed petitioner to submit the application

within a period of 4 weeks for fresh consideration i.e. 25.5.2011. After examining

the court order in consultation with the Regulation Section, the submission of

applications would strictly be in accordance with the Regulation in vogue. Hence,

the court direction are like to challenge before the Division Bench.

Accordingly, a letter to the advocate was sent on 2.6.2011 with the request to file

an appeal against the above court directions immediately before the Division

Bench in the matter.

Shri. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate in its letter dated 4.6.2011 stated that in

the above matter by order dated 6.4.2011, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the

action of the NCTE. The only direction given to the petitioner is to submit fresh

application after complying with the necessary requirements. The institution can

submit fresh application by satisfying all the requirements as per the norms

existing as on to-day. If such application is submitted and complied with all the



231

requirements, you can consider and pass necessary orders or you can reject the

application. Nothing more in the said order and no positive direction has been

given. Hence the question of filing appeal does not arise. The institution being a

minority, they can apply any time but you can consider only in accordance with the

law existing as on the date of disposal of the application. The date of application is

immaterial only law existing on the date of disposal shall apply.

The SRC in its 206th meeting held on 09-10 June 2011 noted the points and

decided to inform the Head Quarters about the legal opinion of the Advocate; with

a request for further direction in the matter. Accordingly, a letter dt.06.07.2011

was sent to NCTE, Hqrs and again a reminder letter was issued on 16.08.2011.

The reply from NCTE, Hqrs is awaited.

In the meantime, the institution has submitted a letter on 25.07.2011 and has re-

submitted the following documents:

1. Land Title 2. Building Completion Certificate 3. Land Use Certificate 4. English version of registered on 11.04.2011 5. Approved Building Plan (clear copy)

Further, a duly singed counter affidavit has been sent to the advocate on

03.08.2011.

The institution has submitted letter on 19.08.2011 by enclosing the judgment

dt.17.08.2011 which reads as under:

The second respondent is directed to consider all aspects including the

compliance report submitted by the petitioner dated 25.07.2011 and communicate

the decision to the petitioner within a period of one week from today.

The writ petition is disposed of with above direction. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

The SRC in its 210th meeting held on 22-23 August 2011 decided to reject the

application on the following grounds:

1. As per Para 5 (3) of NCTE Regulations, 2009, the application must be essentially submitted electronically through on-line mode available on the website of NCTE. But, the application has not been submitted on on-line mode as required under said regulations.

In view of the above reasons, in the eye of law there is no valid application

before the SRC, NCTE. Since, it is mandatory requirement and SRC

cannot act contrary to the statutory regulations, the application is hereby

rejected.

However, the institution can submit fresh application as per the regulations



232

on or before 30.9.2011 for academic 2012-2013.

The present application of Rosammal Memorial Minority College of

Education (For Women) N. 85/2C, Poopalaraverpuram, Tuticorin-628001,

Tamilnadu for B.Ed course in terms of section 14(3) (b) of NCTE Act. 1993

is rejected.


The institution has submitted the hard copy of the application (SRCAPP500) on 28.10.2011 and the details are given below 1. Date of on-line submission by Rosammal Memorial Minority College of

Education, Tamilnadu is on 01.09.2011. 2. Date of submission of hard copy of the application at SRC office is on

28.10.2011 3. The institution has paid fee of Rs.41,000/- vide DD No.154337 dt.27.10.2011

for Rs.40000/- and DD No.154336 dt.27.10.2011 for Rs.1000/-. 4. The institution has submitted 2 sets of Hard copies instead of 3 sets.

2009 Regulations of NCTE have been published in the Gazettee of India on 31st

August 2009 and as per para 7(1-A) amended vide notification dt.26.11.2010 of

the NCTE Regulations, 2009, which states as under:

2(B) for sub-regulation (1-A), the following shall be substituted, namely:- (I) The application shall be summarily rejected under one or more of the

following circumstances; (a) The processing fee, as provided under rule 9 of the National Council for

Teacher Education Rules, 1997 is not furnished on or before the date of submission of online application;

(b) Hard copy in triplicate of the online application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of the online application.

(c) Copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority indicating that the society/institution applying for the course possessed land on the date of applications is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of the online application.

As the institution has neither despatched or submitted hard copy of the application within 7 days at the office of SRC. It is a fit case for summarily rejection.

A letter was sent to Sri.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for NCTE on 03.11.2011 by

reiterating the above facts.

The SRC in its 213th meeting held on 6-7 November 2011 decided to summarily

reject the application of the said institution on the ground that, (i) 3 sets of

hardcopies not received (ii) Hardcopies not dispatched within 7 days (iii) Land

records not dispatched; and (iv) DD is post-dated and not valid on the date of



233

receipt of application.

As per the decision of the 210th meeting held on 22-23rd of Aug 2011, the

institution was asked to submit fresh application as per the regulations on or

before 30.09.2011 for academic year 2012-13.

The institution has submitted the hard copy of the application (SRCAPP500) on

28.10.2011 and the details are as under:

1. Date of on-line submission by Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education, Tamilnadu is on 01.09.2011.

2. Date of submission of hard copy of the application at SRC office is on 28.10.2011

3. The institution has taken DD of Rs.41,000/- vide DD No.154337 dt.27.10.2011 for Rs.40000/- and DD No.154336 dt.27.10.2011 for Rs.1000/-. Both the DDs are taken well after the last date for on line submission and last date for Hard copies submitted at SRC NCTE Office.

4. The institution has submitted 2 sets of Hard copies instead of 3 sets.

2009 Regulations of NCTE have been published in the Gazette of India on 31st

August 2009 and as per Para 7(1-A) amended vide notification dt.26.11.2010 of

the NCTE Regulations, 2009, which states as under:

2(B) for sub-regulation (1-A), the following shall be substituted, namely:- The application shall be summarily rejected under one or more of the following circumstances;

a. The processing fee, as provided under rule 9 of the National Council for

Teacher Education Rules, 1997 is not furnished on or before the date of submission of online application;

b. Hard copy in triplicate of the online application is not dispatched within 7

days of the submission of the online application. c. Copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority

indicating that the society/institution applying for the course possessed land on the date of applications is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of the online application.

As the institution has neither dispatched nor submitted hard copy of the application

within 7 days at the office of SRC, DDs have been taken well after last dates and

only 2 sets of Hard copies have been submitted instead of 3. It is a fit case for

summarily rejection and committee decided to summarily reject the application.


The institution has filed W.A. No. 1138 of 2012 against W.P.No.20419 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 and the judgment dt.16.10.2012 reads as under:

“… the second respondent (SRC, NCTE) to inspect the appellant institution within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this



234

order. Such inspection shall be conducted after issuing notice to the appellant and the appellant is directed to cooperate with the second respondent in the conduct of such inspection.”

Further, a letter dt.26.09.2012 has been received from NCTE, Hqrs had stated that the interim order was passed by the Hon’ble Court for conducting time bound inspection i.e. three weeks in the matter on the statement of Shri.M.T.Arunan, one of the Legal Counsel NCTE. It is seen that the statement given by the Counsel is neither as per NCTE Regulations nor the institution sought remedy available under Section 18 of the NCTE Act.

Accordingly, the application has been scrutinized as per the provisions contained in clause 7 & 8 of the Regulation 2009 of NCTE Act published in the Gazette of India on 31.08.2009 as amended from time to time and a notice is being issued hereunder as per Hon’ble court direction.

Accordingly, a notice was issued to the institution on 09.11.2012 by providing 21 days time to submit the written representation. The reply of the institution is still awaited. Instead of replying to the notice, the institution has filed a contempt petition No.

Further, NCTE, Hqrs had sought for the factual position of the case. Accordingly, a letter was written on 14.11.2012 to Sri.Ramakrishna Reddy with a copy of NCTE, Hqrs, wherein, the Advocate had been sought for the clarification regarding the statement made by Sri.M.T.Arunan in the court in this regard and to file a review petition against the time bound inspection judgment.

The SRC in its 235th meeting held on 21-22 November 2012 considered the matter and decided to apply for stay and file an appeal. Further, the committee advised to process the reply if received.

Accordingly, a letter was written on 30.11.2012 to the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi to vet the draft Review application for onward transmission to the legal counsel for filing. The same was vetted by NCTE, Hqrs and forwarded the same on 10.12.2012. Duly signed Review Application sent to the advocate on 12.12.2012.

Further, duly signed counter affidavit was sent to the advocate on 30.01.2013. Again duly signed Review application was sent on 04.02.2013.

A letter from Sri.P.R.Gopinathan has been received regarding Contempt petition No.1678 of 2012 in W.A.1138/2012 and had stated that the Hon’ble Court after hearing the either sides had directed the NCTE to file Counter Affidavit within 10 days and had further adjourned the Contempt Petition. Accordingly, duly signed counter affidavit pertaining to the contempt petition has been sent to the advocate on 07.03.2013.

Further, a letter was sent on 20.07.2013 by duly attesting the affidavit to Sri.P.R. Gopinathan to vacate the stay.

The SRC-NCTE is in receipt of email and letter dtd. 04.11.2013 from Shri. K. Ramakrishna Reddy on 04.11.2013 regarding contempt application no. 1678 of



235

2012, W.A.No. 1138 of 2012 and Condone Delay Petition in filing Review Application pertaining to Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education (Women) and has stated that

“……the Hon’ble Division Bench directed you to comply with the earlier interim order by causing inspection of the petitioner’s premises and also directed to file the VT Reports on or before 20th November 2013.

Since matter is pertaining to Contempt Application and about the above mentioned non compliance of Regulation 7 (1-A) by the NCTE the said interim direction is issued.

I hereby request you to immediately issue notice of inspection to the petitioner’s institution, cause inspection and send me the original VT reports on or before 15.11.2013 so as to enable me to do the needful.

Please attend this matter immediately if necessary constitute a special inspection team immediately and cause inspection on or before 10th November so as to send original VT reports to me on or before 15th November 2013.

This matter is very very urgent and please note that the said interim order is passed in the contempt application and as such you have to comply otherwise you have to face the contempt proceedings”.

Further, Sri.P.R.Gopinathan, Advocate has sent a letter on 06.11.2013 along with judgment dt.04.11.2013 in M.P. No.2 of 2013 in Rev.Appl.No.SR.103663 of 2012 in W.A. No.1138 of 2012 and Cont. Petition No.1678 of 2012 reads as under:

“….while dismissing the Delay, condonation Petition, we direct the second respondent (SRC,NCTE) in the Writ Appeal No.1138 of 2012, to have the inspection done within a period of two weeks from today and file the report immediately on or before 21.11.2013.

Post the Contempt Petition No.1678 of 2012 and W.A. No.1138 of 2012 on 21.11.2013, along with the report”.

Accordingly, a letter was sent to the Chairman, SRC, NCTE, Bangalore on 06.11.2013.

The court order was placed before SRC in its 255th Meeting held on 13th-15th November, 2013 and the committee considered the matter and it has decided to cause composite inspection.

The inspection of the institution was fixed between 16.11.2013. The same was intimated to the institution on 15.11.2013. The inspection of the institution was conducted on 16.11.2013. Further, Prof.Dorasami, SRC, Member had scrutinized the Visiting Team Report on 18.11.2013

Accordingly, as per court direction original Visiting Team Report, VCD,



236

Photographs and brief of the case as per Judgment dt.04.11.2013 in M.P. No.2 of 2013 in Rev.Appl.No.SR.103663 of 2012 in W.A. No.1138 of 2012 and Cont. Petition No.1678 of 2012 pertaining to Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education (For Women) No.85/2C Poopalaraverpuram, Tuticorin – 628001, Tamilnadu (SRCAPP500-B.Ed) dt. 16.11.2013 has been forwarded to Advocate, Shri.P.R. Gopinathan on 19.11.2013. As per the court order Shri.P.R.Gopinathan was requested to submit the above documents on 21.11.2013 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

Further, brief of the case was forwarded to NCTE Hqrs on 25.11.2013.

Shri. P.R. Gopinathan, Advocate has sent a letter on 26.11.2013 and has stated that “…. I am in receipt of the Original copy, along with copies of the VT Report and other connected Documents, both in person as well as by Courier, pertaining to the above Institution.

When the above matter came up for further hearing on 21.11.2013, I have filed the copies of the VT Report before the Hon’ble Court, as per its Direction dated 04.11.2013.

The Hon’ble Court after Hearing the either side had adjourned the above matter to 04.12.2013, for the Institution to file its reply. I request the Council to take cognizance of the developments in the above matter”.

Further, the advocate has stated that the original VT Report will be retained by him as the case is coming up for hearing on 04.12.2013.

As per instructions of NCTE, Hqrs a brief of the case was forwarded n 28.11.2013.

The institution vide its letter dtd.02.12.2013 has submitted representation along with Demand Draft bearing no. 064822 dtd. 29.11.2013 for Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Indian Bank.

SRC, NCTE is in receipt of email dtd. 04.12.2013 from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate regarding contempt petition.

The matter was placed before 256th meeting held on 04th -06th December, 2013 and decided that “Inspection report has been filed. Await court orders”.

SRC, NCTE is in receipt of letter dtd. 05.12.2013 from Shri. P.R. Gopinathan, Advocate on 09.12.2013 and has stated that “….. the above mentioned case came up for further hearing on 21.11.2013. I have filed a Written Submission before the Hon’ble Court. The counsel for the Institution had prayed for an Adjournment to enable them for the presence of their Senior Counsel. The Counsel for the Petitioner Institution had also filed a copy of Comments/ Remarks pertaining to the VT Report filed by NCTE and also a fresh Additional Typed Set of Papers, a copy of which, I am enclosing herewith this letter for the Council’s information, records and due instructions.

The Hon’ble Court after hearing the either sides has Adjourned the above case to 12.12.2013. Kindly furnish your instructions pertaining to the remarks of the institute at the earliest”.



237

Accordingly, the details of the letter submitted by the institution on 02.12.2013

A brief of the case was forwarded to Advocate on 11.12.2013.

On 13.12.2013 Email has received from Shri. P.R. Gopinathan, Advocate mentioned opinion and has stated that

“ the above mentioned cases came up for further Hearing on 13.12.2013. I have already filed the Visiting Team Report of the Institution, along with the connected annexures, before the Hon’ble Court as per its earlier Interim Order. I have also filed my Written Submissions, along with the Supreme Court Judgments, both scale and Weltech College pertaining to the process of application for Teacher Training Courses.

The Hon’ble Court after hearing the either sides was pleased to allow the above Writ Appeal with a direction to SRC/NCTE/Bangalore to consider the petitioner’s Application for starting B.Ed., Course for the Academic year 2014-2015, mainly on the ground that SRC/NCTE/ Bangalore had also.

Violated 7(1) of NCTE Regulations 2009, in not disposing of the Petitioner’s Application reply well within the scheduled dates, as mentioned in the Regulations and also since the matter is under subjudice, the petitioner’s Application pending with SRC/NCTE Bangalore should be considered for the academic year 2014-2015, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

I am of the considered opinion that the NCTE/Head Quarters, New Delhi can either file an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or can obey the orders of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court, well within the stipulated date as directed by the Hon’ble Court”.

On 14.12.2013 Shri P.R. Gopinathan Advocate, Standing Counsel for NCTE, has submitted the entire set of documents alongwith the Original copy of the Visiting Team Report through Shri Ravi Kumar (Regular Staff – Chowkidar), pertaining to M.P.No. 2 of 2013 Rev Appln No. SR 103663 of 2012 in W.A.No. 1138 of 2012 and Cont.Pettn No. 1678 of 2012 filed by NCTE/New Delhi and RD/SRC/NCTE/Bangalore Vs (APS09050/SRCAPP500) Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education (Women), Tamilnadu, which is required further action from your end. (Copy enclosed).

The same matter was forwarded by email to Dr.B.P.Pandey, Under Secretary, NCTE Hqrs., on 16.12.2013 for kind reference and needful action.

SRC, NCTE is in receipt of letter dtd. 17.12.2013 from Shri M.T.Arunan, Advocate on 18.12.2013 and has stated that

“ I have handled your NCTE cases from 2007 onwards till W.A. 1138 of 2012 filed by Roasammal Memorial Minority Educational against NCTE was ordered. When the case was argued by me for and on behalf of NCTE I placed all the facts as per the reply sent by you. During the course of argument the Hon’ble Court took a decision why can’t you co-operate for a Re-inspection by NCTE to find out the infrastructure was available or not. But I placed our position and Rule position stating that it is not possible.



238

The Hon’ble Court delivered order after being reserved the matter. I have sent these information in my earlier communications to you when the case was being argued by me. I am practicing Advocate for the past 30 years and handed Central Govt. Department cases as Central Govt. Standing Counsel, as Panel Counsel, as Standing Counsel from 1993 onwards. I have earned very good name for all Central Govt. Departments. So I request you to continue to mark cases for NCTE to handle the cases in High Court of Madras.

The SRC, NCTE is not received any Court Order copy till date. In meantime SRC, NCTE is in receipt of letter dtd. 20.12.2013 from Shri P.R. Gopinathan, Advocate on 21.12.2013 (copy enclosed) alongwith the Hon’ble High court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal no. 1138 of 2013 and Contempt Petition no. 1678 of 2013 and Writ Petition no. 16955 of 2013 and MP no. 1 of 2012 dtd. 13.12.2013 reads as under: “…………. We make it clear that the appellant shall be entitled to grant of recognition only form the academic year 2014-2015. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 20419/2011, is set aside and the second respondent-NCTE is directed to consider and pass orders on the application of the appellant/writ petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, for the purpose of grant of recognition to the petitioner for starting one year B.Ed course from the academic year 2014-2015. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. In the light of the order passed in the writ appeal, nothing survives in W.P.No. 16955/2013 and the same is closed. The contempt petition is also closed and the second respondent-NCTE shall comply with the directions of this Court within the period stipulated above. No costs”.

The above matter was placed before 257th meeting of SRC held on 20th -22nd December, 2013 and decided to let us ask our Lawyer to file an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Shri P.R.Gopinathan, Advocate has submitted the following documents pertaining to M.P.No. 2 of 2013 Rev Appln No. SR 103663 of 2012 in W.A.No. 1138 of 2012 and Cont.Pettn No. 1678 of 2012 filed by NCTE/New Delhi and RD/SRC/NCTE/Bangalore Vs (APS09050/SRCAPP500) Rosammal Memorial Minority College of Education (Women), Tamilnadu along with original copy of the Visiting Team report through Shri. Ravikumar (Regular Staff- Chowkidar) on 14.12.2013.

The details of documents are as under:

1. My original letter to R.D/SRC dtd. 13.12.2013. 2. Your letter dtd. 11.12.2013 as reply to the pet’s letter commenting on

our V.T.Report. 3. A copy of my written submission filed before the Court on

03.12.2013. 4. A copy of Dates & Events filed before the Court on 11.09.2013. 5. Original V.T. Report dtd. 19.11.2013, alongwith all the Annexures



239

and one extra copy. 6. Copy of 2011(2) scale judgment, filed before the Court. 7. Copy of Weltech College of Education v/s State of U.P. & others,

filed before the Court. 8. Copy of Appellants comments on the NCTE’s V.T. Report. 9. Copy of additional typed set of papers filed by the institution. 10. Original Certified order copy dtd.04.11.2013 in M.P.No.2/2013. 11. Copy of Grounds is New applications filed by NCTE before the

Court. 12. Copy of review affidavit filed NCTE before the Court. 13. Copy of delay is filing the New Application by NCTE. 14. Copy of condone delay is re-presenting by NCTE. 15. NCTE’s New Application paper book filed on 04.12.2012. 16. Counter Affidavit of NCTE is Cont. Pet.No. 1678/12. 17. Affidavit filed by the pet.Imt. is Cont.Pet.No. 1678/12. 18. Copy of Pet’s Imt. Paper book is Cont.Pet.1678/12. 19. W.A. No. 1138/2012 Paper Book of the Pet’s institution filed on

12.06.2012. 20. Copy of W.P.No. 16955/2013 Ass, T.S. & C.Ass of NCTE.

Copy of the above documents along with the’ original Court Order dated 13.12.2013 and it was received on 21.12.2013 and the same sent to NCTE Hqrs., on 24.12.2013 through blue dart express services for needful action immediately.

This office is in receipt of letter dtd. Nil received on 24.12.2013 submitted by the institution along with copy of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal no. 1138 of 2013 and Contempt Petition no. 1678 of 2013 and Writ Petition no. 16955 of 2013 and MP no. 1 of 2012 dtd. 13.12.2013. (copy of the order enclosed). Institution in its letter states that

“.. the Honorable High Court of Madras passed an order directing the SRC NCTE to consider and pass the order on the application of our college is viz. Rosammal College of Education, Tuticorin District with in a period of two weeks for starting one year B.Ed course from the academic year 2014-15. The period of two weeks ends on 27.12.2013. Therefore you are requested to comply the honorable court order and issue recognition orders for the session 2014-15 with in stipulated time period”.

Again another email sent to Dr. B.P.Pandey, Under Secretary (Legal) NCTE Hqrs., on 24.12.2013 and 31.12.2013 and the copy marked to Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi to file an appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India immediately as per the direction of SRC.

The SRC in its 258th meeting held on 3-5th Jan 2014 considered the matter, letter from the institution and Hon’ble High Court order dated 13-12-2013 and it has been decided to file an SLP (decision taken in 257th meeting) in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, subject to the outcome in the SLP, in compliance of the High Court Order, LOI be issued to the applicant institution.

Accordingly, LOI was issued to the institution on 21.01.2014. The Institution has replied to LOI on 26.02.2014.

On Careful perusal of the original file of the institution and staff profiles submitted



240

by the institution in response to the letter of Intent, the Regional Committee in its 264th meeting held on 1-3 March 2014 decided that Formal Recognition be granted to B.Ed course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 (One hundred only) students, with effect from 2014-2015.

Accordingly, Formal Recognition order was issued to the institution on 03.03.2014.

As directed, a letter was sent to Shri Amitesh Kumar, Advocate on 03.03.2014 along with brief of the case.

A letter was issued to the institution on 03.03.2014 to give explanation that the signatures of the Principal on different sheets of staff list.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 25.03.2014 along with affidavit of Principal. In its reply stating as follows:

“…..we bring to the kind notice of the hon’ble Regional Director and the committee member that any variations noticed in the signature of our Principal is situational and un-intentional due to sense of urgency. On the day of staff verification by the Tamilnadu Teachers Education University (TNTEU), Chennai, we presented our principal Dr.G.U. Nagaraj in person, before the scrutinizing committee members of the university. He was interviewed and his documents were verified carefully for almost three hours. On successful verification of all the staff documents by the members and authorization of the Vice-Chancellor, the university decided to process of request and instructed to prepare two sets of all the required and submit them for data-entry and approval process.

As cut off date(i.e.) 3rd March was approached already, we urged to prepare all the necessary documents required by TNTEU on the same day and our principal has attested each of the documents with an extreme sense of urgency to get the staff approval order before the end of the day. As our principal was made to attest hundreds of pages in a short time, there could be some variations in our Principal’s signature.

Hence, we submit the affidavit of our Principal Dr.G.U.Nagaraj stating the above explanations and acknowledging all the signatures placed on the documents submitted to SRC, NCTE. We humbly request the Regional Director to peruse the above explanations and please grant the formal recognition from 2014-15.

The Committee considered the matter, written representation of the institution dated 25.03.2014 along with the affidavit, decided that the explanation submitted by the institution is accepted.

64) SRCAPP2177 M.Ed

Government College of Education,

Pudukkottai, Tamilnadu.

TN

Government College of Education, Pudukkottai, Plot/Khasara No. 82/5902, Plot No. 10, Thirumayam Street, Pudukkottai Village and Post, Pudukkottai City and Taluk, Pudukkottai District, Pin - 620001, Tamilnadu Department of Collegiate Education, Government of Tamilnadu, Thirumayam Road, Pudukkottai Village and Post, Pudukkottai City and Taluk, Pudukkottai District, Pin - 622001, Tamilnadu had applied for grant of recognition Government College of Education, Pudukkottai, Plot/Khasara No. 82/5902, Plot No. 10,



241

Thirumayam Street, Pudukkottai Village and Post, Pudukkottai City and Taluk, Pudukkottai District, Pin - 620001, Tamilnadu for M.Ed Course of one year duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 30.07.2013 and physical application has been received in the office of SRC on 07.08.2013. The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 04.11.2013. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 04.11.2013.

As per direction of SRC, the matter was placed before SRC in its 256th Meeting held on 04th-06th December, 2013 and decided to cause inspection. Accordingly, inspection intimation letter was sent to the University on 31.12.2013.

The inspection of the institution was fixed between 06.01.2014 to 10.01.2014. The same was intimated to the institution on 31.12.2013. The inspection of the institution was conducted on 07.01.2014. On careful perusal of the original file of the University, VT report, VCD, all relevant documents and other related documents, Act of NCTE, 1993, Regulations and guidelines of NCTE published from time to time laid on the table, the Regional Committee decided to issue Letter of Intent for grant of recognition to M.Ed course of one year duration with an annual intake of 35(thirty five only)(one unit), subject to the appointment of qualified staff through duly constituted selection committee as per the Norms of NCTE/State Government/Affiliating University and be given effect before the commencement of the academic session. Accordingly, LOI was issued to the institution on 12.02.2014. The Institution has replied to LOI on 24.02.2014 through fax.

The SRC in its 262nd meeting held on 17-19th Feb, 2014 considered the matter, reply of the University to the LOI issued and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Notice under Section 14 of NCTE Act for the following:

• The University has not submitted approved staff list in the prescribed format from the affiliating University as per NCTE norms 2009.

The Institution has submitted its written representation on 24.02.2014.

On Careful perusal of the original file of the institution (Govt. College of Education) and staff profiles submitted by the institution in response to the letter of Intent, the SRC in its 264th meeting held on 1-3 March 2014 decided that Formal Recognition be granted to M.Ed., course of one year duration with an annual intake of 35 (thirty five only) students, with effect from 2014-2015.

Accordingly, formal recognition order was issued to the institution on 03.03.2014.

A letter was sent to institution on 03.03.2014 regarding submission of staff list. The institution has submitted its written representation on 07.04.2014 along with copies of revised staff list for M.Ed course.

The Committee considered the matter, written representation of the institution vide letter dated 07.04.2014, and all the relevant documentary



242

evidences and it was decided to serve Showcause Notice Under section 14 of NCTE Act for the following :

• The Institution has not submitted original approved staff list. The Institution has submitted same old staff list.

• Head/Professor is not qualified as per norms.

• Separate staff list is not submitted by the institution for other courses being run by the institution as per this office letter dated 03.03.2014.

In view of the above, the Committee decided to issue a Showcause Notice to the institution as to why the recognition be not withdrawn and thereby providing an opportunity to the institution to make a written representation within 21 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice along with necessary certificates/documents in order to take a final decision in the matter; failing which action will be taken including the withdrawal of recognition, based on the records available, with no further notice.

65) APS09158 M.Ed

Sri Lakshmi College of Education,

Perambalur, Tamilnadu.

TN

Sri Lakshmi College of Education, Kaluvanthondi, Karadikulam, No.115/1, KKC Kalviulagam, Jayankondani, Perambalur-621 802, Tamilnadu. Sri Lakshmi College of Education, Kaluvanthondi, Karadikulam, No. 115/1, KKC Kalviulagam, Jayankondani, Perambalur-621 802, Tamilnadu had submitted an applications for B.Ed course on 27.12.2004, B.Ed-AI course on 02.11.2007 and M.Ed course on 05.12.2007. The institution was granted recognition for B.Ed course on 26.10.2006 with an annual intake of 100 students, B.Ed-AI course on 22.09.2008 thus making an annual intake of 200 students which includes the existing intake of 100 students and an additional intake of 100 students. The institution was granted recognition for M.Ed course on 28.03.2008 with an annual intake of 25 students and per the NCTE notification the intake of M.Ed course was increased from 25 to 35 vide order dt. 27.08.2010. The Tamilnadu Teachers Education University forwarded a copy of show cause notice issued to the institution for not functioning in accordance with the conditions stipulated by the NCTE SRC, Bangalore and Tamilnadu Teachers Education University as could be apprehended from the report of one-man commission which caused a surprise visit to the colleges. The institution was inspected by the university and show cause notice was issued on 02.03.2011. The SRC in its 202nd meeting held on 14 -15 March 2011 considered the matter and decided to issue show cause notice under section17 to the institution as per the report of One-man commission from Tamilnadu Teachers Education University, Accordingly, notice was issued to the institution on 15.04.2011. The institution had submitted its reply on 13.05.2011. The SRC in its 205th meeting of SRC considered the reply of the institution



243

dt.13.05.2011 and decided to cause Composite inspection of the institution on submission of Rs. 40,000/- towards each of the courses being run under section 17 of NCTE Act. The management is also running D.T.Ed & M.Ed courses in the same building. The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st-23rd September, 2011 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show Cause Notice under section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Show cause notice was issued to the institution on 17.11.2011. In the meantime, the NCTE Hqrs vide letter dated 19.12.2011 had submitted inspection report of u/s13 of the NCTE Act 1993.The institution had submitted its written representation on 04.01.2012. The SRC in its 217th meeting held on 08th-09th February, 2012 considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt. 04.01.2012, VT report of the institution, VCD and other related documents, along with the original file of the institution and decided to continue recognition accorded to the institution. Accordingly, continuation of recognition was issued to the institution on 08.03.2012. The SRC, NCTE is in receipt of email dt. 08.07.2013 from Mr. Amarjit Singh, MHRD and has forwarded complaint letter dt. 08.07.2013 from Mr.G.Sugumaran, Secretary, Federation People’s Right (FPR), Puducherry against the Sri Lakshmi College of Education for B.Ed, M.Ed, Sri Lakshmi Teacher Training Institute and Ka. So.Ka Polytechnic and K.K.C Engineering College, Jayankodam Village, Ariyalur District which are functioning in two buildings and in violation of norms/rules. Further, the MHRD has requested to take necessary action against the complaint of the institution under intimation. The SRC, NCTE is in receipt of letter dt. 20.06.2013 on 27.06.2013 from Mr. G.Uthirapathi, District Secretary, District Peasant Wing, CPM, Ulkottai & Post, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District, Tamilnadu-612 901 against the Sri Lakshmi College of Education (B.Ed, M.Ed) and Sri Lakshmi Teacher Training College which are violating all the norms of an educational institution. The SRC in its 250th meeting held on 11th –13th August, 2013 considered the above matter and decided to cause composite inspection for all (M.Ed, B.Ed, B.Ed-AI, D.T.Ed & D.T.Ed-AI) courses under section 15(1) of NCTE Act, to examine whether the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, for the proposed programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the institution, as per the norms. The inspection of the institution was fixed between 24.10.2013 to 26.10.2013 and 28.10.2013 to 30.10.2013. The same was intimated to the institution on 14.10.2013. The inspection of the institution was conducted on 30.10.2013.



244

The SRC in its 257th meeting held on 20th - 22nd December 2013 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under NCTE for the following:

• As per VT report, the size of the multipurpose hall is only 1365 sq.ft. This is less than the requirement of 2000 sq.ft for the course being run as per NCTE norms 2009.

• In the building plan submitted, the institution has not mentioned the total earmarked built up area course wise.

• Staff list submitted by the institution are not duly approved by the affiliating body/University.

• The institution has not submitted the details of other courses being run.

Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 04.02.2014. The institution had submitted its written representation on 24.02.2014 & 28.02.2014. The SRC in its 267th meeting held on 12-13 May 2014 considered the matter, reply of the institution vide letter dated 24.02.2014 & 28.02.2014 to the show cause notice issued, all the relevant documents of the institution and decided that:

The institution to be asked to submit approved staff list in the prescribed format according to NCTE norms for all the courses. Accordingly, a letter was sent to the institution on 20.06.2014 to submit the approved staff list in the prescribed format within 21 days from the date of receipt of this letter for all the courses. The institution has submitted its written representations on 15.07.2014 and 19.08.2014. The SRC in its 272nd meeting held on 01st - 2nd September, 2014 considered the reply from the institution vide their letters dated 15.07.2014 & 19.08.2014, and decided that:

The approved staff list submitted by the institution does not specify the subject-specialization in each case. Advised Southern Regional Office to ask the institution to submit a revised staff list with subject-specialization also certified by the Registrar in the same list.

Accordingly, a letter was issued to the institution on 10.10.2014. The institution has submitted its written representation on 20.10.2014.

1. Original approved staff list for B.Ed, B.Ed-AI, and M.Ed dated 17.10.2014 issued by Registrar, Tamilnadu Teachers Education University.

2. Detailed Staffs Educational qualification statement approved by Registrar, TNTEU.



245

The SRC in its 274th meeting held on 30th and 31st October 2014, considered the matter and decided that,

1. Staff list for M.Ed. is defective. Professor is shown to be only 14 years of age. When he joined service. Ask the college to explain.

2. Close the matter relating to the other 4 courses.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 05.11.2014 (with reference to website in the decision of 274th meeting of SRC) along with relevant documents.

Sl. No

Deficiency pointed out by SRC

Written representation of the institution

Documents submitted by the institution

1. Staff list for M.Ed. is defective. Professor is shown to be only 14 years of age. When he joined service. Ask the college to explain.

In its reply stated that, as instructed in the 274th meeting, we here with submit our explanation regarding the date of birth of Mr.K.Jayachandrama Naidu professor, M.Ed of our college. The date of birth of Mr.K.Jayachandrama Naidu is wrongly typed as 02.04.1985 instead of 02.04.1955 it is a clerical error for which I apologies. His correct date of birth is 02.04.1955. The copy of the secondary school certificate and the university approval order is here with enclosed. He has completed his B.A degree in 1976, M.A degree in 1978, B.Ed degree in 1980, M.Ed degree in 1981 and PhD in 1986. I request you to kindly bear with us for the error committed. We request early favorable orders in this regard

• Photocopy of approved staff list.

• Photocopy of Secondary School Certificate.

• Photocopy of Bachelor of Degree Certificate for authenticity.

• Photocopy of Service Certificate.

• Photocopy of Educational qualification Certificate of the Professor.

The Committee considered the matter, written representation on 05.11.2014, decided that:



246

1.The explanation about date of birth is accepted. Adised Southern Regional Office to 2.Ask the Institution to supply more specific details about the Professor’s work experience so as to verify conformity with the NCTE norms and standards.

66) APS03524 B.P.Ed

Sri Sarda College of Physical

Education for Women, Salem,

Tamilnadu. TN

Sri Sarada College of Physical Education for Women, Fairlands, Salem – 636016, Tamilnadu

Sri Sarada College of Physical Education for Women, Fairlands, Salem – 636 016, Tamilnadu for B.P.Ed course of one year duration for the academic session 2000-2001 only with an annual intake of 40 students granted on 15.09.2000. A letter was sent to institution on 06.08.2003 stating that “The Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the B.P.Ed course for the session 2002-2003 submitted by you has been reviewed by the Southern Regional Committee. Based on your Performance Appraisal Report the intake of your institution for the session 2003-2004 has been fixed as 40. Your PAR for the session 2003-2004 shall be sent to this office on or before 31st March 2004 failing which renewal of recognition for the same will not be considered. You are advised to send the complete list of teaching staff members duly approved by the authorized representative of the affiliating University / body along with the PAR of the session 2003-2004. A copy of Annexure to the Performance Appraisal Report is enclosed herewith which shall be filled up and submitted along with the PAR for the session 2003-2004”. The institution has submitted series of its written representation on 13.05.2013, 30.05.2013, 01.07.2013. The institution has submitted its written representation on 07.02.2014 stating as follows:-

“It is informed that permission pertaining to the enhancement of intake from 40 to 50 (as per existing norms) for B.P.Ed degree course at Sri Sarada College of Physical Education for Women, Salem-16, Tamil Nadu has been sought. The request letter has already been submitted in this regard furnishing with all necessary details on 09.05.2013. As on date the institution has not received any communication in this regard. It is once again requested that necessary permission may kindly be accorded to our institution for enhancing the intake of B.P.Ed degree course from 40 to 50 students (one session). The earlier letter submitted to NCTE is herewith enclosed for your kind perusal.”



247

The SRC in its 268th Meeting held on 04th -05th June, 2014 considered the matter and observed that the request is for increase of intake from 40 to 50 so as to conform to one section of a basic unit. and the Committee advised Southern Regional Office to ensure that the infrastructural and instructional facilities are as per prescribed norms. The Institution should be asked to show that they are; and, also obtain an approved list of faculty in position. Accordingly, a letter was issued to the institution on 25.07.2014. The institution has submitted its written representation on 05.09.2014. As directed again a letter was sent to the institution on 26.09.2014 for submission of required documents. The institution has submitted its written representation dated 20.11.2014 received by SRC on 26.11.2014 along with submission of following documents:

• Photocopy of land documents.

• Photocopy of Building plan.

• Photocopy of Building License.

• Photocopy of Staff list.

The institution in its letter stating as follows:

“……Sri Sarada College of Education trust runs three educational institutions in diverse fields of education viz: Sri Sarada College for Women, Sri Sarada College of Education and Sri Sarada College of physical Education for women at Salem in Tamilnadu. All the three said institutions are functioning over a sprawling area of 26.08.acres in the heart of city.

The Building plan of Sri Sarada College of Physical Education for women, Salem is well demarcated in the enclosed site plan. The site plan clearly depicts the infrastructural and the instructional facilities i.e. administrative/academic facilities as well as outdoor play fields such as 400mts standard track, Cricket & Hockey fields and court games like Volley ball, Kho-Kho, Kabaddi, Handball, Ball BADMINTON, Throw ball and Tennikoit. The college functions with a strength of one hundred students with an intake of forty students in Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed-40), and thirty students each in 1

st year and 2

nd year in Master

of Physical Education (M.P.Ed-30+30). The working schedule of the institution is tabulated below. ”

Details Timing

Practical Morning 6.15 AM to 8.15 AM

Practical Evening 4.00 PM to 6.00 PM

Theory class 10.00 AM to 1.00 PM

The other sister organization of the trust like Sri Sarada College for women with a Strength of 2500 students and Sri Sarada College of Education with a strength of 150 students are functioning within the same campus between10.00 AM to 5.00 PM and the timings of Institutions are different from the timing of Sri Sarada College of Physical Education for Women. Thus, some of the outdoor infrastructural facilities like Tennis, Basket ball courts and football field are being shared with sister institutions in different timings without compromising each other’s broader interest. The other facilities like Sri Sarada College Women’s



248

hostel. Auditorium and canteen are common for all the colleges of the trust.

Since its inception the institution continues its march with clear mission and vision in accomplishing the social emancipation of women’s students from the rural background. The management, the institution and the faculty members have continuously been striving hard in providing quality, affordable and accessible education especially for the lowest echelons of the society. The institution is rendering meritorious service for the cause of women students in the field of Physical Education for over three decades with necessary infrastructural and institutional facilities.

Considering the above facts, we kindly request you that, permission may please be accorded for an enhanced intake of fifty students from the existing strength of forty students. We shall be very much thankful to you, if necessary permission is accorded in this regard at the earliest.

Sl. no

Documents Required Documents Submitted

1 Certified land documents (land area)

The institution has submitted a photocopy of land document.

Extent of the total land area

As per award dated 07.03.1963 the extent of land measuring acres 20.08

Location Alagapuram and Alagapuram Padur, Salem.

2 Blue Print of Building Plan approved by competent authority

The institution has submitted the Photocopy of Building Plan.

Approved by Building Plan is not approved by competent authority.

SY. No. 166/5, 170/2, 170/8B,170/9B, 170/10B,170/20B, 171,172/1,172/5

Extent Not mentioned

Location Sri Sarada College of Physical Education in Sri Sarada College

3 Building Completion Certificate to show the adequacy of land and built up area issued by competent authority.

Not submitted

4 Approved staff list from the affiliating university

The institution has submitted photocopy of staff list approved by Tamilnadu Physical Education and Sports University

The Committee considered the matter, written representation of the institution vide their letter dated 20.11.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to process the case after notification of new Regulations.

67) APS03459 D.Ed

Sri. Siddartha Teacher Training Institute, Tumkur,

Karnataka

Sri.Siddartha Teacher Training Institute, K.R.Extension, Tiptur-572202,

Tumkur District, Karnataka

Sri.Siddartha Teacher Training Institute, K.R.Extension, Tiptur-572202, Tumkur District, Karnataka was granted recognition for offering D.Ed course with an intake of 60 students vide order dated 27.09.1996.

The institution submitted proposal for shifting of premises on 10.05.2010 along



249

KA with Rs.40,000/- vide receipt No.15229 dated 09.07.2010 towards inspection fee for shifting of premises. The inspection was carried out on 14.04.2011.

The SRC in its 205th meeting held on 18-19 May, 2011 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, Notice was issued to the institution on 15.6.2011. The institution had not replied till 17.1.2012. On 18.01.2012, the institution submitted reply to the Notice dt.15.6.2011. Again on 20.01.2012, the institution submitted another reply to the Notice requesting to consider the proposal of 20.1.2012 instead of the proposal submitted on 18.1.2012. The SRC in its 217th meeting held on 8th- 9th February 2012 considered the reply of the institution dt. 20.01.2012, VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, Notice was issued to the institution on 14.03.2012. The institution submitted reply vide letter dated 16.04.2012.

The SRC in its 224th meeting held on 14-17 June 2012 considered the written reply of the institution on the above matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw recognition for the following reasons:-

• The total built up area earmarked for the D.Ed programme is only 10907 sq.ft. which is grossly inadequate for the Teacher Education Programme as per NCTE norms, the management also corroborates the same by affixing signature of the management representative in the essential data. In reply to this, the management is requesting for further extension of two years time to construct additional building of 500 sq.mtrs, which is not permissible as per NCTE norms.

As per 8 (13) of NCTE regulations 2009,

“Whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for a course or training programme in teacher education, the institution shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standards immediately but not later than one year from the date of effect of the revised norms. However, the revised land area related norms shall not be applicable to the existing institutions’ if the same is not possible. But the required built up area shall have to be increased by them to conform to the revised norms.However, such institutions not having land area as per the revised norms,shall not be allowed to expand by way of additional courses or additional intake”.

• The institution has shifted to another building without the permission of SRC, which is in violation of NCTE Regulations 2009, and the built up area of this building is less than requirement as per NCTE norms.

• The land documents submitted is in individual name, which is not permissible as per NCTE Regulations 2009, further the institution is requesting SRC to permit one year time for change of land document in



250

Society’s name, which is not permissible as per NCTE regulations.

• As per BCC submitted total built up area available is only 10507 sq.ft, which is grossly inadequate and less than the requirement of 16000 sq.ft. as per NCTE norms.

• The Secretary of the institution is requesting 1 year time to submit land usage certificate, which is not permissible as per NCTE norms.

• The Secretary of the institution is requesting 1 year time to submit encumbrance certificate in favour of Society/institution.

• Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund from a Nationalised Bank in favour of Society/college/institution name if not given.

• The institution was granted recognition in the 27.9.1996 and institution requested for shifting premises after 15 years and again requesting extension time for submission records, which is not permissible as per regulations.

The reply submitted by the institution on 16.04.2010 for the above queries, has not given proper genuine reasons.

Based on the above points the committee decides to withdraw the recognition of

the D.Ed course run by the Sri. Siddartha Teacher Training Institute, K.R.

Extension, Tiptur – 572202, Tumkur District, Karnataka, from the academic year

2012-13, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in D.Ed, course, if any,

to complete their course.




Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with

SRC NCTE, Bangalore.

Accordingly, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 23.07.2012.

Aggrieved by the withdrawal order, the institution filed a writ petition vide

W.P. No.27839-27840 of 2012 in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at

Bangalore. A court Notice dated 13.08.2012 was received by this office on

14.08.2012 and Sri. Ashok Haranahlli, Advocate was requested to appear before

the Hon’ble Court and defend the case in the interest of SRC, NCTE vide this

office letter No. 45301 dated 16th August, 2012.

The institution had approached appellate authority and the Comments

along with original file of the institution was sent to HQ vide this office etter NO.

46850 dated 25.10.2012. the appellate authority vide order No.F.o.89-631/2012

Appeal/15th Meeting-2012 dated 11.01.2013 confirmed the order of SRC.

The institution had obtained an interim order dated 08.01.2013 in WP.No.27839-

40/2012 to stay the order of SRC dated 23.07.2012 which was further extended by



251

another four weeks was received by this office on 17.01.2013.

The advocate was requested to vacate the interim stay granted to the institution on

29.01.2013.

The appellate authority order dated 1.08.2012 confirming the order of SRC

received by this office on 01.02.2013 was placed before the 238th meeting of SRC.

The SRC in its 240th meeting held on 9-11 March, 2013 noted the order of

appellate authority.

In the meanwhile, a letter was received from the institution on 15.2.2013 requesting to withdraw the order of appeal.

A court order dated 30.1.2013 was received by this office on 18.2.2013 extending the interim stay by another eight weeks and the advocate, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli was requested to vacate the interim stay granted to the institution on 21.2.2013.

Another Order dated 3.4.2013 was received by this office on 22.4.2013 from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka extending the interim order till the next date of hearing and granting a weeks time to file objections.

The advocate was requested to defend the matter in the light of the interim order granted by the Hon’ble Court to file objections vide letter Nos. 51338 and 51339 dated 29.4.2013.

The advocate, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli was continuously reminded to vacate the interim stay granted to the institution vide this office letters dated 28.5.2013, 30.5.2013, 1.6.2013, 17.6.2013, 1.7.2013, 4.7.2013, 25.7.2013, 12.9.2013 and 15.10.2013.

After the returning of files and petitions from the Ex-advocate M/s. Haranahalli & Patil associates, and appointment of Legal Counsel, Mr. P.S. Dinesh Kumar for defending the cases of NCTE in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, a list of pending cases was provided to him on 1.1.2014.

In the meantime on 20.1.2014, this office has received a Court order dated 8.1.2014 in W.P.No.27839-27840/2012 from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore to delete the name of Sri. Saneep Patil and Vinayaka and has directed Sri. P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Learned Counsel to take notice for respondents 1 & 4(NCTE) and the office to show his name in the cause list & Interim order was extended till the next date of hearing.

Thereafter, a letter was sent to Mr. P.S. Dinesh Kumar along with the brief of the institution and requesting him to vacate the interim stay granted to the institution which is being extended from time to time.

Again, on 26.2.2014, this office has received an order stating that the Counsel seeks time and the interim order granted on 13.8.2012 was extended further.

On 13.3.2014, this office has received another Court order from the Hon’ble

High Court of Karnataka dated 1.3.2014 (copy enclosed) which is as under:-



252

“I.A.No.4/13 is in fact, an application seeking amendment of the writ petition.

Though the application is filed as early as 28.10.2013, no objections are filed to the same by the learned counsel for the respondent. Accordingly, the same is allowed, treating the sme as an application for amendment of the pleadings. The counsel for the petitioner to amend the petition and produce the documents so putforth, as additional annexures, within a week.

Interim order granted earlier, stands extended until further orders.”

Hence, the legal counsel is requested to file objections and vacate the

interim stay granted to the institution since 13.8.2012.

A letter was addressed to the advocate on 25/04/2014 with the request to vacate

the interim stay granted to the institution.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 31.10.2014 along with

court order in W.P.No.27839-27840 of 2012 (EDN-REG-P) dated 04.04.2014. The

court order stating as follows:-

“….the learned counsel for the petitioners would however make two

submissions. Firstly that insofar as the students strength is concerned,

there is no demand for the subjects and the students opting for the said

subjects have dwindled over the years and therefore the insistence on a

particular student strength may be unrealistic and this aspect should be

taken into consideration by the NCTE. Secondly, it is stated that insofar as

the built up area required for classrooms and other facilities is now insisting

on compliance with Regulations framed in the year 2009, which again the

petitioner seeks, would require some time to comply with. These are

considerations which the NCTE would take into account in taking further

steps and it is clearly within its discretion. It is not for this court to direct or

impose the manner in which the same shall be decided, except to request

that the same be addressed, and not ignored. Since the petitioner would

have to satisfy the NCTE as to the compliance with all the requirements in

order that the recognition be revived. The question of quashing the

impugned annexures would not arise, in that, it is not precluded for the

NCTE in taking further steps to inspect the premises and to consider the

case of the petitioner for revival of recognition. Accordingly the petitions

stand disposed of.”

The Committee considered the matter, written representation of the institution dated 31.10.2014, Court order dated 04.04.2014, decided that: The High Court has not interfered with the SRC order. The High Court has not also ‘directed’ SRC to reconsider the case. The deficiencies pointed out by the SRC are basic serious and irremediable. The Institution can apply again, if it wishes, after notification of the new



253

Regulations.

68) APS02316 B.Ed

Capitol Teacher Training College,

Bangalore, Karnataka.

KA

Capitol Teacher Training College, CA- No.01, 9th Cross, J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase RBI Layout, Bangalore-560078, Karnataka

Capitol Teacher Training College, CA- No.01, 9th Cross, J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase

RBI Layout, Bangalore-560078, Karnataka was granted recognition for offering

B.Ed course with an annual intake of 100 students vide order dated 29.11.2004.

As per decision of SRC in its 175th meeting, the office of SRC has reviewed the files of the institution who have been granted recognition either in a rented premises pending construction of own building or in lease premises.

Accordingly, a list of such institutions was prepared and placed before SRC in its 176th meeting held on 27th – 28th May 2009 wherein, it was decided that the institution which have not shifted to the permanent premises even after the expiry of three years time limit be issued notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act for further action.

Hence, notice was served to the institution on 01.09.2009 asking to explain as to why the institution has not shifted to its own premises as on date along with required documents listed therein. The institution has submitted its reply on 27.11.2009. The SRC in its 190th meeting held on 29th –30th March 2010 considered the written representation and decided to cause inspection under section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, inspection was carried out on 03.06.2010.

Further, NCTE, Hqrs on 20.05.2010 (copy annexed) has forwarded a complaint with its enclosures against the institution received from Ms.Nirmala of New Delhi. The SRC in its 193rd meeting held on 21st –22nd June 2010 considered the V.T. Report and decided to withdraw recognition for B.Ed. course. Accordingly, withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide order dated 02.08.2010.

The institution had filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the Appellate Authority, NCTE, New Delhi against the rejection order of SRC. The Appellate authority reversed the withdrawal orders of SRC and directed to issue Show Cause Notice under section 17 of the NCTE Act 1993 and thereafter take appropriate action.

The SRC in its 199th meeting held on 22nd –23rd December 2010 considered the Appellate authority order dated 19.11.2010 and decided to issue Show Cause notice. Accordingly, Show cause notice was issued on 01.02.2011. The institution submitted written representation on 01.03.2011.

The matter placed before 203rd meeting held on 31st March, 2011 and 1st April, 2011 and the committee decided to withdraw the recognition for B.Ed. course run by Capitol Teacher Training College, CA-No.01, 9th Cross, J.P.nagar, 7th Phase RBI Layout, Bangalore-560078, Karnataka with effect from 2011-12 to enable the present batch of student to complete the course.

Accordingly withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide No.F.SRO/NCTE/2011-12/28514 dated 9.5.2011.



254

Aggrieved by the order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 10.8.2011. The appellate authority noted that SRC granted recognition to the institution for running B.Ed. course vide order dated 29-11-2004 located at 2/4 Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. SRC vide their notice dated 01-09-2009 informed the institution about shifting of the institution to its own premises. The institution vide their letter dated 25-11-2009 submitted an application for shifting the institution to its own premises located at J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore, alongwith a D.D. of Rs.40,000/-. SRC caused an inspection of the institution on 03-06-2010. The VT report dated 03-06-2010 inter-alia indicated that besides B.Ed. College, a well established school (CBSE) is also functioning in the same building. Separate classrooms, labs and other facilities are earmarked. But a separate wing has to be earmarked for B.Ed. course. Total built-up area was only 4100 sq.ft. On the basis of this report, SRC withdrew the recognition of the institution without issuing any show cause notice vide their order dated 02-08-2010. The institution filed an appeal against this order and the Appellate Authority vide their order dated 19-11-2010 directed “the SRC for issuing show cause notice first and for taking further decision thereafter. Subsequently SRC issued show cause notice on 01-02-2011; for which the institution submitted its reply on 18-02-2011. SRC after considering the reply of the institution withdrew the recognition of the institution vide order dated 09-05-2011 on the very same show cause notice grounds. The appellant contended that the institution was having 20,000 sq.ft. of built-up area and no school was being run in the same building and in proof he submitted a sale deed, building plan, building completion certificate and Block Education officer’s letter. These claims needed to be verified by an inspection. The Council, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with a direction to the SRC for causing re-inspection of the institution after obtaining a payment of Rs. 40,000/- and for taking further decision thereafter.

After perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the SRCs order dated 9.5.2011 vide Appellate authority Order No. F.No.89-335/2011 Appeal/7th Meeting 2011/A45155 dated 9.12.2011 with a direction to the SRC for re-inspection of the institution after obtaining a payment of Rs.40,000/- and for taking further decision thereafter.”

The SRC in its 216th meeting held on 11th and 12th January, 2012 considered the

Appellate authority order dated 09.12.2011 and all relevant documents and

decided to cause re-inspection under Section 17 of NCTE Act, to examine whether

the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms.

Accordingly, re-inspection was scheduled to the institution between 6th February, 2012 to 13th February, 2012 and the institution was informed about the schedule of inspection vide this office letter dated 24.01.2012. Visiting team comprising of Dr.



255

R. Binoy, Govt. College of Teacher Education, Thycaud, Trivandrum, Kerala and Dr.G. Subramaniam, Sri. Ramakrishna Mission, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu was deputed to visit the institution as per schedule during 6th to 13th February, 2012. But, since inspection report was not received by the VT members, letters were addressed to the VT members on 13.6.2012. Dr. R. Binoy, VT member vide letters dated 25.6.2012 received by this office on 6.7.2012 informed that they were informed repeatedly over phone that they were not ready for inspection in the specified time. Further, it is seen from the file that there is no communication from the institution so far. The institution did not co-operate with SRC for inspection and also to carryout direction of appellate authority. The inspection of the institution was scheduled between 6-13th February, 2012, accordingly, the institution was informed of the inspection schedule, but the institution contacted VT members over phone and informed them repeatedly that they were not ready for inspection, which shows non-cooperation of the institution for conducting inspection.

The institution is not satisfying the norms of NCTE. The SRC in its 228th meeting held on 24th –25th July 2012 considered the matter and VT member letter vide dated 25.06.2012 decided to withdraw the recognition for (APS02316) B.Ed course with effect from 2012-2013, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in D.T.Ed, course, if any, to complete their final year course. But it is made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining board / body be informed accordingly. Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore. Accordingly withdrawal order was issued to the institution vide order No.APSO2316/B.Ed/KA/2012-13/45381 dated 21.08.2012 A letter from the appeal authority File No. 89-638/2012 appeal A58767 dated 05/10/2012 received by this office on 22/10/2012 by Research Officer regarding appeal filled by the College. In the meanwhile a letter dated 09/11/2012 received by this office from Ashok Haranahalli regarding the Writ Petition No. 9526/2011. A letter dated 18/10/2012 received by this office on 01/11/2012 from the Registrar, Bangalore University regarding the withdrawal of approval of the College. The appellate authority order vide no.F.No.89-638/2012 appeal A61843 dated 07/01/2013 received by this office on 15/01/2013 from the Member Secretary. In that the council noted that a re-inspection of the institution was to be conducted following the orders of the NCTE dated 09/12/2011 on an earlier appeal filled by the institution against an earlier order of the SRC dated 09/05/2011 withdrawing recognition. The council also noted from the file of the SRC that a letter dated 24/01/2012 was issued to the institution informing that an inspection would be



256

conducted during the period 6-8, February, 2012 but the proposed inspection was not conducted, S.R.C asked Visiting Team members only on 13/06/2012 about the outcome of the inspection and one VT member informed the SRC on 25/06/2012 that the Visiting Team and the management of the institution contacted each other and as the management was not ready for inspection during the specified period, the VT was unable to conduct the inspection. In view of contradicting reasons for not conducting the inspection during the specified period in February, 2012 and delay in ascertaining the outcome of the inspection, the council conducted that a fresh schedule for conduct of the re-inspection as per the orders of the council may be drawn up by the SRC and further action as per the NCTE regulations taken after completion of the inspection. The matter therefore deserved to be remanded to SRC for necessary action as indicated above. The SRC in its 240th meeting held on 09th-11th March 2013 considered the Appellate authority order dated 07/01/2013 and arranged the inspection of the institution once again as per the earlier order of the NCTE letter dated 09/12/2011 on an earlier appeal filed by the institution against an earlier order of the SRC dated 09/05/2011 withdrawing recognition of the said institution. Accordingly, inspection of the institution was conducted on 24.05.2013. As per the VT report, VCD and other relevant documents of the institution, the deficiency still persist as under

• Original building plan approved by the competent civil authority is not submitted.

• Notarized land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the educational purpose is not submitted.

• Notarized/Original Up-to-date encumbrance certificate issued by sub-registrar is not submitted.

• Staff list approved by the University is not submitted.

• The Principal of the college is not having Ph.D qualification.

Under the above grounds and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the SRC in its 251st meeting held on 25-27 August 2013 decided that no change in the earlier decision taken in the 228th meeting held on 24-25th of July, 2012 to withdraw recognition for B.Ed course (APS02316). As per decision of SRC 251st meeting, a letter addressed to institution was sent on 09.10.2013 stating that informing the SRC decision i.e. earlier decision taken in the 228th meeting held on 24-25 July 2012 to withdraw recognition for B.Ed course (APS02316). A court notice in W.P.No.6314 of 2014 (EDN-REG-P) from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has received by SRC on 18.02.2014. A letter from NCTE-Hqrs has received by SRC on 26.03.2014 requesting to defend the case including on behalf of NCTE-Hq. The institution has submitted its written representation on 25.07.2014 along with



257

court order in W.P.No.6314 of 2014 (EDN-REG-P) dated 2.07.2014. The court stating as follows:-

“…..the proceedings impugned at Annexure-‘O’ does not call for interference at this point. However, taking note of the contention that the petitioner-college have produced the documents subsequently, it may now bring to the notice of the respondents with regard to the said documents and relevance of the same to indicate that they possess the infrastructure. The copies of the documents and the other additional documents may also be furnished by the petitioner and on the same being furnished, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner and if they possess the infrastructure, their case be considered for the ensuing academic year. Needless to mention that the requisite fee if any, shall also be deposited by the petitioner-college in that regard.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.”

The SRC in its 272nd meeting held on 1-2 September 2014 considered the court order dated 02.07.2014 and the committee decided that “as directed by the court examine the documents presented and report in the next meeting”. A letter received from Shri.P.S.Dinesh, Advocate on 09.09.2014 along with court order in W.P.No.6314 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014. As per decision of SRC in its 272nd meeting, the institution has submitted its written representation on 25.07.2014 stating as follows:

“…..it is submitted that our college prior to the meeting No.251 had furnished all the documents in respect of the objections raised for non grant recognition to our college. I submit that the said documents were furnished by our college and the same was received by this authority on 12.08.2013. It is submitted that this authority had failed to consider the said documents under its No.251st meeting. Hence being aggrieved against the withdrawing the grant of recognition we had filed WP.No.6314/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court. It is submitted that the Hon’ble court after hearing the matter has proceed to pass the order as under: Therefore the copy of these aspects in view of my opinion that the proceedings mutated at Annexure – “O” does not called for interference at this point. However taking note of the contention that the petitioner college have produced the documents subsequently it may now bring to the notice of the respondents with regarded to the said documents and relevant of same to indicate that they possess an infrastructure. The copies of the documents and the other additional documents may also furnish by the petitioner and one same being furnished respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and if they possess the infrastructure their case to be consider for the ensuring academic year. Needless to measuring that the requisite fee in any shall also be deposited by the petitioner college in that regard. It is submitted that in above terms the said writ petition was disposed. In view of the absorptions made by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, we



258

hereby once again furnish all the documents for considering our case for grant of recognition as per the objections raised by this authority. It is submitted that as per the observations we are hereby once again producing the copy of the building plan approved by the competent authority and also furnish the notarized copy of land usage certificate issued by the revenue officers also notarized copy of up to date encumbrance certificate and the copy of the Ph.D certificate of the Principal. It is submitted that the in respect of the latest approved staff list by the university, it is hereby mentioned that the college is not running B.Ed course as on today and the said latest approved staff list would be furnished as soon as the same is approved by the university and shall be furnish before commencement of academic year.”

The SRC in its 273rd meeting held on 30th September & 1st October, 2014 considered the Hon’ble High Court order dated 02.07.2014, representation of the institution dated 25.07.2014 and decided as under: 1. Case is reopened as per the Court Order. 2. Documents are examined afresh as directed. 3. Advised Southern Regional Office to ask the Institution to deposit the processing fee. 4. The Staff list is more than 5 years old; it is also not in the approved format. Southern Regional Office to ask them to submit an approved staff list, according to NCTE norms, in the prescribed format by 1st November. 2014. As per the decision of SRC in its 273rd meeting a letter was sent to the institution on 19.11.2014. In the meanwhile on receiving the decision of SRC uploaded in the official website, the institution has submitted its writtenrepresentation on 31.10.2014, along with D.D. of Rs. 51000/- (processing fee). stating as follows:

“…. As per the directions of SRCNCTE, I m herewith submitting the D.D. of Re. 51,000/- (Rupees fifty one thousand only) bearing No: “628883” dated: 21.10.2014, drawn from Corporation Bank, Jp Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore-78 for your kind consideration. Regarding staff approval we made request to the Bangalore University for the staff approval but University authorities refused our request for issuing of staff approval. In this regarding University issued endorsement copy stating that reason for refusal. We request you to kindly consider our reply and take necessary action.

The copy of the latter from Bangalore University is enclosed. Stating as follows:

“….the approval for the appointment of teaching staff is being given to only those colleges which have valid affiliation from the University. As your college does not have affiliation from the University, your request for



259

approval of appointment of teaching staff for the year 2014-15 cannot be considered.

The Committee considered the matter, written representation of the institution dated 31.10.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to Revive LOI. Thereafter, ask for approved staff list.

69) APS03112 D.Ed

Aadya Shri Nijalingeshwar Shikshana

Sansthe, Sankeshwar, Karnataka.

KA

Aadya Shri Nijalingeshwar Shikshana Sansthe, Sankeshwar, Karnataka had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Aadya Shri Nijalingeshwar Shikshana Sansthe’s D.Ed College, Ananth Vidya Nagar, PB. No.16, Hukeeri, Sankeshwar – 591313, Belgaum District, Karnataka for Elementary (D.Ed) Course of two and half years duration from the academic session 2005-06 with an annual intake of 50 students. The institution was granted recognition on 24.12.2005 with the condition to shift to its own premises/Building within three years from the date of recognition (incase the course is started in rented premises). The institution in its written representation enclosed a copy of letter issued by DIET Belgaum dated 05.05.2014 stated as follows:

“…From the academic year 2012-13 due to lack of admission of students for D.Ed Course and there is no teaching staff in the Institution. So this is the reason for closing your institution. Send this copy to SRC-NCTE”.

The institution has submitted its letter dated 13.05.2014 received by SRC on 19.05.2014 has stated that, “students were not admitted from the academic year 2012-13 for D.Ed course and hence precautions were taken to increase the strength of admissions by giving paper advertisements in the surrounding regions for the current academic year and has requested SRC not to withdraw the recognition”. The matter was placed before SRC in its 268th meeting held on 04th -05th June 2014, the committee considered and decided to withdraw the recognition for (APS03112-D.Ed) course with effect from 2014-2015. Accordingly, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 05.08.2014. The institution in its written representation dated 14.08.2014 enclosed a copy of its letter dated 13.05.2014 and stating as follows: “We humbly bring to your kind notice is that typical mistake our request letter has given wrong information to you (Kannada letter). Because actually which letter we have sent it was request for not to withdraw the recognition of our D.Ed college but as said above it was typical mistake infact we were requested for not close the D.Ed college by withdrawing the recognition. Hence you shown in paragraph 5 of your letter dated 05.08.2014 it was typical mistake. So, by this letter we cordially requesting you to continue the recognition of our D.Ed College and allow us to run it.



260

And its further information to you that our D.Ed college situated at the border of Maharashtra and Karnataka. So, in view of future and for the border area students our college is very needful. Therefore we kindly request you for continuation of recognition. A letter dated 06.11.2014 received from Higher Education Department State Government of Karnataka along with Trust letter dated 14.08.2014 and 13.05.2014 withdrawal order etc… and stating as follows:

“….Adya Shri Nijalingeshwar Shikshana Sansthe D.Ed College Requisition for continue recognition of this institution”.

The Committee considered the matter, written representation of the institution vide letter dated 13.05.2014,decided that, 1. The wrong order for withdrawal of recognition is cancelled. Further, The Committee considered the matter, written representation of the institution vide letter dated 13.05.2014, and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Showcause Notice Under NCTE Act for the following : 2.There is no faculty in position. In view of the above, the Committee decided to issue a Showcause Notice to the institution as to why the recognition be not withdrawn and thereby providing an opportunity to the institution to make a written representation within 21 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice along with necessary certificates/documents in order to take a final decision in the matter; failing which action will be taken including the withdrawal of recognition, based on the records available, with no further notice.

70) APS07608 B.Ed

Narendar College of Education,

Trichy, Tamilnadu

TN

Narendar College of Education, Venkatachalapuram, Pullambad, Trichy-621711, Tamilnadu

Narendar College of Education, Venkatachalapuram, Pullambad, Trichy-621711, Tamilnadu had submitted an application for seeking recognition for B.Ed Course on 21.11.2006. The institution was granted recognition on 31.01.2008 with an annual intake of 100 students.

In the meanwhile, a complaint was received from Shri. V.C. Ravi Chandran, No.40, Kamarajarnagar, Chinnatirupathy, Salem-636008, Tamilnadu regarding concealment and violation of rules and regulation by Narendar College of Education. The SRC considered the complaint in its 195th meeting held on 17-18 August 2010 and decided to call for remarks with necessary documentary evidence on the specifics of the complaint from the institution and to obtain an affidavit from the complainant.

Accordingly, letters to complainant and institution were issued on 24.09.2010.The



261

reply from the complainant was received on 14.10.2010. The complainant had submitted affidavit on Rs.10/- stamp paper along with encumbrance certificate. Reply from the institution was not received. The reply from the complainant was considered in its 198th Meeting of SRC held on 24-26 November 2010 and the committee decided to cause inspection under Section 17 of NCTE Act. The institution was directed to submit the essential documents within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. Demand Draft of Rs.40,000/- towards inspection fee in favour of “The Member Secretary, NCTE” payable at Bangalore should be submitted. Duly filled in Questionnaire along with all the necessary documents for land, building approval and building completion certificate from a competent Govt. Engineer and other relevant documents should also be submitted within the stipulated notice period of 30 days. Accordingly, a letter was issued to the institution on 06.01.2011 to submit the above. Inspection of the institution was fixed between14-19 February 2011 and the same was intimated to the institution on 08.02.2011. Meanwhile, a letter was received from the institution on 17.02.2011 requesting to give a copy of complaint to give a detailed explanation and to carry out the inspection thereafter.

The inspection team visited the institution on 15.02.2011 but did not carry out the inspection. A letter from VT members was received on 21.02.2011 stating that:

“The chairman of the college was not willing for the inspection and said that he has received a court direction against the inspection. The letter from the chairman along with a copy of the court direction is enclosed herewith”.

Meanwhile, a court order in W.P.No.3596/2011 was received by this office on 21.02.2011 stating as follows:

“the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to furnish a copy of the written complaint, if any available to the petitioner within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to communicate the inspection team, if they visit the site, about the order of this court, in which event the inspection team shall act as per the order of this court”.

The institution vide its letter dated 15.02.2011 again requested to furnish a copy of complaint received against the institution, in order to give reply. After seeing the complaint, SRC considered the matter in its 202nd meeting held on 14th-15th March 2011 and decided that court order be complied with. Accordingly, a copy of complaint was forwarded to the institution on 11.03.2011. The institution vide its letter dated 16.03.2011 requested for extension of time to submit the reply. SRC in its 203rd meeting held on 31st March & 1st April 2011 decided to wait for the reply from the institution for causing inspection. The reply from the institution was received from 27.04.2011 stating as follows:

“....The complaint from V.C. Ravichandran against our institution are false and motivated. We have civil dispute pending against him and he has given the said false complaint. We wish to inform you that we have clear title of



262

property in which our institution is situated. Our institution is situated in Sy.No.164/2, 164/3, 164/4A, 162/7, 162/8, 163/1, 163/2 at Venkatachalapuram. The above said land is also not under any litigation. The Encumbrance certificate produced by the complaint is totally false and I am hereby submitting the real encumbrance certificate relating to the lands in which the institution is situated. The attachment of the property as stated in the complaint does not refer to the lands in which the institution is situated. I therefore request you to drop all action against us and not proceed any further”.

The SRC in its 205th meeting held on 18th-19th May 2011 considered the matter and decided to cause inspection under section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, inspection was carried out on 10.08.2011. The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st-23rd September, 2011 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it has decided to serve Show Cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Show cause notice was issued to the institution on 24.11.2011. The institution had submitted its written representation on 26.03.2012. The SRC in its 223rd meeting held on 29-31 May 2012, considered the reply of the institution and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under of NCTE Act for the following:

• The institution has submitted notarized land title certificate dt. 14.02.2012, which is on lease basis, which is not permissible as per NCTE Regulation 2009.


• In the Questionnaire submitted, Address of the land is not submitted.

• Original FDRs. Of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund respectively from a Nationalised Bank in joint account is not submitted.

• The management has not submitted certificate from the affiliating body to the effect that no other programme is being conducting by the institution in the same building/campus, along with the existing B.Ed course.

• As per land usage certificate submitted, the land is on lease basis, which is not permissible as per NCTE norms.


• The institution has not submitted any bills towards proof of purchase of equipments available in the Language learning lab.

Accordingly, a final show cause notice was issued to the institution on 25.06.2012. The institution has submitted its written representation on 12.07.2012 stating as follows:-



263

“…..request you to withdraw the show cause notice and if you have any doubt, please conduct inspection in accordance with Rule 8 of the NCTE Rules by informing us the date of inspection in advance.”

The same was placed before SRC, meantime a court notice in MP9MD) No.2, of 2013 in WP (MD) No.9977 of 2012 filed by Narendar College of Education V/s NCTE-SRC and The Registrar, Teacher Education University was received by SRC on 17.06.2013. A letter addressed to Sri.A.Sivaji, Advocate along with brief of the case was sent on 10.07.2013. An e-mail from the Advocate was received by SRC on 03.01.2014 seeking remarks. A letter addressed to Sri.A.Shivaji Advocate along with e-mail details, brief of the case was sent on 06.02.2014. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench has sent a court order of W.P.(MD) Nos.9977 and 9978 of 2012 and M.P.(MD). Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 (each two MPs) and M.P.(MD( Nos.2 of 2012 (two Mps) and M.P. (MD) No.3 of 2012 dated 03.01.2014 as follows:-

“……..the petitioner institution should have been given an opportunity by the authorities concerned. Therefore, both the impugned orders are set aside, as no opportunity has been given for them to rectify the mistakes pointed by the respondents, following the judgment made in the Teacher Education vs. Vaishnav Institue of Technology & Managements, reported in (2012) 5 Sec 139. At the same time, since the next admission will start only from the year 2014, the respondents will give a notice of inspection to the petitioners concerned and inspect the institution in accordance with section 13 or the NCTE Act coupled with Rule 8 of the Act and if they are satisfied in respect of the rules and regulations, the petitioner institution will be permitted to start admission. It is made clear that till the inspection is over and recognition is given, the petitioner institution will not start admission.

With the above discussions and observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.”

Note: Same court order for both cases i.e. W.P.(MD) No.9977 of 2012 related to Narendar College of Education, Venkatachalapuram, Pullambad, Trichy-621711, Tamilnadu (APS07608/B.Ed) and W.P.No.9978 of 2012 related to MSES College of Education, 1st Floor, S.F.No. 721, Thanthantrimalai, Karur District-639005, Tamilnadu (APS05519/B.Ed).

The Southern Regional Committee in its 266th Meeting held on 2 May, 2014, considered the Hon’ble High Court order dated 03.01.2014 and all other relevant documents and decided to cause inspection for B.Ed (APS07608) course under NCTE Act, to examine whether the Institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, existing programme As per the decision of SRC, the inspection of the institution was scheduled on 3rd



264

June 2014 and the same was informed to the institution on 20.05.2014 .The inspection of the institution was conducted on 03.06.2014 and the visiting team report was received by this office on 06.06.2014. The SRC in its 269th meeting held on 1-2 July 2014 considered the request letter from the institution dated 19.05.2014 for shifting, and all the relevant documentary evidences of the institution, it was decided to serve Notice under NCTE Act for the following:

• Certified copy of the land document in favour of the Society/Institution is not submitted by the institution. The institution /society is not in possession of land.

• In the building plan submitted, Labs and Multipurpose hall are not reflected.

• Notarised English version of land usage certificate is not submitted.

• Building completion certificate in original certified by Govt. Engineer is not submitted. At column 7 of BCC, type of ownership is mentioned as Lease.

• As per the Non –Encumbrance Certificate submitted along with the application, the land is in the name of an individual which is not permissible as per NCTE norms. Up to date Non –Encumbrance Certificate is not submitted along with the VT report.

• As per VT report, at present the Institution is not running B.Ed course.

• As per VT report, the B.Ed course is not functional, the college has not made sufficient arrangements for the visit of VT members.

• As per VT report, No faculty members are available in the institution, all faculty members had been relieved of their duties.

• As per VT report, Library, labs, ET labs and science books are insufficient and less than the requirement as per NCTE norms.

Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the institution on 31.07.2014. The institution has submitted its written representation on 18.08.2014 and 01.09.2014. The SRC In its 273rd meeting held on 30th September and 01st October, 2014 considered the written reply of the institution vide their letters dated 18.08.2014 & 01.09.204, all other relevant documents of the institution and noted that the Institution has not submitted the following documents:

1. Staff list is not approved by the affiliating authority. 2. Original FDRs not given. 3. Advised Southern Regional Office to ask them to submit these by 1



265

Nov. 2014

Accordingly, a letter was issued to the institution on 20.11.2014. The institution has submitted its written representation dated 03.11.2014 received by SRC on 21.11.2014 (with reference to 273rd decision uploaded in NCTE website) and its reply stated that: “….We are asked to submit the staff list approved by the Tamilnadu Teachers Education University.

We have approached the university from the first day of then information we had and we are constantly following up the matter to get the staff list approved from the university.

Until 30th Oct we enable to get the list approved, so we were send the same to the university by post also we submit a letter of request by mentioning the urgency that we have to submit the same (staff list approved by the TNTEU) to the SRC NCTE before the end of month OCT. But we still continuing our full effort to get the certificate.

And hence we humbly request the Regional Director, SRC, NCTE and Southern Regional Committee to give some time (few weeks) to submit the staff list obtained from the state government.

We assure of fulfilling all the NCTE norms and proof of that we will submit the certificate requested by the NCTE as earlier”. The Committee considered the matter, written representation of the institution vide letter dated 03.11.2014, decided to Give time till 01.01.2015 to submit duly approved staff list and other documents.

71) APS02091 B.Ed

Vivekanda College of Education, Bangalore, Karnataka

KA

Vivekananda College of Education, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, 2nd Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055, Karnataka. Janatha Education Society’s Vivekananda College of Education, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, 2nd Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055, Karnataka was granted recognition for B.Ed. course vide this office Order No.F.SRO/NCTE/B.Ed./2004-2005/8671 dated 25.11.2004 with a condition to shift to its own premises within 3 years. The institution vide letter dated 8.12.2011 had requested for renewal of Fixed Deposit Receipts which expired on 17.6.2011. On going through the file, it was seen that the institution was granted recognition in leased premises. From the Visiting team report dated 9.10.2004, it was observed that the management was offering MBA, P.G. Courses, Pharmacy College, Law College, Degree Colleges, Schools etc. The institution is also sharing the Labs. with some other College. As per MIS, the institution is not running any other course recognized with NCTE. In order to ascertain the maintenance of extant, NCTE regulations, norms and standards of 2009 by the institution, a proposal was placed before SRC to get the institution inspected under Section 17 of NCTE Act.



266

The SRC in its 216th meeting of SRC held on 11th -12th January, 2012 considered the VT and VCD of the institution and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Notice was issued to the institution on 14.3.2012 for the following deficiencies:-

1. The institution was given recognition on 25.11.2004 in a temporary leased premises with a specific condition that the institution should move to a permanent premise within a period of three years i.e., on or before 25.11.2007. Even after a lapse of time period of 7 years & 02 months, the management has yet to start the construction of its own building/move to its own building.

2. As per VT report, the institution is functioning in a multistoried building; the third floor is earmarked for B.Ed programme. The management is also offering MBA, P.G. courses, Pharmacy College, Law College, Degree College & Higher schools in the same building. The labs are being shared with other colleges. This is against and gross violation of the NCTE norms.

The institution vide its letter dated 30.3.2012 submitted its written representation The SRC in its 221st meeting held on 19th –20th April 2012 considered the reply of the institution dated 30.03.2102 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act and accordingly, a Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 21.05.2012 for the following deficiencies:-

1. The institution was given recognition on 25.11.2004 in a temporary leased premises with a specific condition that the institution should move to a permanent premise within a period of three years i.e., on or before 25.11.2007. Even after a lapse of time period of 7 years & 04 months, the management has yet to start the construction of its own building/move to its own building. The institution stated that a new building was constructed in the leased land from Govt of Karnataka, which was not brought to the notice of SRC.NCTE till date.

2. Approved blue print of the building plan issued by competent civil authority is not submitted.


4. Notarized land usage certificate from the Revenue divisional office stating that the agriculture land converted to non-agriculture for the purpose of educational institution only is not submitted. Proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer not submitted for conversion of land from agricultural to educational purposes.

5. Original Affidavit in the prescribed form on Rs. 100/- stamp paper duly attested by oath Commissioner or notary public, is not submitted.

6. Staff details duly approved by the affiliating body is not submitted. The institution submitted its representation on 12.06.2012. The SRC in its 236th meeting held on 16th –17th December 2012,considered the



267

reply of the institution vide letter dated 12.06.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Final show cause notice was issued on 05.02.2013. The institution has submitted its written representation on 25.02.2013 The SRC in its 242nd meeting held on 14th - 16th April 2013 considered the written reply of the institution on the above matter and also the relevant documents of the institution and decided to withdraw recognition for the following reasons:-

1. As seen from building plan,Multi purpose hall is having 1294.83 Sq.ft. which is less as per NCTE norms. As per NCTE regulations, 2009 institution must have Multi purpose hall of size of 2000Sq.ft.

2. As seen from the seal of the building plan, Ground Floor is meant for car parking only and shall not convert for any other purpose. From the building plan it is observed that Ground Floor is having 255.16 Sq.mts. Hence,the remaining 5 floors with built up area of 255.16*5=1,275.8 Sq.mts is less as per NCTE norms. As per NCTE regulations 2009, the instittuion should have 1500 Sq.mts for offering B.Ed course.

3. As per BCC,the total area mentioned under roofing is 1530.96 Sq.mts. The column under area is left blank.

4. BCC is approved by Asst.Director (Town Planning) West Zone,BBMP. BCC should be approved by the Government Engineer.

5. Staff list approved by Bangalore University is not Submitted. Based on the above points the committee decides to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by Vivekananda College of Education, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, 2nd Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed course, if any, to complete their course. It was made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining board / body be informed accordingly. Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, if any. As per the decision of SRC, the recognition of the institution was withdrawn vide order no. F.No.APS02091/B.Ed/KA.2013-14/51731 dated 17.05.2013. In the Meantime the institution had filed an appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, before the appellate Authority, NCTE, New Delhi against the With drawl order of SRC. The appellate authority vide order No.F.No.89- 476/2013/Appeal/14th Meeting-2013 dated 30.10.2013 has made the following observations :-

“The Council noted that the appellate institution was granted recognition for B.Ed course on 25.11.2004 with a condition to shift to its own premises within 3 years. Committee noted that V.T, report wich is being referred to in the show cause notice dated 05.02.2013 is not available on SRC file.



268

The withdrawal order dated 17.05.2013 is mainly on grounds of the inadequacy of multipurpose hall. Total built up area combined together on all the floors after excluding ground floor, approval of B.C.C. by the Assistant director( Town Planning) and non submission of staff list approval. Committee noted that the appellant has highlighted earlier portion in the building plan which was approved in November 2008 to indicate that size of multipurpose hall is adequate and that parking facilities is shifting to outside place and ground floor is permitted to be used as class room. If this has been the position it should have been reflected in the Visiting Team report. The approval of Bangalore University on the appointment of principal and six other members of faculty is dated 17-07-2013 whereas the SCN was issued to the appellant institution an 05-02-2013 and withdrawal order is dated 17-05-2013. Committee concluded that post withdrawal developments cannot be taken as valid proof of having complied with the deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice. In the above circumstances, the Council concluded that SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed. After perusal of the documents, Memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on record and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC confirmed. The Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against”

The SRC in its 255th meeting held on 13-15 November 2013, considered the appellate authority order and decided that committee has noted the matter. In the meantime, a W.P.No.51932/2013 (EDN-REG-P) filed by Janatha Education Society Vivekananda College Premises, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar II stage, Bangalore-560055 v/s NCTE and others in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This office has received a court notice dated 22.11.2013 in W.P.No.51932/2013 which is as under:-

“to appear before the court in person or through advocate duly instructed or through some one authorized by law to act for you in this case, at 10 In the meantime, a W.P.No.51932/2013 (EDN-REG-P) filed by Janatha Education Society Vivekananda College Premises, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar II stage, Bangalore-560055 v/s NCTE and others in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

This office has received a court notice dated 22.11.2013 in W.P.No.51932/2013 which is as under:-

“….to appear before the court in person or through advocate duly instructed or through some one authorized by law to act for you in this



269

case, at 10.30 a.m. in the forenoon within 5 days of the service of this notice to show cause why rule nisi should not be issued. If you fail so to appear on the said date or an subsequent date to which the matter may be posted as directed by the court, without any further notice, the petition will be dealt with, heard and decided on merits in your absence.

Interim Order Pending issue of Rule nisi in the aforesaid writ petition it is hereby ordered by this court on Friday The 22nd Day of November 2013

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice AnandByrareddy as follows: Emergent notice regarding rule.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to serve the standing counsel for the respondent. Stay of Annexures ‘U’ and ‘V’ till the next date of hearing. The petitioner has prayed

(i) To quash the withdrawal order bearing F.No.2091/B.Ed/KA/2013-14/51731 dated 17.05.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent(NCTE, Bangalore)

(ii) To quash the order bearing No.ACA-3/A4/B.Ed/M.Ed/Sam.na/2013-14 dated 29.10.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent(the Registrar, Bangalore University)

(iii) To quash the order F.No.89-47/2013 Appeal/14th Meeting-2013 dated 30.10.2013 passed by the 4th respondent.

(iv) Grant such other relief or reliefs. Issue such other direction or directions or pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems necessary under the facts and circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice and equity.

A letter was addressed to the Member Secretary, NCTE (HQ) on 28.11.2013 with a request for guidance in the matter. The SRC-NCTE has received an interim court order in W.P.No.51932/2013 from the Honb’e High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore on 09.06.2014. The court order stating as follows:-

Order on IA, 4/14 :Notwithstanding that there is an order of stay of withdrawal of recognition and a direction to the Central Admission Cell to send the list of names, also having been complied with, the University refuses to approve the admissions made on the ground that since the recognition has been withdrawn, affiliation has not been renewed. This shall not be a ground on which the university shall refuse approval of admissions. Subject to the result of the petition and also subject to the students of the petitioner-institution complying with all the academic eligibility criteria. The admission of the students shall be approved. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a further direction that since the examinations are schedules to be held on 02.06.2014, the University



270

also be directed to furnish the hall tickets to the examination and thereby avoid further proceedings for such a direction. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that if once admissions are approved and if the eligibility criteria is satisfied, it would follow that the University would also issue the hall tickets. All this would be subject to the result of the writ petition.

IA.4/2014 is allowed accordingly.”

The SRC in its 269th meeting held on 1st-2nd July 2014 considered the court order and decided and advised SRO that already done, ask our Lawyer to get the stay vacated. Also, university to be informed. In the meantime, a court order in W.P.No.51932 of 2013 dated 04.07.2014 was received by SRC on 14.07.2014 stating as follows:- “Read the Interim Order granted on 22.11.2013, 24.01.2014 & 25.04.2014.\ After hearing, the court made the following:- Order:- Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 seeks time to file objections. List after two weeks. Interim Order stands extended till the next date of hearing.” As per decision of 269th meeting of SRC, a letter was sent to Shri.P.S.Dinesh, Advocate on 31.07.2014. The SRC is in receipt of letter from High Court Govt. Pleader, High Court of Karnataka, Government of Karnataka dated 19.08.2014 received by SRC on 05.09.2014 stating as follows:-

“…the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by you made in No.PPOOSHIE/C-3/SM53/PRA.PRAM.Anu/2013-14 vide Annexure-A and notice dated 02.06.2014 passed by the 2nd Respondent made in No.PROOSHIE/C-3/SM053/PRA.PRAM.Anu/2013-14 vide Annexure T and for such other reliefs. The above matter came up for hearing before C.H.No.17 on 19.08.2014. the matter is disposed of quashing Annexures U & V with a direction to NCTE to reconsider the additional material placed by the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law and also a direction to Bangalore University to pass orders after considering the materials placed before it in accordance with law.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 09.09.2014 along with photocopy of court order in W.P.No.51932/2013 (EDN-REG-P) dated 19.08.2014 and institution in its reply stating as follows:-

“…National Council for Teachers Education with drew our recognition dated 17.05.2013. in this regard, we filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble



271

High Court W.P.No.51932/2013. Now, the Hon’ble High Court, in its order W.P.No.51932/2013 (ED-REG-P) dated 19.08.2014, directed NCTE to accord recognition to Vivekananda College of Education, Rajajinagar II Stage, Bangalore-55.”

A letter from Shri.P.S.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate dated 22.09.2014 received by SRC on 26.09.2014 along with certified copy of court order in W.P.No.51932/2013 (EDN-REG-P) dated 19.08.2014. the court order stating as follows:-

“…9. The NCTE is therefore directed to consider the additional materials produced by the petitioner and thereafter pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Consequent thereto, on such order being passed by the NCTE, Bangalore University shall also take note of the same and appropriate orders be passed with regard to the affiliation. 10. To enable such process to be completed, the order dated 17.05.2013 and 30.10.2013 passed by the NCTE and its Appellate Authority as also the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Bangalore University stands quashed. The matter stands remitted to the NCTE to reconsider the matter afresh and in accordance with law. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

The SRC in its 273rd meeting held on 30th September & 1st October, 2014 considered the matter, Hon’ble High Court, Karnataka, order dated 19.08.2014, decided that, this is a case of shifting of premises. In accordance with the Supreme Court Orders, this can be processed only after notification of the new Regulations. Advised Southern Regional Office to Inform the Institution and the University accordingly. In the meanwhile receiving the decision of SRC uploaded in the official website, the institution has submitted a letter on 30.10.2014, stating as follows:

“…you have wrongly mentioned in your website NCTE.ORG. this is a case of shifting of premises. In accordance with the Supreme Court Order, this can be processed only after notification of the New Regulations. Inform the institution and the University accordingly. So this is not applicable to our college. Hence, we already have given information to NCTE that we have constructed new building in the year 2008 in the same premises exclusively for B.Ed., course according to NCTE norms. We are running B.Ed., course in separate building at the same address i.e. Vivekananda College of Education, Rajajinagar II stage, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore-560055.”

Again the institution has submitted a letter dtd.30.10.2014 received on 03.11.2014, along with the approved staff list and the undertaking letter for providing 2000 Sq.ft. multipurpose hall to Vivekananda College of Education. Another letter from the institution received on 25.11.2014. stating as follows:



272

“….we are surprising to see that in the proceedings of the 273 meeting held SRC on 30th September 2014 and 1st October 2014. In the proceedings we noticed that our college i.e. Vivekananda College of Education, Rajajinagar II stage, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, that it is a case of shifting of premises and in accordance with the Supreme Court orders, our application process only after notification of the new regulations and the said proceedings has not been received by us either from NCTE or form the University till today. However, we have noticed in the NCTE website and found that conclusion of the 273 NCTE meeting is totally incorrect. In fact, we have not shifted our institution to any place or address. When we obtained permission and the affiliation to run the B.Ed., college in the year 2004, at the first instant is only to the premises situated at Rajajinagar II stage, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore-55 Karnataka. Which has large extent of land allotted by the B.D.A to run the education institution under the Janatha Education Society (Regd). In the land society had constructed number of building out of which one building is earmarked for B.Ed., college. we have taken permission in the same premises in the year 2004 and same is continued in the very same premises. Now the II Semester 95 students studying in the same premises and now we would likely to take admission for Ist Semester students for the academic year 2014-15. In the premises wasNCTE granted permission. Hence, the question of running B.Ed., college in the shifted premises does not arise. We have not shifted our B.Ed., college (Institution) to any new premises therefore continued the old permission and direct the Central Admission Cell and Bangalore University to send students for admission of Government quota and Management quota. We also followed the other formalities as directed by the Hon'ble High Court by sending approved staff list and undertaking of providing 2000 Sq.ft. multipurpose hall.

Kindly accept and oblige.”

The Committee considered the matter, letter dated 03.11.2014 & 25.11.2014 from the institution, decided that: This is not a shifting case. Advised Southern Regional Office to re-examine to check whether requirements relating to title to property infrastructure and land area, as notified by NCTE, are fulfilled.

72) APS04356 B.Ed

Alpha College of Education, Prakasham,

Andhra Pradesh

AP

Alpha College of Education, Palleerla Narasimha Reddy Compound, Beside

Court, Viswanathapuram, Podili, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

An application was submitted by Alpha College of Education, Palleerla Narasimha

Reddy Compound, Beside Court, Viswanathapuram, Podili, Prakasam District,

Andhra Pradesh. The application was processed as per the provisions contained

in Rules and Regulation, Norms and Standards vogue at that point of time and the

recognition was granted to the B.Ed. course vide order dt 10.02.2006 with

stipulated conditions.

The NCTE Hqrs forwarded letter dated.10.10.2008 and had drawn the attention of

the SRC, Bangalore wherein a complaint has been made against six colleges in



273

Podili village in Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. The matter was considered

by SRC in its 167th meeting held on 17th-18th November 2008.

The SRC after careful consideration of all aspects decided to conduct inspection

under section 17 of NCTE Act 1993 for the Teacher Education Center institutions

located at Podili village. The inspection of the institution under section 17 was

conducted on 22.12.2008. The VTR was placed before SRC in its 170th meeting

held on 16th -17th February 2009. SRC considered the VTR’s and observed that

some complaints have been received regarding inspections and the VTR’s are

also lacking clarity. Hence SRC decided to examine the whole matter by deputing

an expert team consisting of SRC members.

An expert committee visited the institution situated near and around Podili,

Prakasam District during 09 -10 March, 2009 and the report of the Committee was

considered by SRC in its 171st meeting held on 16th -17th March 2009 and SRC

decided to issue notice under Section 17 and accordingly a show cause notice

was issued to the institution on 04.04.2009 for the following reasons:-

1. The Management has taken lease land 1866 sq.yards and RCC building 360 sq.yards for establishment of B.Ed. College for 5 years on temporary basis and 5 acres own land to construct permanent building. The institution was accorded recognition on 10.2.2006 and the College has to shift its own permanent premises within three years time limit i.e., before 10.2.2009, as per NCTE Act. The institution has not made any effort to shift the College to the permanent building after lapse of three years time limit.

2. The rented shed roofed with asbestos sheet is not suitable to run the B.Ed. course.

3. No multipurpose hall is available for B.Ed. course. 4. No teaching faculty; conduct of classes is irregular as per reports. 5. The institution has to submit approved faculty list approved by the affiliating

body for all existing Teacher Education Center courses with details of each faculty member in the format prescribed.

The Management was requested to explain why it has not constructed permanent

building after lapse of 3 years and not fulfilled the conditions of recognition order

and Rules and Regulations of NCTE. Further, the Management was asked to

explain why the Recognition shall not be withdrawn for non-fulfillment of conditions

including not having shifted the college to new permanent premises within three

years time limit from the date of recognition.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 27.04.2009 &

04.05.2009. The written representation along with other documents were placed

before SRC and the Committee observed the following:-

1. The institution was accorded recognition on 10.2.2006 in the five year leased land of 1866 sq. yards and RCC building 360 sq. yards, on temporary basis; the institution submitted 5 acres own land to construct the permanent building.



274

The recognition was granted with the condition to shift the B.Ed. course to its own premises/building within three years from the date of recognition,; whereas the institution has not constructed own/permanent building within three years time limit on the five acres land as per the conditions of recognition order. Hence, the institution is not eligible to continue in the rented premises as per rules and Regulations, Norms and Standards of NCTE.

2. At present the B.Ed. course is running in rented shed, roofed with asbestos sheet, with 360 sq. yards, built-up space, which is not suitable and not adequate to run the B.Ed. course as per para 8(10) of NCTE Regulations, 2007.

3. The institution has not provided multipurpose hall as per Norms and standards of B.Ed. course. The Management in its reply for the showcause notice stated that the permanent building will be constructed with all facilities by the end of April,2010; whereas, the institution has breached the conditions laid down in the recognition order and not made any efforts to fulfil the conditions stipulated in the recognition order and violated the rules and Regulations, Norms and standards of NCTE.

In view of non-adherence of conditions, Rules, Regulations, Norms & Standards of

NCTE, the Committee decided to withdraw the recognition for B.Ed. course of the

institution from the academic session 2009-10. However, the ongoing batch of

students be permitted to complete their course(the students admitted in 2008-09

be allowed to continue in order to complete the course). The institution shall not

make any fresh admissions subsequent to the withdrawal order. The affiliating

University and the State Government be informed accordingly.

As per direction of SRC in its 176th meeting of SRC , withdrawal order issued to

the applicant institution on 25.06.2009.

The institution submitted inspection fee of Rs. 40,000/- vide dated 26/02/2011

which is returned to the applicant institution on 08.03.2011.

Thereafter the institution has submitted inspection fee along with Memorandum of

Association of Society which is established on 12/01/2010 namely Sasi & Swatika

Reddy Educational & Development Society, Plot no. F.f-4, Temple Towers, Near

Sai Baba Temple, Lawer Pet, Ongole-523001, Prakasham Distt, Andhra Pradesh

whereas earlier the society name was Alpha’s Educational Academy,

Vishwanthapuram, Podili, Prakasham Distt, Andhra Pradesh.

The institution has approached to Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP

NO. 13352/2011 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has passed an order dated

03.06.2011 as under:-

“ After hearing the counsel for the parties, interim direction is issued direction

respondent no. 1 and 2 to inspect the new building constructed by the petitioners

forthwith i.e within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy



275

of this order. After inspection the college premises, the respondents shall inform

the court with regard to the inspection carried out by them.”

A letter also received from NCTE HQtrs vide f. 64-155/2011/NCTE/Legal dated

27th July, 2011 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the matter has not been

defended properly before the Hon’ble High court. NCTE Hqtrs has also directed

that no provisions to make inspection after the closure of the case.

In this regard a letter was also issued to Shri P. Vinayaka Swamy, legal Counsel

SRC, NCTE, Hyderabad to vacate the order. Till date no communication has been

received from our legal counsel. Correspondent of the college visit in the office of

SRC on 04.02.2012 and submit the court order. Hence the inspection may be

constituted as per direction of Hon’ble High court and avoid the contempt petition.

The SRC in its 217th meeting held on 08-09 February, 2012 considered the

Hon’ble court orders and all the relevant documents by the institution and decided

to cause inspection at the premises to verify the facts, under Section 17 of NCTE

Act.

The SRC also advised Office to inform the Counsel to file an affidavit to explain the

delay to the court and seek more time to avoid the contempt petition.

The inspection of the institution was conducted on 29.02.2012. The SRC in its 221st meeting held on 19th-20th April 2012, considered the VT Report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under section 17 of NCTE Act.

Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 16.05.2012. The institution has submitted its written representation on 08.06.2012. The institution has submitted reply for Show Cause Notice after expiry of the

stipulated time of 21 days period (i.e. two day late)

Supreme Court vide their order in Civil Appeal NO. 1125-1128/2011 in SLP No.

17165-68/2009 filed by NCTE Vs ors, which reads as under:

“An institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfils the conditions specified

in various clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to ensure that in

future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions laid down

in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the

application by the Regional Committee and communication of the decision on the

issue of recognition it strictly adhered to”.

The SRC in its 230th Meeting held on 16th – 17th August 2012, considered the reply of the institution, which is received on 08-06-2012, i.e., after 23 (Twenty Three)



276

days from the date of issue of of show cause notice dt. 16/05/2012 and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE Regulations 2009, to refuse and reject the application of the institution for recognition of D.El.Ed course. Accordingly Rejection order was issued to the institution on 05.09.2012. Aggrieved by the order of SRC, the institution had approached to Hon’ble High

Court in W.P.No.31122/2012.

The Hon’ble High Court has passed an order dated 05.10.2012 vide W.P.No.

31122 of 2012 reads as hereunder:

“directed to forthwith reconsider the petitioners’ aplication on its own merits in the

light of the explanation submitted by them. If respondent no. 2 (NCTE – SRC) is

satisfied that the petitioners’ application conforms to the NCTE Regulations, they

shall be permitted to conduct the B.Ed course in terms of their application from the

academic year 2012-13 itself.

Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

As a sequel, WPMP no. 39676 of 2012, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is

disposed of as infructuous.”

The SRC in its 235th meeting held on 21-22nd November 2012, considered the Hon’ble High Court oder dt. 05.10.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under NCTE Act, for the following:

• Original certified copy of the land documents from sub-registrar in favour of Society is not submitted.

• Notarised English version of the land documents is not submitted.


• Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund from a Nationalised Bank in joint account and in favour of Society/college/institution name is not given.

• The institution has submitted only the documents related to the SSRED Society and it is not resolved the problem of different societies at the time of initial recognition and the society at present.

• No documentary proof is submitted regarding extension of multipurpose hall size as per NCTE norms.

• No proof is submitted regarding payment of salary to staff through Bank Cheque.



277

• From the photograph, it cannot be ascertained whether the permanent name board has been fixed.

Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the institution on 19.12.2012 and

the institution has submitted its representation dated 02.01.2013 received in the

office of SRC on 03.01.2013.

The Committee in its 241st Meeting held on 29th – 30th March and 1st April 2013 considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt. 03.01.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under NCTE Act, for the following: Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund from a

Nationalised Bank in joint account is not given. The institution has submitted only

Photocopy of FDRs.

• The institution has not submitted approved staff list as per NCTE norms.

• No proof is submitted regarding payment of salary to staff through Bank Cheque.

Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 10.05.2013. The

institution has submitted its written representation on 29.05.2013.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 248th meeting held during 13-15 July,

2014 considered the reply of the institution vide letter dated 29.05.2013 and other

related documents along with the original file of the institution for shifting to

new/permanent and decided to permit shifting to new premises under intimation to

the University.

As per the decision of SRC, an order permitting to shift to new premises at Alpha

College of Education, Markapur Road, Viswanadhapuram, Podili-523240,

Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh for conducting of B.Ed. course was issued on

23.9.2013.

Points submitted for consideration:-

The institution was granted recognition on 10.2.2006 with shifting conditions and

the applicant society at the time of initial recognition was People Educational

Academy. Subsequently, for non-shifting recognition was withdrawn on 25.6.2009.

Later, submitted inspection fee along with Memorandum of Association of Society

which is established on 12/01/2010 namely Sasi & Swatika Reddy Educational &

Development Society, Plot no. F.f-4, Temple Towers, Near Sai Baba Temple,

Lawer Pet, Ongole-523001, Prakasham District, Andhra Pradesh whereas earlier

the Society name was Alpha’s Educational Academy, Vishwanthapuram, Podili,

Prakasham Distt, Andhra Pradesh.

At the time of inspection also, the name of the Society is shown as Sasi and

Swatika Reddy Educational and Development Society( which is registered on

12.10.2010 i.e., after the withdrawal of recognition i.e.,on 25.6.2009).



278

Shifting permission was given to this Society on 23.9.2013. Permission for

Change of society is not accorded.

Recognition was withdrawn for B.Ed. course on 25.6.2009 and the Hon’ble High

Court has not set aside the order of SRC. Subsequent order permitting to shift

dated 23.9.2013 does not reflect restoration of recognition.

In view of the above, whether the recognition status for the period from 25.6.2009

to 23.9.2013 is to be considered as recognized or not recognized as there are RTI

questions on the recognition status of the institution during the above period.

The Committee considered the matter, advised Southern Regional Office to ask the Institution to supply documents and information to show that all title to properties and rights relating to the institution rest with the new Society. Report in the 277th meeting.

73) SRCAPP1943 M.Ed

S.Preethi M.Ed College for Women, Sivaganga, Tamilnadu.

TN

S Preethi M.Ed College for Women, Plot No.201/1, 201/2A, 201/3, Arasanoor

Village, Thirumansolai Post, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivaganga District, Pin-630

601, Tamilnadu

Augustine Educational And Charitable Trust, Plot No.201/1, Sivagangai Road,

Arasanoor Village, Thirumansolai Post, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivaganga District, Pin-

630 601, Tamilnadu had applied for grant of recognition to S Preethi M.Ed College

for Women, Plot No.201/1, 201/2A, 201/3, Arasanoor Village, Thirumansolai Post,

Sivagangai Taluk, Sivaganga District, Pin-630 601, Tamilnadu. for M.Ed Course of

one year duration under Section 15(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern

Regional Committee, NCTE online on 28.12.2012 and physical application has

been received in the office of SRC on 31.12.2012.



03.04.2013. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 19.04.2013. The

institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 24.05.2013.

The SRC in its 246th meeting held on 02-04th June, considered the reply of the

institution dt.24-05-2013 and all other relevant documents and decided to cause

composite inspection under NCTE Act for the proposed course and other courses

being run by the institution, to examine whether the institution fulfils all the

requirements as per the norms, for the proposed programme, subject to the

condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the institution, as per

the norms. Accordingly, the inspection of the institution was fixed between 01st –

05th July, 2013, the same was intimated to the institution on 22.06.2013. The

inspection of the institution was conducted on 01.07.2013

On careful perusal of the original file of the institution, VT report, VCD, all relevant

documents and other related documents, Act of NCTE, 1993, Regulations and



279

guidelines of NCTE published from time to time laid on the table, the SRC in its

251st Meeting held on 25th -27th August, 2013 decided to issue Letter of Intent for

grant of recognition to M.Ed course of one year duration with an annual intake of

35(thirty five only)(one unit), subject to the appointment of qualified staff through

duly constituted selection committee as per the Norms of NCTE/State

Government/Affiliating University and be given effect before the commencement

of the academic session. Accordingly, LOI was issued to the institution on

10.09.2013. The institution has submitted reply on 08.11.2013.

The SRC in its 256th Meeting held on 04th-06th December, 2013 considered the

matter and it was decided to serve Notice Under Section 14 of NCTE Act.

Accordingly, LOI notice was issued to the institution on 18.01.2014. The institution

has submitted written representation on 26.02.2014.


by the institution in response to the letter of Intent, the SRC in its 264th meeting

held on 1st-3rd March 2014, decided that Formal Recognition be granted to M.Ed.,

course of one year duration with an annual intake of 35 (thirty five only) students,

with effect from 2014-2015.

Accordingly, Formal Recognition order was issued to the institution on 03.03.2014.

As directed by competent authority, a letter to SKMKGP College of Education,

Mysore Karnataka State regarding submission of pay drawn of Mr.Shanmukhaiah

Suranagimath and letter to SJVP College of Education, Harihara, Davangere

District, Karnataka State regarding submission of pay drawn of Dr.Malakar

Sudhakar James.


26.03.2014 requesting to return the original land documents in the form of sale

deed

As requested by the institution, original land document was returned to the

institution on 27.03.2014.

In reply for SRO letter dated 03.03.2014 regarding Mr. Shanmukhaiah

Suranagimath pay drawn details, S.K.M.K.G.P. College of Education, Mysore in its

letter on 25.03.2014 stated as follows:-

“Above named person was not worked in this institution. So we have not issued any service certificate and salary”

Further, in response to this office letter dated 03/03/2014, P.G. Department of Education Harihar in its letter dated 14.03.2014 stated that “ our M.Ed department has stared from the academic year 2008-09, from the beginning of our department no one by name Dr. Malekar Sudhakar James has Worked in our institution. So we are unable to submit any pay draw details of the above person



280

mentioned in your letter.”

The Committee considered the matter, letter from the institution dated 25.03.2014 & 14.03.2014, and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Showcause Notice Under section 14 of NCTE Act for the following :

• The institution has accepted the false certificate submitted by Mr. Sankukhaiah Surangimath that he has worked in SKMKGP College of Education, Mysore , & SJVP College of Education, Harihara, Davangere District, Karnataka and by Dr. Malakar Sudhakar James that he has worked in P.G.Department of Education, Harihar, Davangere District, Karnataka.

In view of the above, the Committee decided to issue a Showcause Notice to the institution as to why the recognition be not withdrawn and thereby providing an opportunity to the institution to make a written representation within 21 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice along with necessary certificates/documents in order to take a final decision in the matter; failing which action will be taken including the withdrawal of recognition, based on the records available, with no further notice.

74) ------- B.Ed

Innovative programme

Maulana Azad National

Urdu University,

AP

Maulana Azad National Urdu University/B.Ed – Regular course in Urdu

Medium (Innovative Programme)

On 23.11.2014,an application dated 30.10.2014 is received from the Registrar,

Maulana Azad National Urdu University. for recognition of B.Ed course, in Urdu

medium under Innovative Programme from the academic session 2015-16 at

Bidar , Karnataka The Registrar’s request is as under :-

“ This is to inform you that the Maulana Azad National Urdu University is

a Central University established by an act of Parliament in 1998 wuth the

mandate to promote Urdu language and thereby it offers all its courses

trough Urdu medium.The University is already offering B.Ed course at

Srinagar, Darbhanga , Bhopal,Sambhal,Aurangabad and Asansol, in

addition to a full fledge Department of Education and Training under

the School of Education and Training at its Headquarters in Hyderabad

which offers Ph.D in Education, M.Phil in Education , M.Ed, B.Ed and

Diploma in Education programs in urdu mediums.Establishment of college

of Teacher Education through Urdu Medium facilitates preparation of Urdu

medium teachers whih in turn caters to the needs of urdu medium schools

in the country.

NCTE has already accorded permission and recognition to commence

B.Ed courses from the academic year 2014-15 each at CTE Sambhal

(U.P),CTE Aurangabad (M.S) and CTE Asanol (W.B) under innovative



281

programme. Now we are proposing to establish a constituent college

of Teacher Education (B.Ed-Regular) through urdu medium( as an

innovative programme) at Bidar (Karnataka) for the purpose of which

the application form is being sent along with the application fee,

processing fee, affidavit, University’s Act and Statutes, enclosures ,

annexures and other necessary documents.

The University has notified and initiated the appointment of required human

resources duly sanctioned by the UGC as per the relevant guidelines.The

University is already in possession of 10 acres of land in Bihar

(Karnatak).In this regard, a copy of the NCTE orders for relaxation to the

Central Universities under clause 12 is also enclosed.The programme may

beinitiated in the building with required space taken on lease by the

University.A full-fledged building shall be constructed in future.

Therefore , you are requested to make it convenient to accord recognition

to B.Ed course through Urdu medium under innovative programme at the

above mentioned place. “

Demand draft dated 14.05.2014 of Rs. 40,000/- (No. 463859, Indian Overseas

Bank) and demand draft dated 23.09.2014 of Rs. 1000/- ( No. 325810, Indian

Overseas Bank) have been submitted by the University along with the application

form and other relevant documents.

The Committee considered the matter, letter dated 23.11.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to send it to the NCTE (H.Q) for such attention as may be deemed appropriate by the Standing Committee on Innovative Programmes.

75) APS00276 B.Ed

Rangumudri College of Education

and Rangumudri

Teacher Training institute,

Srikakulam., Andhra

Pradesh. AP

RangumudriRangmudri College of Education and Rangumudri Teacher

Training Institute, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

Rangumudri College of Education, Palakonda Revenue Division, Iruvada Village,

Vangara Mandal, Srikakulam District-535557, Andhra Pradesh was granted

recognition for B.Ed course on 03.03.2003.

Rangumudri Teacher Training Institute, Iruvada, Chilakalapalli, Balijipeta, Vangara

Mandal, Palakonda, Srikakulam District-535557, Andhra Pradesh was granted

recognition for D.Ed course on 24.08.2005.

While placing Deficiency Letter Reply of Rangumudri Appalaswamy Naidu Physical Education College, Khasar No.165, 165-3, 5, 8, 9, 153P, Konangipadu Revenue Iruvada Village, Chilakalapalli Post Office, Vangara Taluk, Rajam City, Srikakulam District-535557, Andhra Pradesh of (SRCAPP231) (B.P.Ed) of 2013-14 before SRC in its 249th meeting held on 24th - 26nd July, 2013 ,the committee



282

considered the matter and decided to resubmit with comparative statement for B.P.Ed/B.Ed/D.Ed courses. Accordingly, a comparative statement of B.P.Ed (SRCAPP231), B.Ed (APS00276), D.Ed (APS02812), was prepared and placed before SRC in its 254th meeting held on 25th-27th October 2013 and the Committee considered the matter, on verification of the comparative statement of all the courses, and all other relevant documents and decided to cause inspection under NCTE Act, to examine whether the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, for the existing programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified by the institution, as per the norms. Accordingly, inspection of the institution for 3 courses were fixed between 28th November to 2nd December 2013, the same was intimated to the institution on 22.11.2013. As per the direction of SRC, the inspection of the institution was conducted on 25.12.2013 and the VT Report received in the office of SRC on 01.01.2014. The SRC in its 259th meeting held on 17th-19th January 2014, considered the VT report, VCD, and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show cause Notice Under NCTE Act for the following -

• Certified copy of the land documents from Govt. authority is not submitted.

• Building plan from authorized Govt. authority is not submitted.

• Built up area provided to the two courses are inadequate.

• Original FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund respectively for both the course separately from a Nationalised Bank is not submitted.

• Up-to-date non-encumbrance certificate issued by competent authority is not submitted.

• No. of books provided in the library for B.Ed and D.Ed course is only 2524 numbers, which is inadequate as per NCTE norms.

• The institution has not submitted duly approved staff list from affiliating body/University for both the courses respectively.

The institution has withdrawn the B.P.Ed application. On the request of the

institution the application of the B.P.Ed course was withdrawn on 27.01.2014.

As per the decision of SRC in its 259th Meeting held on 17th – 19th January,2014, a

show cause notice was issued for B.Ed (APS00276) and D.Ed

(APS02812)courses to the institution on 11.02.2014. The institution has submitted

its written representation on 07.03.2014.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 268th Meeting held on 4 – 5th June,2014 considered the reply of the institution vide their letter dated 07.03.2014 to the show cause notice issued and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under NCTE Act for the following



283

deficiencies:-

1. The institution does not have title to land; it is still in the name of the society.

2. B.Ed staff list has the following deficiencies:

• Part time Lecturers in Physical Education and Music are not there.

• Librarian is not there

As per the decision of SRC, a show cause notice was issued to the institution for

B.Ed and D.Ed courses on 12.07.2014.

In the mean time, on 09.07.2014 ,the institution has submitted a reply to the

decision of SRC as per website information.

The Committee in its 271st meeting held on 01st August, 2014 considered the

matter, reply of the institution vide their letter dated 19.07.2014, decided and

advised Southern Regional Office to take the documents on record and close the

file.

On 14.11.2014, a letter is received by this office from Secretary & Correspondent,

Rangumudri College of Education, Iruvada, Vangara Mandal, Srikakulam District,

Andhra Pradesh stated as under:-

"The Rangumudri College of Education in S.No. 165 at Iruvada Village,

Konangipadu Gram Panchayat, Vangara Mandal, Palakonda Rev. Division,

Srikakulam was granted recognition from the 2002-2003 academic session with an

annual intake of 120 students and started functioning from 2003.

Since then the College is being functioning in our own RCC Permanent Building

Constructed in the same land Registered in the name of Rangumudri Educational

Society, vide Document No. 1656 Dt. 22.05.2001 of Sub-Registrar Office, Rajam

of Srikakulam District, in S.No. 165 at Iruvada, Vangara Mandal, Palakonda

Revenue Division, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.

A small clerical mistake was noticed in the recognition order regarding

accommodation as under:-

"The institution has constructed the building for conducting the course on the

above mentioned land" was cut instead of " The institution has made

arrengements for conducting the course in rented premises". The above was

informed through our reply to your office madam.

But infact the RCC Permanent pucca Building was constructed in S.No.165,

Iruvada Village, Kongapadu Gram Panchayat, Vangara Mandal, Palakonda Rev.

Division Srikakulam District. The same land was Registered for this College only.

The land and building were inspected by the Visiting Team Members of NCTE.



284

The B.Ed Course is also running in the same own Building since establishment of

the College.

The above facts is also tangible with the recent inspection was held on 25th

December 2013 by Visiting Team Members and Dcision of 271 meeting of SRC,

NCTE, Bangalore.

Therefore, we request you madam, kindly correct in Recognition Order by

removing the above mistake and issue us the corrected Recognition Order

containing of " The institution has constructed the building for conducting the

course on the above mentioned land.”

The above request of institution regarding correction in the recognition order is

placed before SRC, for its consideration and decision.

The Committee considered the matter, letter from the institution vide dated 14.11.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office that the mistake erroneously committed in the recognition order may be corrected.

76) ------- ------

An E-mail received from the Director,

SCERT, Telangana

State , AP

An e-Mail received from the Director, SCERT, Telangana State Hyderabad

regarding Violation of admission rules by certain Minority institutions and

recommendations to SRC NCTE for necessary action.

A complaint was received from Smt. G. V Vani Mohan IAS, Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh on 11.02.2014 as follows: “I wish to inform that 14 Elementary Teacher Training Colleges (List Enclosed) in the State recognized as Minority Institutions by the Government as per G.O.Ms. No. 1 dated 16-04-2004 and the said institutions are granted recognition to start D.Ed., course by the Regional Director, NCTE Bangalore to start two year D.Ed., course with an annual intake of 50 students.

Government of Andhra Pradesh issued admission rules relating to admission of students into Elementary Teacher Training Institutes / District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET) through Common Entrance Test and the Private D.Ed., colleges are started functioning from the academic year 2007-2008 onwards. Since 2007-08 to 2012-13, affiliation orders have been granted by the department to the said college and al lot ted the students through counsel ing by the Convener, DIETCET concerned. Subsequently the inst i tut ion was granted Musl im Minori ty Status by the Minori ty Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the institution has been treated as Muslim Minority so far.

Being the Minority Institution, during the year 2011-1.2, the management has approached to High Court directions praying for a direction to the respondents 'not to a l lot s tudents to these inst i tut ions ' and as such admissions shal l be made by the



285

managements. Accordingly the Managements have fi lled up al l the seats of Convener quota of 80% sanctioned intake without following the admission rules, reservation etc., and also deviated the rules Minori ty guidel ines in f i l l ing up of 70% of Minor i ty candidates.

And for the academic 2012-13 14 Elementary Teacher Training Colleges (List Enclosed) in the State recognized as Minori ty institutions once again have approached the Hon'ble High Court with following prayers:

i . As the vacate stay petition on the WPs filed for the

year 201.1-12 are pending the Government has not accorded affi l iation to these colleges for the year 2012-13. The managements once again approached the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh wi th a prayer to D i rec t the responden ts to grant a f f i l ia t ions to the petitioner Minority Educational Institutions for the academic year 2012-13 by suspending the operation of Rule 6 (4) & 7 of DIET Common Entrance Test Rules, 2007 made in GO RT No. 559 Edn Dt. 22.08.2007’

Orders: The Hon'ble High Court has issued orders that ‘there shall be interim directions as prayed for. The petitioners shall however be under obligation to ensure that the on l y qua l i f i ed candidates are admi t ted and o ther ru les o f admission are followed'

ii. Further, WPs are also filed to 'Direct the respondents to act as per Section-4 of A.P. Educational Inst i tut ions Regulat ion of Admissions and Prohibi t ion of Capitation Fee Act 1983, for f ill ing up of Convener quota seats, pending disposal of WPs'.

Orders: The Hon’ble High Court has issued orders that "Pending further orders it is di rected that in case the peti t ioner is conferred with the minori ty status and i t is subsist ing now the rules 6 (4) and 7 of common entrance test rules, made through G.O.Rt.No.559, dated 22-08-2007 shal l not apply to i t in such event the petitioner shall be under obligation to ensure that only qualified candidates are admitted and other ru les of admission are fo l lowed. The admissions so made, shall be subject to the approval by the competent authority':

iii. With regard to the appearance of the candidates

admitted during 2011-12 for the first year final examinations, 2013 the managements have filed WPs with a prayer to 'direct the respondents to receive the examination application and fee of the students to appear for the D.Ed. exams 2013'

Orders: The Hon’ble High Court has issued orders that " there shal l



286

be inter im direction as prayed foe

As per the above directions of Hon'ble High Court as read at point i i & i ii above the 'Competent Authority' i.e. Commissioner & Director of School Education, as per 2 (e) of G.O.Rt.No.559, dated 22-08-2007 has cal led for the records of admissions made by these management to veri fy the compliance of rules of admissions made by these managements to verify the compliance of rules of admission rule 6 (4) and 7 of common entrance ru les made through G.O.Rt.No.559, dated 22-08-2007, the other rules of admiss ion that a re to be cons idered for ver i f i cat ion o f admiss ions made by the Managements of the said Private Elementary Education institutions are as follows:

Rule3: Allotment of seats for D . Ed course (As amended in G.0. Rt.No1077 Education SE-Trg department dated 12-12-2007.

I. Un-aided Private D.Ed. Colleges.

a. The seats al lot ted in each unaided pr ivate D.Ed.

Col leges under these rules for admission of candidates shall be classified as :

i. Category A Seats. ii. Category B Seats_

b. The category A seats shall be 80% of sanctioned intake of

seats in D.Ed course in the Un-aided private D.Ed. Colleges which shall be fi lled with eligible candidates on the basis of rank obtained in the DIETCET following the rule 6 and rules of reservation laid down in rule 7 ( for veri f icat ion rule 6 and 7 are not considered only the intake o f 80% i .e, Category A seats and obta in ing o f rank in DIETCET are only considered)

c. The category B seats shall be 20% of total sanctioned

intake of seats in D.Ed course in respect of Un-aided private D.Ed colleges shall be open for admission to al l the el igib le candidates to sat is fy the el igibi l i ty cri ter ia for admission i .e., the candidate should have passed 10+2 examination (Qualifying examination) or its equivalent and they should secure 50% marks in aggregate.

ii. Rule 4: Eligibility criteria for admission

I. The candidate should be of Indian Nationality.

II. The candidate should satisfy local/ Non-loca] status recruitments as laid



287

down in the Andhra Pradesh Educat ional Inst i tut ions (Regulat ion of admission) order 1974 as subsequently amended.

III. Candidate should have obtained the rank in DIETCET

conducted for the academic year concerned in respect of Category A scats (As amended inG.O.Rt.No.1077, Education (SE-Trg) Department, dated 12-12-2007).

IV. The candidate should have completed minimum of 17 years

of age as on 01 of September of the year of admission. However no upper age limit for admission to D.Ed. course (as amended in G.O.Rt.No612, Education (SETrg), department dated 27-08-2008).

V. Cand ida tes be long ing to OC and BC

commun i t ies sha l l secure a t least 35% marks (35/100) in DIETCET for assigning merit rank in the CET or as per Scheme of entrance test prescribed by the Government from time to time to become eligible for admission. However they shall be no minimum qualifying mark in respect of SC/ ST candidates for allotment of seats reserved under the respective categories . (As these colleges are exempted from rule 6 and 7 al l the seats are considered as General categor: ::

, seats. Hence candidate belonging to SC/ST communities should a.s per this rule obtain35% mark in DIETCET for allotment of scat.)

VI. The candidate who s tudy SSC/ In termediate in

the med ium concerned (Telugu/Urdu/English/Tamil) or who studied Telugu or Urdu or Tamil as f i rst language in SSC or i ts equivalent or who studied one of the above languages in Part-I I intermediate exam are along el igible for admission of the seats in concerned medium namely viz. , Telugu/Urdu/Engl ish/Tamil offered by the instituti Dn concerned.

i i i . Rule 5 - Methods of admission:

I. The admissions in respect of Category- A seats shall be made in the order of merit on the basis of rank assigned in the DIETCET ( as amended in G.O.Rt,No.1077, dated 12-12-2007).

II. No of candidates to be admi t ted sha l l not exceeded



288

the intake sanct ioned to each college by the NCTE from time to time.

iv . Apart from the above the rules the 14 Elementary

Teacher Training Colleges (List Enclosed) in the State recognised as Minor i ty Inst i tut ions by the Government has to fol low the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1 Minori t ies Welfare (M R) Department dated l6-01-2004 and amended from t ime to t ime are as under.

Guideline 1.

1 : The Educat i ona l agency managing t he educat iona l

ins t i tu t ion shou ld be registered as a Society/Trust /Commit tee compris ing 100% members belonging to that religious minority to which they claim to be belong ( The deifination of Religious Minority Educational Institutions shall be subject to final out come of supreme court judgment in this regard.

5. The educational inst i tut ions establ ished and managed

by the minori t ies shal l serve the educational needs of their community to which they claim to belong by f i l l ing up not less than 70% of seats being f i l led up by the Management as per the rules governing admission into various, colleges with the candidates belonging to the respective minori ty community.

6. Out of seats to be f i l led by the management by the

Minority insti tutions 70% seats ( Minority quota) shall be fil led in by the managements strictly as per the rules governing the admissions with transparency in admissions.

Guideline2:

2 . S e c o n d a r y s c h o o l c e r t i f i c a t e o r a n y o t h e r e q u i v a l e n t r e c o r d / T r a n s f e r Certificates from the schools in which they have studied shall be on the basis for determining the religious status for admission in Minor i t y Ins t i tu t i ons.

Th i s r u l e was amended in G.O.Ms.No.12; Minori t ies Welfare (M & R) Department dated 07th June 2004 as fol lows:

“ I n t h e a b s e n c e o f T r a n s f e r C e r t i f i c a t e s , t h e c a n d i d a t e s h o u l d b e o b t a i n i n g a ce r t i f i cate f rom the Head of the Ins t i tut ion in which the student s tudied in the f o l l ow ing pro fo rm a. The Head of t he i ns t i t u t i on shou ld ver i f y the admiss ion register and issue the certificate duly indicating the religion as mentioned in the admiss ion reg i s ter . The Heads o f t he ins t i t u t i ons sha l l be persona l l y he ld responsible if



289

any false certificate is issued?” v . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e r e l i g i o u s p r o o f o f t h e m em b er s

o f t h e G o v e r n i n g b o d y Government has i ssued G.O.Ms.No.4 Educa t ion Minor i t i es wel fa re (M& R) Department, dated 03-03-2004 which. is as follows:

“ for Rel igious proof of the members of the Governing Body of the Educat ional Inst i tut ion, the same cri ter ia as being fol lowed in case of the students shal l be fo l lowed . Accord ingl y the government hereby o rder that Secondary School Certificate or any other equivalent record/Transfer certificate from the schools, in which the members of the Governing Body of the educational inst i tut ion have studied, shal l be the basis for determining the rel igious status of the members of the registered society/trust/committee, as in the cases of admission of students in m i n o r i t y i n s t i t u t i o n s . ( T h e r e . l a > a i t i o n / e x i c i i d e J s i u d e o i : . i f : G.O. Ms. No.12, Minorit ies Welfare (M& R )Department dated 07th June 2004 is a lso extended to the members in G.O. Ms. No_ 13, Minor i t ies Welfare (M& R )Department dated 07th June 2004).

I n v i ew of t he above gu ide l i nes i s sued by the Governm ent and as per t he directions the competent authority i.e., Commissioner & Director of School Education veri f ied. the documents relat ing to admissions made for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 has violated the rules issued by the government for admissions and the col leges have violated the rules of admission by admitting candidates who have not qual if ied as per admission rules given in G.O.Rt.559 SE— TRG Dept. Dt.. 22.08.2007 and amended in G.O.Rt.No.1077 Education (SE-TRG) Department Dated: 12-12- 2007 and. also violated the rules issued for Minori ty status G.O.Ms.No.1 Minori t ies Welfare Department Dated 16-01-2004 of not admitting the candidates belonging to the concerned minority to the extent of 70%.

As per the Nat iona l Counci l fo r Teacher Educat ion 'Recogni t ion Norms and Procedure] Rcgulat ions,2009 guidel ine 8 (15), admissions by the inst i tut ion shal l be made on ly a f ter af f i l ia t ion by the Univers i ty or Af f i l i at ing body and as per the State pol icy And also as per guide l ine 12 that on the recommendat ions of Sta te Government or Union Territory Administration concerned, or in cases for removal of any hardship caused in adhering to the provisions in the recommendations, keeping in view the circumstances pecul iar to the said State.

Therefore, I request you to cancel the Recognition granted for the 14 Elementary Teache r T ra in i ng Co l l eges (L is t Enc l osed)as t hey have dev ia ted t he Norm s and standards for diploma in elementary teacher educat ion programme leading to Diploma in elementary education (D.E1.Ed) under rule 3 (2) and 3 (3) as prescribed by NCTE, under guidel ines issued in 2009.”



290

The Southern Regional Committee in its 268th meeting held during 4th & 5th June, 2014 considered the complaint dated 11.02.2014 received from Smt. G.V. Vani Mohan I.A.S, Commissioner & Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh against said 14 institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show cause Notice for withdrawal of recognition for the violations

As per the decision of SRC, Show Cause Notices were issued to 14 institutions on dated 07.08.2014 and written representations were submitted by the institutions.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 273rd meeting held during 30th September & 1st October,2014 considered the matter, and decided as under:-

“1.The Institution has sent its reply. We should take the comments of the Competent Authority on that reply.

2 Advised Southern Regional Office to put up with Competent Authority’s comments in the next meeting.”

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to the Director, SCERT Government of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh on 17.11.2014 in respect of 5 institution of Telangana and 6 institution of Andhra Pradesh.

An e-Mail is received from the Director, SCERT ,Telangana State Hyderabad on 24.11.2014 which is as under:-

“I wish to inform you that the matter has been gone through the replies of the college submitted to you in reply to the Show Cause Notice issued by NCTE and the following comments are forwarded for further necessary action at your end:

1. The current matter pertains to the complaint forwarded to SRC, NCTE on 11.02. 2014 by the commissioner and Director of School Education of the erstwhile (before bifurcation) state of Andhra Pradesh on 14 elementary teacher education colleges with minority status. 5 of these colleges are now in Telangana and 9 in Andhra Pradesh.

2. The said colleges are granted recognition by SRC,NCTE before the academic year 2011-12 and have later on obtained Minority status from the Government of Andhra Pradesh during the year 2011-12

3. At that time the department did not give separate provision for admission into minority colleges.

4. The college have approached the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Article 30

5. The Honourabe High Court of Andhra Pradesh has permitted the colleges to make admissions on their own with a condition that the admission so made should be approved by the competent authority.

6. The colleges submitted admissions made by them to the competent authority and SCERT has examined the admissions as per the Rules Prescribed in G.O. Rt 559SE-TRG. Dept dated 22.08.2007.

7. Further, as these colleges are minority colleges rule of reservation was not applied for the non – minority admissions made by the



291

college. 8. The details of admissions so verified are forwarded to SRC, NCTE. 9. The college in their reply claim that as they are minority colleges the

Rules in G.O.Rt.559 do not apply to them and that they have made admissions as per rules notified in G.O.Ms 404 dated 03.07.22009 which is an amendment to G.O.559. The said G.O. specifies relaxation in qualifying marks to reserved categories.

10. this being so, the petitions filed by these colleges are still pending before the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana State and whether the claim of the colleges or the Government will be upheld can be known in the final orders in the Writ Petitions filed.

11. therefore, it is informed that he matter is subjudice an SRC may take decision accordingly.”

The Committee considered the matter, e-mail from the Director, SCERT, Telangana dated Nov 24, 2014, giving his reply on the replies submitted by the colleges about the violation of admission rules by certain Minority instituions and decided that the issue involved is legal in character and requiring interpretation. The matter is already before the High Court. Let us await Court order.

77) APS00029 APS02773

B.Ed D.El.Ed

Little Flower College of

Education for Women,

Ananthpur, Andhra Pradesh

AP

Little Flower College of Education for Women, Ananthpur Post ,Office,

Ananthapur District – 515 001,Andhra Pradesh (APS0 0029) and Little Flower

Elementary Teacher Education Institution for Girls, Ananthpur, Andhra

Pradesh

APS00029/B.Ed

An application was submitted by Little Flower College of Education for Women, Ananthapur Post Office, Ananthapur District - 515 001, Andhra Pradesh for grant of recognition to B.Ed course in the office of SRC-NCTE, Bangalore on 14.11.2000

The application was processed as per the provisions contained in Rules and Regulation, Norms and Standards in vogue at that point of time and the recognition was granted to the institution vide order dt 14.05.2003 with the condition to shift to own premises within 3 years of the order.

Shifting proposal was submitted by the institution on 17.07.2009. Shifting inspection was conducted on 17.09.2010.

The Visiting Team report was placed before SRC in its 197th meeting held on 13th and 14th October, 2010.The Committee considered the VT Report and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show Cause Notice Under Section 17 of NCTE Act. As per the decision of SRC, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 03.12.2010 for the following:

1. The Teacher Education Programme is being run in the same building, in which Primary and Secondary School classes are run.

2. Part of the land (50%) is in the name of the individual (Correspondent) and part of it, is in the name of the Little Flower, Montessori Primary &



292

Secondary school, which is against the NCTE Norms. The land should be in the name of the Society/institution offering Teacher Education Programme.

3. The Journals in the library are not sufficient for the usage of the students. 4. Original FDR’s were not shown to V.T. Members

Institution submitted its written representation on 10.01.2011 The SRC in its 200th meeting held during 20th – 21st January, 2011, after scrutinizing the reply of the institution for the deficiencies pointed out in its show cause notice dt. 03.12.2010, found that the institution has not submitted any valid documents for the removal of deficiencies served in the show cause notice and further:-

1. The institution has in writing has admitted that they are running the existing courses i.e., B.Ed and D.Ed along with Primary and Secondary School classes in the same building, which is not permitted as per NCTE norms.

2. Part of the land (50%) is in the name of the individual (Correspondent) and part of it is in the name of the Little Flower, Montessori Primary & Secondary school, which is against the NCTE Norms. The land should be in name of the society/institution offering teacher education programme as per NCTE norms.

3. Copy of FDR for Rs. 3 lakhs in joint is not submitted. 4. The Journals in the Library are not sufficient.

Based on the above points, the Committee decided to withdraw the recognition of the B.Ed course run by Little Flower College of Education for Women, Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh from the academic year 2011-12, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in B.Ed course if any, to complete their course. But it was made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of the withdrawal order. The affiliating body / Examining board / body was informed accordingly. Further it was decided to return Endowment fund and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, if any. As per direction of SRC, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 18.03.2011. The institution approached the Appellate authority against the withdrawal order of SRC and the Appellate authority vide order dated 06.07.2011 has confirmed the order appealed against. The Apex court in the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1125-1128/2011 in the matter of Bhanwar Kanwar Singh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and others before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as under:-

“An institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfils the conditions specified in various clauses of the Regulations. The Counsel is directed to ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions processing the application by the Regional committee and Communication of the decision of the issue of recognition it strictly adhered to”.



293

Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also passed an order in Writ Petition No. 128/2011 in the matter of Shree Sitheshwar Education Trust Wherein the Hon’ble High Court has passed an order as under:-

“The Counsel for the petitioner has with reference to the inspection report of 12th March, 2009, sought to argue that the order are erroneous. However, the petitioner having chosen to allow the order to attain finality and being content with agitating the matter only after raising fresh construction, cannot long gaps of time be heard to make fresh such arguments”.

The institution has approached the Hon’ble High court in W.P.No. 21921 / 2011 and W.P.No.21938 of 2011 and a letter was addressed to the then advocate Shri. Vinayaka Swamy requesting him to file a counter affidavit. Two court orders were received in the office of SRC on 15.09.2011. The Hon’ble High Court in WP No. 26719 of 2011 in 21938 of 2011 dt. 16.08.2011 and WPMP No. 26698 of 2011 in W.P.No. 21921 of 2011 dt. 16.08.2011. Both the orders directed as under:- “The attention of this Court is drawn to the proceedings of the District

Educational Officer, Ananthapur in Rc.No.5804/A4/2011 dated 20.07.2011, whereby the 1st petitioner has been permitted to shift the schools from the existing premises to another building bearing Door No. 10-214. A perusal of the Gift Settlement Deed dated 20.12.2006 shows that the subject property has been gifted in the name of the institution i.e. Little Flower Montessori Primary and Secondary School, Adimurthy Nagar, Ananthapur by one M/s Suragowni Anjineyulu and Sri Suragowni Ravindra Gowd. Therefore, the principal objections relating to the petitioner running the schools in the same premises, the right over the total extent of the land prima facie appears to have been complied with. It is true that the petitioner shifted the schools under the orders dated 20.07.2011, which is subsequent to the impugned orders dated 06.07.2011. In my view, since the proceedings dated 20.07.2011 of the District Educational Officer, Ananthapur were passed under the A.P. Education Act, which is statutory in nature, I am of the view that the same may be taken as relevant fact. Further, the petitioner – institution is a running institution and if it is not permitted to continue, the students will suffer.

In the circumstances, there shall be an interim suspension.” The Hon’ble High Court order has to be seen in the context of the Supreme Court order dated 31.01.2011 & Delhi High court Order dt. 11.01.2011 mentioned in earlier paras. The Southern Regional Committee in its 211th meeting held on 21st – 23rd

September, 2011 , considered the matter and decided to cause re-inspection under

section 17 of NCTE Act at the premises to verify the shifting of the School and

adequacy of the infrastructure and instructional facilities. The institution was

directed to submit inspection fee of Rs.40,000/- for each course.



294

Accordingly, a letter was issued to the institution on 09.11.2011 to submit an

inspection fee of Rs.40,000/-.The institution submitted Rs.40,000/- vide

D.D.No.006563 of HDFC Bank. Inspection of the institution was conducted on

20.11.2011.

SRC in its 214th meeting held on 20th November, 2011 considered the matter and

decided to get the Interim Suspension order of the High Court vacated through our

Advocate at Hyderabad.

Accordingly, a letter was addressed to the then advocate Shri. Madava Rao on

15.12.2011. Further, no action is seen in the file.

APS02773/D.EI.Ed

An application was submitted by Little Flower Elementary Teacher Education for Girls, Ananthpur Andhra Pradesh for grant of recognition to D.Ed course in the office of SRC-NCTE, Bangalore on 03.02.2004

The application was processed as per the provisions contained in Rules and Regulation, Norms and Standards vogue at that point of time and the recognition was granted to the institution vide order dt 26.08.2005 with stipulated conditions.

Shifting proposal was submitted by the institution on 17.07.2009. Shifting inspection was conducted on 17.09.2009.

The SRC in its 197th meeting held on 13th and 14th October, 2010, and the committee considered the VT Report and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice Under Section 17 of NCTE Act. As per the decision of SRC, notice was issued on 03.12.2010. The institution has

not submitted its written representation/documents.

The SRC in its 201st meeting held on 22nd-23rd February 2011 and considered the

non-response of the institution to the Show cause notice dated 03.12.2010 and it

has decided to withdraw recognition for D.Ed course (APS02773) with effect from

2012-13, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in D.Ed course, if any,

to complete their course.



The Affiliating body / Examining board / body be informed accordingly. Accordingly, Withdrawal of recognition order was issued to the institution on

18.03.2011.

Aggrieved by the withdrawal of recognition order of SRC, the institution preferred

an appeal to NCTE-Hqrs and the appellate authority in its order No. F.No. 89-



295

144/2011Appeal/4th meeting-2011 dated 06.07.2011 stated that “…after perusal

of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering

oral arguments advanced during hearing, the council reached the conclusion that

there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected.

Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and SRC’s order dated 18.03.2011 was

confirmed. The council hereby confirms the order appealed against”.

A letter has been received from Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, School Education (PE)

Department vide letter G.O. Rt. NO. 521 dated 01.07.2011. As per perusal of the

above letter Private D.Ed College of Andhra Pradesh was submitted

representation to the Hon’ble Minister stating that they have admitted extra

students in D.Ed 1st year after completion of 3rd phase DIETCET-2010 counselling

during the academic year 2010-2011. But the 4th phase counselling, the convener

DIETCET-2010 have allotted students to the vacant seats of their college under

category-A seats and requested to the Govt to accord permission for the extra

seats for the year 2010-2011 as a special case.

After examination of the matter by the State Govt in view the interest of the

students who were admitted in excess by the institutions and are at no fault of

them, hence the Govt ratified the action of the Managements of (28) Private D.Ed

colleges in filling of excess seats filled by them for the academic year 2010-2011

as a special case with a strict warning to the managements of such institution not

to repeat such unauthorized /irregular admission.

The State Govt requested to take necessary action against the Management as per the rules in force. The present institution has got admission for 15 extra seats as per the above letters of the State Government. The SRC in its 209th meeting held on 31st July 2011 has decided to issue show cause notice to the above twenty nine institutions with regard to their admitting more than the permitted intake in their D.Ed course, which is against the NCTE norms. And also a letter be addressed to Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, as the affiliating body that in latter should not have permitted/condoned the unauthorized/irregular excess admissions. The NCTE is not in a position to approve of such unauthorized/irregular excess admissions. The institutions are liable to be derecognized for such serious commissions/omissions. No action has to be taken for the above said State Govt. letter, the SRC in its 201st meeting taken decision i.e. Withdrawal of recognition. Accordingly, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 18.03.2011. The institution filed a court case in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, W. P. No. 21938 of 2011 W.P.M.P. No.26719 of 2011 and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order has stated as follows:- “…The attention of this Court is drawn to the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Ananthapur in Rc.No.5804/A4/2011 dated 20.07.2011, whereby the 1st petitioner has been permitted to shift the schools from the existing premises to another building bearing Door No. 10-214. A perusal of the Gift



296

Settlement Deed dated 20.12.2006 shows that the subject property has been gifted in the name of the institution i.e. Little Flower Montessori Primary and Secondary School, Adimurthy Nagar, Ananthapur by one M/s Suragowni Anjineyulu and Sri Suragowni Ravindra Gowd. Therefore, the principal objections relating to the petitioner running the schools in the same premises, the right over the total extent of the land primea facie appears to have been complied with. It is true that the petitioner shifted the schools under the orders dated 20.07.2011, which is subsequent to the impugned orders dated 06.07.2011. In my view, since the proceedings dated 20.07.2011 of the District Educational Officer, Ananthapur were passed under the A.P. Education Act, which is statutory in nature, I am of the view that the same may be taken as relevant fact. Further, the petitioner – institution is a running institution and if it is not permitted to continue, the students will suffer.

In the circumstances, there shall be an interim suspension.”

The SRC in its 211th meeting held on 21st-23rd September 2011 and the committee

considered the Court order and all other relevant documents and has decided to

cause re-inspection under Section 17 of NCTE Act at the premises to verify the

shifting of the School and adequacy of the infrastructure and instructional facilities.

The institution is directed to submit inspection fee of Rs. 40,000/- for each course.

Accordingly, re-inspection of the institution letter was sent on 14.11.2011 and a

letter for submission of inspection fee of Rs.40,000/- was sent to institution on

15.11.2011

In the meanwhile inspection of the institution was conducted on 20.11.2011. The

VT report received was placed before SRC in its 214th meeting held on 28th

November 2011 and the committee considered the matter and has decided to get

the Interim Suspension order of the High Court vacated through our Advocate at

Hyderabad.

Accordingly, a letter was sent to an Advocate on 14.12.2011.


13.12.2011 along with D.D. of Rs.40000/- and submitted some documents.

The SRC in its 218th meeting held on 28th February 2012 consider the matter and decided that in view of condonation ordered by the State Government. SRC may warn the erring institution and require them to give an undertaking that there will be no recurrence of such a lapse. Note: One strongly order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP NO. 14020/2009 filed by Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidalaya & others Vs Subhash Rahangdale & other. In the said judgment dt. 06.01.2012 Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued various directions for NCTE/Affiliating body/Institutions and to the state Govt. The operative part of the judgment as under: “If any institution admits any student in violation of the Norms and Standards laid



297

by the NCTE, then the Regional Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal of the recognition of such institution and pass appropriate order after complying with the rules of natural justice”. As per direction of SRC, a letter was issued to the concerned institution on

21.08.2012. it is observed from the file, the institution has not submitted reply so

far

A letter has been received from Director, SCERT, Hyderabad on 17.10.2013

requesting “……to inform the latest stage of the court case and confirm about the

status position of recognition in respect of Little Flower College of Education for

Women, Adhimurthy Nagar, Ananthapur District immediately, so as to enable this

office to submit a report to the Government of Andhra Pradesh”

The SRC in its 254th meeting held on 25th-27th October 2013, considered the matter, decided and advised SRO to examine the case thoroughly and to put up. Also, the Southern Regional Office to ascertain quickly from the Lawyer regarding the latest position of the case and to be put up in the 255th SRC meeting. Accordingly, a letter was sent to Shri.K.Ramakanth Reddy, Advocate on 29.10.2013. Again, a reminder letter to Advocate was sent on 19.12.2013

The Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh has submitted a court order received

by SRC on 22.01.2014 of W.P.No.790 of 2014 dated 10.01.2014. Court order as

follows:-

“it is submitted that the Commissioner & Director for School Education, A.P.,

Hyderabad, has issued a letter dated 07.09.2013 in

Rc.No.100/B1/TE/SCERT/2013-1 pointing out certain discrepancies to be rectified

by the petitioners-College.

Earlier, petitioners filed WP.No.21938 of 2011 and obtained stay orders in

W.P.M.P. No.26719 of 2011 and obtained renewal of recognition for the year

2013-2014.

Now, alleging that the college is not placed in the web counseling of DIET CET

2013-14, this writ petition has been filed.

With reference to specific discrepancies pointed out by the Commissioner and

Director for School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, in the above referred proceedings

dated 07.09.2013, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners-College

has complied with the same.

In the above circumstances, subject to compliance of the discrepancies find out by

the Commissioner & Director for School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, in

proceedings dated 07.09.2013, within a period of one week from today, the college



298

may be placed in the web counseling of DIET CET 2013-14 and the College may

be permitted to make spot admissions. However, it is made clear that this shall be

done only after clearance from the Commissioner & Director for School Education,

A.P., Hyderabad.

Post on 07.02.2014.”

The Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh has submitted a show cause notice

received by SRC on 23.01.2014 in W.P.No.790 of 2014 dated 10.01.2014. The

Hon’ble High court was ordered as follows:- “…..Notice before admission. Post on

07.02.2014.”

A fax letter was received from the Director of SCERT on 23.01.2014 requesting

the status in respect of Little Flower College of Education for Women, Ananthapur

District, Andhra Pradesh and the status of the Institution sent to the Director of

SCERT, Andhra Pradesh on 24.01.2014.

As per direction of competent authority, a letter was sent by email as well as post

to Shri K.Ramakanth Reddy, Advocate on 24.01.2014 with requesting to clarify

whether the Hon'ble High Court order in WP No. 21938 of 2011 is pertaining to

B.Ed course or D.Ed course and to inform the latest factual position of the case.

A letter has been received from Shri Ramakanth Reddy, Advocate on 30.01.2014

clarified that;

The interim orders of the Hon’ble Court passed in WPMP.No.26719 of 2011 in W.P.21938 of 2011 dated 16.08.2011 should be taken as relevant for B.Ed., course only, and

The latest factual position is that the writ petition is pending and the interim orders of the Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.M.P No.26719 of 2011 in W.P.21938 of 2011 dated 16.08.2011 pertains to B.Ed., course only. (Note: W.P.No.790 of 2014, it is related to DIET, CET)

The Committee in its 261st Meeting held on 09th – 10th February, 2014 considered

the Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad order dated 10/01/2014 and also letter dated

26/01/2014 from our Advocate, and decided that:

The Court order is only about the B.Ed course.

Recognition for D.Ed was already withdrawn; only, it was not communicated to SCERT, Hyderabad. SRO to communicate the same to SCERT, Hyderabad, now.

As per the decision of SRC, the status of the application and the clarification of the

course were informed to the Director, SCERT, Andhra Pradesh again on

20.02.2014.

Now, a court order dated 23.01.2014 in WPMP No. 1553 of 2014 in WPMP No.



299

864 of 2014 in WP No. 790 of 2014 filed by Little Flower Montessori Primary &

Secondary School Society and Little Flower College of Education was received on

25.02.2014 and the same order was forwarded from Principal Secretary to

Government (PE) was received on 07.03.2014.

The court order is directing as follows:

“Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the letters written by the

petitioners’ Institution to the 2nd respondent dated 14.10.2013 and 17.01.2014

stating that the Institution has ratified the discrepancies and submitted necessary

certificates given by the concerned authority i.e. entire campus with labs, library,

classrooms, structural soundness certificate, building and rooms photos and video

and the official website and the same have been handed over to the authorities on

18.10.2013 personally.

Accordingly to the learned Government pleader for School Education, the

authorities have to verify the same. Since the petitioners have intimated the 2nd

respondent by letters dated 14.10.2013 and 17.01.2014, there is no justification in

seeking further time, particularly in view of the counseling on 17th, 24th and 25th of

January, 2014.

In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to place the petitioners’

College in the web counseling of DIET CET 2013 – 2014 on 24th ad 25th of this

month.”

The Southern Regional Committee in its 266th meeting held on 2nd May 2014

considered the matter, Court order dated 23.01.2014, decided and advised

Southern Regional Office to write to our Lawyer to file a review petition since the

Court order ‘stayed’ our decision only for B.Ed and not for D.Ed.

As per the decision of SRC ,a letter was addressed to Shri.Ramakanth Reddy on

26.05.2014 with a request to file a review petition.

In the meantime on 11.11.2014, an e-mail is received from Shri.Ramakanth Reddy

enclosing a copy of the affidavit filed by the institution in W.P.No. 33398 of 2014. In

the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and

the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The institution has prayed for

(A) To declare the proceedings Rc No. 702/C1/TE/SCERT/2012 dated

31.05.2014 as illegal , arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the

Constitution of India

(B) a direction to respondents 1 to 4 (1. The Government of Andhra

Pradesh , (2) The Commissioner and Director of School Education (3)The

SCERT (4)The Director of Government Examinations , Andhra

Pradesh) to receive examination fees of the 1st year D.Ed/D.EI.Ed



300

students admitted by the college and permit them to appear for the

examinations. NCTE Hqrs is the fifth respondent and SRC,NCTE is the sixth

respondent.

On 18.11.2014, a Court order dated 07.11.2014 in W.P.No. 33398 of 2014 is

received by this office from the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for

the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

The Court order is as under :-

Notice before admission .

The learned Government pleader for Education tales notice for respondent

Nos.1 and 2 and seeks time to get instructions and file counter.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners shall also take out personal notice by

R.P.A.D on all the respondents and file proof thereof.

It is evident from the record, particularly the impugned order dated

31.05.2014, that the petitioners were required to submit the documents as pointed

out and the learned counsel for petitioners states that the requisite documents

have already been furnished. The learned counsel however states that 40 students,

who are admitted , are required to pay the examination fee by 10.11.2014 and in

the absence of approval of spot admissions, the examination fee is not being

received.

The petitioners have apparently moved this Court at the last minute giving

no option for this Court to rescue 40 students, who are caught in cross fire.

Hence, purely as an interim arrangement, without conferring any equities

on any of the parties, including the students, pending further orders, there shall be

interim direction, as prayed for, however, subject to the further orders in the writ

petition.

List this writ petition along with W.P.Nos 21921 of 2011 and 790 of 2014,

after four weeks.

As per records :

1. Withdrawal order was issued to the institution for the B.Ed course vide

F.SRO/NCTE /2011/27330 dated 02.03.2011 and the same was

confirmed by the appellate authority vide order F.no.89-

104/2011.Appeal/4th meeting – 2011/A39504 dated 06.07.2011

2. Withdrawal order was issued to the institution D.Ed course vide

F.SRO/NCTE/2010- 11/27667 dated 18.03.2011 and the same

was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order F.No.89 -144 /

2011. Appeal/ 4th meeting – 2011 / A39328 dated 06.07.2011.

3. The institution has approached the Hon’ble Court with respect to both



301

B.Ed and D.Ed courses run by the society and the Hon’ble Court

has granted an interim suspension in W.P.M.P.No. 26719 of 2011 in W.P.No.

21938 of 2011 vide order date16.08.2011 (D.Ed course) and in

W.P.M.P.No. 26698 of 2011 in W.P.No. 21921 of 2011(B.ED course) vide

order dated 16.08.2011. Based on the stay on withdrawal orders of B.ED and D.Ed

courses, the institution had obtained renewal of affiliation for the year

2013-14.

4. As per court direction re-inspection was conducted on 14.11.2011 and the

VT report was placed in the 214th meeting of SRC .The Committee decided to

get the interim suspension vacated and a letter was addressed to the then

advocate Shri. Madahava Rao on 15.12.2011 to get the interim suspension

vacated. Further, no action is seen in the B.Ed file.

5. The original D.D of Rs.40,000/- (HDFC Bank/No. 006563) submitted by the

institution towards inspection fee has not been taken into account.

6. The institution has filed Writ petitions WPMPNo. 1553 of 2014 in WPMP.No.

864 of 2014 in W.P.No. 790 of 2014 for inclusion of the institution in web

counseling of DIET CET 2013-14 and the Hon’ble High Court vide order

dated 23.01.2014 has directed the respondents (R1-Government of Andhra

Pradesh,R-2 – The commissioner and Director of School Education,R-3 –

SCERT,Hyderabad,R-4,The Convenor, DIET,CET) to place the petitioners

college in the web counseling of DIET CET 2013-14.The advocate

Shri.Ramakanth Reddy was asked to file a review petition on 26.05.2014

as per the decision of 266th meeting of SRC.

7. In the meantime, the institution has filed another writ petition 33398 of 2014

in the Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh seeking approval of the list of students submitted to the Government

of Andhra Pradesh vide letter dated 24.05.2014 by the little flower college of

Education and regularize the list of students for the academic year 2013-

15 and the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 07.11.2014 has given an

interim direction as prayed for subject to further orders in this writ petition.

8. It is observed the institution is running and getting the necessary affiliation

on the basis of interim orders of the Hon’ble Court. WP.MP.No. 26719 of

2011 in W.P.No. 21938 of 2011

WPMP No. 266698 of 2011 in W.P.No. 21921 of 2011 , W.P.M.P.No.1553

of 2014 in WPMP.No. 864 of 2014 in W.P.No. 790 of 2014 and W.P.No. 33398

of 2014

It is observed from the records that the institution is in the habit of filing many writ

petitions at a time and continuing with the help of getting interim orders from the

Hon’ble Court.



302

A letter is addressed to Shri. Ramakanth Reddy, advocate for vacation of stay The Committee considered the matter, Hon’ble High Court order dated, 07.11.2014, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to 1.Inform SCERT that there is an interim order of the High Court permitting admissions. 2.Ask our Lawyer to apply to the Court for early hearing, in both the WPs, for vacation of ‘stay’.

78) APS05029 B.Ed

Sri Sai Balaji College of Education, Warangal,

Andhra Pradesh

AP

Sri Sai Balaji College of Education, No. 3-32/7, Balaji Nagar Post, Thorrur,

Warangal District-506163, Andhra Pradesh.

Sri Venkateshwara Educational and Research Society, Warangal, Andhra

Pradesh had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee, of

NCTE on 29.12.2005 for grant of recognition to Sri Sai Balaji College of

Education, Thorrur, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh for B.Ed course of one

year duration.SRC after considering the visiting team report as well as other

relevant materials granted recognition to the institution for offering B.Ed

course with an intake of 100 students from the session 2007-2008 vide order

no. 9637 dated 18/12/2006.

The Registrar, Kakatiya University, Warangal vide letter dated 14/03/2008 drew

the attention of Regional Director, SRC and informed that in the process of

granting temporary affiliation to the institutions the University had conducted

inspection and observed that the college does not have congenial atmosphere for

running B.Ed course. The letter was placed before the SRC in its 157th meeting

held during 23rd-24th April 2008. SRC, after careful consideration of all aspects

decided to issue show cause notice.

Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 28.05.2008. In

response to the Notice, the institution submitted a written representation on

19.06.2008 which is as under:

“As per the direction of university we are going to shift our college from

temporary to newly constructed building within two months i.e. by the end of

July”.

The reply was placed before SRC in its 161st Meeting held during 6-7 August 2008

and the Committee resolved to Cause inspection under section 17 to verify the

infrastructural and instructional facilities.

The institution in its written communication dated 13/08/2008 informed about the

completion of civil work of the building. The institution also informed that it would

shift to the new building by September 10, 2008

The SRC-NCTE conducted the inspection of the institution under section 17 of

NCTE Act 1993 on 17/09/2008. The report received from the visiting team was as



303

under :-

‘The management is not ready to face the inspection now on 17.09.2008

because of various factors and asked for postponement of the inspection by

three more months’

The institution had not co operated in carrying out the inspection as per the

provisions of NCTE Act. Therefore, the SRC-NCTE in its 165th meeting held on

27th and 28th September, 2008 on careful perusal of the original file of the

institution, visiting team report under section 14 & 17, the letter dated 14/03/2008

from the Registrar, Kakatiya University, Warangal to the Regional director, SRC

and the reply dated 13.06.2008 to show cause notice issued to the institution and

other related documents, Act of NCTE 1993, Regulations and guidelines issued

from time to time laid on the table, the Regional Committee noted the following:-

1. As per the visiting team report of Kakatiya university, Warangal the institution has the building which is not located in a congenial atmosphere for running a B.Ed course.

2. The institution in its written communication dt. 13/08/2008 informed about the completion of civil work of the building. The institution also informed that it would shift to the new building by September 10, 2008. However, neither it shifted to new premises.

3. It did not allow the NCTE visiting team to inspect the institution on 17/09/2008.

4. The institution breached its own undertaking submitted to the University for shifting the building to its permanent building but failed to do so.

5. The institution did not co operate to the Visiting team in carrying out inspection under section 17 on 17/09/2009. This is considered as an act of defiance and unbecoming of an educational institution.

6. The institution violated the provisions contained under various sections of NCTE Act and regulations there under.

The SRC after careful consideration of all aspects decided to withdraw the

recognition of the institution from the academic session 2008-09. Further, SRC

also decided to inform the decision to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh

and concerned University for follow-up action immediately. Including redistribution

of students admitted if any. As per the decision of SRC , a withdrawal order was

issued to the institution on 06/10/2008.

Aggrieved by the withdrawal order of SRC, the institution preferred an appeal to

NCTE-Hqrs The appellate authority vide order dt. 12/04/2010 has confirmed the

order of SRC with the modification that the same shall be effective from the

academic session 2010-11

As per the telephonic conversation with Mr.P.Vinayaka Swamy, the then advocate,

the brief of the institution was sent on 05.08.2011.

The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad has issued an order



304

dt.26.08.2011 in WPMP No. 29521 of 2011 in WP No. 24079 of 2011 as under :-

“The learned counsel, representing Sri. P. Vinayaka Swamy, learned

standing counsel for the respondents 1 (NCTE, Hqrs) and 2

(SRC,NCTE)submits that by virtue of the orders of this court in WP No.

22178 of 2008, dated 28/08/2009,the recognition granted in favour of the

petitioner has remained in force. In view of the said submission, there shall

be an interim direction to the 3 respondent.( Kakatiya University)”

Accordingly, a letter was issued to the advocate ,Mr.P.Vinayaka Swamy on

26/09//2011 along with the brief history of the institution with a request to obtain a

stay on the interim order granted to the institution.

On 30.09.2011, a Court Notice in W.P.No. 24079 of 2011 is received by this office

from the High court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to appear

before the Court on 10th October 2011. A letter dated 5.10.2011 was received

from Dr.Sunil Yadav , Deputy Secretary, NCTE(HQ) authorizing the Regional

director to defend the case on behalf of NCTE (HQ) and a letter was addressed to

the advocate , Shri .P. Vinayaka Swamy with a request to appear before the Court

and defend the case.

A letter was addressed to the advocate on 12.10.2011 to appear before the Court

and was informed that the recognition granted to the institution was not in force

In the meanwhile, the institution submitted a written representation on 7.3.2012

regarding shifting of premises, enclosing D.D. of Rs. 40.000/- and also stating that

“Southern Region Committee NCTE accorded recognition to Sri Sai Balaji

College of Education during the academic year 2006-07. Initially the

institution was started in a rented building. Subsequently the Management

constructed an exclusive building for B.Ed college as per NCTE norms.

Two years back the college was shifted to the new building. Meantime the

Southern Regional Committee NCTE withdrawn the recognition with a

pretext that the Management has not constructed permanent building.

However , Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Convener

EDCET and SRC NCTE to continue the recognition. Accordingly the

admissions for the academic year 2011-12 are made by the convener

EDCET.

In order strait the records the Management is requesting the Southern

Region Committee National Council for Teacher Education to cause

inspection and regularize the new building in which presently the college is

functioning.

As per NCTE rules we are enclosing a D.D for Rs. 40,000/-.”

The matter was placed before SRC in its 222nd meeting held on 9th and 10th May,



305

2012 and the Committee decided to wait for Court order and decision.

Accordingly, as per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to Sri.Madhava

Rao, the then advocate in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on

18.10.2012 and a legal opinion was sought in the matter.

A Court Notice along with Court Order in Writ Petition no. 28594 of 2012 has been

received on 16.10.2012. The Court notice has directed to appear before the court

personally or by advocate on 18.10.2012.

Accordingly, a letter was issued to the advocate, Shri ,.Madhava Rao on

17.10.2012 to appear before the Court on 18.10.2012 and defend the case.

Since, no reply was received, a reminder letter was sent to the

advocate,Shri.Madhava Rao requesting to furnish the outcome of the case in

W.P.No. 28594 of 2012.

On 14.12.2012, this office has received a court order in WPMP No. 36471 of 2012

in WP. No. 28594 of 2012 filed by Sri Sai Balaji College of Education, Thorrur,

Warangal District, A.P. through E-mail..

The Hon’ble Court order is as under :-

“Notice to the respondents”.

A perusal of the record shows that the appeal filed by the petitioner-

college against the order of respondent no. 2 in refusing recognition is

pending with respondent no. 1 after the case was remanded by this court.

It also appears that respondent no. 3 has been granting temporary

affiliations from time to time to the petitioner. The grievance of the

petitioner is that for the academic year 2012-13, respondent no. 3 is

insisting on the recognition by respondent no. 1 for granting affiliation.

In my prima facie opinion, since the petitioner’s application for recognition

is pending with respondent no. 1, the stipulation of condition by

respondent no. 3 that the petitioner must obtain recognition from

respondent no.1 as a condition for grant of affiliation does not appear to

be just and proper. Therefore, respondent no. 3 is directed to grant

temporary affiliation to the petitioner-college for the academic year 2012-

13 for conducting B.Ed course, which shall be subject to be decision of

respondent no. 1 on the petitioner’s application seeking recognition”.

From the records, it is seen that the following two interim directions have

been given by the Hon’ble Court:-

(i) In WP MP No 29521/2011 in W P No. 24079/2011 directing that

recognition granted has remained in force.



306

(ii) In WP MP No 36471/2012 in WP No 28594 / 2012 directing affiliating

body to grant temporary affiliation for 2012-13 subject to decision of NCTE

(HQ)on the application seeking recognition.

The first one was considered by SRC in its 222nd Meeting held on 9-10/05/2012

and the Committee decided to await for court order and decision. Legal opinion

was also sought vide letter dated 08/05/2012 which is yet not received. A reminder

letter was sent to the advocate on 18.12.2012 requesting for legal opinion in

respect of W.P.No. 24079 of 2011.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 237th Meeting held during 5th – 6th

January, 2014 considered the matter and decided that nothing is pending with

SRC or NCTE (HQ). Therefore, Court may be requested to review its order and

cancel the interim order passed in favour of the applicant institution.

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to the advocate, Shri.Madhava

Rao on 21.02.2013 to file a Review Petition in the Hon’ble Court.

On 22.07.2013, a Court Notice was received by this office from the Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature ,Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.M.P.No. 23047 of 2013

in W.P.No. 18858 of 2013 to appear before the Court on 17th July, 2013 in person

or by Counsel.

This was followed by another notice on 22.07.2013 from the Hon’ble Court in

W.P.No. 18856 of 2013 to appear before the Court on 02.08.2013.

A letter was addressed to Shri. Ramakanth Reddy, advocate for NCTE, in the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 23.07.2013 to appear

before the Court with a request to defend the case in the interest of NCTE.

On 29.07.2013, an e-mail was received from Shri. Ramakanth Reddy stating as

under :

“The writ petition (W.P.No. 18856 of 2013) is filed seeking a direction to

include the petitioner college in counseling for the academic year 2013-14, the

grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the NCTE has not disposed off

the appeal dated 25.09.2009 against the order dated 06.10.2009 withdrawing the

recognition.

By day after tomorrow 10:30 a.m (10: 30 am 30.07.2013) kindly inform us

when the appeal was disposed off and a copy of the appeal order. If there is

any other information the NCTE would like to inform the Court. Kindly send the

said any such information by the said time and date.”

A letter was addressed to Shri.Ramakanth Reddy on 30.07.2013 enclosing a copy

of the appellate authority order dated 12.04.2010 along with the brief of the case.

On 27.09.2013. a letter of HQ dated 24.09.2013 was received from Dr



307

.B.P.Pandey, Under Secretary, NCTE (HQ) in WPMP.No. 23047 /2013 in W.P.No.

18856 / 2013 pending decision in WPMP No. 27859 / 2013 filed by Sri Sai Balaji

College of Education Vs NCTE and others before High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad

which is as under :-

‘I am directed to refer to this office letter of even number dated 05.10.2011

in the matter mentioned above and to say that Sri Sai Balaji College of Education

has filed a WPMP No. 23047/2013 in WP 18856/2013 praying the Hon’ble

Court to extend the affiliation to the petitioner institution for the academic year

2013-14 for offering B.Ed course with an intake of 100 students.

The entire matter has been examined and the following is observed:-

A. “Sri Sai College of Education was granted recognition for

conducting B.Ed course vide SRC order dated 18.12.2006

which was withdrawn by SRC vide its

proceeding dated 29.9.2008.

B. This case is basically of withdrawal of recognition in respect of

14 colleges including of 14 colleges, including the petitioner

college, in the State of Andhra Pradesh vide order

dated 6.10.2008, on the basis of communication sent by

Kakatiya University regarding shabby accommodation of this

institutes(s).

C. The petitioner institution filed WP bearing no. 22178 of 2008

challenging the SRC order dated 6.10.2008. The said writ was disposed of

by the order dated 28.8.2009 thereby granted a liberty to the petitioner

to seek alternative remedy of appeal and till such disposal of appeal

status-quo shall be maintained.

D. The petitioner institution filed an appeal which was disposed on

12.4.2010 thereby modified the withdrawal order effective from 2010-

2011.

E. Subsequently, the petitioner institution challenged the Appeal order

dated 12.4.2010 by way of W.P. No. 14291 of 2010. (the said writ petition

was never received in this office as well as other related orders).

F. Now, the order dated 05.07.2010 in W.P. No. 14291 of 2010 has

been downloaded from the Court website and after perusal of the order,

it is seen that the Hon’ble Court set-aside the orders dated

12.04.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded the

matter back for considering the appeal afresh and pass orders within

three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

However, the certified copy of this order is not received by this



308

office so far.

G. Further, the institution filed another W.P. bearing no. 24079 of 2011

seeking relief from the affiliating university for affiliation for the

session 2011-2012 and in which the Hon’ble Court granted interim

relief in WPMP 29521 of 2011 vide its order dated 26.8.2011. This

office has already authorized SRC, NCTE to defend the case

and to vacate the stay. The matter is still pending before the Court.

H. Now, the petitioner filed the instant petition containing number

WPMP No. 23047 of 2013 in WP No. 18856 of 2013 concealing

the facts that the petition bearing no. 24079 of 2011 is still pending.

3. As such, the petitioner institution is taking relief from the Hon’ble Court for

affiliation since 2010-2011 by way of filing separate writ petition(s) from time

to time without insisting for reconsideration of the appeal as ordered vide

dated 5.7.2010 in WP. No. 14291 of 2010.

4. In view of the above, it is requested to inform whether the order dated

05.07.2010 in W.P.No. 14291/2010 passed by the Hon’ble Court is received by

the office of SRC or the Legal Counsel of NCTE at Hyderabad. Further, the

present status along with all details of 14 colleges, which are stated to have been

withdrawn by SRC Vide order(s) dated 06.08.2010 on the basis of decision

taken by SRC in its meeting held on 29.09.2008,may immediately be provided to

this office. Moreover, the above facts may be forwarded to the Legal counsel at

Hyderabad with instructions to bring the same to the notice of the Hon’ble court

immediately for getting the stay vacated in the matter.

On 11.10.2013, a Court order dated 27.09.2013 in W.P.M.P.No. 23047 of 2013 in

W.P.No. 18856 of 2013 was received by this office.

The institution had prayed for direction to 3rd respondent (Kakatiya University) to

extend the affiliation to the Petitioner college for the academic year 2013-14 to

offer B.Ed course with an intake of 100 students .

The Hon’ble Court made the following order on 27.09.2013 which is as under :-

‘Interim directions as prayed for, as it is brought to my notice that the

appeal preferred by the writ petitioner has been kept pending by the

Appellate Committee of the NCTE.’

In view of the above, a letter was addressed to the advocate on 20.11.2013 to get

the stay vacated and defend the case .It was also requested to kindly forward the

court order dated 5.7.2010 in W.P. No. 14291 of 2010 passed by the Hon’ble

Court in respect of Sri Sai Balaji College of Education, Warangal. A brief of the



309

institution as well as the letter of Dr.B.P.Pandey, NCTE, New Delhi dated

24.09.2013 was also sent to the advocate with a request to get the stay vacated at

the earliest and intimate the action taken in the matter.

On 04.08.2014, the institution has submitted a request for inspection of new

premises along with a demand draft of Rs. 40,000/-(Demand Draft No. 19162 of

State Bank of Hyderabad dated 17.06.2014 ).

The Southern Regional Committee in its 272nd Meeting held during 1st and 2nd

September, 2014 considered the matter, Court order dated, 27.09.2014 and letter

from the institution dated 04/08/2014, decided and advised Southern Regional

Office to:

1. Ask NCTE (H'qrs) to inform us about the status of the appeal case.

2. Ask our Lawyer to report the facts and status of the case; and, progress

regarding vacation of ‘stay’.

3. Also, obtain a copy of the Court Order dated 5.7.2010.

A letter was addressed to the advocate Shri.Ramakanth Reddy on 02.09.2014

requesting him to forward a copy of the Court order dated 05.07.2010 in W.P.No.

14291 of 2010 and inform the status of the case in respect of various petitions filed

by the institution to this office.

On 01.09.2014, an e-mail is received from the advocate ,Shri.Ramakanth Reddy

stating as under :-

“ APS02059(Sai Balaji College of Education ,Warrangal district) filed writ

petition No. 24355/2014 and the same is listed today. The college is seeking

affiliation on the ground that appeal is pending. I will seek time for counter

and oppose the relief sought. Kindly let me know whether any appeal is

pending. This college seems to be running on interim orders. I am also sending

e-mail.”

A copy of the chronological events of the case in W.P.No. 24355 of 2014 was

enclosed along with the letter.

On 02.09.2014, another e-mail is received by this office from Shri. Ramakanth

Reddy stating as under :-

“ W.P.24355 of 2014 , filed by Sri Sai Balaji College of Education came up

for hearing today again. The Court directed us to file counter by Thursday

10.30 , by clearly stating whether Appeal filed by College on

25.09.2009.Please add in the counter when the appeal was disposed by appellate

authority.

Otherwise, Under Secretary should be present in the Court to explain why



310

the Court is not informed whether appeal dated 25.09.2009, was disposed by

the appellate authority or not.”

On 03.09.2014,this office received a copy of the counter affidavit to be filed in

W.P.No. 24355 of 2014 from Shri. Ramakanth Reddy.

An e-mail was sent to the advocate ,Shri. Ramakanth Reddy on 04.09.2014

enclosing a copy of the appeal order dated 12.04.2010.

On 04.09.2014, an e-mail was received from Shri.Ramakanth Reddy stating that

“the appeal order dated 12.04.2010 was set aside by the Hon’ble High

Court in W.P.No. 14291 of 2010 dated 05.07.2010 and the Hon’ble court

directed NCTE to reconsider the appeal again. Therefore the Court wants

to know whether the appellate authority passed order as directed by the

Hon’ble Court in W.P.No. 14291 of 2010 dated 05.07.2010.This information

has to be furnished to the Court by tomorrow by 10.30 a.m failing which the

Hon’ble Court may take serious view of the matter. Kindly treat this as

urgent and important because you have sent appeal order dated

12.04.2010 which was already set aside by the Court as explained above.”

An e-mail was sent to Shri.R.C.Chopra Section Officer, NCTE-Hq and Shri.

B.P.Pandey , Under Secretary, NCTE-Hq on 04.09.2014 seeking the current

status of the appeal in view of the Court direction in W.P.No. 14291 of 2010.

On 04.09.2014, a letter was addressed to the advocate, Shri.Ramakanth Reddy

stating as under :-

“ as per the information given by the Under Secretary , Legal,NCTE,HQ

over telephone , the order of Hon’ble High court in W.P.No. 14291 of 2010 is

placed before the Appeal Committee.

Further, as seen from the e-mail sent by you on 04.09.2014.From, the

Court order in W.P.No. 14291 of 2010 , it is seen that To address mentioned in the

Court order is as under :-

“1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary(Health), Ministry of Health

and Family Welfare, (Dental Education Section), Nirman Bhavan,New Delhi.

2. The Dental Council of India rep by its Secretary,Kotla Road, New

Delhi.

3. Two CD copies

4. One CC to Sri. P.Kesava Rao, advocate (OPUC)

5. One CC to Sri. B.Adinarayana Rao, advocare (OPUC)”

Hence ,it is observed that the Court orders were not addressed to



311

either the SRC Office or NCTE, New Delhi Office.”

An email was sent to the advocate on 04.09.2014, requesting him as under :-

“ In continuation to this office letter dated 02.09.2014 and 04.09.2014 , the

draft counter you had sent to this office may please be modified and sent to this

office for filing the same for vacation of stay in court Matter of Sri Sai Balaji

College of Education, in W.P.No.23047 in W.P.No. 18856 of 2013 pending

decision in W.P.No. 24079 of 2011.”

On 05.09.2014, an e-mail dated 04.09.2014 is received form the advocate , Shri.

Ramakanth Reddy seeking para-wise remarks in W.P.No. 23047 of 2013 /

W.P.No. 18856 of 2013 pending decision in W.P.No. 24079 of 2011 to file vacate

stay petitions. The advocate has stated as under :-

“ We should defend the writ petition W.P.24355 of 2014 properly.In the

latest writ petition W.P.24355 of 2014, kindly make necessary additions as

informed by you stating that the matter was not placed before the Appellate

Committee and that the copies of the order were not marked to SRC office

or NCTE office and send the signed counter affidavit to avoid legal complications

and orders. also write in the counter affidavit whether the order copy was received

by SRC,NCTE

In para 11 of the writ, kindly go through the writ petition and advise.This

matter is being heard repeatedly by Hon’ble court since last week.Kindly

clarify and send the counter as above and para wise remarks as requested

above in the other cases to avoid legal complications and orders.”

A duly signed counter affidavit was sent to the advocate on 05.09.2014.

On 14.10.2014, this office has received a Court Order dated 18.09.2014 in

W.P.No. 24355 of 2014 from the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.The Court order dated

18.09.2014 is as under :-

“ This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the

action of the 3rd respondent – University in not extending the affiliation

to Sri Sai Balaji College of Education, Thorrur, Warrangal District –

petitioner for the academic year 2014-15 to offer B.Ed., course with

an intake of 100 students, as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to

the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 22178 of 2008, dated

28.08.2009.

The case of the petitioner is that it was granted recognition by the

National Council for Teacher Education- 2nd respondent on 18.12.2006,

and the same was sought to be withdrawn by the 2nd respondent.

Aggrieved by the same petitioner filed W.P.No. 22178 of 2008 and the



312

same was disposed by the Court on 28.08.2009, as follows ;

“The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner

to file a statutory appeal under section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993

against the order of withdrawal of recognition, if not already filed, within

a period of four weeks from today. If any such appeal is preferred, the

appellate authority shall receive treating the same as an appeal filed

within limitation and dispose of in accordance with law after hearing

both the parties. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today in all

respects shall be maintained”.

In pursuance of the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by this

Court, Petitioner filed appeal and the same was dismissed by the 1st

respondent on 12.04.2010, confirming the original order dated

06.10.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent, withdrawing the

recognition . Thereafter, the petitioner filed W. P.No. 14291 of 2010

and this Court disposed of the same on 05.07.2010 setting aside

the orders dated 12.04.2010, passed by the 1st respondent and

remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration

of the appeal filed by the petitioner and also directed to dispose of

the same within a period of three weeks and the same is pending

before the 1st respondent-University. Since statutory appeal is

pending before the 1strespondent the petitioner filed W.P. No. 24079

of 2011 and W.P. No. 18856 of 2013 seeking direction to extend

affiliation and this Court by way of interim orders in WP.M.P.No.

23047 of 2013 in W. P. No. 18856 of 2013 directed the 3rd

respondent to extend affiliation to the petitioner for the academic

years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14.The present writ petition is

filed seeking similar direction passed in the above two writ petitions.

In the Counter filed by the 1st respondent they have not

denied the fact that appeal is pending before it. But the only defence

taken by them is that the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.

14291 of 2010 were not communicated to the appellate authority.

Though elaborate counter is filed, this Court is not inclined to go into

the merits as appeal against withdrawal of recognition is pending

before the first respondent.

Learned Counsel for the first respondent states that even if

any affiliation is granted after the cut off dated i.e 03.03.2014 it will be

applicable to the next academic year. He also contends that the

pending applications should be considered as per new regulations to

be framed.

On the other hand Sri.Deepak Bhattacharjee. Learned

Counsel for 3rd respondent submits that University has its own



313

regulations for granting affiliation and affiliation will be granted

only after fulfilling the regulations/conditions by the petitioner-

college.

This Court already granted interim orders in WP.MP.No.

29521 of 2011 in W.P.No. 24079 of 2011 and in WP.MP.No. 23047 of

2013 in W.P.No. 18856 of 2013, directing the 3rd respondent to extend

affiliation for the academic years.2011-2012, 2012-13 and 2013.

In view of the same and since appeal filed by the petitioner

against the withdrawal of affiliation is pending consideration before the

1st respondent (NCTE -New Delhi) and that petitioner is an existing

institution, the 3rd respondent(Kakatiya University) is directed to

consider the application of the Petitioner for grant of affiliation to the

petitioner-college on fulfillment of conditions prescribed by the 3rd

respondent-University as per law.

With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of. There shall

be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any

pending shall stand closed.

SRC in its 274th meeting held on 30th – 31st October, 2014 considered the matter

and decided to await appellate authority’s order.

On 17.11.2014, a letter No. F.64-193/2011/NCTE/KLegal/A97330 dated 7.11.2014

is received by this office from Dr.B.P.Pandey , Under Secretary,NCTE(HQ) .The

letter states as under :-

“ I am directed to refer to the Court order dated 18.09.2014 received on

13.10.2014 from the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and

the State of Andhra Pradesh, inter-alia directing as under :-

‘This court already granted interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.

29521/2011 in W.P.No.24079 of 2011 and in W.P.M.P.No. 23047 of 2013 in

W.P.No. 18856 of 2013 , directing the 3rd respondent (University) to extend

affiliation for the academic years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013.

In view of the same and since appeal filed by the petitioner

against the withdrawal of affiliation is pending consideration before the 1st

respondent and that the petitioner is an existing institution , the 3rd

respondent – University is directed to consider the application of petitioner for

grant of affiliation to the petitioner College on fulfillment of conditions prescribed by

the 3rd respondent-University as per law.

With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order

as to costs .As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending



314

shall stand closed.”

2. The entire matter has been examined and the following is observed :-

A. Sri Sai College of Education was granted recognition for conducting B.Ed course vide SRC order dated 18.12.2006 which was withdrawn by SRC vide its proceeding dated 29.09.2008.

B. This case is basically of withdrawal of recognition in respect of 14 colleges including the petitioner college, in the state of A.P. vide order dated 06.10.2008, on the basis of communication sent by Kakatiya University regarding shabby accommodation of the institutes (s).

C. The petitioner institution filed Writ petition bearing No. 22178/ 2008 challenging the SRC order dated 06.10.2008. The said writ was disposed off by order dated 28.08.2009 thereby granted a liberty to the petitioner to seek alternative remedy of appeal and till such isposal of appeal status-quo shall be maintained.

D. The petitioner institution filed an appeal which was disposed on 12.04.2010 thereby modified the withdrawal order effective from 2010-2011.

E. Subsequently, the petitioner institution challenged the appeal order dated 12.04.2010 by way of W.P.No. 14291 / 2010 ( the said writ petition was never received in this office as well as other related orders)

F.The order dated 05.07.2010 in W.P.No. 14291/2010 , downloaded from the Court website reveals that the Hon’ble Court set - aside the orders dated 12.04.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back for considering the appeal afresh and pass orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. However, the certified copy of this order is never received by this office.

G. The petitioner institution filed W.P.N. 24079 of 2011 and W.P.No. 18856/2013 seeking direction to extend affiliation and the Court by way of interim orders in W.P.M.P.29521 of 2011 in W.P.No. 24079 of 2011 and W.P.M. P. No. 23047 of 2013 in W .P. No. 18856 of 2013, directed the 3rd respondent to extend affiliation to the petitioner for the academic years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14.The present writ petition is filed seeking similar direction passed in the above two writ petitions.

The Court without going into the merits of the appeal, extended the



315

affiliation for the Academic Year 2014-15 also vide recent order dated 18.09.2014.

3. From a perusal of the case it appears that, either there is no monitoring of the case or there is other reason behind maintaining silence over the matter by SRC and the institute could get affiliation year by year since2011 without recognition by NCTE in violation of Section -16 of NCTE Act, 1993.

4. It has been intimated by the Appeal Section, NCTE(HQ) that no such request for reconsideration / Court order dated 05. 07. 2010 is available in their available records.

5.You are therefore requested to take the following actions immediately.

(a) Investigate and explain the reasons for silence over the matter by SRC allowing the institution to get affiliation without NCTE recognition consecutively from 2011-12 in violation of Section 16 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and submit detailed report immediately.

(b) Challenge the order dated 18.09.2014 of the Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the Division Bench of the same Court praying inter-alia to grant stay in operation of the impugned order as the affiliation has been granted to the institution without NCTE recognition in utter disregard and violation of Section 16 of the NCTE Act,1993.

(c ) Review the performance of the concerned Advocate of NCTE for SRC who was dealing with the case for failure in protecting the interest of NCTE and grant of affiliation by the Hon’ble Court in violation of the provisions of the Act consecutively from 2011-12 till 2014-15 and furnish the report with specific comments / recommendation of RD, SRC.

The Committee considered the matter, letter from NCTE (H'qrs) dated 7.11.2014, decided that: 1.The basic issue for action is the High Court order of 2010 directing the Appellate Authority to reconsider the case. Further, advised Southern Regional to Request NCTE (H'qrs) to take action accordingly.


Jeremaih College of

Educatuion, Godavari,

Andhra

Jeremiah College of Education, Plot No.673, Burugupadi Village and Post,

Korukonda Taluk, Rajahumundry City, Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

Banaiah Christian Educational Society, 2nd Floor, Satya Surya Complex, Opp

Complex RTC Dwarakanagar, Vishakapatnam District-530016, Andhra

Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to Jeremiah College of Education,



316

Pradesh. AP

Plot No. 673, Burugupadi Village & Post, Korukonda Taluk, East Godavari

District-530016, Andhra Pradesh for D.El.Ed course on 26.09.2011 for two years

duration under section 14(1) of the NCTE Act. 1993 and received in the Southern

Regional Committee, NCTE on 28/09/2011.

NCTE-Hqrs had directed to process the applications in accordance with NCTE

Regulations 2009, it amendment Notified on 26th November 2010 which reads as

follows:-

2 (B) for Sub Regulation (1-A) the following shall be submitted namely. 1 (1-A) (I)

the application shall be summarily rejected under one or more of the following

circumstances:

1. The processing fee, as provided under Rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 is not furnished on or before the date of submission of online application.

2. Hard copy in triplicate of the online application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of the online application.

3. Copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority indicating that the society. Institution applying for the course possessed land on the date of application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of online application.

The SRC considered the matter in its 216th meeting held on 11th-12th January,

2012 and careful perusal of the original file of the institution and other related

documents, NCTE Act 1993. Regulations and guidelines from time to time laid on

the table. The Regional committee decided to reject the application on the

following grounds.

1. Proof of dispatch of hard copy of application not submitted within 7 days.

Accordingly, a rejection order to Jeremiah College of Education, East

Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh for D.El.Ed course was issued vide F.No.

SRCAPP734/(D.El.Ed) AP/2012-13/39677 dated 29/03/2012.

Aggrieved by the rejection order of SRC the institution preferred an appeal to

NCTE-Hqrs and the appellate authority in its order no. F.No. 89-185/2012

Appeal/5th Meeting – 2012 dated 18/09/2012 stated that “the council concluded

that there was adequate ground to remand the matter to the SRC for further

processing of the application on merit as per regulations. The council hereby

remands back the case of Jeremiah College of Education, East Godavari,

Andhra Pradesh to SRC, NCTE for necessary action as indicated above”.

The SRC in its 229th meeting held on 30th-31st July, 2012 considered Appellate authority order dated 18/09/2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under section 14 (1) of NCTE Act.



317

As per the information of the website the institution has submitted written representation on 21/08/2012

The SRC in its 231st Meeting held on 22nd – 23rd August 2012, considered the reply

of the institution dt. 21/08/2012 and all other relevant documents and decided to

cause inspection under section 14 (1) of NCTE Act, to examine whether the

institution fulfils all the requirements as per the norms, for the proposed

programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies, if any, were duly rectified

by the institution, as per the norms.

As per the direction of SRC, the inspection of the institution was conducted on 08.09.2012 and the VT Report received in the office of SRC on 14.09.2012. The SRC in its 233rd meeting held on 26th – 28th September 2012 considered the VT report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 14 (1) of NCTE Act, for the following:-

• The institution has to submit a fresh VCD showing the infrastructural and instructional facilities provided in the building meant for the proposed course.

Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 02.11.2012.

The institution has submitted the reply on 19.11.2012.

On careful perusal of the original file of the institution, reply of the institution, all

relevant documents and other related documents, Act of NCTE, 1993,

Regulations and guidelines of NCTE published from time to time laid on the table,

the Regional Committee decided to issue Letter of Intent for grant of recognition

to D.El.Ed course of two year duration with an annual intake of 50(Fifty only)(one

unit) for the academic year 2013-14 subject to the appointment of qualified staff

through duly constituted selection committee as per the Norms of NCTE/State

Government/Affiliating University and be given effect before the commencement

of the academic session.

As per the decision of SRC, a letter of intent was issued to the institution on 01.01.2013. On 21.02.2013, the institution submitted a written representation requesting for the grant of recognition from the year 2012-2013 along with a copy of the Court order dated 13.02.2013 in W.P.M.P.No. 5297 of 2013 in W.P.No. 4240 of 2013. The Hon’ble High Court order in W.P.M.P No. 5297 of 2013 in W.P. No. 4240 of

2013 dated 13.2.2013 filed by Benaiah Christian Educational Society,

Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh is as under :-.

“The petitioner submitted an application before the 1st respondent herein

with a request to grant recognition to start two years D.El.Ed course with an

intake of 50 students from the current academic year. As required under

the Regulations, the applications, the application was filed through online



318

on 26.9.2011 and a hard copy thereof was dispatched on 30.9.2011. It is

also stated that a copy was directly handed over to the 1st respondent on

28.9.2011. However, taking the view that the petitioner failed to dispatch

the hard copy within one week from the date of submission of the

application through online, the 1st respondent rejected the application,

through proceedings dated 29.3.2012. In the appeal preferred by the

petitioner, the 4th respondent found fault with the order passed by the 1st

respondent and directed that the matter be considered on merits. Even

thereafter, the 1st respondent did not take immediate steps. It was only

through proceedings, dated 1.1.2013, that the petitioner was granted

recognition for the academic year 2013-14.

The petitioner contends that the third phase of the counseling for admission

into D.El.Ed course is scheduled to take place between 24.2.2013 and

27.2.2013. Since there is ample time, the infrastructure arranged by the

petitioner and approved by the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to go

waste.

Hence, there shall be interim direction to the effect that the

recognition granted by the 1st respondent for the petitioner-institution

be treated as holding good for the current academic year and the

other respondents shall take steps accordingly”.(Pg. no.126)

On 26.02.2013, a Court notice dated 13.02.2013 in W.P.No. 4240 of 2013 is

received by this office to appear before the Court on 18.03.2013.

A letter was addressed to the advocate , Shri.Ramakanth Reddy on 04.03.2013.

On 11.03.2013, this office received a Letter from Shri.J.P.Dwivedi,Under

Secretray,NCTE-Hqrs authorizing the Regional Director to defend the case

(W.P.No. 4240/2013) in the light of various Supreme Court Judgments and NCTE

Regulations.

On 23.09.2013, the institution submitted a reply to the Letter of Intent. In its reply the institution has requested as under :-

“kindly condone the delay due to (1) Turmoil in Andhra Pradesh for bifurcation of state and for a United State. (2) The letter of intent was issued for 2013-14. (3)The Andhra Pradesh Government admission notification for 2013-14 was not issued till date and hence the grant of formal recognition now for 2013-14 is justified. (4). The Jeremiah D.Ed College has incurred huge amounts for the infrastructure and academic facilities. (5). The SCERT (Government of Andhra Pradesh), delayed the process of staff approval due to agitations in Andhra Pradesh in spite of our payments to them on time.”

The Southern Regional Committee in its 254th meeting held during 25th – 27th October, 2014 considered the LOI reply from the institution vide letter dated



319

23/09/2013 and condoned the delay of submission of LOI reply as the reasons given by the institution is genuine. On Careful perusal of the original file of the institution and staff profiles submitted by the institution in response to the letter of Intent, the Regional Committee decided that Formal Recognition be granted to D.Ed., course of two year duration with an annual intake of 50 (fifty only) students, from the academic session 2014-2015. As per the decision of SRC, a Formal Recognition order was issued to the institution vide F.No.SRCAPP734/D.Ed/AP/2013-14/54835 dated 07.11.2013 with an intake of 50 students from the academic session 2014-15.

On 06.02.2014, this office has received a copy of the Court order dated

27.01.2014 in WPMP.No.2144 of 2014 in W.P.No. 1789 of 2014 from the High

Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The writ petition is filed by

Bennaiah Christian Education Society and Jeremiah College of Education against

SRC-NCTE –R1,SCERT-R2,The Commissioner and Director, School Education,

Government of Andhra Pradesh-R3,NCTE-New Delhi –R4,The Convener,DIET-

CET-2013 – R5.

The institution has prayed for a direction to the 5th respondent to allot the students

in the Counseling dated 25.01.2014 for the academic year 2013-14 without

reference to the proceedings F.No.SRCAPP734/D.Ed/AP/2013-14 dated

07.11.2013 pending disposal of the writ petition 1789 of 2014 on the file of the

High Court.

The Hon’ble Court has made the following order :-

“Shri.Ramakanth Reddy, learned standing Counsel , would draw attention

of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in MAA VAISHNO DEVI

MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others to

contend that, in terms of the schedule refereed to in paragraphs 87.1 and

87.3 , a formal order of recommendation, for the academic year 2013-14, is

required to be granted on or before 03.03.2013 an not thereafter. Learned

Standing Counsel would state that the last date for permission, for the

academic year i. 2013-14 was 03.03.2013 and any permission granted

thereafter can only be for the next academic year 2014-15.He requests two

weeks time to file counter

Post the W.P.M.P on 10.02.2014.”

A Court notice dated 07.01.2014 was received from the High Court of Judicature,

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No. 1789 of 2011 to appear before the

Court on 10.02.2014.A letter was addressed to the advocate Shri. Ramakanth



320

Reddy on 20.02.2014 to defend the case in the interest of NCTE

On 01.04.2014 ,a letter dated 25.03.2014 is received by this office from

Shri.B.P.Pandey,Under Secretary in respect of W.P.No. 1789 of 2014

The letter states as under :-

“ I am directed to refer to the Court notice dated 27.01.2014 received from

the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad along with a copy

of the writ petition in the matter mentioned above. It is seen that the

petitioner made an application for D.EI.Ed course for the academic session

2012-13 and was granted LOI for the academic session 2013-14.The

petitioners in contravention of Sub-Regulation (12) of Regulation, 2009

admitted 50 students for the academic session 2012-13 , on the basis of

interim directions passed by the Hon’ble Court in W.P.No. 4240/2013 and

thereafter got allowed them to writ their examinations as per the Court

order in WP.No. 36403/2013.Petitioner was, thereafter , granted

recognition under clause 7(11) of NCTE Regulations vide SRC order dated

07.11.2013 from the academic session 2014-15.Petitioner now prayed for

retrospective recognition from the academic session 2012-13 and also to

allow participating in the counseling for the academic session 2013-14,

setting aside the NCTE order of recognition dated 07.11.2013 from the

academic session 2014-15.The matter was listed for hearing on

10.02.2014.

It is noticed that the petitioners acted in contravention of clause 8(12) of

NCTE Regulation , 2009 that inter-alia stipulates that “admission by the

institution shall be made only after affiliation by the University or Affiliating

body and as per State Policy” .In the instant case, the petitioner made

admissions when it is neither having affiliation from the affiliating body nor

having recognition from the NCTE.

3. Moreover, the Hon’ble Court in the matter of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Vs Subhash Rahangdale , (2012) 2SCC 425 , in para 87 inter-alia held the following :-

“87(i) The Regional Committee established under Section 20 of the 1993

Act are duly- bound to ensure that no private institution

offering or intending to offer a course that no private institution

offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher

education is granted recognition unless it satisfies the conditions

specified in Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and Regulations 7 and

8 of the Regulations. Likewise, no recognized institution intending to

start any new course or training in teacher education shall be



321

granted permission unless it satisfied the conditions specified I

Section 15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the relevant Regulations.”

87(xii) No institution shall admit any student to a teacher training course or

programme unless it has obtained recognition under

Section 14 or permission under section 15, as the case may be.

87(xv) The students admitted by unrecognized institution and institutions

which are not affiliated to any examining body are not

entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the

examining body or any other authorized agency.

4. Moreover, there is no provision of retrospective recognition in the NCTE Act, rules and regulations and no recognition can be granted even for the academic session 2014-15 beyond 3rd March, 2014 as per time scheduled fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahavidyalaya Vs State of U.P and others WP.No. 276/2012

5. In the case, it is also seen that the petitioner has approached directly to the Hon’ble Court without exhausting the remedy available under section 18 of the NCTE Act,1993.

6. In view of the above, the SRC is directed to initiate the following action on urgent basis , under intimation to this office :-

i. To defend the case including on behalf of NCTE (H'qrs) keeping the

above factors in view.

ii. To check the details of WP No. 4240/2013 and 36403/2013 on

which basis the petitioner institution got admissions for

the academic session 2012-13 without having

recognition/ affiliation from the affiliating body/NCTE.

iii. To check if the NCTE was the party in the above petitions as to why

the SRC did not oppose of getting such relief to the petitioner institution.

On 04/08/2014, a letter dated 24/07/2014 is received from Smt. M.S.S.Lakshmi

Watts, Director, SCERT (l/C), Andhra Pradesh State, Hyderabad stating as

under:-

"I wish to state that the SRC-NCTE, Bangalore in the reference 1st cited (F.No.

SRCAPP734/D.Ed/AP/2013-2014/54835 dated:07/11/2013) issued orders granting

formal recognition to Jeremiah College of Education, D.El.Ed/D.Ed., Course

Sponsored by Benaiah Chiristian Educational Society, Plot No.673, Burugupadi

Village and Post, Korukonds Taluk, Rajahmundry City, East Godavari District for

conducting D.Ed Course of two years with an annual intake of 50 students from

the academic session 2014-15 under clause 7(11) of NCTE (Recognition Norms &

Procedure) Regulations, 2009.

I further wish to state that on further perusal of the file relating to Jeremiah College



322

of Education, D.El.Ed/D.Ed., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, the following

facts are elicited:-

� The 7th Affiliation Committee was held on 06.02.2013. Proposals in respect of (45) Private D.Ed Colleges were placed before the Affiliation Committee for grant of affiliation for the year 2012-13.

� The Committee opined that a minimum of 220 working days are required for completion of the Academic year 2012-13. As such, the committee deferred to recommend 40 colleges for grant of affiliation for the year 2012-13. Instead decided to recommend these colleges for grant of affiliation for the year 2013-14. Accordingly, the proposals were submitted to the Government vide Lr.Rc.No. 01/B1/TE/SCERT/2012 dated : 11.02.2013 of the Director, SCERT with a request to grant affiliation to these colleges for the year 2013-14.

� The Managements of 40 Colleges filed various Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court heard the Writ Petitions and disposed all the Writ Petitions on 20.03.2013 by way of a Common order in W.P.No.4968/2013 & Batch. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:

"It is relevant to mention that in all these cases interim orders

were granted by this Court during 16.02.2013 to 26.02.2013 to

include the names of the petitioner-institutions in the list of

colleges for allotment of candidates in the 3rd phase of counseling.

There was ample time for according affiliations. Therefore, the

objection that there will be shortage of working days from the

prescribed 200 days does not stand to reasoning. Admittedly,

counseling was done on 08.02.2013 and admissions were given till

28.02.2013. Furthermore, the material placed before this Court

shows that in the past, in similar matters, institutions were

permitted to make spot admissions and they were required to

complete the number of working days by working extra hours on

working days, on public holidays and also in summer vacation.

There is no valid reason why the Government should not extend

the same benefit to the petitioner institutions. Furthermore, huge

investments have gone into creating infrastructure by the

petitioner-institutions and it will be unfair to ask them to wait for

one more year and it frustrates the NCTEs recognition for present

academic year as well.

For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and

consequently a direction shall go to the 1st respondent to accord

affiliation to the petitioner-institutions to run D.Ed., course so as

to enable them to admit the students for the academic year 2012-

13. No costs."

� Consequently, the Government filed Writ Appeals against the above



323

orders of the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court issued following interim directions in WAMP No. 1424 of 2013 in WA No. 586 of 2013:The admissions of students to respondent No.1-Writ Petitioner College and the Completion of their course shall be subject to result of the Writ appeal.

� As the matter stood thus, these colleges once again approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed WPMPs with a prayer to direct the respondents to receive the examination fee, and permit the students admitted in their respective college to appear for the year D.El.Ed/D.Ed course examinations.

� Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court directed the official respondents to receive the examination fee, and permit the students admitted in the petitioner-college to appear for the first year D.El.Ed /D.Ed course examinations, provided they satisfy the minimum attendance requirements and comply with all other legal requirements stipulated for a student to be eligible to appear for the examinations.

Hence, I wish to add that keeping in view of the directions of the

Hon'ble High Court, the results of the candidates who were admitted

by the Management of the Colleges for the academic year 2012-13

were declared. The Department brought the fact that the college was

granted formal recognition for the year 2014-15 to the notice of Hon'ble

High Court, but the Hon'ble High Court did not yield to the request of

the Department. As such, the results of the students who appeared for

the examinations were declared.

Furthermore, the college management has once again admitted the

students for the year 2013-14. The management has also approached the

Hon'ble High Court with a prayer to permit the students to appear for first

year D.Ed Examination for the academic year 2013-14. Whereas, the

formal recognition is granted to the college only from the academic year

2014-15.

In view of the above elucidated facts, I request you kindly to examine and

inform the status on the fate of the students admitted into the college for the

year 2012-13 and 2013-14 as the results of the students admitted for the

academic year 2012-13 has already been declared. Early orders in the matter are

solicited."

The Southern Regional Committee in its 272nd Meeting held during 1st – 2nd

September, 2014 considered the complaint letter from the Director (I/c) of SCERT,

Andhra Pradesh, against the above college. It is decided by the Committee that



324

there was no recognition as claimed by the institution and there was no affiliation

also. The college was given recognition by NCTE from the year 2014-15 only. The

Institution manipulated to take advantage of the Court Order passed for other

institutions. We can not twist our Regulations to accommodate such cases.

Supreme Court has given clear direction about misplaced sympathy in such

fraudulent cases. Cite that and inform the SCERT that Diplomas can not be

issued.

The latest Supreme Court order (in Case No. SLP 14020/2009) clearly stipulates

that mercy or sympathy in the name of students is not warranted.

Judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP © No. 14020/2009

filed by Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidalaya & others Vs Subhash Rahaangdale &

others is:

“ In future, the High Courts shall not entertain prayer for interim relief by

unrecognized institutions and the institutions which have not been granted

affiliation by the examination body and or the students admitted by such

institutions for permission to appear in the examination or for declaration of

the result of examination. This would also apply to the recognized

institutions if they admit students otherwise than in accordance with the

procedure contained in Appendix-1 of the Regulations”.

As per the decision of SRC, a letter was addressed to the Director, SCERT,

Hyderabad ,Andhra Pradesh on 07.11.2014 conveying the decision of 272nd

Meeting of SRC.

In the meanwhile, on 29.10.2014, a copy of the letter dated 25.10.2014 of Smt.

M.S.S.Lakshmi Watts, Director, SCERT (l/C), Andhra Pradesh State, Hyderabad

addressed to the Correspondent/Secretary, Jeremaiah College of Education is

received by this office as under :-

“ The attention of the Correspondent/Secretary Jeremaiah college of

Education (D.Ed) Burugapadi ,Korukonda (M),Rajahmundry,E.G.District is

invited to the reference read above and informed that the management of

the College has made admissions for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14

without formal recognition orders and affiliation orders from the Competent

authorities i.e SRC,NCTE,Bangalore and Govt. of Andhra Pradesh .It also

filed W.P.No. 36403/2013 in the Hon’ble High Court as SRC,NCTE,

Bangalore has issued

Formal recognition orders to the above said college for the year 2014-

15.On orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 36403/2013, this office

have filed counter affidavit stating that it was not feasible to grant affiliation

for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14, in the absence of formal recognition orders



325

from the SRC,NCTE Bangalore and affiliation orders of the State Government.

As the case stand thus, the management have filed another

W.P.No. 6179/2013 with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue hall tickets

to the students of the petitioner college and permit them to appear for the first year

D.Ed annual examination scheduled on 07.03.2014.To honour the orders of

the Hon’ble High court, the students admitted by the petitioner college the

students admitted by the petitioner college have been allowed to write the

D.Ed 1st year examination held from 07.03.2014 onwards for the academic

year 2012-13 and filed counter affidavit stating that as per rules without

formal recognition orders from NCTE, Bangalore and without approval of

grant of affiliation and also without allotment of students by the Convener

,DIETCET 2012, the petitioner college is not eligible to make admission at their

own for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 as SRC,NCTE Bangalore granted

recognition to the petitioner college from the year 2014-15.The said writ petition

is also pending with the Hon’ble High Court.

In view of the above circumstances and attitude of the management

of the Jeremaiah College of Education, Burudgupadi Village, Korukonda Taluk,

E.G.District , the Affiliation Committee in its meeting held on 19.09.2014 has

verified the proposal of the said college and decided to reject the proposals

for recommendation to grant fresh affiliation for the year 2014-15 as the

Management has made admissions for the year 2012-2013and 2013-14 in

violation of the NCTE norms 2009 and admissions rules prescribed by the

State Government of Andhra Pradesh.

This is for information.

On 21.11.2014, a letter vide Lr.Rc.No.17/B/TE/AP/SCERT/2014 dated 14.11.2014

is received from Smt. M.S.S.Lakshmi Watts,Director,S.C.E.R.T,A.P,Hyderabad

regarding the decision of the 3rd Affiliation Committee not to grant fresh affiliation to

the institution for the year 2014-15 .stating that ( copy enclosed) :-

“ In view of the above circumstances and attitude of the management of the

Jeremiah College of Eduation, Burudgupadi Village, Korukonda Taluk,

E.G.District, the affiliation Committee in its meeting held on 19.09.2014

has verified the proposals for recommendation to Govt. to grant fresh affiliation

for the year 2014-15 as the management has made admission for the year

2012-13 and 2013-14 in violation of NCTE rules and regulations and

admissions rules by the State Govt. of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the

decision of the Affiliation Committee has already been intimated to the

management of the above College.”

As per records , it is observed that ;

1. Letter of Intent was issued to the institution on 01.01.2013 for the year



326

2013-14.

2. The institution filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court in. W.P.M.P No.

5297 of 2013 in W.P. No. 4240 of 2013 and the Hon’ble court vide order

dated 13.2.2013 noted that there shall be interim direction to the effect that

the recognition granted by the 1st respondent for the petitioner-institution be

treated as holding good for the current academic year(2012-13) and the other

respondents shall take steps accordingly.

3. The institution has filed another writ petition W.P.No. 36403 of 2013

seeking action on respondents in not receiving examination fee of first year

D.EI.Ed/D.Ed course , 2012-13 students admitted in the petitioner college

and not permitting them to appear for first year D.EI.Ed /D.Ed examination.

4. Formal Recognition issued to the institution on 07.11.2013 with effect from

2014-15.

5. The institution has filed another writ petition WPMP.No.2144 of 2014 in

W.P.No. 1789 of 2014 praying a direction to the 5th respondent (The

Convenor, DIET,CET) to allot the students in the Counseling dated

25.01.2014 for the academic year 2013-14 without reference to the proceedings

F.No.SRCAPP734/D.Ed/AP/2013-14 dated 07.11.2013 pending

disposal of the writ petition 1789 of 2014 on the file of the High Court.

6. As per the letter dated 25.10.2014 of the Director, SCERT, the institution

has filed another writ petition, W.P.No. 6179 of 2013 with a prayer to direct

the respondents to issue hall tickets to the students and permit them to

appear for the first year D.Ed Annual Examination on 07.03.2014.

7. The students admitted for the year 2012-13 have been allowed to write the

1st year D.Ed examination held on 07.03.2014.

8. As per the letter of S.C.E.R.T dated 14.11.2014, the institution has filed

writ petition W.P.No. 13830/2013 with a prayer to direct the respondent to

permit the petitioner college to run 1st year D.Ed classes for the students

admitted for the academic year 2013-14 as per the recognition granted vide

order dated 07.11.2013 and the letter of SCERT dated 05.03.2014 and permit

the students to appear for 1st year D.Ed examination for the academic year

2013-14.

9.. The Affiliation Committee of SCERT has rejected the proposal of granting

affiliation for the year 2014-15 in its meeting held on 19.09.2014.

The Committee considered the matter, letter dated 14.11.2014 from Director SCERT, AP, Hyderabad, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to advise SCERT that they can not deny affiliation so long as NCTE recognition exists. If they have any complaints, they can convey them to the SRC for being taken up with the institution concerned.



327

80) AOS00469 APS03191

TTI TTI

S.N.M Teacher Training Institute,

Ernakulam, Kerala

KL

S.N.M. Teacher Training Institute, Moothakunnam-683516, Ernakulam District, Kerala. S.N.M. Teacher Training Institute, Moothakunnam-683516, Ernakulam District, Kerala was granted recognition for offering Elementary course of duration of two years with an intake of 40 students for the academic session 1998-99 subject to submission of compliance report. The institution submitted compliance report on 05.03.1999.

SRC-NCTE granted conditional recognition for one year only for the academic session 1999-2000 to S.N.M. Teacher Training Institute, Moothakunnam-683516, Ernakulam District, Kerala to Elementary course of duration of two years on 22.06.1999. The institution submitted compliance reports on 24.06.2000.

The institution was granted recognition for Elementary course of one year duration from the academic session 2000-2001 with an annual intake of 40 students subject to certain conditions on 08.02.2000 . The institution submitted compliance reports on 05.03.2001. Based on the Staff list submitted by the institution vide letter dated 07/05/2001, the intake in respect of the institution for the year 2001-2002 has been fixed at 33 students. Accordingly, the institution has submitted the staff list dated 07/08/2012 was received by this office on 13.08.2012. In the meantime on 11/07/2014, a letter dated 04/07/2014 is received by this office from the Manager, S.N.M Training College, Moothakunnam, Ernakulam (Dt.), Kerala requesting for termination on S.N.M TTI, (in reference to the Resolution of HMDP Sabha executive committee decision, No.XXII, dated 14/03/2014) which states as under:- "This is to inform you that as per the reference cited above the management has decided to terminate SNM ETTI course from 2014-2015 academic year onwards. Kindly consider the matter for necessary action." The Southern Regional Committee in its 272nd meeting held during 01st & 02nd September, 2014 considered the Institutions request for closure of T.T.I course and decided to permit the closure by withdrawing the recognition for (APS00469-T.T.I.) course with effect from 2014-2015, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in T.T.I, course, if any, to complete their year course. But it is made clear that the institution is debarred from making any further admission subsequent to the date of issue of this order. The Affiliating body / Examining board / body be informed accordingly. Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, after ensuring settlement of all staff claims. As per the decision of SRC, a withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 11.11.2014 In the meantime the E-mail dated 19.11.2014 and 22.11.2014 and letter dated 19.11.2014 received by this office on 21.11.2014 and 24.11.2014 regarding ”It is informed that the Closure of TTI course(APSO0469) is permitted with effect from 2014-15 academic year .Let me furnish the following details in this respect.

Our Management, H.M.D.P. Sabha, Moothakunnam runs two teacher



328

training institute under two streams as follows.

S.N.M. Teacher Training Institution (S.N.M.T.T.I. Un Aided) recognized by NCTE with recognition No.AOSO0469-16-02-1996 granted as per order No.F.SRO/NCTE/2000-2001/7091 dated 20.07.2001 with an intake of 33 students. This institute is under government aided stream established on 1953.

S.N.M. Elementary Teacher Training Institute (S.N.M.T.T.I. In Aided) recognition by NCTE with registration No. ASPO3191-30-01-2004 granted as per Order No. F.KL/ELE/144/SRO/NCTE/2005-06/436 dated 19.04.2005 with an intake of 50 students. This course is under S.N.M. Training College, Moothakunnam in the self financing stream established on 2005.

As per the reference (1) cited the management has resolved to terminate S.N.M.E.T.T.I. in the self financing stream as mentioned above as (B). unfortunately we didn’t mentioned the recognition number in the letter dated 04.07.2014

In the letter cited as reference (2) from your office the closure of the course is permitted to S.N.M. Teacher Training Institute mentioned above as (A) In this circumstances, I regret to inform you that a misunderstanding has been occurred in identifying the two streams of institutes while permitting closure. The Management has requested the closure of S.N.M.E.T.T.I (APSO 3191) under S.N.M. Training College and not closure of S.N.M.E.T.T.I (Aoso0469). Hence, it is humbly requested that the matter may be reconsidered and necessary steps may be taken to withdraw the closure of S.N.M.T.T.I (AOSO0469) and Permit the closure of S.N.M.T.T.I (APSO3191) with effect from 2014-15 academic year. Kindly bear with the inconvenience caused by our Institution. Expecting early favorable action.” In view of above, the matter of requesting for closure of APSO3191- SNM Elementary TTI instead of SNM TTI (AOSO0469), is placed before SRC The Committee considered the matter, e-mail dated 19.11.2014, 22.11.2014 and letter dated 19.11.2014 from the institution, decided and advised Soutehrn Regional Office to issue corrigendum as request.

81) Aps01754 D.Ed

Chandrashekar Bharathi

Teacher Training Institute, Hassan,

Karnataka. KA

Chandrashekar Bharathi Teacher Training Institute, Malekallu Thirupathi, Arsikere – 573103. Hassan District, Karnataka

Southern Regional Committee, NCTE granted recognition to Sri Chandrashekhar Bharathi Teacher Trining Institute, Malekallu Thirupathi, Arsikere – 573103. Hassan District, Karnataka for Elementary (D.Ed) Course of two and half years duration with an annual intake of offering 50 students and recognition was granted to the institution on 3011.2004.

The Institution was granted recognition on 30.11.2004 with the condition to shift to its own premises within three years from the dated of recognition (in case the course is started in rented premises).



329

Now, “a letter dated 20/10/2014 was received from the DIET, Hasan District, Hassan stating. “….. the admission for the D.Ed course in Chandrashekar Teacher Training Institute, Melekallu Thrupathi, Arasikere, Hassan Dist. Karnataka has reached zero during the year 2013-14. It was difficult for the management to continue the D.Ed college without students. Hence the management has decided to close the D.Ed course from the academic year 2014-15. And request to permit the withdrawal of FDRs.’’The SRC in its 274th meeting held on 30th – 31st October 2014, considered the matter and decided “We can not act on DIET’s communication. The Institution must apply directly to us. Close this case”.

Now, a letter dated 19/11/2014 is received by this office on 20/11/2014 from the

institution requesting to closer of the D.Ed Course. and stated as follows, “The

College was running Successfully till 2013. Unfortunately there was no

admission for the year 2013-14 on wards, The Management Decided to close

the Sri Chandrashekara Bharathi D.Ed. College from 2013-14. We request you

to permit us to close the institution and recognition from the same year. We here

by declare that we have made all payments towards Staff and Teacher till close

of Institution that 2013-2014. We have no payment pending either to government

or department. We request you to clear the fixed deposit bonds at the earliest.”





year course.




Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited

with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, after settlement of all claims of staff and faculty,

if any.

82) APS07464 D.T.Ed

The Best Teacher Training Institute, Erode,

Tamilnadu TN

The Best Teacher Training Institute, # 158, Bhavani Main Road, Kalingarayanapalayam, Erode.Dt. Bhavani-638301, Tamilnadu The Bhavani Educational Service Trust, Erode District, Tamilnadu had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Best Teacher Training Institute, No.5/86, 158, Bhavani Main Road, Kalingarayanapalayam Post, Bhavani-638301, Erode District, Tamilnadu for Elementary (D.T.Ed) course of two years duration with an annual intake of 50 students. The institution was granted recognition for D.T.Ed course on 19.06.2007. The institution vide its letter dated 19.11.2014 received by SRC on 24.11.2014, stated as follows:



330

“…our Bhavani Educational Services Trust had got recognition order from the NCTE Bangalore and also faculty staff approval from the DTERT Chennai vide under reference cited I and II respectively for starting the D.T.Ed course from the academic year 2007-2008 onwards in the name of the Best Teacher Training Institute at 5/86,158, Bhavani Main Road, Kalingarayanapalayam, Bhavani, Erode Dt. Tamilnadu

Our the Best Teacher Training Insitute had not admitted the students to the D.T.Ed course from the academic year 2011-2012 onwards since no students came forward for seeking admission.

Therefore I request that necessary approval may kindly be granted for closing the institute and also requesting issued the No abjection certificate for withdraw the Endowment Fund and Reserved Fund R. 8,00,000/- lakhs which were deposited by the Trust with joint account of NCTE. Further I certify that there is no pending any amount of salary to be disbursed to the faculty staff and any other office staff of the institute. The copy of resolution of the Trust taken the decision for closing the Teacher Training Institute from the academic year 2014-2015. The copy of recognition order copy of faculty staff approved and copy of fixed deposite bonds are also enclosed for your kind perusal and issue the order for closing the Teacher Training Institute. The Committee considered the Institutions request for closure of D.T.Ed


(APS07464) D.T.Ed course with effect from 2014-2015, in order to enable the

ongoing batch of students in D.T.Ed, course, if any, to complete their final

year course.




Further decided to return Endowment funds and Reserve fund deposited with SRC NCTE, Bangalore, after settlement of all claims of staff and faculty, if any.

83) SRCAPP171 B.P.Ed Sadulla B.P.Ed College, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh

AP

Sadulla B.P.Ed College, Khasara / Plot No. 471/C, Mulakaluru Village and

Post Office, Narasaraopet Taluka and City, Guntur District-522601, Andhra

Pradesh

Navodaya G.P.U.V. Sangam, Plot No. 13-5-1, Islampet Road,

Narsaraopet Village,Post Office, Taluka and City, Guntur District –

522601, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to Sadulla

B.P.Ed College, Khasara / Plot No. 471/C, Mulakaluru Village and Post

Office, Narasaraopet Taluka and City, Guntur District-522601, Andhra

Pradesh for B.P.Ed Course for one year duration under Section 14 of the NCTE

Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 31.12.2012. The



331

institution has submitted hard copy of the application on 04.01.2013.

NCTE-Hqrs had directed to process the applications in accordance with NCTE

Regulations 2009, it amendment Notified on 26th November 2010 which reads as

follows:-

2 (B) for Sub Regulation (1-A) the following shall be submitted namely. 1 (1-A) (I)

the application shall be summarily rejected under one or more of the following

circumstances:

a) The processing fee, as provided under Rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 is not furnished on or before the date of submission of online application.

b) Hard copy in triplicate of the online application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of the online application.

c) Copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority indicating that the society. Institution applying for the course possessed land on the date of application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of online application.

The Southern Regional Committee in its 238th Meeting held on 05th – 06th February 2013 reviewed the duly scrutinized above new application received by Southern Regional Office, NCTE for the Session 2013-14. Accordingly, the above application, which suffer from basic infirmities, is summarily rejected as per Regulations [ 7 1–A (i) ].

• The Processing fee, as provided under rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 is not furnished on or before the date of submission of online application – as per the Regulations 2009 Para 7[1- A(i)]a).

Accordingly, a rejection letter was issued to the institution on 06/03/2013.

Public Notice – Processing Fees Late Submission by One Day

As per the Public Notice dated 5th September, 2013 NCTE Head Quarters

has stating that the important Policy Decision taken by the National Council

for Teacher Education in its 31st Meeting held on 29th July, 2013 that the

applications of the institutions, who could not make payment of processing

fee on or before submission of Online Applications resulting in summary

rejection by the concerned Regional Committees of NCTE, may be

considered if payment has been made on the next banking / working day

following the date of submission of the application, since the software does

not allow for payment of the processing fees either on or before the date of

submission of applications.

The SRC in its 255th meeting held during 13th -15th Nov, 2013 decided to process



332

the application of the above said cases.

The application of the said institution was scrutinized and a copy of the application

was sent to State Govt. for recommendation on 03/12/2013.

A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 03/12/2013.The Institution

submitted a reply on 20.12.2013.

The SRC in its 258th meeting held on 3rd-5th January 2014, considered the reply to

the deficiency letter from the institution vide letter dated 20-12-2013 and all other

relevant documents and decided to cause inspection under section 14 (1) of

NCTE Act, to examine whether the institution fulfils all the requirements as per the

norms, for the proposed programme, subject to the condition that the deficiencies,

if any, were duly rectified by the University, as per the norms.

Accordingly, inspection of the institution was fixed between16th-22nd January 2014. The inspection intimation was sent to institution on 06.01.2014. The inspection of the institution was conducted on 25.01.2014 and the VT report was received by the office of SRC on 27.01.2014

On careful perusal of the original file of the institution, VT report, VCD, all relevant

documents and other related documents, Act of NCTE, 1993, Regulations and

guidelines of NCTE published from time to time laid on the table, the Regional

Committee in its 261st meeting held on 9-10th Feb, 2014 decided to issue Letter of

Intent for grant of recognition to B.P.Ed course of one year duration with an

annual intake of 100(one hundred only)(one unit), subject to the appointment of

qualified staff through duly constituted selection committee as per the Norms of

NCTE/State Government/Affiliating University and be given effect before the

commencement of the academic session.

Accordingly, LOI was issued to the institution on 11.02.2014.

The Institution replied to LOI on 03.03.2014.


by the institution in response to the letter of Intent, the Southern Regional

Committee in its 264th Meeting held during 1 – 3 March, 2014 decided that

Formal Recognition be granted to B.P.Ed., course of one year duration with an

annual intake of 100 (Fifty only) students, with effect from 2014-2015.

As per the decision of SRC, a Formal Recognition order was issued to the

institution on 03.03.2014 with effect from 2014-15.

Subsequently, while preparing action taken report on the instructions to RD , it is

seen that this College is granted Formal Recognition on 03.03.2014 based on the

staff list submitted by e-mail. The College has to submit original approved staff list



333

and Original FDRs .

The Committee considered the matter, and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Showcause Notice Under section 14 of NCTE Act for the following : 1. The institution has not submitted Original Staff list duly approved by the competent authority. In view of the above, the Committee decided to issue a Showcause Notice to the institution as to why the recognition be not withdrawn and thereby providing an opportunity to the institution to make a written representation within 21 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice along with necessary certificates/documents in order to take a final decision in the matter; failing which action will be taken including the withdrawal of recognition, based on the records available, with no further notice.

84) APS05371 B.Ed Sri

Vivekananda Teacher Training Institute,

Cuddalore, Tamilnadu.

TN

Sri Vivekananda Teacher Training Institute, Seplanatham, Neyveli, Cuddalore-607802,Tamilnadu

Vivekananda College of Education and Vivekananda Teacher Training Institute, Seplanatham, Neyveli, Cuddalore-607802, Tamilnadu had submitted the applications for B.Ed Course on 29.12.2005 and D.T.Ed Course on 31.12.2001. The institution was granted recognition for B.Ed course on 21.11.2007 with an annual intake of 100 students and D.T.Ed course on 20.06.2007 with an annual intake of 50 students, with the condition to shift to own premises within 3 years from the date of recognition. The SRC in its 216th meeting held on 11th-12th January, 2012 has considered the VT Report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and decided to serve Show Cause Notice under NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 27.02.2012. The institution had submitted its written representation on 09.03.2012. The SRC in its 223rd meeting held on 29th-31st May 2012, has considered the reply of the institution and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, Show cause notice was issued to the institution on 25.06.2012. The institution submitted its reply on 23.07.2012. The SRC in its 233rd meeting held on 26th-28th September, 2012 has considered the reply of the institution vide letter dt. 23.07.2012 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Final Show cause Notice under NCTE Act. Accordingly, a Show cause notice was issued to the institution on 30.10.2012. The institution had submitted its written representation on 19.11.2012. The SRC in its 237th meeting held on 05th -06th January 2013 decides to withdraw the recognition of both the 2 courses viz., B.Ed (APS05371), &D.T.Ed (APS01478) courses run by Vivekananda College of Education and Vivekananda Teacher Training Institution, Seplanatham, Neyvelli, Cuddalore-607802, Tamilndau from the academic year 2013-14, in order to enable the ongoing batch of students in both B.Ed &D.T.Ed courses, if any, to complete their course.



334

Accordingly, withdrawal order was issued to the institution on 14.03.2013. The institution preferred an appeal to NCTE, Hqrs and the Appellate Authority vide order no. F.No.89-212/2013 Appeal/4th meeting-2014/A90850 dated 01/08.07.2014 has stated as follows:-

“…… the council concluded that deficiencies pointed out by SRC in its 3rd Show Cause Notice dated 30/10/2012 were not addressed to by the appellant even after getting three opportunities and hence the withdrawal order was justified. The inordinate delay in furnishing the required documents by the appellant Institution to the SRC cannot be condoned. The council noted that in all the three show cause notice issued to the appellant Institution the deficiencies relating to non-submission of the certified copy of land documents, mismatching the land survey numbers, non-submission of fixed deposit receipts in joint name, non-submission of the approved faculty list, non-payment of salary through bank and non-submission of the CPF/PPF were pointed out. Despite reasonable opportunities having been given to the appellant, the deficiencies were not rectified to the satisfaction of extant Regulations. On reconsideration, the council concluded to confirm the withdrawal order dated 14.3.2013 After perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC is confirmed”.

The appellate authority Order was placed before SRC in its 271st meeting held on 1st August 2014 and the committee has noted the matter. A letter dt.15.8.2014 from Sri.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate enclosing original counter affidavit in W.P.No 21927 of 2014, filed by Vivekananda College of education for signing. Accordingly, a letter has been sent to Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 20.08.2014 along with forwarding of counter affidavit. A Court order has been received from Hon’ble High Court of Judicatures at Madras in W.P. No.21927 of 2014 and MP.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 dated 15.09.2014 filed by Vivekananda College of Education on 22.09.2014.The Hon’ble High Court Order stating as follows:

“….it has been brought to our notice that this Court has passed orders in SLP(C) Nos.4247-4248 of 2009 on 10

th September, 2013 directing that those who are

desirous of establishing Teacher Education Colleges/ Institutions shell be free to make applications in accordance with the new Regulations to be framed by the NCTE and their applications shall be decided by the competent authority keeping in view the relevant statutory provisions. By the said order, this Court has further directed that all pending applications shall also be decided in accordance with the newRegulations. The new Regulations have not been finalized and by an order passed by this Court on 7

th March, 2014 in IA Nos.56-57 of 2011 filed in SLP(C)

No.4247-4248 of 2009, this Court has granted extension of time till June, 2014 for the National Council for Teacher Education to revise the norms and standards of



335

various Teacher Education programmes and codify the new Regulations. The result is the National Council for Teacher Education has time up to June, 2014 to frame the new Regulations and till the new Regulations are framed, the pending application of the petitioners for recognition cannot be considered. Therefore, the consideration of the applications of the petitioner Institution for the year 2014-2015 cannot be made by the National Council for Teacher Education before June, 2014, the academic session 2014-2015 would have commenced. We cannot, therefore, issue any direction to the National Council for Teacher Education to consider the applications of the petitioner Institutions for the academic session 2014-2015 instead of 2015-2016.” Therefore, no Mandamus can be issued as prayed for by the petitioner in the teeth of the order of the Supreme Court. 15. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 are also dismissed.

An e-mail dtd.23.9.2014 has been received from Shri. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate statingas follows:-

“…. recognition was withdrawn in respect of B.Ed., course by your order dated 14.03.2014. The subject grant was under 2003 regulations, permitting to run in a temporary premises and to shift within three years. But the withdrawal order does not contain the reason of non shifting. The recognition was dated 21.11.2007. Three years completed on 20.11.2010. But withdrawal order is after about two and half years after expiry of the three years stipulated period for shifting. Statutory Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed on 01.07.2014. Against which the above writ petition is filed. After going through the counter affidavit and accepting my submissions the above mentioned writ petitions was dismissed on 15.09.2014. Now by getting some print outs from your website, the above mentioned review Application is filed alleging that in your 271

st meeting held on 01.08.2014 you

have considered the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench passed in W.A.No.2272 and 2273 of 2012 and treated the said institution i.e., Mother Theresa College of Education as existing institution may be due to the fact of the institution continued to function due to interim orders. Subsequently in your 272

nd meeting

held on 01st – 02

nd September 2013, you have restored recognition regarding the

said institution in respect of B.Ed., B.Ed.,-AI, M.Ed., and B.P.Ed., which were withdrawn earlier. If I remember correctly the recognition was withdrawn on the ground of housing seven courses in a single building, without sufficient. Now basing on the said decision the petitioner moved the above mentioned Review Application seeking similar treatment of reconsideration of the petitioner’s case also. Today i.e., 23.09.2014, the Review Application came for admission and I explained to the learned Judge that, the case of “Mother Theresa College of Education, Pudukottai” is a different matter and not pertaining to the conditional grant and the withdrawal was on the ground of same building housing seven courses. In the case of the Review Applicant, the grant was conditional grant, since out of the three land documents submitted one was pertaining to private lease. Hence on completion of three years stipulated period the institution is not entitled to continue to function in view of non shifting.



336

The Review Applicant contended that SRC is going to reconsider similar cases like the petitioner’s case on 29.09.2014 for reconsidering the withdrawal orders. The learned Judge directed me to find out whether similar cases (non shifting within three years) whose recognitions were withdrawn are going to be reconsidered on 29.09.2014 and the matter is adjourned to 25.09.2014. Please inform me in the immediate reply e-mail as to whether there is any SRC meeting scheduled on 29.09.2014 if so is there any fact of reconsidering any of the withdrawal orders pertaining to the institutions, who have not complies with the conditional order of the grant.So as to enable me to inform the Hon’ble Court on 25.09.2014.

The SRC in its 273

rd meeting held on 30 September & 1 October 2014 considered the

matter and decided that “Inform the Lawyer that there is no proposal, at our initiative, to make any such general reconsideration. Only specific orders received from High Courts in individual cases are taken up for consideration according to law”. As per decision of SRC, a letter to Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate was sent on 16.10.2014. An e-mail has been received on 20.10.2014 from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate in respect of Rev.App.No.257 of 2014 in W.P.No.21927 of 2014. A letter dated 20.10.2014 (an e-mail copy) was received from Shri.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate on 21.10.2014 stating as follows:-

The above writ petition was filed against your recognition withdrawal order, bearing F.No.APS05371/B.Ed.,/TN/2012-13/49540,dated14-03-2013, as confirmed by the order of the appellate authority in F.No.89-212/2013/ Appeal/4

th Meeting – 2014,

dated 01-07-2014. The subject grant as per the documents filed by the petitioner was a conditional grant. Though it was a conditional grant, in the order granting recognition dated 21-11-2007 it was not specifically mentioned, but in para 3 clause (iii) the relevant Regulation has been extracted regarding the conditional grant. You have specifically mentioned in all the Show Cause Notices dated 22-07-2012, 25-06-2012, 30-10-2012 and even in the subject recognition withdrawal order dated 14-03-2013 that the subject grant was a conditional grant, but withdrawal order was not for non compliance of the said mandatory condition but for some other reasons. Counter affidavit has been filed stating that the grant was conditional grant and the petitioner did not comply with the conditional grant which is a statutory violation etc,. Hence, I submitted that de-horse to the subsequent events the institution cannot continue on completion of three years period and whatever took place after the said three years period doesn’t have any legal force. Accepting the contents of the counter affidavit and the submissions made by me, apart from the relevant judgments cited before the Hon'ble Court, by order dated 15-09-2014, the subject writ petition was dismissed. Now the petitioner moved Review Application No.257 of 2014 to review the said order stating that the grant was not a conditional grant and also alleging that the NCTE is applying the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of only fresh institutions and fresh applications and not for existing institutions etc., The petitioner also mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, in the said Review Application, that NCTE has considered and restored the recognition for B.Ed., Course in respect of “Mother Theresa College of Education, Pudukkottai” and “AnnaiVelankanni College of Education, Chennai” and as such



337

the petitioner’s recognition withdrawal order also shall be restored etc.,. I have orally submitted that the petitioner’s grant was conditional grant and at the time of grant NCTE insisted to have minimum 5.00 Acres of vacant land and since the petitioner was not having required 5.00 Acres, the petitioner got 1.49 Acres in Survey No.41/1 on 30 years lease from a private party and not from Government or from Union Territory. The petitioner was having ownership only in respect of the balance required area. Hence, the grant was made as a conditional grant. I also brought to the knowledge of the learned Judge that in the reply given by the petitioner to the NCTE dated - Nil - and received by the NCTE on 21-08-2012 in column No.1 for the Show Cause Notice dated 25-06-2013, it has been mentioned that building has been constructed measuring 32,550.01 Sq.Ft., in Survey Nos.42/5F, 42/6E, 42/4I, 42/5B, 42/6D, 42/4H, 50/1B1 and 41/1A. Among the said eight survey numbers, the last survey number 41/1A was the leased land. As per the regulations, the land must be on ownership basis and shall not be on lease from private party. I also stated that the NCTE bas already informed by e-mail that the NCTE is not reconsidering the recognition withdrawal orders pertaining to conditional grants. Regarding the matter pertaining to the said “Mother Theresa College of Education”, I informed the learned Judge that, the recognition withdrawal was on the ground of running seven courses in one building. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the institution clarified that there are two separate buildings, but the inspection team took note of only one building and not the other building and the institution also produced documents in proof of the same. Apart from the same the said institution was functioning with interim orders granted by this Hon'ble Court. Since the institution was functioning and since the withdrawal order was not basing on the correct factual aspects, it was reconsidered and also the said grant was not a conditional grant and the said matter at no stretch of imagination can be equated with that of the petitioner’s case. After hearing the submissions of both the counsels, the learned Judge directed to file your affidavit as to the following aspects:-

i. As to whether the order of the Supreme Court was understood by them to be applicable only to institution which are newly started or as applicable even to existing institution.

ii. As to how order of Supreme Court were understood to cover even the existing with conditional grant.

iii. As to what was the basis on which institutions were segregated as those entitled only for unconditional grant and those not entitled for conditional grant.

iv. As to how unconditional or conditional grant will have a bearing upon direction issued by the High Court, and

v. As to whether the petitioner was granted conditional grant originally or not, and as to how the petitioner institution stand on a different footing, than the Mother Theresa College of Education and AnnaiVelankanni College of Education.”

The above matter came up for hearing today i.e., 20-10-2014. Though the said direction was given on 22-09-2014 and copy application has been made, the office did not issue the order copy since they have not noted about the said direction of the learned Judge. When the matter came up today I informed the learned Judge about the nonissue of order copy and also informed that from thecourt cause papers my Junior has copied the said order and sought time to file counter affidavit replying for the above mentioned directions of the Hon'ble Court. Now the matter is adjourned to 29-10-2014 for filing counter finally.



338

I therefore hereby request you to send me the reply for the above mentioned directions of the Hon'ble Court and also the other details so as to enable me to prepare the counter affidavit and to do the needful. Please clarify whether the recognition granted to Mother Theresa College of Education, Pudukkottai was a conditional grant or not. Since the said issue was not the issue in the writ petition and Writ Appeals filed by the said institution, I am not very sure of the nature of the said grant. I also informed the learned Judge that I will get clarification regarding the same also. Similarly please clarify regarding “AnnaiVelankanni’s College of Education, Chennai”. As per the records available with me the said “AnnaiVelankanni’s College of Education, Chennai” filed writ petition W.P.No.6626 of 2013 against a decision taken by the NCTE to withdraw recognition. Since only an order of withdrawal of recognition can be challenged and not the decision, the said writ petition was dismissed on 18-10-2013. I am not aware of the subsequent developments regarding the said institution. Please clarify regarding the said institution also. Since the petitioner is insisting to pass interim orders on the Review Application, the learned Judge directed me to file the counter affidavit without fail by 29-10-2014. Hence I hereby request you to send me the details by e-mail as early as possible so as to enable me to prepare the counter affidavit and forward it to you for signature etc.”

The SRC in its 274th meeting held on 30th -31st October 2014 considered the Advocate’s letter dated 20.10.2014 received by SRC on 21.10.2014 and the committee considered the matter and decided as follows:

• Ask NCTE (Hqrs) to advise us on the 5 points as they all have common relevance to all the 4 regions- request for advice within a month.

• Inform our lawyer about this and say that we will file the affidavit as soon as we receive the H’qrs advice.

As per decision of 274th meeting of SRC, a letter was sent to the NCTE Hqrs. on 07.11.2014 with request to advice. And a letter was sent to the Advocate Sri. Ramakrishna Reddy on 07.11.2014. An e-mail dated 26.11.2014 has been received from Sri. Ramakrishna Reddy, standing Counsel, Hon'ble High Court of Madras interalia states that “….. my letter dated 20.10.2014, I have sought for your reply for the six queries raised by the Learned Judge for which by your e-mail letter dated 23.10.2014 informed me that you are placing the subject matter before the SRC on 30-31st October, 2014 and requested me to get two weeks time for filling counter affidavit. Subsequently by letter dated 07.11.2014 you have informed me that the SRC sought for clarification from the headquarters and requested me to get four weeks time for filling counter affidavit. I state that the above matter came up for hearing on 25.11.2014. the learned judge after going through your said letter dated 07.11.2014 as granted two more weeks time from yesterday for filling your counter affidavit. Though your above cited letter Is dated 07.11.2014, till date I have not received any communication from you regarding the subject matter.



339

Though I requested four weeks time from yesterday, the learned Judge granted only two weeks time, since from the date of said letter, more than two weeks have lapsed. I hereby request you to send me immediately the clarification if received from the Headquarters, since the matter is very very urgent.” A reminder letter was sent to the NCTE Hqrs. on 27.11.2014 and also as requested by the advocate, the copies of the recognition orders for Mother Terasa College of Education, Pudukottai and Annai Veilanakannies College of Education aong with covering letter. A letter from the TNTEU dated 12.11.2014 received on 17.11.2014, stating as follows:

“….in the reference 1st cited, the NCTE, SRC, Bangalore granted recognition to Vivekananda College of Education, Cuddalore District for conducting B.Ed course for one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students. Whereas in the reference 2nd cited, the Tamilnadu Teacher Education University, Chennai District has granted fresh provisional affiliation to the said college during the academic year 2008-2009. Whereas in the reference 3rd cited, the NCTE, Bangalore has withdrawn the recognition granted to Vivekananda College of Education, Cuddalore district on the grounds that “the reply to the show cause notice is not satisfactory.” Then the matter was placed before the Syndicate at ite meeting held on 09.12.2013 to withdraw the affiliation of Vivekananda College of Education, Cuddalore District and resolved “that a fresh agenda be prepared with complete details of appeal made by the Vivekananda College of Education, (College Code -10417) Cuddalore District to NCTE, if any, and order of NCTE thereon if any, and resubmitted to the Syndicate for consideration.” The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi challenging the appeal order dated 07.08.2013 by stating that the appellant is in possession of original documents as well as salary statement prior to March 2013. The Hon'ble High Court has remanded back the matter to NCTE for deciding afresh after looking into the documents to be produced by the petitioner. An inspection was carried out by the Council under section 13 of the Act in Dec.2010 on various dates such as 27.02.2012 and 25.06.2012 and 30.10.2012 based on the deficiencies noticed were pointed out through the show cause notices. It is only after the Court’s Order dated 14.01.2014 that appellant has furnished the certifided copy of land documenst on 07.03.2014 during appeal hearing. The Contributory provident fund statements furnished by



340

the appellant for the month of June, 2012 to February 2013 pertain to M/s Vivekananda Polytechnic and not Vivekananda College of Education. The appellant has thus tried to mislead the Hon'ble High Court as well as the Council. The first remittance on behalf of Vivekananda Colleg ef Education is dated 31.05.2013 i.e., a date after the withdrawal order was issued. Despite reasonable opportunities having been given to the appellant, the deficiencies were not rectified to the satisfaction of extant Regulations. On reconsideration, the Council concluded to confirm the withdrawal order dated 14.03.2013 in the letter dated 01.07.2014. And whereas after perusal of memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documenst available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the SRC was justified in refusing recognition and therefore, the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of SRC is confirmed.” Whereas the College has applied for Continuation of Provisional Affiliation from the academic year 2011-2012. As per Sec 17(3) of NCTE Act 1993, “Once the recognition of a recognized institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passes under sub- section (a), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order.” Whereas the matter was placed before the Syndicate at its meeting held on 22.09.2014 which resolved “that in accordance with the powers vested with the Syndicate under section 20(i) (g) of the Tamilnadu Teacher Education University Act and mandatory as per sub-section 17(3) of the NCTE Act, the affiliation granted to Vivekananda College of Education, (-10417), Cuddalore District be withdrawn from the academic year 2014-2015 consequent to the withdrawal of recognition granted by the NCTE for the reasons recorded thereon and rejection of the the appeal by the petitioner College. Resolved further that the NCTE be informed of the withdrawal of affiliation granted to the said college from the academic year 2014-2015. In accordance with the above decision taken by the Syndicate under the power vested on it in section 20(1)(g) of the Act the affiliation granted to the Vivekananda College of Education, Seplanatham, Neyveli, Cuddalore District-607 802 is withdrawn from the academic year 2014-2015. The management of the College is hereby strictly instructed that the said College of Education shall not function as College of Education any more consequent to the withdrawal of affiliation and shall not admit the students to B.Ed degree course from the academic year 2014-2015.



341

The correspondent/ Secretary of the College shall take note of the above decision of the Syndicate of this University and shall abide by and adhere to the orders strictly.

The Committee considered the matter, advised Southern Regional Office to remind NCTE (H'qrs) for early advice in view of the High Court giving only 2 weeks time to us to respond.

85) APS00393 B.Ed Sree

Narayana College of Education, Ernakulam

KL

Sree Narayana College of Education, SNDP Campus, Muvattupuzha, Ernakualm -68666, Kerala Sree Narayana College of Education, SNDP Campus, Muvattupuzha, Ernakualm -68666, Kerala has made an application for B.Ed Course to Southern Regional Committee NCTE Bangalore on 26.12.2001 The application was processed and after consideration the report of the Visiting Team as well as other relevant materials granted recognition to the institution for offering B.Ed course with an intake of 160 students from the session 2003-2004 vide order No.6580 dated 28.03.2003 with a condition the institution shall shift to its own premises within three years from the dated of recognition. Letters were sent to the institution on 21.08.2007 and 28.05.2009 regarding shifting of premises from temporary to permanent building on completion of 3 years from the date of recognition .A letter was sent to the institution regarding inspection of the institution under section 17 of NCTE Act on 17.01.2011 and Inspection was conducted on 24.01.2011 and the VT report was received by this office on 27.01.2011. Further no action is seen in the file. Letters dated 30.10.2012, 14.08.2013, and 08.04.2014 from the Registrar Mahatma Gandhi University Priyadarshini Hills. P.O kottayam-686560, Kerala was received by this office on 07.11.2012, 19.08.2013, and 05.05.2014 respectively regarding verification of staff list. On 16.06.2014, a letter received from the Registrar Mahatma Gandhi University Priyadarshini Hills. P.O kottayam-686560, Kerala dated 23.05.2014 enclosed staff list which is as under:- “The university informs you that the list of teaching staff of Sree Narayana College of Education, Muvattupuzha has been verified in accordance with the UGC regulations NCTE norms and also in compliance with the direction of the Honorable High Court of Kerala in the Judgment referred above I hereby forward the same for further action.” ( in WPCCS No.31449/2004) As per the decision of SRC, 274

th meeting held during 30

th and 31

st October, 2014

decided to "Process all the documents; examine the VT Inspection report; and put up in

the next meeting." The Committee considered the matter, and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Showcause Notice Under of NCTE Act for the following :

• Certified copy of the registered land documents issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar/issuing authority is not submitted.

• Blue print of the approved building plan is not submitted.

• Original Building Completion Certificate is not submitted. As per coipy of building completion certificate built up area is 15787 sq.ft.



342

• Original copy of Non-Encumbrance Certificate is not submitted.

• Certificate of Registration of Society/Trust and Bye-Law is not submitted.

• Fixed Deposit Receipt for ₹ 5.00 lakhs & 3 lakhs from a Nationalised Bank towards Endowmwnt fund reserve fund respectively is not submitted.

• Affidavit in the prescribed format is not submitted. In view of the above, the Committee decided to issue a Showcause Notice to the institution as to why the recognition be not withdrawn and thereby providing an opportunity to the institution to make a written representation within 21 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice along with necessary certificates/documents in order to take a final decision in the matter; failing which action will be taken including the withdrawal of recognition, based on the records available, with no further notice.


Raga College of Education, Khamman ,

Andhra Pradesh

AP

Raga College of Education, Khasara No. 13, Plot No. 20-6-24/1, Gourigudem Village,Sathupally Post & Taluk, Khamman District, Pin-507303, Andhra Pradesh.

Raga Educational Society, Plot No. 13, Street/Road. Gowrigudem, Gowrigudem Village, Sathupally Post & Taluk, Khammam District-507303, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to Raga College of Education, Khasara No. 13, Plot No. 20-6-24/1, Gourigudem Village,Sathupally Post & Taluk, Khamman District, Pin-507303, Andhra Pradesh for D.El.Ed course of two years duration under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 30.09.2011 and physical application has been received in the office of SRC on 04.10.2011. The application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 28.10.2011 followed by reminder on 21.12.2011. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 29.12.2011 and the institution has replied to the deficiency letter on 28.02.2012. The SRC in its 220th meting held on 30th –31st March 2012 considered the reply of the institution dt. 28.02.2102 and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice under Section 14(1) of NCTE Act, for the following:

• As per the land documents submitted, the land is in a mango garden.

• FDRs of Rs. 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund from a Nationalised Bank is not submitted.

• Proof of completion of 3 academic sessions towards other courses B.Ed, which is already run by the institution from the affiliating body/State Govt/examining body is not submitted. The institution has submitted affiliation order for only one academic year i.e. for 2007-08, required to submit for 3 academic years.

Reply to the deficiency letter is incomplete and not satisfactory.

In view of the above and with reference to the totality of information collected & based on a collective application of mind, the Committee decided to issue a Show cause Notice to the institution as to why the recognition be not refused and thereby



343

providing an opportunity to the institution to make a written representation within 21 days from the date of issue of the Notice along with necessary certificates/documents in order to take a final decision in the matter; failing which action will be taken including the refusal & rejection of application for recognition, based on the records available, with no further notice. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 27/04/2012. The

institution has submitted its written representation on 16/05/2012.

The reply of the institution to the show cause notice was duly considered and the

reply is unconvincing and not satisfactory, deficiencies still persist as under:

• Proof of completion of 3 academic sessions towards other courses B.Ed, which is already run by the institution from the affiliating body/State Govt/examining body is not submitted. The institution has submitted affiliation order for only one academic year i.e., for 2007-08.

• Original FDRs of 5 & 3 lacs towards endowment and reserve fund from a Nationalized Bank is not submitted

The reply to the show cause notice was not satisfactory and unconvincing.


& based on a collective application of mind, the committee decided as per NCTE


recognition of D.El.Ed course.


The institution preferred appeal to NCTE, Hqrs and the Appellate Authority vide order no. F.No. 89-531/2012 Appeal/10th Meeting 2012 has stated as follows:

“after perusal of the documents, Memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council concluded that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the SRC confirmed.

Now therefore, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against”. The Southern Regional Committee in its 239th Meeting held during 26th – 27th February, 2013 noted the Appellate authority order dated 11/12/2012 confirming the SRC’s order vide dated 29/06/2012 . On 10.11.2014, the institution has submitted a written representation as under :-

“It is respectfully submitted that our Society submitted an application

dated 30.09.2011 for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed ., Course as an

additional course in existing B.Ed., College. The above application was



344

rejected by your authority dated 29.06.2012 on the ground that proof of

completion of three academic sessions towards B.Ed ., Course is not

submitted Aggrieved by the orders of your authority, we have preferred an

appeal dated 27.08.2012 to the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi

undersec.18 of NCTE Act of 1993. The above appeal was also rejected on

the ground that we have not completed three academic sessions on the

dated application. In fact we have completed three academic session by

that time when we have filed appeal as per the orders of Hon’ble Court in

W.P.No.13020/2011, dated 25.08.2011 and also as per the orders of your

authority 14.03.2012 by restoring recognition and continuing the same to

our institution.

It is pertinent to submit here that as of now we have completed 6 academic

sessions of existing B.Ed., Course and hence we are entitled for an

additional course as per the NCTE regulations 2009 and also as per the

orders of NCTE, New Delhi dated 11.12.2012. It is categorically noted in

the orders of the NCTE, New Delhi that as pr NCTE regulations 2009 an

Institution can apply for an additional Course of the basic unit after

completion of three academic sessions of the respective course. Hence our

Institution is entitled for recognition to the D.El.Ed., course.

It is therefore requested you esteemed authority to process our application

submitted on 30.09.2011 for grant of recognition to D.El.Ed., as per the

norms and grant recognition for the academic year 2015-16. It is pertinent

to submit here that our Institution is ready for inspection as it has

constructed building with a built up area 33220.95 sq.ft and also provided

all the infrastructure facilities as per norms, your authority may be pleased

to consider our application and send inspection committee to our institution

as early as possible to enable our Institution to get recognition for the next

academic year.”

As per records :

The institution was granted recognition for the conduct of B.Ed course on

26.11.2007.(APS07698). Based on the findings of the Kakatiya University with

respect to breach of norms of NCTE , notices were issued and inspection of the

premises was also conducted Pursuant to this ,recognition accorded to the

institution was withdrawn on 08.04.2009 as the institution did not have the

required built up area and the building was under construction.

The institution approached the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the

Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.08.2011 in W.P.No. 15825 of 2011 in W.P.No.



345

13020 of 2011 directed SRC,NCTE to cause inspection and take appropriate

decision. Inspection of the institution was conducted on 02.11.2011 and the a

notice was issued to the institution on 03.01.2012.SRC in its 217th meeting held

on 8th – 9th February, 2012 considered the reply of the institution to the notice

and decided to restore and continue recognition.

As per the decision of SRC , recognition of the institution was restored and

continued vide this office order dated 14.03.2012.

The Committee considered the matter, request letter dated 10.11.2014 from the institution, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to advice the Institution to apply afresh under the new Regulations.

87) APS08550 APS07294 APS09213 APS07290 APS09012 APS07107 APS09350

M.Ed Complaint regarding Gulbarga University

KA

An e-mail dtd. 17.10.2014 has been received from Dr. Sujata P. Shanbhag Assistant Adviser, (NAAC) with request to clarification regarding many colleges running single course under Gulbarga University. Again an e-mail dated 24.10.2014 received by SRC on 27.10.2014 from Dr. Sujata P. Assistant Adviser, Shanbhag (NAAC) and stating as follows: “…. I would like to know that norms for starting M.Ed course in a college. Can a college have M.Ed course alone without having B.Ed course in their college. There are many colleges running single course under Gulbarga University. The list is given below. I would like to know whether they are stand alone instructions and have NCTE recognition. I need these clarifications urgently”. Sl.no

Institution Name Place

1 Sri Murugha Rajendra Swamiji M.Ed .P.G College Gulbarga 2 Sri Murugha Rajendra Swamiji B.Ed .College Gulbarga 3 Noor M.Ed College Bidar 4 Noor College of Education Bidar 5 Deccan M.Ed College Gulbarga 6 National College of Education Gulbarga 7 National P.G Centre for M.Ed Course Gulbarga 8 Indian M.Ed College Bidar 9 Mohammadi Post Graduate College in Master of

Education Gulbarga

10 Mohammadi College of Education Gulbarga 11 KRE M.Ed PG Centre Bidar 12 Al-badar M.Ed PG College Gulbarga 13 M.Ed PG Course Bidar 14 Taj M.Ed College Gulbarga

The Status of the following Institutions:

Code/Course

Description

APS08550/

Noor Education Trust Bidar District, Karnataka has submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Noor M.Ed College,



346

M.Ed Noor M.Ed College

Noor Colony, Near Horticulture Centre, Haladkere, Hyderabad Road, Bidar District-585401, Karnataka for M.Ed course of one year duration with an annual intake of 25 (Twenty five) Students. The institution was granted recognition for M.Ed course with an annual intake of 25 Students on 22.11.2007. Enhancement of intake of 10 seats from existing 25 to 35 was granted on 24.08.2010. The institution has submitted its written representation on 31.08.2010with request to issue directions to the registrar GUG to approve the enhanced 10 seats from 25 to 35 in the interest of students. Accordingly, a letter was issued to the Gulbarga University Gulbarga on 02.09.2010. The institution has submitted its written representation dated 12.11.2014 received by SRC on 13.11.2014 along with relevant documents, and stating as follows: “….The Gulbarga University Gulbarga has refused admission process and also withhold the process of affiliation stating that the college has not accrediated by NAAC, this information has brought into the notice in May 2013. The University had put the college under big problem for not issuing eligibility for the students admitted for 2013-14 at last we went to the court and some how we were able to make the student to sit for examinations. Sir we have already applied for the NAAC 8 months back it may take 1 or 2 years of time to visit the college at this juncture if affiliation and admission is stopped means a big course on the part of college and a huge loss for the students. Hence requesting you to please give a direction to the university authorities to provide affiliation continuation and admissions until the NAAC visit the college”

APS07294/M.Ed Deccan M.Ed College

Deccan Educational Society, Gulbarga District, Karnataka has submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Deccan M.Ed College, NooraniMohalla, Ring Road, Gulbarga District, Karnataka for M.Ed course of one year duration with an annual intake of 25(Twenty five) Students. The institution was granted recognition for M.Ed course with an annual intake of 25 Students on 14.08.2007. Enhancement of intake of 10 seats from existing 25 to 35 was granted on 20.08.2010. The institution has submitted its written representation dated 13.11.2014 received by SRC on 13.11.2014 along with relevant documents, and stating as follows: “….The Gulbarga University Gulbarga has refused admission process and also with hold the process of affiliation stating that the college has not accrediated by NAAC, this information they brought in to the notice in May 2013. The university had put the college under big problem for not issuing eligibility for the students admitted for 2013-14. At last we went to the court and some how we were able to make the students to sit for the examinations. Sir, we have already applied for the NAAC 8months back, it may take 1 or 2 years of time to visit the college, at this junction if affiliation and admission is stopped means is a big course on the part of college and a huge loss for the students. Hence requesting you to please give a direction to the university authorities to provide affiliation continuation and admission until the NAAC visit the college. ”



347

APS09216/M.Ed Taj M.Ed P.G. Course.

The Karnataka Educational & welfare Trust, Shahabazar, Aland Road, Gulbarga, Karnataka had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to Taj M.Ed P.G.Course, ShaikRoza, Behind Check Post, Aland Road, Gulbarga-585101, Karnataka for M.Ed Course on 05.12.2007. As inspection team was constituted by SRC-NCTE, which visited the institution on 30.07.2008. The report of the inspection team was placed before SRC in its 162

nd meeting held on 20-

21 August, 2008 considered the Visiting teem Report, and other related documents and decided to issue show cause notice. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the institution on 27.08.2008.The institution has submitted its reply on 16.09.2008 along with relevant documents. The matter was placed before SRC in its 165

th meeting held non 27-28 September, 2008

considered the inspection report, Video CD, written representation from the institution, other relevant documents and the committee decided to refuse recognition Accordingly, refusal order was issued to the institution on 08.10.2008. Aggrieved by the order of SRC, The Institution preferred an appeal to NCTE Hqrs The appellate authority has considered the appeal passed order dated 21.05.2009 and reversed the order of SRC with a direction to grant recognition. Accordingly, a letter of intent was issued to the institution on 03.06.2009. The institution has submitted its reply dated 18.06.2009 received by SRC on 19.06.2009 along with staff profile, and necessary documents. The matter was placed before SRC in its 178

th meeting held on 13-14 July, 2009

considered the reply from the institution and decided to issue Formal Recognition order. Accordingly, Formal Recognition order was issued to the institution on 17.07.2009. Enhancement of intake of 10 seats from existing 25 to 35 was granted on 24.08.2010. The institution has submitted its written representation on 13.11.2014 along with relevant documents, and stating as follows: “….requesting you to kindly give a direction to the Gulbarga University Gulbarga to give permission to our college for taking admission for M.Ed. course for the year 2014-15, we are also requesting you to write the university to provide affiliation continuation to our college. The college has already applied for NAAC”.

APS07290/ M.Ed

Indian M.Ed

College.

Indian M.Ed College, Chidri Road, Bidar District – 585403, Karnataka was granted

recognition for M.Ed course vide order No. F.SRO/NCTE/M.Ed/2008/5123 dated

22/09/2008 with an annual intake of 25 students.

A letter dated 15/06/2013 is received by this office on 24/06/2013 from the Principal

regarding change of the Indian M.Ed P.G.Centre, Chidri, Bidar to Roohi M.Ed P.G.Centre,

Bidar.

He stated that “the Gulbarga University, Gulbarga change of our college name Indian

College P.G.Centre Chidri, Bidar instead of new name Roohi M.Ed P.G.Centre, Chidri,

Bidar. Please request change in the NCTE website our College name. Therefore kindly

information to you. Please any letter corresponding Roohi M.Ed P.G. Centre Chidri, Bidar”.

A copy of letter of Gulbarga University dated 29.05.2013 addressed to Roohi M.Ed PG

Centre sanctioning of intake of 35 students for M.Ed(Edn) is enclosed for information.



348

The Southern Regional Committee in its 253

rd Meeting held during 30

th September 2013 to

1st October 2013 considered the matter, letter dated 15/06/2013 from the Principal of Roohi

M.Ed P.G. Centre, Bidar and decided that the “institution should pay Rs. 50000/- as fee as per the NCTE Act towards inspection fee and usual condition, towards change of name of the institution from Roohi M.Ed P.G. Centre, Bidar to The Indian M.Ed P.G. Centre, Chidri, Bidar. The Committee also advised Sothern Regional Office to check for Law forbidding use by private parties of expressions like ‘Indian’ & ‘National’ and report.” It is noticed from the records that the institution has requested for change of name of the college from the existing ‘Indian M.Ed College, Chidri Road, Bidar District – 585403, Karnataka’ to ‘Roohi M.Ed P.G.Centre, Chidri, Bidar.’ Hence, the above matter is once again placed before SRC for necessary direction regarding the request of the institution. The SRC in its 258

th meeting held on 03-05

th January, 2014 considered the matter, advised

Southern Regional Office to report action taken on the earlier decision as per 253rd

meeting held on 30

th Sept, 2013 & 1

st Oct, 2013, and to be put up in 259

th meeting.

A letter was sent to the advocate on 11.01.2014 regarding advise on the law forbidding use of expressions like ‘National’ and ‘Indian’ by private parties. The institution has submitted its written representation on 13.11.2014 along with relevant documents, and stating as follows: “….principal of Indian M.Ed college Bidar requesting your kindself to please issue a direction to the university to provide affiliation continuation and admission as the college has already been applied for NAAC 8 months back. Last year the college has at the verge completion of all the academic activities suddenly the university refused issuing eligibilities to the students admitted for M.Ed for the year 2013-14,sir the college faced a big problem and we moved to the court the students were made to sit for the exam. This year also the university denaied affiliation continuation and admission. Hence I am here by requesting you to please provide direction to the university to give affiliation continuation and admission until the NAAC visits the college”.

APS09012/M.Ed Sri

Murugha

Rajendra

Swamiji

M.Ed P.G.Centre

Sri Murugha RajendraSwamiji M.Ed P.G.Centre, Saraswathipur, Kusnoor Road, Behind Gulbarga University, Gulbarga-585106, Karnataka.

Recognition has been granted to Sri Murugha RajendraSwamiji M.Ed P.G.Centre, Saraswathipur, Kusnoor Road, Behind Gulbarga University, Gulbarga-585106, Karnataka for offering M.Ed course with an annual intake of 25 students on 10.03.2008.

Enhancement of intake of 10 seats from existing 25 to 35 is permitted for M.Ed course with effect from the session 2010-2011.

SRC NCTE is in receipt of a letter dated 01.04.2014 from the Principal of the institution stating that “ hereby request you to kindly change the name of M.Ed P.G Course to M.Ed P.G College. Because, we are applying to NAAC inspection format. The scrutiny officer of the concerned department said that the PG College is an individual department and many courses cannot be conducted there. Only M.Ed Course can be conducted. Therefore, the concerned officer said that if possible, change the name of PG Course to P.G. College so that I can have other courses too. So I kindly request you to change the name and please do the needful as early as at your convenience “.

He has enclosed M.Ed order copy and Gulbarga University affiliation order copy.

Fee for change of name is not submitted by the institution.

The SRC in its 267th

meeting held on 12-13 May, 2014 considered the request letter dated 01.04.2014 from Sri. Murugha RajendraSwamij M.Ed P.G. Cenrre, Gulbarga, Karnataka. for change of name. The Committee decided and advised SRO to advise the college to secure:



349

• Govt. permission.

• Society’s Resolution in support; and,

• University’s approval.

Accordingly, a letter was sent to the institution on 04.07.2014.

The institution has submitted its written representation on 10.07.2014 along with relevant

documents regarding for change of name of Sri .Murugha RajendraSwamiji M.Ed. P.G.

Course to M.Ed. P.G. College. Gulbarga.

The institution has submitted it written representation on 13.11.2014 along with relevant

documents, and stating as follows:

“….Please give directions to Gulbarga University Gulbarga rregarding the

Continuation of M.Ed Course to our college as we are having well-furnished

classrooms and infrastructure with good faculty to run the course. Many students of

this area are interested (HK Region) to pursue the said course. We have applied to

NAAC and looking forward for accreditation. So this is for your kind perusal to guide

Gulbarga University Gulbarga in this regard”.

APS07107/ M.Ed Al-

Badar M.Ed

College

Al-Badar M.Ed College, No.1-101, behind PWD Quarters, Aiwan-e-shani Road, Station Bazar, Gulbarga-585102, Karnataka. The SRC-NCTE granted recognition to Al-Badar M.Ed College, No.1-101, behind PWD Quarters, Aiwan-e-shani Road, Station Bazar, Gulbarga-585102, Karnataka for M.Ed. with an intake of 25 students vide-order F.SRO/NCTE/M.Ed/2006-2007/7820 dated 10.08.2007. NCTE Hqrs. vide their letter F.No.49-4/2010/PT/NCTE (N&S)/dated 30

th July, 2010 has

informed that the enhancement in the intake of one unit of M.Ed course programme from 25 to 35 has been notified vide National Council for Teacher Education Amendment Regulation,2010 in the Gazette of India on 26

th July 2010. The amendment stipulates that

the intake be increased from existing 25 to 35 students from the current session 2010-2011, without creation of any additional infrastructure and instructional facilities. NCTE Hqrs has directed to intimate all the institutions of each region having approved M.Ed. Programme of 25 students by issuing a letter that they may enhance it up to 35 students, accordingly The enhancement of intake of 10 seats from existing 25 to 35 is granted to institution on 20.08.2010. Now the institution submitted it’s a letter dated 13.09.2014 received by SRC on 22.09.2014 stating as follows: “The Gulbarga University have permitted to appear for exams for 2013-2014 batch. The Gulbarga University have already finalized their admission process to M.Ed and other P.G Courses, but they have not included 10 affiliated colleges in their list. So on behalf of all affiliated colleges we request your good self to direct GUG to permit us to take admission for 2014-2015 .All the colleges have recognition by NCTE and have applied for accreditation to the NAAC.

Taj M.Ed college have submitted documents related to the court case regarding M.Ed accreditation as well as reference papers.

So sir please be kind enough regarding admission process in the interest of the students waiting for an early reply”.

The SR in its 273

rd meeting held on 30

th September 01

st October,20014 considered the,

letter dated 13.09.2014 submitted by the institution decided and advised Southern Regional Office to:



350

• Send the NCTE circular about proceedings with further action on the basis of the ‘eligibility no.’ issued by NAAC.

• If the University has other reasons, they may apprise us of the reasons.

The institution has submitted it written representation on 13.11.2014 along with relevant documents:

“…continuation of ur letters dated 08.08.2014 and 13.09.2014 addressed to your office to intervene, we are yet to receive a reply. We would once again live to remind your goodself to please intervene and issue letters to Gulbarga University Gulbarga stating to allow us to start the process of admission to M.Ed PG course for the academic year 20104-15. Which has been stopped without giving us an opportunity to explain our view.

The reason which they have cited is that we are not having NAAC accrediation.

We have already applied for NAAC accrediation with track ID KAC0TE22571 dated 18.06.2014 along with LOI fees of Rs.28090/- and also applied for continuation of affiliation for the year 2015-16, which has been rejected.

For the same reason (NAAC acrediation).

On behalf of all the ten affiliated colleges we request your goodself to be kind enough to intervene and direct the Gulbarga University Gulbarga to allow us to take the M.Ed admission for the academic year 2014-15 .Hoping for an early and positive reply in the interest of the students.”

APS09350/ M.Ed National PG

Centre for M.Ed cours

e

National PG Centre for M.Ed course, Hafth Gumbad,Darga Road, Gulbarga – 585104,Karnataka

National PG Centre for M.Ed. course, Hafth Gumbad, Darga Road, Gulbarga-585104, Karnataka was granted recognition on 22.9.2008 with an annual intake of 25 from the academic session 2008-2009 subject to certain conditions. A letter No.ED 122 PTI 2008 (B) dated 18.06.2009 was received from the Principal Secretary, Primary and Higher Education, Education Department, Government of Karnataka and has recommended SRC to withdraw the recognition granted to the D.Ed college(APS01490), as the institution is not maintaining Norms and Standards as prescribed by NCTE.

The matter was placed before 178th

meeting of SRC held on 13-14 July, 2009. The Committee decided to serve Notice which was served to the institution on 12.8.2009. The institution submitted its written representation on 9.9.2009 & 14.9.2009. SRC in its 183

rd meeting held on 22 September 2009 considered the written representation

and decided to conduct inspection under Section 17 of NCTE Act and direct the institution to submit filled in Questionnaire along with supporting documents. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the institution on 31.10.2009. The institution submitted its written representation on 24.11.2009 and 07.01.2010. SRC in its 189

th meeting held on 25-26 February 2010 considered the written

representations and decided to cause inspection under section 17 of NCTE Act. Accordingly, inspection was carried out on 04.06.2010. The Committee in its 193

rd meeting held on 21-23 June, 2010 considered the VT report and

decided to withdraw recognition for D.Ed. course for the following reasons:-

• As per VT report, the built up area allotted for B.Ed. is only 4000 sq.ft. for M.Ed. course it is 4000 sq.ft. as against the NCTE norms of 16,000 sq.ft. area for B.Ed. and 6000 sq.ft. area for M.Ed. course.

• Apart from D.Ed. course, the institution is running Primary School and other educational programmes in the same campus, sharing the buildings.

• The earmarked area for the D.Ed. course is only 6626 sq.ft. which is very much in short of the NCTE norms and standards.

• As such, none of the courses has adequate space, as per norms. Under the above grounds, the Committee decides to withdraw the recognition for



351

B.Ed.(APS01830) course and M.Ed.(APS09350) course with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the withdrawal order, the institution preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 27.9.2010 reversed the SRCs order with a direction to the SRC to issue Show Cause Notice to the institution as required and take appropriate action thereafter. The SRC in its 197

th meeting held on 13-14 October, 2010 considered the Appellate

authority order and decided to issue show cause notice. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 07.12.2010.

Further, the institution has submitted written representation on 04.01.2011. The SRC in its 200

th meeting held on 20-21 January 2011 considered the written representation of the

institution and decided to cause Composite inspection. The institution was also running B.Ed (APS01830) and M.Ed (APS09350) courses. The inspection was carried out on 02.04.2011. The inspection report was received along with VCD.

The SRC in its 204

th meeting held on 27

th – 28

th April, 2011 considered the VT report, VCD

and the relevant documentary evidences decided to issue Show Cause notice. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 01.06.2011. The institution submitted its written representation on 02.06.2011 seeing Show Cause Notice appeared on website. The SRC in its 206

th meeting held on 9-10 of June, 2011, considered the written

representation and decided to issue Final Show Cause Notice. Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the institution on 07.07.2011. The institution submitted written representation on 21.07.2011 for all the three courses i.e., D.Ed (APS01490), B.Ed.(APS01830) and M.Ed.(APS09350). The SRC in its 210

th meeting held on 22-23 August, 2011 considered the reply of the

institution dated 21.07.2011 and decided to restore recognition of the institution. Accordingly, the order restoring recognition was issued to the institution to all the three courses D.Ed., B.Ed. and also for M.Ed. course on 29.09.2011.

A letter was received from HQ forwarding the complaint against the institution on 9th

July, 2012. The complaint is received through e-mail from Shri. Rajaram, [email protected] regarding demand of donation fee by the institute for admissions in M.Ed. course. The HQ has informed SRC to examine the matter and take necessary action against the institution as per the NCTE Act, 1993 by placing the complaint before the Regional Committee.

The complaint matter was placed before SRC in its 231st meeting held on 22

nd and 23

rd

August, 2012 wherein the committee decided to call for remarks from the institution against complaint received.

Accordingly, a letter was sent to the institution vide F.SRO/APSO9350/M.ED /2012/46341 dated 21/09/2012 asking the institution to send its remarks with reference to the complaint of Shri. Raja ram.

The Principal of the institution submitted a reply dated 10/10/2012 which is received by this office on 19/10/2012 as under :-

1) “ The complaint alleged that the institution demands Rs.5000/- as donation fee from one girl student in the year 2011

Comments: The allegation is not correct; the complaint has not shown whether the girl is his daughter, sister, or what relation he have? Interesting there is no name given of the said girl, whether the girl is a student of this institution. Therefore it is baseless and false.

2) The complaint alleged that if he filed complaint with University, then, the institution shall blackmail with the girl student through out the year.

Comments: The allegation is totally false, the complaint failed to show what and which type of blackmailing will done by institution with the girl student. There is no corroborative evidence found in the allegation. Therefore, it is fabricated and baseless.



352

3) The complaint alleged that, every student who has come through University counseling have paid Rs.5000/- towards donation.

Comments: The allegation is baseless, the institution is ready to show account register as and when required by the NCTE. The intention of complainant is to defame the minority institution

4) The complainant requested to authority that, check through admission letter with phone or personally and give website details

Comments: The issue is concerned with SRC, NCTE. The authority has power to inspect the matter. The institution has always opened its door for inspection.

5) The Complaint stated that donation issue disclose on website in the income Expenditure format.

Comments: The website detail is before the authority and authority has power to examine the case with the inquisitive mind.

6) The complainant stated that National PG Centre is located within 200 meters of area

from Hafth Gumbaz which is declared protected monument as per ASI of India. Therefore take necessary action against the institution. The complaint also produced references of letter no. ED/122/PTI dated 2008 and requested to de recognize the institution Comments: The complaint is put before incorrect forum. NCTE, SRC is no way concerned in the subject matter. However, it is the responsibility of the institution to convince the NCTE, SRC. That the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Act 1958 is amended as “The Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act 2010.” This Act is not applicable to those buildings built and completed before 2010.The institution was established in 1956 and all its buildings completed before 2010, therefore the complaint is baseless and false. In further institute clarifies that the proposed case of reference letter no.ED/122/PTI/2008 dated 18/06/2009 is closed; the authority is well versed with the fact. The complainant is raking up the old issue and disturbing the institution with willful intention. Institution submits its contention as under:- a) The institution has taken a serious note of this familiar ring complaint. There are

wheels within wheel in this complaint. b) It seems motive of the complaint is to tarnish the image of the minority institution

for wrongful gain. c) It is also doubtful that some vested interests, miscreants may be involved in the

subject matter. d) It also submits that, the complainant is of Shri. Rajaram and in the end of

complaint the name appears as Shri Mouzam with mobile no. +919860440856. e) It is revealed after confirming that, the mobile number is not correct and is not

functioning. f) All these factual grounds indicate some ulterior motive behind the complaint. g) This is reason to believe that the complaint is not bonafide and it is false.

Therefore such complaint is not maintainable as there are shadows of doubt in it.

In view of the above factual grounds, it is earnestly requested to the authority to dismiss the complaint. 1) The authority has power to call for the complainant with solid material and

exercise the power conferred under NCTE Act 1993.Inquire as per specified norms and take proper action against complainant.

2) Demand explanation from complainant for false complaint. “



353

The above reply of the institution to the allegations made against the institution is

placed before SRC for decision and direction.

The SRC in its 237th meeting held on 05

th-06

th January, 2013 considered the complaint

matter, reply of the institution and decided to close the file. The institution has submitted its written representation on 13.11.2014 and stating as follows: “I write to state that the Gulbarga University Gulbarga has withdrawn the affiliation of National M.Ed College Gulbarga for want of NAAC accreditation. In this regard we have already applied to the NAAC on dt.14.05.2014. In general course it may take minimum 1-2 years to issue certificate by the NAAC. Therefore I request you kindly direct the said University to restore the affiliation pending NAAC accreditation in the interest of student’s carrier. ”

The Committee considered the matter, e-mail dated 17.10.2014 from NAAC, decided and advised Southern Regional Office to send a copy of the NCTE (H.Q) letter on the subject to Gulbarga University.

88) SRCAPP222

D.El.Ed

Likitha College

of Elementary

Education,

East Godavari,

Andhra

Pradesh

AP

Likitha College of Elementary Education, Plot No. 208/1, Chandramamapalli

Village, Divili Post Office, Peddapuram Taluk and City, East Godavari District –

533 437, Andhra Pradesh.

Teresa Educational Society, Plot No. 2-7, Main Road, Ulimeswaram Village,

Mallam Post Office and City, Peddapuram Taluka, East Godavari District – 533

437, Andhra Pradesh had applied for grant of recognition to Likitha College of

Elementary Education, Plot No. 208/1, Chandramamapalli Village, Divili Post

Office, Peddapuram Taluk and City, East Godavari District – 533 437, Andhra

Pradesh for D.El.Ed Course for two years duration under Section 14 of the NCTE

Act, 1993 to the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE online on 31.12.2012. The

institution has submitted hard copy of the application on 07.01.2013.

NCTE-Hqrs. had directed to process the application in accordance with NCTE

Regulations 2009 and amendment notified on 26th November, 2010 which reads as

follows:-

2(b) for Sub-Regulation (1-A) the following shall be submitted namely” 1(1-A)(I) the

application shall be summarily rejected under one or more of the following

circumstances:

a) The processing fee, as provided under Rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 is not furnished on or before the date of submission of online application.

b) Hard coy in triplicate of the on-line application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of the on-line application.

c) Copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority indicating that the society/institution applying for the course possessed land on the date of application is not dispatched within 7 days of the submission of on-line application.

The SRC in its 238th Meeting held on 05th-06th February, 2013 ,after careful perusal of



354

the original file of the institution and other related documents, NCTE Act 1993

Regulations and guidelines from time to time laid on the table, the Regional

Committee decided to reject the application on the following grounds:

• The processing fee submitted only DD of Rs. 41050/- instead of Rs. 50000/- (Which is not permissible as per NCTE Regulation).

Accordingly, a rejection letter was issued to the institution on 06.03.2013.

The institution in its letter dated 6.10.2013 submitted a court order from the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 12252 of 2013 stating that (copy

enclosed)

“…………I leave it open to the SRC to grant, in any such eventuality, permission to

the petitioner for commencing the necessary course during the academic session

2014- 2015. Since, the petitioner has admitted to the lapse of concentration while

filling up the application form, it is only appropriate that he shall also remit an

additional sum of Rs. 5000/- as penalty, representing 10% of the processing fee, in

each case to the SRC. With this order, the Writ petition is disposed of. No. costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.”

The institution has submitted original Demand Draft of Rs. 55,000.00 vide bearing no.

914958 dated 29.09.2013 .

The Southern Regional Committee in its 254th Meeting held on 25th – 27th October,2013 considered the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh order wherein, the High Court has left it the SRC to decide. ‘It was decided that, the Committee has no discretion in the matter under the Regulations which list this as a factor for summary rejection. The Supreme Court has directed that Regulations shall be strictly enforced. Supreme Court vide their order in Civil Appeal NO. 1125-1128/2011 in SLP No.

17165-68/2009 filed by NCTE Vs ors, which reads as under:

“An institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfils the conditions

specified in various clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to

ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the

conditions laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule

fixed for processing the application by the Regional Committee and

communication of the decision on the issue of recognition it strictly adhered

to”.

Based on the above, the Committee decided to reject the application, refund the amount and to close the file.”

As per the decision of SRC, a rejection letter was issued to the institution vide F.



355

No . SRCAPP222/ D.Ed/AP/2013-14/55136 dated 27.11.2013.

This office was in receipt of a Court notice dated 21.03.2014 from the Hon’ble High Court

of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CC.No. 2320 of 2013 with charges of

contempt of court for violating the orders of the Court passed in W.P.No. 12252 of 2013

dated 28.08.2012.The Regional Director ,SRC,NCTE was directed to appear before the

Court on 21.04.2014 at 10.30 a.m.

A letter was addressed to Shri.K.Ramakanth Reddy, advocate on 15.04.2014 to appear

before the Court and defend the case of SRC,NCTE in view of the Court notice dated

21.03.2014.

Another Court notice dated 21.03.2014 from the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CC.No. 2320 of 2013 was received by this office on

15.04.2014 directing the Regional Director, SRC,NCTE to appear before the Court on

21.04.2014 at 10.30 a.m. An E-mail was sent to Shri. Ramakanth Reddy on 15.04.2014

for needful action in the matter.

An e-mail was received from Shri.Ramakanth Reddy stating that he has requested the

Court that he will appear in the matter and represent the case.

This office is in receipt of a Court order in CC.2320 of 2013 in W.P.No. 12252 of 2013

filed by Teresa Educational Society, East Godavari District ,Andhra Pradesh on

30.05.2014 (copy enclosed)

The Court order is as under ;

“The Regional Director ,Southern Regional Committee, National Council for

Teacher Education (NCTE),Bangalore , is present in the Court today pursuant to

the Notice in Form No.1 issued on 21.03.2014.

Heard Sri.M.V.Rajaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Satyanarayana

Goud would submit that the case deserves one more opportunity to be provided to

the Southern Regional Committee to re-examine the entire matter and take an

appropriate decision and report the same back.

Registry is directed to list the matter for consideration after eight weeks.”

The further presence of Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National

Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Bangalore, is not required and hence

dispensed with .”

The Southern Regional Committee in its 269th Meeting held during 1 -2 nd July, 2014 considered the matter, advised SRO to ask our lawyer to file an appeal immediately. As per the decision of SRC , a letter was addressed to the advocate, Shri.

Ramakanth Reddy on 25.07.2014 requesting him to file an appeal before the Hon’ble



356

Court.

On 25.07.2014, a copy of the draft affidavit to be filed for filing W.A. is received from

the advocate, Shri.Ramakanth Reddy. A duly signed affidavit was sent to the

advocate, Shri. Ramakanth Reddy on 25.07.2014.

On 16.10.2014, a letter from the Chairman, Teresa Educational Society is

received by this office stating as under :-

“ We from Likitha College of Elementary Education , we applied D.Ed College

in 2012, December, notification. The rejected my application. We applying

has filed Writ petition No. 12252/2013 seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring

the action of the Respondent in rejecting the application for considering the

recognition for the academic year 2013-14 by the 1st respondent vide F.No.

SRCAPP222(2013-14) / D.EI.Ed / AP/2013/49335 dated 06.03.2013 is illegal

and arbitrary and set aside the same.

I submit that the Hon’ble Court after hearing at legth passed orders directing

the 1st respondent Regional Committee as follows :

‘Therefore , I leave it open to the Southern Regional Committee to grant , in

any such eventuality, permission to the petitioner for commencing the

necessary course during the academic session 2014-15.Since, the petitioner

has admitted to the lapse of concentration while filling up the application form,

it is only appropriate that he shall also remit an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- as

penalty, representing 10% of the processing fee, in each case to the Southern

Regional Committee.

I submit that in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner

institution has resubmitted the applications along with the Demand Draft of Rs.

55,000/- vide DD bearing No. 914958 , dated 29.09.2013 and the same is

received and acknowledged by the respondent.

The decision taken on 27.11.2013 by the Regional Director is contrary to the

orders of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

The petitioner has filed contempt case i.e CC 2320 of 2013. It has come up on

21.04.2014 and after hearing on behalf of the Regional Director, sought time

for compliance of the orders in Writ petition and accordingly 8 week time was

granted. No action has been taken to process my application even though

there is no fault of mine.

Therefore, I request your kindness to process my application as per the orders

of the Hon’ble High Court passed in W.P.12252/2013 and as agreed to comply

the orders in contempt application 2320/2013 otherwise it will affect the

institution for which act and deeds I ever remain grateful.



357

SRC in its 274th meeting held during 30th – 31st October, 2013 considered the matter

and decided as under :-

“Let us file an affidavit in the High Court citing the Supreme Court order and

our difficulty in implementing the High Court order. If our request for

reconsideration of the High Court’s earlier order is not accepted, we must file an

appeal.”

A letter was addressed to the advocate on 28.11.2014 conveying the decision of 274th

meeting of SRC and a copy of the same was sent by e-mail on 01.12.2014.

On 01.12.2014, an email is received from Shri.Ramakanth Reddy stating as under :

“ Mr. Sriraman appeared in the Contempt Case C.C. 2320 of 2013

filed by Teresa Education Society before the Hon’ble High Court earlier and

informed the Hon’ble Court that the case of the petitioner is kept pending since

new regulations have not yet been notified. Therefore, there is no deliberate

Contempt of Court.

He also gave an undertaking before the Hon’ble Court that the case of the

petitioner will be considered as per new regulations as per the Judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 10.09.2013.

In view of the undertaking given by the Mr.Sriraman vis a vis the date of

order , appeal would be a futile exercise and is not advisable.

Therefore, the order of the learned single judge should be implemented after

the new regulations are notified .”

The Committee considered the matter, e-mail dated 01.12.2014 from Srhi.

Ramakanth Reddy, Counsel at Hyderabad, decided that penalty levied by the High

Court has been paid by the applicant. As per the Court’s Order, advised Southern

Regional Office process after notification of the new Regulations.