7. Shri R.Soma Sundaram - Representative
Deputy Directory (Tamilnadu)
8. Sri. Gangadharaiah - Convenor
The following members/Representative could not attend the Meeting
Prof. M.A. Khader. Member, and the Representatives of the Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and U.T’s of Lakshadweep, Pondicherry & Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
Minutes of 216TH Meeting of SRC-NCTE
Remarks of SRC
Confirmation of Minutes of 215 Meeting held on 12th-13th December 2011
Action Taken Report (ATR) on the Minutes of 214 Meeting of SRC held on 28th November 2011
Consideration of Court Cases (Vol-1)
Name of the Institution
Remarks of SRC
Siddipet College of Education, Medak
Siddipet College of Education, Siddipet, Medak District – 502103, Andhra Pradesh Golkonda Educational Society Plot No.12-5-92/1 Ganesh Nagar, Siddipet village and Post Office, Medak- 502 103, Andhra Pradesh has submitted an application for grant of recognition to Siddipet College of Education, Plot No. 1381, Prasanth Nagar, Siddipet, Medak-502103, Andhra Pradesh for B.Ed Course.
The Application was scrutinized and a copy of application was sent to State Government for recommendation on 09.11.2010/02.02.2011. A deficiency letter was issued to the institution on 09.12.2010.The inspection of the institution was conducted on 01.04.2011.
The Southern Regional Committee in its 204th Meeting held on 27th and 28th April 2011 considered the VT Report, VCD and all the relevant documentary evidences and it was decided to serve Show cause Notice for the following:
Building Completion Certificate from Competent Government Engineer is to be submitted.
From VCD observation, it is observed that the building is incomplete and still under construction at the time of application/inspection/visit.
Language learning lab is not available.
As per direction of SRC, show case notice was issued to the applicant institution on 27.05.2011. In response to this office letter dated 27.05.2011 the institution has submitted reply vide letter dated 24.06.2011.
The Southern Regional Committee in its 208th Meeting held 13th and 14th July 2011 after going through the reply of institution dt. 24.6.2011, come to the conclusion that the reply is not satisfactory and not convincing and hence, the recognition is refused for the following reason:-
From the VCD observation , it is observed that the building is incomplete and still under construction at the time of application/ inspection. Visit.
Refusal order dt.29.08.2011 was issued to the institution as per the decision of SRC. The institution preferred for an appeal at NCTE- Hqrs. Original file was sent to NCTE- Hqrs for appeal on 15.09.2011.
Meantime the institution has filed a Writ Petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The Hon’ble High Court has passed an order dt. 22.09.2011 in WPMP No. 31899 of 2011 in WP No.25874 of 2011 as follows:
“ It is the case of petitioner that even though it has rectified all deficiencies, the committee failed to consider the same by taking into consideration the material placed, including fresh VCD and thereby has come to an incorrect conclusion. According to the petitioner, as certificate issued by Deputy Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department would clearly show that construction of the building is completed in all respects as per the requirements of Regulations. Therefore, the grounds stated in the order of rejection are not tenable: and had the respondent taken material consideration, it would not have resulted in the rejection.
On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and material placed on record , prima facie, the contention appears to be tenable
In this circumstances, there shall be interim direction to the respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the material already submitted and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”
Before approaching the Court with the writ petition, the petitioner had also appealed to the NCTE (HQ). The Appellate Authority had requisitioned all the relevant records in connection with the appeal & the original file was sent to NCTE Hqrs on 15.09.2011.
The Committee in its 212th meeting held on 24th October, 2011 considered the Court direction, decided for verifying the records on the case file, as directed by the Court, therefore, it will be necessary for the Southern Regional Committee to first recall the records from the Appellate Authority. After receipt of the records, the office shall examine the Asst. Engineer’s report with reference to the VT Report and place the case for consideration by the Committee
Accordingly, a letter dated 3.11.2011 was sent to NCTE-Hqrs. to recall the original file after receipt of Minutes of meeting.
Meantime, Advocate, Shri P. Vinayaka Swamy has forwarded a fax letter dated 22.11.2011 stated that the institution has filed Contempt Case no. 1596 of 2011 in WPMP 31899 of 2011 in W.P. No. 25874 of 2011. The advocate has requested that “ the above Contempt case is came up for admission before Justice Noushad Ali on 1.12.2011. The Hon’ble Court was directed to me to file a counter within 2 weeks and posted the matter on 15.12.2011. Hence, I further request you to send necessary remarks/instructions in the above matter to prepare counter affidavit”.
The advocate has been informed vide letter dated 5.12.2011, the Hon’ble Court may be appraised that there is no contempt intended as the file of the institution is with NCTE-Hqrs. for considering their appeal. In the meantime without appraising the Hon’ble Court of the fact of appeal pending, the institution is pressurising for reconsideration of its own order by SRC which is against NCTE Act 1993 provides in section 18 that “any person aggrieved by any order made under section 14 or section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the council within such period as may be prescribed” as such the case may be dismissed any institution may be asked to await appellate order.
The original file is now received back from NCTE-Hqrs. based on SRC’s decision to recall the file. The Contempt Case is coming up for hearing on 15.12.2011. The Building Completion Certificate referred to in Hon’ble High Court’s order issued by Deputy Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department dated 7.6.2011 is flagged in the file and show 16,534 sq.ft. of built up area.
Meantime, a Contempt notice has been received from the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CC No. 1596 of 2011 filed by Siddipet College of Education, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh. The Hon’ble High Court has directed Regional Director to appear in person on 19.1.2012 at 10.30 a.m. Accordingly, a letter was addressed to Shri. Madhav Rao, Advocate on 6.1.2012 to appear before the court and defend the case on behalf of SRC-NCTE.
The advocate has been asked to keep following points in mind along with counter affidavit already filed, in order to defend the case.
The SRC has refused recognition to the said college for the following reason: “from VCD observation, it is observed that the building is incomplete and still under construction at the time of application/inspection/visit”.
Along with their application the institution has submitted building completion certificate issued by Pvt. Engineer reflecting the date of inspection on 2.2.2010 and the built up area has mentioned as 16535 sq.ft.
Along with the visiting team report the institution has submitted, building completion certificate issued by Dy. Engineer, Sub-Divisional Office, Panchayat Raj Dept., Siddipet, Dt.Medak dated 7.6.2011 with built up area 16,534 sq.fts.(both the building completion certificates have been considered by the SRC). In its 208th meeting held on 13th and 14th July, 2011, the Committee after going through the reply of institution dated 24.6.2011, came to the conclusion that the reply is not satisfactory and not convincing and hence, the recognition is refused for the following reason, “from the VCD observation, it is observed that the building is incomplete and still under construction at the time of application/inspection/visit”.
As per perusal of the file the institution has not submitted any fresh VCD. As such the office of SRC cannot ascertain whether construction of the building is completed in all respects.
As per Regulation 2009 para 8(10) “At the time of inspection, the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure on the land possessed by the institution in terms of sub-regulation(7) of Regulation 8, equipped with all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the norms and standards. The applicant institution shall produce the original completion certificate issued by the competent Government Authority or local body authority approved building plan in proof of the completion of building and built up area and other documents to the visiting team for verification. No temporary structure or asbestos roofing shall be allowed in the institution, even if it is in addition to the prescribed built up area”.
The committee considered the Court direction and decided to Re-inspect the institution to verify the bonafides of the findings/building completion fulfilling NCTE norms, on fresh payment of Rs. 40000/-