Download Report

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE
BANGALORE (April 15, 2015)
Minutes of the Round Table Meet at SRC, NCTE on the issue of No Objection Certificate by Affiliating
Bodies held at the Conference Hall, SRC NCTE, Bangalore on 15th April, 2015
NCTE has organized a one day Round Table Meet at SRC, NCTE, Bangalore on the issue of No Objection
Certificate by Affiliating Bodies on 15th April, 2015.
The representatives of state education authorities and university authorities, and the affiliating bodies were
present and had discussions on various aspects/ difficulties faced by the affiliating bodies and their respective
State Government.
1.
The following members were presents from NCTE
1) Dr. M.P. Vijay Kumar, IAS, Member, SRC – Chaired the meeting
2) Dr. S.K. Chauhan, Research Officer, NCTE, New Delhi
3) Dr. P. Revathi Reddy, Regional Director, SRC, NCTE, Bangalore.
The following Participants from the Affiliating Bodies were present:
i.
Prof. H. Khatija Begum, Dean, School of Education &Trg., Maulana Azad National Urdu University,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad
ii.
Dr. M. Govindan, Prof.& Head, Dept.of Educational Psychology, Tamilnadu Teacher Education
University, Chennai, Tamilnadu
iii.
iv.
Dr. B.T. Sampath Kumar, Special Officer, Tumkur University, Tumkur, Karnataka.
Dr. R. Ayyappan, Principal, DIET, Chennai, Tamilnadu
v.
Mr. S. Jayakumar, Director, DSERT, Bengaluru, Karnataka
vi.
Prof. Lingaraj Gandhi, Director, CDC, University of Mysore, Karnataka
vii.
Dr. V. Govinda Reddy, Dept. of Education, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur, Andhra
Pradesh
Dr. K.P. VenkataSubbaiah, Dept. of Edn., Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur, Andhra
Pradesh.
viii.
ix.
Mr. S. Lingannath Reddy, Director, SCERT, Telangana State, Hyderabad
x.
Prof. E.R. Ekbote, Education Deptt, Gulbarga University, Gulbarga, Karnataka
xi.
Dr. M.T.V. Nagaraju, Dept. of Education, Dr. B .R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad.
xii.
Prof. G. Gulam Tariq, Dean, Faculty of Education, Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa-516003
xiii.
Prof. T. Kumaraswamy, Principal, IASE, S.V. University, Tirupati
xiv.
Prof. M.S. Talawar, Dean, Faculty of Education, Bangalore University, Bangalore
xv.
Prof. J.S. Kadadevarmath, Director of College Development Council, Karnatak University, Dharwad.
xvi.
Dr. C. Salim Kumar, Principal, Calicut University Teacher Education Centre, Calicut, Kerala.
xvii.
Dr. S.M. Prakash, Dean, Faculty of Education, Kuvempu University, Shankarghatta, Shimoga,
Karnataka.
xviii.
xix.
Dr. G. Narsimhulu, Principal, College of Education, Palamuru University
Mr. A. Karunakar Reddy, Incharge of M.Ed. programme, College of Education, Palamuru University,
Mahabubnagar, Telangana.
1
2. Dr. Vijay Kumar, Member, SRC on behalf of NCTE, New Delhi welcomed the members of organization
committee to the one day Round Table Meet and briefed about the significance of issuing NOC and of the
Round Table meet. Dr. S.K. Chauhan, Research Officer, NCTE, New Delhi expressed that NCTE has thought
of consulting the affiliating bodies regarding the problems faced by the respective affiliating bodies and sought
their co-operation in processing the applications as per Regulations.
3. After the introductory round, discussions were held on the importance of issuance of NOCs by the affiliating
bodies.
4. The queries raised by the participants and clarifications provided by Dr. Vijay Kumar, Dr.S.K.Chauhan and
Dr.P. Revathi Reddy on behalf of NCTE are as under:Sl.
No.
1.
Queries raised by the participants
Clarifications provided
Is this NOC different from the
affiliation order?
NCTE is adopting a democratic approach, and has in
Regulations, 2014 brought in this new concept of issue of NOC
by the affiliating body before an institution applies for
recognition to NCTE.
Till 2014 Regulations came into force, there had been an
impression among the affiliating bodies that the role of
Universities /affiliating bodies has been undermined and that
once NCTE grants recognition, the affiliating bodies were
bound to give affiliation. Even if there was any violation of
conditions of recognition, the affiliating body could not
withhold affiliation. NCTE felt that the views of the affiliating
bodies have to be taken into account and thus introduced the
provision of NOC by affiliating bodies as essential to making
an application for establishing a new TE institution and/or for a
new programme or additional intake. As per the new
regulations, before an institution applies to NCTE, they have to
obtain NOC from the respective affiliating body. This NOC is
different from the NOC sought from the State Government
during the processing of applications later.
This NOC is a tool empowering the Affiliating Bodies to give
their consent at the beginning itself.
2.
How is this different from the NOC
of State Government?
This NOC issued by the affiliating bodies has legal sanctity as
it is a provision made under Regulations 2014 issued in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section
32 of the National Council for Teacher Act 1993.
The NOC issued by the State Government is based on the
policy of the Government depending on various factors like the
position of Demand and Supply, availability of TEIs in the
location of the proposed institution, etc. When NCTE sends a
letter to the State Government along with the copy of the
application for the issuance of NOC, it specifies a period
before which the State Government has to send its
recommendations; and if the State Government does not
respond within the stipulated time, NCTE proceeds further
with the processing of the application.An application is
submitted by the institution without NOC of the State
Government and is subsequently forwarded by the NCTE to
the concerned State Government/seeking its recommendations.
The NOC from the affiliating university or any other affiliating
body is to be submitted by the applicant along with the
application. The affiliating body has to certify that the
proposed institution is under their jurisdiction and it will be
responsible for conducting the examination of students, if the
NCTE grants permission for a particular course. It may refuse
NOC if it has not prepared the curriculum and examination
2
3.
What are the norms to be followed
for issuing NOC?
scheme for the course applied by an institution. If the
application submitted by an institution is not accompanied by
NOC of the affiliating body it will not be processed further by
NCTE Regional Committee. However, the submission of
NOC by an applicant institution does not automatically entitle
an institution for recognition.
The affiliating bodies may consider the following while
examining and issuing NOC:
(1) See if the institution has the potential to provide
infrastructural and instructional requirements, based on
documentary evidence and or field visit as the affiliating body
deems fit.
(2) See if the antecedents and credentials of the institution or
Society that is sponsoring the institution are proper.
(3) Assess or examine its own resources to support and
affiliate the TE programmeand conduct related activities like
supervision, examination, etc.
4.
5.
Should the State Government be
asked to issue uniform norms to be
followed for issuance of NOC to
all affiliating bodies throughout
the State?
Is Department of Education the
competent authority to issue NOC?
Or, is it College Development
Council of a university and such
mechanism in a SCERT, the
agency to issue NOC?
6.
Why should University give NOC
before application to NCTE?
Rather, application can be
forwarded to the State Government
through Affiliating Bodies.
7.
The recognition, affiliation and
admission calendars are not in
line.
There are overlaps.
Universities are starting affiliation
process in the later part of the
academic year by which time
NCTE is issuing recognition for
the next year.
Should Universities for issuance of
NOC alter their affiliation norms
as they are following old norms.
8.
Whatever criteria are followed by the affiliating body, it should
be uniformly applied to all the institutions that approach it. The
affiliating body may develop a norms for issue of NOC on its
own or by having a consultation with State Government, if felt
necessary.
The affiliating bodies may bring this to the notice of their
respective State Governments for having uniform norms for the
entire State if this is required in that state/UT.
The invitations for the Regional Round table meet were sent to
the Education Secretaries to State Governments, the Directors
of SCERTs, the Vice–Chancellors and Registrars who are all
responsible for the process of affiliation and for issue of NOC.
The participants who attended the NOC meets were all deputed
by their respective competent authorities. So, after going back,
the participants/representatives may apprise Vice-Chancellors
and Registrars and Education Secretaries about this, and take
appropriate action.
The intention of introducing this NOC is to adopt a democratic
approach and thereby involve Universities and other affiliating
bodies in the recognition process so that they do not at a later
stage feel that they are forced to follow the orders issued by
NCTE to give affiliation. The NCTE will also forward the
application to the State Government accompanied by the NOC
of the Affiliating body at the time of processing of the
application. There is a difference between these two NOCs.
There is no overlap in the recognition and affiliation calendar
as per rule. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
MaaVaishnodevi case has already set date lines for recognition,
affiliation and admission which is binding on all concerned i.e.,
the NCTE, the University and other affiliating body, and the
institutions. Care must be taken to follow the date lines, as
violation may amount to contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
There is no need to alter the affiliation norms. Rather, the
norms of affiliation will form a base for examining the
issuance of NOC to any particular applicant institution. The
only difference would be to list out and check preliminary
documents that should be examined at the time of issuance of
NOC for making an application and those that may be
examined at the stage of Affiliation, and added as conditions
in this NOC. For example, the institution may be asked to
produce land document, but documents like BCC may be seen
at a later stage.
3
9.
10.
11.
Already there are a lot of problems
with the existing B.Ed. colleges
and this adds to existing problems.
Issue of NOC is a complex
procedure. It is time consuming.
Till now there is no mechanism
developed for this.
Can Universities charge fee for
issue of NOC?
What can be affiliating body do in
case an institution issued NOC by
the affiliating body deviates the
affiliating norms at a later date?
As this is a new concept it is understandable that Universities
may find it difficult and time consuming as they have to work
out norms and procedures. But this concept of NOC will
definitely minimize the problems that may be faced by the
University in future.
The affiliating bodies may decide on this in consultation with
their respective State Governments. NCTE does not prescribe
charging fee towards the expenses incurred by the affiliating
bodies.
Such cases may be referred by Universities or SCERTs or State
Governments to the NCTE Regional Committees concerned for
appropriate action.
4