April 15, 2015
Transcription
April 15, 2015
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