Corrigendum of Minutes of Emergent Meeting of NRC held at hotel “The Cameron” New Delhi from
20-22 April 2011
The decision inadvertently mentioned at Sl No. 26 in respect of A.P. S. Shikshan , Rajasthan
Mahavidalaya , B-173-174, Vinobha Bhave Nagar, Nursery Circle, Vaishali Nagar , Jaipur ( File No. RJ1256) ( Course B.Ed. ) in the Minutes of Emergent Meeting of NRC held at hotel “The Cameron”
New Delhi from 20-22 April 2011 be read as follows:
26
RJ-1256
A.P.S SHIKSHAN
RASHIKSHAN
MAHAVIDYALAYA B-173174, VINOBHA BHAVE
NAGAR, NURSERY CIRCLE,
VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR
B.ED.
In compliance to the Order dated 06.10.2010 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Jaipur in W. 10251 / 2008, the
application
of
APS
Shikshan
Prashikshan
Mahavidyalay has been considered afresh on ment by
accepting the lease document submitted by the
institution, after making it a 30 years lease instead of
19 years as submitted earlier.
After acceptance of the lease document as valid, as
per order of the Hon’ble Court, the visiting team
Report in respect of inspection considered on
07.10.2007, the deficiencies as pointed out to the
institution vide NRC’s meeting held on 08th to 10th
January, 2008 (committed to the institution vide
NRC’s letter dated 18.02.208) and reply of the
institution dated 18.02.2008, claming that they have
removed all the deficiencies has been considered
afresh and following observation were made:(i) The institution claimed in its reply that it has
purchased all the equipment necessary for its science
lab (Science & Maths Education Resources Centre).
The institutions have also supported its claim by
copies of the stock register. However, no receipts of
any purchases and payment made by institution of this
account has been submitted.
The list of
material/equipment submitted by the institution has
been perused, No reference has been made by the
institution about their entry in the sock register, the
copy of the stock register is independent of this list
and caries a large no of equipment/apparatus, which
are not relevant for teacher training institutions and are
apparently the copies of the stock register of a school
science departments. The entry in the stock register
dates back to the 2004, 2005 and 2006,which is before
the
institution
made
the
application
for
recognition.Tthis needs to be seen in the context of the
observation of the inspection team that no science lab
is available and only limited material of science lab at
school only is available”. This needs to be further
seen in the context of the observation of the visiting
team, ‘the institution has got the inspection done by
the building constructed for the existing public school.
A perusalof the photograph submitted by the
institution further establishes that the institution has no
Science and Maths Education Resources Centre. The
photographs
clearly
shows
that
the
equipment/apparition (not in adequate number) has
been kept on removable table covered by a table cloth
with no permanent fixture, experimental table with
associated water arrangement, sink, drainage etc.
Moreover, the so prepared lab,for inspection does not
have a proper storage capacity to keep equipments,
apparatuses and consumables.
(ii) The institution claims that it has a well equipment
Psychology lab with required test and apparatus. The
photograph of the lab submitted by the institution
shows display of certain Psychological tests on
wooden stools put together, and covered with white
cloth. It is contrary to the claim of the institution,
which have not provided even proper tables and
chairs/stool to work in the Psychology Lab.
(iii) Similarly the claim of the institution that it has a
Educational technology Lab and Language Lab
equipment has not been substantiated through
documents. The list of equipment submitted by the
institution shows availability of only 4 computers,
which is not adequate. The photograph shows that the
institution is not having proper computer Labs and
matching chairs. The temporary tables arranged for
photograph shows that the tables are at a higher level
and plastic chairs one at comparatively lower level
making the computer totally non- functional. No
language lab have been developed and no list of
equipment for this lab has been given , despite the
claim in the covering letter.
The photograph
submitted also does not display any language learning
equipment and associated Software, CD etc. for this
purpose.
(2) The reply of the institution claiming that it has a
well equipped library with are 3000 books and
journals and other library materials is not sustainable
in the context of the observation of the visiting team
that ‘few number of books were recently purchased
and not even packets were open; no accession was
carried out.
(3) The hurriedly prepared accession register, copies
of which has been submitted indicates the date
accession of all books on 05.10.2007, whereas the VT
observed on 07.10.2007 that there was no accession
register. The accession register submitted with details
availability of only 425 books, as the required 1000
books on education in a library of teacher training
institution. A good number book, out of these 425
books are not related to the discipline of education and
are fiction/novels. The photographs of the library also
clearly shows that it has no appropriate seating
arrangement. The temporary tables with cloth cover
and plastic chairs are not part of the library, moreover
they provide seating for only 15 students. The
institution, library has no photocopier, and computer
with internet facility, as required under NCTE Norms.
(4) The institution in its reply has not given any
documentary evidence that it is not running a school in
the building which was got reported by the V.T. Team.
The affidavit of the institution that it is not running
any institution and only run the proposed teacher
training institution in the building cannot be accepted,
on its face value and in the context of the observations
of the Visiting team
(5) The Appellate Committee while considering the
appeal of the institution and in its order dated
13.08.2008 inter-alia observed that the institution had
only 8000 Sq. Ft. of area available, which is much
less than the prescribed norms has been looked into
afresh. It is noted from the building plan submitted by
the institution that it does not mention any details of
built up space and the details of the land where the
proposed building was built. The map submitted
relates to existing school building with the name
Anand public Senior Secondary School. Which
contradicts the claim of the institution submitted with
an affidavit that it has over 1500 Sq. Meter of built up
area.
The VT in this regard observed that the
institution is to start in rented building in which
construction is going on . The vailability of total 800
Sq. Ft. area was mentioned by the institution in its
original application. As such, the institution failed to
clearly establish that it has adequate build up space as
per NCTE Norms.
As such the institution be issued a show cause
notice, under section 14 (3) (b) of the NCTE before
recognition to the proposed B.ED course is refused.
The reply of the institution may be referred to the
Appellate Authority for further consideration , in
view of the order of the Hon’ble cour, which is in
the context of the orders of the Appellate
Authority. The final decision may be conveyed to
the institution after it is seen/endorsed by the
appellate Authority.