The Supreme Court Tuesday asked the member secretary of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to explain action taken against an official who illegally granted recognition to private colleges in Madhya Pradesh.
The court asked the member secretary to appear in person and give details of steps taken against the regional director, western regional committee, NCTE, for granting recognition to private colleges offering B.Ed courses in Madhya Pradesh in breach of the NCTE Act, 1993.
‘Enough is enough. There is wholesale breach of the (NCTE) Act,’ the court said.
The NCTE is a regulator for teacher education system in the country.
The member secretary has also been asked to explain how the regional director, WRC, was sending suo moto communication to state authorities granting recognition to these institutions.
The suo moto communication was sent without issuance of formal recognition letter under sections of the NCTE Act that deal with the recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education.
The bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly told NCTE counsel that the member secretary should come with all the records and be prepared to address all the queries of the court.
The court said the member secretary should not try to duck its queries by taking cover of lame excuses. At one stage, the court indicated that it might call the NCTE chairman.
The court’s directions came during the hearing of petitions filed by private colleges.
The colleges are seeking directions to seven universities in the state to declare the results of students who were provisionally admitted by them during the academic year 2007-08.
The colleges were represented by senior counsel P.S. Patwalia and Jasbir Malik.
The court asked counsel B.S. Banthia as to what action the state government had taken or if ‘the state was also a part of the entire melodrama’.
The court wanted the government to answer when did it come to know about these irregularities and ‘why did it not take action’.
‘Why (State) government was silent. It all started in 2005,’ the court asked.
The court made it clear that the ‘officers (of the state) are guilty of disobeying the orders of this court’. The hearing will resume Wednesday.
