Latest news with #PerformanceAppraisalReports
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC stays derecognition of 660 out of 2,962 teacher training institutes by NCTE
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court ordered a stay on the derecognition of 660 Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs), out of the 2,962 derecognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for failing to submit online Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs) for 2021–22 and 2022–23. After issuing show-cause notices, the NCTE derecognised 2,962 non-compliant institutions in April and May. (File Photo) The court's order allows these institutions to participate in counselling and admit students for the 2025–26 academic session, the NCTE said in notices—containing the names of the institutes—issued between July 23 and August 1. NCTE had set a final deadline of December 30, 2024, for Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) submissions after two extensions, requiring institutions to provide faculty details, financial statements, and geo-tagged documents. In February 2025, it formed a five-member panel headed by Harish Chandra Singh Rathore of the NCTE's northern regional committee to recommend action against defaulters. After issuing show-cause notices, the NCTE derecognised 2,962 non-compliant institutions in April and May. Rathore declined to comment on the development. India's TEIs are grouped into four regions. The highest number of derecognitions were in the northern region (1,225), followed by the southern (960), western (748), and eastern (29) regions. Among the 660 TEIs that have secured an interim stay on derecognition, the maximum—467—are from the Northern region, followed by 115 in the Western region, 71 in the Southern region, and 7 in the eastern region. '...the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while staying the operation of the impugned withdrawal orders till the next date of hearing, has also permitted the Petitioner institutions to participate in counselling and admit students for the academic session 2025–2026,' the NCTE said in its notices. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for the third week of August 2025. The court, in its order on July 14, had asked the NCTE to issue public notices and upload the list of institutions on its website whose derecognition order has been stayed and which are permitted to admit students in the academic session 2025–26. NCTE officials refused to comment on the development, stating that the 'matter is sub judice.' As per the latest data available on the NCTE website, India has a total of 20,454 recognised TEIs, with the highest concentration in the northern region (8,120 TEIs), followed by the western region (4,928), southern region (4,757), and eastern region (2,649).
Hindustan Times
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
NCTE derecognises oved 2,962 teacher education institutions
New Delhi: The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has derecognised 2,962 Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) across the country for failing to submit their Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs) online for 2021-22 and 2022-23 despite show-cause notices issued to them in March and April. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) (File Photo) These institutions will be unable to admit new students for the upcoming academic session 2025-26. However, students admitted up to the academic session 2024-2025 will be allowed to complete their programme. NCTE, the statutory body responsible for maintaining norms and standards in the teacher education system, mandated submission of PAR in September 2019 to ensure that recognised institutions comply with NCTE norms, standards, and guidelines. As part of the PAR submission process, colleges have to provide various documents to the council, including faculty details with qualification records, institutes' financial statements, and geo-tagged pictures and documents. NCTE had set December 30, 2024, as the final deadline for submitting PARs after granting a two-time extension. In February 2025, the commission formed a five-member expert committee, chaired by Harish Chandra Singh Rathore of the NCTE's Northern Regional Committee, to recommend actions against non-compliant institutions. In March and April 2025, NCTE issued show-cause notices to institutions that failed to submit PARs for 2021-22 and 2022-23. Subsequently, in April and May 2025, NCTE notified defaulter institutions of recognition withdrawal due to their failure to respond to the notices. 'These colleges did not submit their PARs despite being given a two-times extension and did not reply to show-cause notices. If we find that more TEIs are violating our rules and regulations, we will also take actions against them in the future. We want to ensure quality of education in TEIs in line with National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 provisions,' Rathore told HT. According to the notices issued to non-compliant institutions, the recognitions granted to these institutes have been withdrawn under Section 17 of NCTE Act, 1993 with effect from the academic session 2025-2026. Under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, a regional committee can withdraw recognition from a teacher education institution for violating the Act or its rules, leading to course discontinuation, canceled affiliations, invalid qualifications for employment, and a ban on admitting students without recognition. India's TEIs are grouped into four regions. According to the data available on NCTE website, with the Northern region having the highest number of derecognised TEIs at 1,225 (41.36% of the total 2,962), followed by the Southern region with 960 (32.41%), the Western region with 748 (25.25%), and the Eastern region with the lowest at 29 (0.98%). Uttar Pradesh dominates the Northern region with 1,059 derecognised TEIs, accounting for 86% of the region's total and over 37% nationally. In the Southern region, Tamil Nadu (361) and Karnataka (224) lead in derecognitions. Maharashtra, with 571 derecognized TEIs, overshadows other Western region states like Gujarat and Rajasthan (63 each). West Bengal leads the Eastern region with 18 derecognised TEIs. Rakesh Mani Tripathi, principal of derecognised Dr Ram Prasanna Maniram Singh Mahavidyalaya, Ayodhya said, 'We have been running the Bachelor of Education (BEd) course since 2002. This is the first time that our college has been recognised by NCTE. We could not fill PAR on time. We are discussing with our academic staff on ways to appeal the NCTE order.' Shad Khan, manager of Choudhary Bashir Khan Mahavidyalaya, Meerut said, 'We have been running BEd course since 2016-17 but NCTE has derecognised our college this year. The management committee of the college is deliberating on the future course of action to appeal against the NCTE order.' According to NCTE, if the institution is not satisfied with this order, it may prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 through online mode available on NCTE website within 60 days of the notice date. The section deals with appeals against NCTE orders and allows any aggrieved person to prefer an appeal to the council within a prescribed time limit. 'The aggrieved persons of derecognised TEIs can present their documents in front of the appeal committee functioning under various regional committees of NCTE. The appeal committee will review their documents and take decisions accordingly,' Rathore said. As per the latest data available on NCTE website, India has a total of 20,454 recognised TEIs, with the highest concentration in the Northern Region (8,120 TEIs), followed by the Western Region (4,928), Southern Region (4,757), and Eastern Region (2,649).
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court strikes down Madhya Pradesh order on forest officers' performance appraisal
Supreme Court BHOPAL: The Supreme Court of India has struck down a Madhya Pradesh government order dated 29 June 2024 regarding the Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers. The Court ruled that the order violated established judicial precedents and the autonomy of the Forest Department under the All-India Services framework. The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh government's directive, which required Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers such as District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners to provide inputs into the appraisal of IFS officers, was illegal. The bench, comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, stated that this practice undermines both administrative propriety and judicial authority. The Court reiterated that performance evaluations of IFS officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (APCCF) must be conducted solely by their immediate superiors within the Forest Department, as per earlier Court rulings. Delivering the judgment in a set of applications filed under the long-running T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, the Court noted that the Madhya Pradesh order blatantly disregarded its own directions passed in 2000 and reiterated in 2004. These directions, further clarified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), have been consistently followed by all other Indian states — with Madhya Pradesh standing out as the lone violator. The judgment pointedly declared that allowing officers from a different service — particularly those of equal or lower rank — to assess IFS officers was not just procedurally flawed but also contemptuous in nature. 'We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned G.O. is rather contemptuous in nature... issued without even seeking clarification or modification of this Court's orders,' the bench stated. It noted that such orders ignored long-established principles of public administration that require performance reviews to be conducted by officers with real supervisory engagement and departmental familiarity. The Court conducted an exhaustive analysis of the legal framework governing All India Services, including the All-India Services Act, 1951, and the Confidential Rolls and Performance Appraisal Rules of 1970 and 2007 respectively. It emphasised that these laws and associated judicial interpretations mandate that the reporting, reviewing, and accepting authorities for IFS officers must be individuals of higher rank within the same service — ensuring both accountability and subject-matter understanding. Revisiting the 2000 Santosh Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh ruling, the court reaffirmed that officers such as the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Divisional Forest Officer, Conservator of Forests, Chief Conservator, and APCCF must be appraised strictly within the Forest hierarchy — with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) being the only exception, as there is no higher-ranking IFS officer above them. Even in such cases, the reporting authority must be someone familiar with the officer's work and higher in rank. Further strengthening its position, the bench cited landmark rulings such as State of Haryana Vs P C Wadhwa and State of Assam Vs Binod Kumar, which reinforced the requirement that reporting authorities must be from within the same department and of higher rank. These principles, the Court said, remain valid despite changes in rules and are fundamental to a fair and objective appraisal system. The judgment also acknowledged that while IAS officers may oversee certain development schemes — such as MGNREGA, land acquisition, and tourism projects — forest officers remain primarily responsible for conservation, enforcement of environmental law, and forestry operations. Accordingly, inputs from District Collectors or Divisional Commissioners, if any, may be submitted on a separate sheet and considered as supplementary remarks — but cannot form the basis of the formal PAR process. The Court issued clear directives: the impugned 29 June 2024 government order was quashed, and the state was directed to reframe its rules within one month in strict compliance with the 2000 judgment and clarifications issued by MoEF and DoPT. While the court observed that the state's actions were close to contempt, it refrained from initiating proceedings due to the fair conduct of the State's legal representatives. Forest officers have welcomed the ruling, seeing it as a vital affirmation of institutional independence and professionalism in environmental governance.
