Mirambika Crisis – How the SAES Plan for the Engineering College came much before the imaginary DDA threat?

KIND ATTENTION: Parents Supporting SAES and others or staying neutral, ​here are some crucial contradictory points ​submitted by SAES in its reply ​to the petition filed by the 9 petitioner parents ​​before​ the Delhi ​High Court​:

  1. Nov-Dec 2014 – ​Discussions were held to expand ​Mirambika Research Centre and to have a College and a School.
  1.  19th January 2015 – The decision to have degree/diploma courses was ratified in the SAES Executive Council meeting.
  1.  19th February 2015 – ​Applications for ​No objection Certificate (NOC) were submitted  to ​the ​Delhi ​Govt for B.​ Ed , M​. Ed, B. Com and B. Tech courses.

    The B. Tech NOC application was ​filed as a ​part of the application process to AICTE.  According to AICTE guidelines, no other non technical courses c​an ​run alongside ​the​ B. Tech​ course​. Therefore, ​with this application, the SAES made it certain that the school can no more run in the Mirambika ​Building.

  1.  25th Feb. 2015 –  Final B. Tech course affiliation application was submitted online​ by SAES to AICTE.  ​Therefore, on 19th January​ 2015​ itself, SAES ​knew that the school can​’​t run in the Mirambika ​Building, where it ha​d​ ​been since 1991 because as per AICTE norms (stated clearly in the AICTE ​Handbook and ​Approval ​Letter attached below), ​no​ non technical courses can run alongside a B. Tech course​.

    Thus, ​by SAES’s own deliberate act, legally speaking, ​the school was removed from its ​25 year old ​campus on 19th January ​2015 ​itself.

After the point no. 4​ set​ above, which talks of the event on 25th ​F​eb.,​ 2015,  the SAES​’s​ ​reply adds this ​very crucial point:

  1. After this – The DDA threat was brought to the notice of the Management, by Mr. Ashok Acharya. 

    Thus​, ​the ​​non existent ​cause ​of DDA threat ​to ​justify an act that had already ​been committed by the SAES ​was ​fraudulently ​presented​ by SAES​ to ​the parents some time in March 2015 and to deliberately confuse the matter help of the protesting parents was sought to obtain clarification from the DDA​.

Please ​see the ​following ​for further clarity​:

​Relevant part of ​SAES​’s​ reply ​before the Delhi High Court

​Relevant part of ​SAES​'s​ reply ​before the Delhi High Court

unnamed-2

The Requirement of NOC from ​the ​Delhi Government as per ​the ​AICTE Approval Handbook 2015-16
attachment 2

AICTE norm stating no other non technical courses can run in the same premises

unnamed

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s