Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (Civil) NO. 853 OF 2014

VARUN SAINI & ORS. ... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA  UNIVERSITY ...  RESPONDENT

WITH

WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 854/2014

WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 855/2014

WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 857/2014

WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 883/2014

WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 867/2014

WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 884/2014

J U D G M E N T  

Dipak Misra, J

Education is the spine of  any civilised society.  Formal

Page 2

education  has  its  own  significance,  for  it  depends  upon  

systemic imparting of learning regard being had to the syllabus  

prescribed  for  the  course  and  further  allowing  space  for  

cultivation  by  individual  endeavour.    The  sacrosanctity  of  

formal education gains more importance in the field of technical  

studies because theory, practical training and application in the  

field cumulatively operate to make a student an asset to the  

country and,  in a way,  enables him to achieve excellence as  

contemplated  under  Article  51A  of  the  Constitution.   The  

natural corollary, in the ultimate eventuate, is the acceleration  

of  the growth of  the nation.   But,  a  pregnant  one,  when an  

attitude of  apathy or  lackadaisical  propensity  or  proclivity  of  

procrastination  of  the  statutory  authorities  creeps  in  as  a  

consequence of which the time schedule meant for approval of  

the educational institutions and commencement of the courses  

is  not  adhered  to,  a  feeling  of  devouring  darkness  seems to  

reign supreme as if  “things fall  apart”.   There is  a feeling of  

discomfiture  -  how  to  find  out  a  solvation  to  the  agonizing  

problem in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the  

Constitution of India, for there are some compelling reasons to  

2

Page 3

do so to protect the national interest as well as not to scuttle  

the aspirations of young students or to comatose their hopes  

stating that  all  cannot be well  in  the  State  of  Denmark and  

there  should  not  be  a  Sisyphean  endeavour.   We  are  

constrained to commence with such a prologue as the present  

batch of writ petitions pertains to counselling and admission in  

certain categories of courses which are approved and controlled  

from many a spectrum regard being had to the sustenance of  

standard in education by the All  India Council  for  Technical  

Education (for  brevity,  “AICTE”),  and also  some categories  of  

courses  which  are  directly  governed  by  the  statutes  and  

regulations  of  the  University,  namely,  Guru  Gobind  Singh  

Indraprastha  University  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  

University”) in the backdrop of extension of time schedule fixed  

by this Court in respect of technical courses.

2. The controversy involved in this batch of cases has a  

past, which requires to be exposited with requisite respect for  

chronology.  We have already indicated at the beginning that in  

all  these  cases,  we  are  concerned  with  the  adherence  to  

schedule  pertaining  to  approval  by  AICTE,  counselling  and  

3

Page 4

admission by the authorities of the University.  That being the  

centripodal issue, our advertence shall remain restricted to the  

said  arena.   At  this  juncture,  we  may  state  that  at  the  

appropriate stage, we shall refer to some necessitous facts from  

W.P.(C) No. 853/2014.

3. We  are  obligated  to  sit  in  a  time  machine  to  

appreciate how the schedule was fixed by the AICTE under the  

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for brevity,  

“the 1987 Act) and the Regulations framed thereunder and how  

the  said  schedule  was  appositely  re-fixed  by  this  Court  in  

Parshvanath  Charitable  Trust  Vs.  All  India  Council  for  

Technical  Education1.   In  the  said  decision,  a  two-Judge  

Bench scanning the anatomy of the 1987 Act, observed thus:

“17. The  provisions  of  the  All  India  Council  for  Technical  Education  Act,  1987  (for  short  ‘the  AICTE Act’) are intended to improve the technical  education system throughout the country.  The  various authorities under the AICTE Act have been  given  exclusive  responsibility  to  coordinate  and  determine the standards of higher education. It is a  general  power  given  to evaluate,  harmonise  and  secure  proper  relationship  to  any project  of  national  importance. Such  coordinated  action  in  higher  education  with  proper  standard  is  of  

1 (2013) 3 SCC 385

4

Page 5

paramount importance to the national progress.

18. The provisions of the AICTE Act, including its  Preamble, make it abundantly clear that AICTE has  been established under the Act for coordinated and  integrated development of the technical education  system at all levels throughout the country and is  enjoined to promote qualitative improvement  of  such education  in relation to planned quantitative  growth.  The  AICTE  is  required  to  regulate  and  ensure  proper  maintenance  of  norms  and  standards in technical education system. AICTE is  to  further  evolve  suitable performance  appraisal  system for  technical  institutions  and universities  incorporating norms and mechanisms in enforcing  their  accountability.   It  is  required  to  provide  guidelines for admission of  students and has the  power  to  withhold  or discontinue  grants  to  such  technical institutions where norms and standards  laid down by it and directions given by it from time  to  time  are  not  followed.  The  duty  and  responsibility cast on AICTE implies that the norms  and standards to be set should be such as would  prevent  isolated  development  of education  in  the  country.

19. Section  10  of  the  AICTE  Act  enumerates  various powers and functions of AICTE as also its  duties  and  obligations  to  take steps  towards  fulfilment  of  the  same. One  such  power  as  envisaged in Section 10(k) is to

“grant  approval  for  starting new  technical  institutions and for introduction of new courses  or programmes in consultation with the agencies  concerned”.  

It is important to see that AICTE is empowered to  inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution  

5

Page 6

in clause (p)) of Section 10 without any reservation  whatsoever. However,  when  it  comes  to  the  question of universities, it is confined and limited to  ascertaining the financial needs or its standards of  teaching, examination and research. The inspection  may  be  made  or  caused  to  be  made  of  any  department or departments only and that  too,  in  such manner as may be prescribed, as envisaged in  Section 11 of the AICTE Act.

20. All these vitally important aspects go to show  that the Council (AICTE) created under the AICTE  Act  is  not  intended  to be  an  authority  either  superior  to  or  to  supervise  and  control the  universities  and  thereby  superimpose  itself  upon  such universities merely for  the reason that they  are  imparting teaching  in  technical  education  or  programmes in any of their departments or units. A  careful scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act  and the provisions of the University Grants  Commission Act, 1956 in juxtaposition, will show  that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the universities is  only advisory, recommendatory  and  one  of  providing guidance, thereby subserving the cause  of  maintaining  appropriate  standards  and  qualitative  norms  and  not  as  an  authority  empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by  itself. Reference can be made to the judgments of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Adarsh  Shiksha  Mahavidyalaya  v.  Subhash  Rahangdale [(2012)  2  SCC  425], State  of  Tamil  Nadu  v.  Adhiyaman  Educational  &  Research Institute [(1995)  4  SCC  104]  and  Bharathidasan  University  v.  All India  Council for Technical Education [(2001) 8 SCC 676].”

4. The  Court  referred  to  various  other  facets  and  

adverted to All India Council For Technical Education (Grant of  

6

Page 7

Approval for Starting New Technical Institutions, Introduction  

of Courses or Programmes and Approval of Intake Capacity of  

Seats for the Courses or Programmes) Regulations, 1994 and  

noted the Schedule to said Regulations which read as under:-

Sl.  No.

Stage of processing application Last  date  by  which  the  processing  should  be  completed.  

(1) (2) (3) 1. For  receiving  proposals  by  

Bureau RC 31st  December

2. For  Bureau  RC  to  screen  the  application and (a) to return the  incomplete  applications  to  the  applicants,  and  (b)  to  forward  the  applications  to  (i)  State  Government  concerned  (ii)  University  or  State  Board  concerned,  for  their  comments  (iii)  Regional  Officer  to  arrange  visits  by  Expert  Committees,  and  (iv)  Bureaus  MPCD,  BOS  and RA for their comments

3. For  receiving  the  comments  from  (I)  the  State  Government  (ii)  the  University  or  the  State  Board,  and  (iii)  the  Regional  committee based on the Expert  Committee's  report,  and  (iv)  

15th March

7

Page 8

from the  Bureaus  MPCD,  BOS  and RA

4. For  consideration  of  the  comments  from  the  State  Governments,  Universities  or  State  Boards,  Regional  Committees, and Bureaus of the  Council  by  the  State  level  Committee

31st March

5. For  recommendations  to  be  made by the Central Task Force

15th April

6. For  communicating  the  final  decision  to  the  State  Government  or  the  University  Grants  Commission,  under  intimation  to  the  Regional  Office,  Director  of  Technical  Education, applicant, University  or State Board

30th April

5. After reproducing the schedule, the Court ruled that  

adherence to the same is mandatory and not directory, for non-

adherence of the schedule can result in serious consequences  

and can jeopardise not only the interest of the college students  

but  also  the  maintenance  of  proper  standards  of  technical  

education.  It further observed that the authorities concerned,  

particularly  AICTE  should  ensure  proper  and  timely  action  

upon the application submitted to it and it must respond to the  

applicant within a reasonable time period and should not allow  

8

Page 9

the  matter  to  be  dragged  till  the  final  date  giving  rise  to  

avoidable peculiarities by all stakeholders.  After so stating, the  

Court  also took note  of  the act that  there seem to be some  

variation in the schedule  issued under Regulation 8(15)  and  

the duties reflected in the Handbook.  After noticing that, the  

two-Judge Bench opined that the admission schedule should  

be declared once and for  all  rather  than making it  a  yearly  

declaration.   Emphasis  was  laid  on  the  consistency  and  

smoothness in admission process.  It has also been stated that  

there  has  to  be  a  fixed  and  unaltered  time  schedule  for  

admission  to  the  colleges  so  that  the  students  know  with  

certainty and well in advance the admission schedule that is to  

be followed and on the basis of which they can exercise their  

choice relating to college or the course.  The Court referred to  

the schedule that was submitted before it for admission for the  

academic  year  2013-2014.  Eventually,  the  Court  fixed  an  

appropriate schedule which is as follows:

“The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as follows:

9

Page 10

Event Schedule Conduct  of  entrance  examination  (AIEEE/State  CET/Management  quota  exams, etc.)

In the month of May

Declaration  of  result  of  qualifying  examination  (12th exam  or  similar)  and  entrance  examination

On or before 5th June

1st round of counselling/  admission  for  allotment  of seats

To be completed on or  before 30th July

2nd round of  counselling  for allotment of seats

To be completed on or  before 10th July

Last round of counselling  for allotment of seats

To be completed on or  before 20th July

Last  date  for  admitting  candidates in seats other  than allotted above

30th July However,  any  number  of  rounds  for  counselling  could  be  conducted  depending  on local  requirements,  but  all  the  rounds  shall  be  completed  before 30th July

Commencement  of  academic session

1st August

Last  date  up  to  which  students  can  be  admitted  against  vacancies arising due to  any  reason  (no  student  should  be  admitted  in  any  institution after  the  

15th August

10

Page 11

last  date  under  any  quota) Last  date  of  granting  or  refusing  approval  by  AICTE

10th April

Last  date  of  granting  or  refusing  approval  by  University/State  Government

15th May

6. After  fixing  the  schedule,  the  Court  thought  it  

appropriate to rule that:

“42. The  admission to  academic  courses  should  start, as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant  year.  The seats remaining vacant should again be  duly notified and advertised. All  seats should be  filled positively by 15th August after which there  shall be no admission, whatever be the reason or  ground.  

43. We  find  that  the  above  Schedule  is  in  conformity  with  the affiliation/recognition  schedule  aforenoticed.  They  both  can  co-exist.  Thus,  we  approve  these  admission  dates  and  declare  it  to be  the  law  which  shall  be  strictly  adhered  to  by  all  concerned and  none  of  the  authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction to  vary  these  dates  of  admission.  Certainty  in  this  field is bound to serve the ends of fair, transparent  and judicious method of grant of  admission and  commencement  of  the  technical courses.  Any  variation  is  bound  to  adversely  affect  the  maintenance of higher standards of education and  systemic and proper completion of courses.”

11

Page 12

7. At this stage, it  is seemly to refer to a subsequent  

decision in Association of Management of Private Colleges  

Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others2.  

In  the  said  decision,  certain  educational  institutions,  being  

aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court of Judicature  

of Madras, had approached this Court on the foundation that  

the High Court had erroneously interpreted the 1987 Act, for  

the High Court had opined that the University is not required  

to take permission from AICTE, but its affiliated colleges are  

required to do so.  The High Court has further ruled that the  

appellant  colleges  therein  should  get  their  course  of  MCA  

ratified by AICTE as per the prescribed format, which according  

to the appellants, was in contravention of the settled principles  

of  interpretation  of  statutes  as  stated  in  Bharathidasan  

University V. All India Council for Technical Education3.  

The  two-Judge  Bench  referred  to  Parshvanath  Charitable  

Trust(supra),  T.M. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka4,  

the definition of 'technical education' and 'technical institution'  

in the dictionary clause of  the Act  and certain provisions of  2 (2013) 8 SCC 271 3 (2001) 8 SCC 676 4 (2002) 8 SCC 481

12

Page 13

University  Grants  Commission  Act,  1956,  the  Regulations  

framed under the said Act and came to hold as follows:

“52. .......the AICTE Act does not intend to be  an  authority  either  superior  or  to  supervise  or  control the universities and thereby superimpose  itself  upon  the  said  universities  merely  for  the  reason  that  it  is  laying  down  certain  teaching  standards in technical education or programmes  formulated in any of the department or units. It is  evident  that  while  enacting  the  AICTE  Act,  Parliament was fully alive to the existence of the  provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 particularly, the  said  provisions  extracted  above.  Therefore,  the  definition of “technical institution” in Section 2(h)  of the AICTE Act which authorizes  AICTE to do  certain things, special care has consciously and  deliberately been taken to make specific mention  of  university,  wherever  and  whenever   AICTE  alone was expected to interact with a university  and  its  departments  as  well  as  constituent  institutions and units. It was held after analyzing  the  provision of  Sections 10,  11  and 12  of  the  AICTE  Act  that  the  role  of  the  inspection  conferred upon the AICTE vis-a-vis universities is  limited  to  the  purpose  of  ensuring  proper  maintenance  of  norms  and  standards  in  the  technical  education system so as to  conform to  the standard laid down by it with no further or  direct control over such universities or scope for  any direct action except bringing it to the notice of  UGC.  In  that  background,  this  Court  in  Bharathidasan University case made it very clear  by making the observation that it has examined  the  scope  of  the  enactment  as  to  whether  the  AICTE Act prevails over the UGC Act or the fact of  competent entries fall in Entry 66 List I vis-a-vis  

13

Page 14

Entry  25  of  List  III  of  the  VII  Schedule  of  the  Constitution.

53.    A  cumulative  reading  of  the  aforesaid  paragraphs  of  Bharathidasan  University  case  which are extracted above makes it very clear that  this Court has exempted universities, its colleges,  constituent  institutions  and  units  from seeking  prior approval from AICTE. Also, from the reading  of  paragraphs  19  and  20  of  Parashvanath  Chartitable Trust case it is made clear after careful  scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act and  the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 that  the  role  of  AICTE  vis-a-vis  universities  is  only  advisory,  recommendatory  and  one  of  providing  guidance and has no authority empowering it to  issue or enforce any sanctions by itself.”

8. After  the  aforesaid  judgment  was  delivered,  a  writ  

petition  No.  895/2013  was  filed  which  was  taken  up  on  

24.3.2014 wherein the Court passed the following order:

 “Rule nisi.

       Having regard to the important issue involved  in  the  Writ  Petition,  we  think  that  it  will  be  appropriate  if  the  matter  is  heard by  a  Bench of  three Judges.

       The matter may be listed accordingly within  six months from today.”

9. In SLP(C) No. 7277/2014, on 17.4.2014, the  

following order came to be passed:

14

Page 15

      “In  the  counter  affidavit  filed  on behalf  of  respondent No.1, i.e., All India Council for Technical  Education (AICTE), it is stated that Approval Process  Handbook (2013-14)  is  presently  in  force  and the  same has been extended and made applicable  for  the Academic Year 2014-15 as well.  

     AICTE shall now proceed in accordance with the  Approval Process Handbook for the Academic Year  2014-15 insofar  as  the  members  of  the  petitioner  Association and all colleges and institutions situated  similarly  to  the  members  of  the  petitioner  Association  are  concerned  and  necessary  orders  shall be issued by AICTE within ten days.  

     Prayer for interim relief is ordered accordingly.”

10. In SLP(C) No. 7277/14, IA No. 2-3/2014 were filed.  

In the said applications, on 09.05.2014, a four-Judge bench,  

passed the following order:

       “The order dated 17.4.2014 passed by this  Court  is  clarified  and  it  is  directed  that  prior  approval  of  All  India  Council  for  Technical  Education (AICTE) is compulsory and mandatory for  conduct  of  a  technical  course  including  the  MBA/Management  course  by  an existing  affiliated  Technical  College  and  also  new  Technical  College  which  will  require  affiliation  by  a  University  for  conduct  of  its  Technical  Courses/Programmes  for  the academic year 2014-15.

      The time given in the order dated 17.4.2014 is  extended by 10.6.2014.

15

Page 16

     IA Nos. 2 & 3 of 2014 stand disposed of as above.”

11. Thereafter, a bunch of writ petitions and I.A. No.6 in  

SLP(C) No. 7277/2014 were filed.  The Court referred to the  

schedule in Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra) and taking  

note of the stand of the AICTE, directed as follows:

      “In the application, the AICTE has averred that  it  has  received  7280  applications  from  existing  technical institutions in the country, of which 6751  applications have  been processed already and the  remaining  529  applications  are  pending  consideration  as  on  4th  June,  2014.  Since  the  exercise  was  of  this  magnitude,  all  applications  could  not  be  processed  so  as  to  comprehensively  respond to the directions of this Court, reproduced  above.  Mr.  L.  Nageswara  Rao,  learned  Additional  Solicitor General, states that if time is extended by  one week, all the remaining applications shall also  be  processed  by  AICTE.  The  prayer  in  the  Writ  Petitions is substantially the same since the stand of  the AICTE is that although, after due consideration,  EOA for  Academic  year  2014-15 is  recommended,  because  of  the  deadline  given  by  this  Court,  the  approval cannot be granted.

      There can be no gainsaying that every eligible  student/  candidate  desirous  of  participating  in  further  education,  especially  where  resources  and  institutions are available, should be accommodated  so long as academic standards are not undermined.

     We are satisfied that if the respondent - AICTE  is granted seven more days within which to decide  

16

Page 17

all  pending applications,  these overriding interests  shall  be  addressed.   It  is  in  these  circumstances  that  we  modify  previous  orders  in  the  following  manner:

       The AICTE is granted seven days within which  to take a decision on all  the applications pending  before it.  It  shall  first  take up the applications in  which it has already expressed willingness to grant  approvals, but have not done so in deference of the  Orders  of  this  Court.   Thereafter,  the  concerned  Universities/State  Authorities/Bodies  which  have  the  powers  of  granting  affiliation  shall  take  a  decision on that subject within one week.  It is for  these  reasons  that  the  first  round  of  counselling/admission for allotment of seats which  was to be completed by 30th June, 2014 will now be  completed by 15th July, 2014.  The second round of  counselling shall  be completed by 22nd July,  2014  and the last round of counselling shall be completed  by  29th July,  2014.   In  this  manner,  the  date  of  commencement  of  the  Academic  Session,  as  laid  down by this Court above, shall not be disturbed.  

     It is made clear that all the Colleges who have  been cleared for intake of students for the Academic  Year 2014-2015, as envisaged in the process above,  shall  be  cleared  and  considered  for  admitting  students  for  the  current  Academic  Year.  Learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioners  in  some  of  the  Writ  Petitions  apprehends  that  the  respondents may adhere to Annexure P-7. We think  that that would not be appropriate in view of  the  orders contained herein.”

12. In  spite  of  the  aforesaid  order,  the  grievance,  as  

submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for  

17

Page 18

Union of India appearing on behalf of AICTE as well as for the  

University still subsisted.  In SLP(C) No. 21901/2014, a two-

Judge Bench, appreciating the core  fact that the concerned  

institution had been granted approval way back in 2011 and  

struggling to commence the first academic session, directed as  

follows:-

“...We find it appropriate to direct the respondents  to allow the petitioner to commence the academic  session within one week from today by adhering to  the  different  steps  laid  down by this  Court.   The  counselling shall be conducted on the basis of the  merit  list  prepared  by  the  concerned  competent  authority, for which a Notification shall positively be  issued by tomorrow i.e. 14.08.2014.  The students  who  have  already  been  admitted  to  other  institutions,  will  not  have  the  option  to  seek  admission in the petitioner-institution.

     The  counselling  process,  in  terms  of  the  directions issued by this Court shall be completed  by  19.08.2014,  and  the  admissions  shall  be  finalised under all circumstances by 20.08.2014.”

13. Further  substantiating  the  reason,  the  Court  

observed:

       “The reason for us to extend the schedule  expressed  by  this  Court  in  its  earlier  orders,  is  based on the fact, that the institution in question  i.e. the petitioner before this Court had assailed the  action of the Anna University before the High Court  

18

Page 19

by filing a writ petition as far back in 2013.  It is  only because,  the judicial  process extended up to  21.07.2014 (when the impugned order was passed)  that the deadlines have been crossed.  The last date  for  finalising admissions has yet not crossed. The  denial  of  commencement  of  the  academic  session  would  cause  extensive  financial  loss  to  the  petitioner,  despite  the  fulfilment  of  all  essential  norms.  It is in these peculiar circumstances that  the instant order has been passed.”

14. As the chronology of events would further uncurtain  

IA No. 46/2014 was filed in  Parshvanath Charitable Trust  

(supra) for  extension of  time and the  Court,  on 11.08.2014,  

while  dealing  with  the  Schedule  in  respect  of  the  State  of  

Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, directed as follows:

      “Having heard the learned counsel for the  parties and taking into consideration the fact that  State of  Telangana has been created recently on  2.6.2014 and  both  the  States  i.e.  newly  created  State  of  Telangana  and  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh may face some difficulty to complete the  admission process within the time stipulated.   

    We  allow  the  prayer.   Both  the  States  of  Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and the competent  authorities  will  complete  the  counselling  and  admission  in  engineering  colleges  and  other  institutions  by  31st August,  2014  in  accordance  with law.  The extension of time will be applicable  to the State of Andhra Pradesh and newly created  State of Telangana and not the other State.”

19

Page 20

15. Be  it  noted,  IA  Nos.  50-56/2014  were  filed  in  

Parshvanath Charitable  Trust  (supra) case  and  the  Court  

adverting to the earlier table and the table submitted by the  

AICTE, issued the following directions:

“Earlier when the matter was taken up by this court  on 19th August,  2014 in I.A.  No.  50,51 & 52,  the  following order was passed:

       “The  petitioners  may  file  an  additional  affidavit  enclosing  a  chart  showing the date they intend to (i)  get  counselling  of  students,  (ii)  admit  the  students,(iii)  start  the  course,  (iv)  number of classes to be attended as per  law (iv)the day when the course will be  completed  as  per  the  norms,  (v)  the  month  in  which  admit  card  will  be  issued and (vi) the examination schedule  to commence.

    Post the matter on 25th August,  2014.”

      The aforesaid order was passed with a view to  know whether the students will suffer if the period of  counselling an admission is extended and whether the  petitioners  will  be  in  a  position  to  complete  the  sessions within time schedule.

      The additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of  the  Applicant  I.A.  NO.  50/2014  showing  therein  details of the existing v Academic Calendar Year 2014- 2015 which reads as follows :

20

Page 21

State  of  academic  session  as  per  Supreme Court

1st of  August  (University  started  their  classes  on  19th  August, 2014

No.  of  Days  considering 5 days a  week – Holidays*

Actual  date  of  start of classes

20th of August 71-06  =  65  teaching  days

Last of teaching 29th of November Issue  of  Admit  Card

1st of  Dec (Admit Card  are issued on line)

Preparation  Leave for Exam

1st Dec – 14th Dec 14 Days

Start  of  Semester  examination

15th of  December,  2014

End  of  Semester  examination  

10th of Jan., 2015

Start  of  second  semester

15th of January, 2015

      The Applicants have now proposed the academic  calendar for admission in their Colleges/Institutions,  without loss of teaching days, making Saturdays as  teaching days :

Start of academic  session  

1st of September No.  of  Days  considering  6  days  a  week – Holidays*

Last  day  of  teaching

29th of November 78-6 = 72 teaching  days

Issue  of  Admit  Card

1st of Dec. (Admit card  are issued on line)

Preparation,  Leave for Exam

1st Dec – 14th Dec 14 Days

Start of Semester  examination

15th of  December,  2014

End  of  Semester  examination  

10th of Jan., 2015

Start  of  second  semester

15th of January, 2015

21

Page 22

     The learned counsel appearing on behalf of other  applicants  and  AICTE  submits  that  there  is  no  objection if the Academic Calendar Year proposed b  the applicant – International Institute of Technology  & Business, Sonepat and others in I.A. No. 50/2014  is allowed. It may be allowed to be applied to other  institutions who have filed similar applications.

     Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,  we direct to implead the applicants as party to C.A.  No.  9048/2012,  extend  the  cut-off  for  counselling  and admission as  fixed by  the  final  judgment  and  order  dated  13th  December,  2012  passed  in  C.A.  NO.9048/2012 by one week i.e. 5th September, 2014  with  clear  understanding  that  they  will  admit  the  students and complete the Session as per the time  schedule shown and recorded above.  

     This  extension  of  time  for  Counselling  and  Admission  shall  be  applicable  to  the  Colleges/Institutions who have filed the applications  for impleading as the parties to the present appeal  and  the  Colleges  and  Institutions  for  whom  permission has been sought by AICTE.”

16. We have referred to the orders passed by this Court  

in a sequential manner only to highlight that for the academic  

year  2014-15  there  was  some  cavil  with  regard  to  the  

jurisdiction of AICTE till the four-Judge Bench by order dated  

9.5.2014 clarified prior approval of AICTE is compulsory and  

mandatory  for  conduct  of  technical  course  including  

22

Page 23

MBA/Management course by exiting affiliated technical college  

and  also  including  technical  college  which  would  require  

affiliation  by  a  university  for  conduct  of  its  technical  

process/programmes  for  the  academic  year  2014-15.   The  

time schedule originally postulated in the Parshvanath case  

was extended regard being had to the special features of each  

case.  

17.  In the case at hand it is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi  

that the university had issued a notification on 28.8.2014 to  

provide  a  fresh  round  of  counselling  (supplementary  

counselling) after 15.8.2014 which was the cut-off date.  The  

said notification issued by the university challenged before the  

High Court of Delhi.  The learned Single Judge issued notice in  

the Writ Petition but did not pass an interim order.  In Intra-

Court Appeal the Division Bench by an order dated 3.9.2014  

gave  liberty  to  the  university  to  go  ahead  with  the  

supplementary counselling for non-AICTE courses/ non-NCTE  

courses and granted liberty to move this court for extension of  

time.  Assailing the aforesaid order Special Leave Petition (C)  

No. 24442 of 2014 was filed and this court on 8.9.2014 passed  

23

Page 24

the following order:-  

“Issue notice.

Ms.  Asha  Jain  Madan,  Advocate  for  the  respondent, on caveat, has entered appearance and  accepts notice.  

We  have  been  apprised,  in  the  course  of  hearing  of  this  petition  for  the  purposes  of  admission,  that  the  University  has  issued  a  notification dated 28.08.2014, which is prior to the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court.  The  said  notification, as submitted by Mr. Sibal, is likely to  affect the schedule fixed by this Court for  AICTE  and other statutory authorities like, NCTE, etc. It is  also urged at the Bar by virtue of this notification  being  worked  out,  the  students  who  have  been  admitted to a particular course, may be dislodged  or  try  their  option  for  other  courses  as  a  consequence of which the educational institutions  would likely to face a hazard. Be that as it may, Mr.  Maninder  Singh,  learned  ASG  shall  explain  the  impact  and  effect  of  the  notification  issued  on  28.08.2014.  

As an ad interim measure, it is directed there  shall  be  stay  of  operation  of  the  order  dated  3.09.2014  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  at  New  Delhi  in  LPA  No.  576/2014  and  the  Notification referred to hereinabove.  

List on 12.09.2014.”

18. When the matter was listed thereafter, a statement  

was made by the counsel appearing for the university that the  

notification dated 28.8.2014 which was the subject matter of  

the writ petition in the High Court was withdrawn.  Taking note  

24

Page 25

of the said submission, the following order came to be passed.  

     “Heard Mr. Maninder Singh learned Additional  Solicitor General appearing for the University. It is  submitted  by  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General that the University has taken a decision to  withdraw  the  Notification  dated  28th  August,  2014.        In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order  passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is  set  aside and the  Writ  Petition © No.5696/2014  pending in the High Court of Delhi, is deemed to  have been disposed of.”        

19. Thereafter  the  present  batch of  writ  petitions  have  

been filed fundamentally for extension of time schedule which  

would  logically  give  rise  to  conducting  of  another  round  of  

counselling.  It is contended in the writ petition that more than  

six  thousand  seats  are  vacant  and  there  are  thousand  of  

students who are qualified in CET and there is no justification  

not to fill up the said seats.  It is asseverated that due to no  

fault of the educational institutions which are self-financed are  

likely to suffer enormous financial loss and the students who  

have cleared the entrance test and are meritorious would lose  

one year.  Be it stated, the notification issued by the university  

covered the following courses:-  

25

Page 26

“(a) B.Tech/M. Tech. (Dual Degree)/B.Tech. CET  Code 31; (b) BBA,CET Code 125 (c) BCA CET Code 114 (d) B. Com., CET Code 146 (e) B.Ed. CET Code 122 (f) BJMC, CET Code 126 (g) BA, LLB/BBA, LL.B. CET Code 121 (h) MBA, CET Code 191 (i) MCA, CET Code 105 (j) LE to B.Tech. CET Code 128 and 129”

20. It is not disputed that courses covered under (a), (h),  

(i) and  (j) are covered by AICTE Regulations.  B.Ed. CET Code  

122 is covered under the NCTE Act  and Regulations framed  

thereunder.  Courses covered under, (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) are  

directly governed by the university statutes and regulations.  In  

the  present  case  we  are  not  dealing  with  the  controversy  

pertaining to the cases under the NCTE Act, 1993.     

21. First,  we  shall  dwell  upon  the  courses  that  are  

regulated  by  the  1987  Act  and  the  1994  Regulations.   It  is  

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely,  

the institutions and the students, that AICTE did not adhere to  

the  schedule  as  far  as  the  counselling  is  concerned and the  

University played possum with the schedule and further created  

a  chaos  by  allowing  the  students  who  had  already  taken  

26

Page 27

admissions  in  certain  institutions  to  participate  in  the  

supplementary counselling which is impermissible on the face of  

the prospectus issued by the university.  Mr. Rohtagi, learned  

Attorney  General  would  submit  that  AICTE,  after  the  

pronouncement of the judgment in  Association Management  

of  Private  Colleges’ case  was  uncertain  of  its  

jurisdiction/authority till  it was conferred the power although  

by an interim order on 9.5.2014 in Orissa Technical Colleges  

Association’s case,  and  that  uncertainty  caused  delay.   We  

have been apprised that the matter is pending before a three-

Judge Bench and the AICTE has proceeded solely on the basis  

of the interim order.  As far as the issuance of the notification in  

respect of ten courses having access to all candidates including  

the  students  who  had  already  taken  admission,  learned  

Attorney General submitted, that such inclusion was contrary  

to the prospectus and also erroneous on many a score.

22. Let it be clearly stated that we appreciate that for the  

academic  year  2014-15,  there  were  certain  unforeseen  

circumstances.  First, a question mark was put on the authority  

of AICTE, (ii) second, there was bifurcation of States of Andhra  

27

Page 28

Pradesh  to  two  states,  namely  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  

State  of  Telengana,  and  (iii)  third,  number  of  seats  had  

remained vacant despite  students having qualified and desirous  

of taking of the courses.  

23. In  our  considered  opinion,  these  are  significant  

special features that have occurred in the academic year 2014-

15.  There are two ways to look at the fact situation.   It can be  

perceived with a myopic attitude or it can be appreciated, regard  

being  had  to  multitudinous  consequences.   We  have  been  

apprised by the learned Attorney General that if time is granted  

for on-line counselling it can commence w.e.f. 20th of October,  

2014 and would be over within two days and thereafter classes  

can start.   He has reproduced a letter dated 11th of  October,  

2014 issued by the Vice-Chancellor how the University would  

carry out the supplementary counselling.  We think it  apt to  

reproduce the same:-  

• “University  would be agreeable  to carry  out  a  supplementary  counselling  for  admissions  for  remaining  vacant  seats  from the  eligible  CET  qualified candidates.

• The  University  has  further  decided  that  only  vacant seats will be filled up from eligible CET  qualified students as per their merits, who have  

28

Page 29

not taken admissions as yet. • The  university  also  agrees  that  no  further  

dislocation will be carried out for any students  who are already admitted in the programmes at  any college/institute.”  

24. Weighing  the  issue  on  the  scales  of  larger  public  

interest in the obtaining factual matrix we are inclined to state  

that the relief sought and the plausible solution offered by the  

University can be accepted as that would subserve the cause of  

justice.    In these courses, the university, as submitted before  

us,  can  keep  the  pace.  The  students  who  would  be  taking  

admissions subject to our order, be put in one section in the  

allotted colleges so that they can attend classes for an extra  

hour.  That apart their holidays shall be curtailed as per the  

directions of the University.  An undertaking to the said effect  

can be taken from the students.  Every student shall have the  

requisite 75% attendance of the original number of classes.  In  

case, there will be any shortage of attendance it shall be sternly  

dealt with.  

25. Be  it  noted,  such  an  agonizing  situation  inviting  

national  waste  could have been avoided had AICTE and the  

29

Page 30

University  would  have  been  more  careful,  cautious  and  

circumspect.  However, to do complete justice, we have issued  

the aforesaid directions.  This is in the larger public interest.  

At  this  juncture  we  may  fruitfully  recapitulate  an  ancient  

saying:-

“Yadapi Sidhham, Loka Virudhham

Na Adaraniyam, Na Karaniyam”

26. As the present fact situation depicts the larger public  

interest and ultimately subserve the cause of justice we extend  

the time for on-line counselling till 20th of October, 2014.

27. At this juncture, we have been apprised by Mr. P.P.  

Rao and Mr. Sundram, learned senior counsel  appearing for  

the petitioners that the problem occurs every year, for despite  

days for counselling are fixed, adequate number of students are  

not called for counselling, as a result of which, many students  

who  have  cleared  the  CET  do  not  get  an  opportunity  to  

undertake the counselling and eventually the admission does  

not take place.   We are absolutely conscious that it is in the  

sphere of university administration.  But when the problem is  

recurrent we command the University to hold counselling in  

30

Page 31

such a manner within the stipulated time in the schedule so  

that all the seats are filled up if there are eligible candidates for  

such counselling.  The University cannot behave like an alien  

to the national interest.  Another aspect which requires to be  

noted  is  that  a  blame  game  has  been  going  on  by  the  

educational institutions on the one hand and the AICTE and  

the University on the other, and on certain occasions between  

the AICTE and the University.  All of them function in the field  

of education.  Such kind of cavil and narrowness is likely to  

create a concavity in the educational  culture of  the country.  

Therefore,  all  concerned  must  remember  that  education  

charters  the  way  where  a  civilized  man  slaughters  his  

prejudices.   Any  education  properly  imparted  is  a  constant  

allurement  to  learn.   It  is  inconceivable  that  the  authorities  

who are  in  charge  of  controlling  the  sphere  of  education to  

behave like errant knights justifying their own fanciful deeds.  

Law  expects  a  rational  perception,  logical  approach  and  a  

studied and well-deliberated decision from all the authorities.  

It is imperative to state, a concerted effort has to be made by  

the AICTE and the University to avoid recurrence of this kind of  

31

Page 32

piquant  and  agonising  situations.   Perceived  from  any  

perspective,  it  does not  augur a healthy situation.   Had the  

AICTE  functioned  within  the  time  frame  in  respect  of  the  

process  the  matter  would  not  have  given  rise  to  such  a  

situation.   Similarly,  had  the  University  conducted  the  

counselling  with  utmost  responsibility  keeping  in  view  the  

number  of  seats  that  were  available  in  the  approved  

institutions and the number of students that have qualified in  

the Common Entrance Test, possibly the gravity of the problem  

would have been less.   

28. In a State  of  good governance,  a problem is  taken  

note of so that appropriate and timely steps are taken to avoid  

any recurrence.   The authorities who are incharge of giving  

approval, preparing syllabus, imparting education and carrying  

on  such  other  activities,  are  required  to  behave  with  

responsibility.   Lack  of  concern  is  only  indicative  of  the  

beginning of destruction.   That cannot be allowed to occur.  

Therefore, we caution the AICTE and the University to see to it  

that things are done on time following the fixed time schedule.  

We ingeminate, at the cost of repetition, that we have extended  

32

Page 33

the time because of the situation that has prevailed this year  

but if due efforts are taken, we are certain that same would not  

be required.  We hasten to clarify the time schedule originally  

fixed in  Parshvanath Charitable Trust case has to be treated  

as the schedule for all coming years.  Any modification that has  

been done, as is manifest from the various orders which we  

have reproduced hereinbefore, including the present judgment,  

have  been  passed  for  the  academic  session  2014-15  in  the  

special  features  of  each  case.   Be  it  stated,  avoidance  of  

unpleasant litigation is a progressive step in a civilised society  

governed by rule of law.  

29. To sum up:

(a)   Time is  extended for  carrying out  the  on-line  

counselling till 21st of October, 2014.

(b)   The students who have already taken admission  

in colleges shall not be permitted to participate in  

the  supplementary  counselling,  and  the  students  

who are attending classes in any institution without  

the  counseling  shall  be  deemed not  to  have  been  

admitted  and  therefore  they  will  be  eligible  to  

participate in the on line counseling.   

(c)  The students those are selected for admission  

33

Page 34

and  allotted  to  the  respective  colleges  on  merits  

shall take admission forthwith.

(d)  The students after being allotted to a particular  

college shall  be put in a separate Section as they  

shall  be  required  to  attend extra-working  classes.  

The  educational  institutions  have  to  seriously  

impart education with the help and aid of teachers,  

if  necessary,  by  providing  adequate  means  and  

facilitation for the teachers.

(a) The University shall  constitute a team to  

see whether classes are held or not.

(b) Unless  a  student  gets  the  requisite  

attendance of 75% on the basis of the computation  

held, regard being had to the entire teaching days,  

he  shall  not  be  permitted  to  appear  in  the  

examination.     

(c) The  time  schedule  originally  fixed  in  

Parshavnath Charitable Trust (supra) shall remain in  

force and be religiously followed in the subsequent  

years.

30. Ex consequenti, the writ petitions are disposed of on  

above terms.  There shall be no order as to costs.  

…..........................J. (DIPAK MISRA)

34

Page 35

.....…......................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 16, 2014

35