PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST Vs ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH.EDU& ORS.
Bench: A.K. PATNAIK,SWATANTER KUMAR
Case number: C.A. No.-009048-009048 / 2012
Diary number: 28131 / 2012
Advocates: Vs
ASHA GOPALAN NAIR
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9048 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26086 of 2012)
Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
All India Council for Tech. Edu & Ors. … Respondents
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9047 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.27021of 2012 @ CC No. 15485
of 2012)
Chetan Pathare & Anr. … Appellants
Versus
All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1
Page 2
1. IA Nos.1-2 of 2012 are applications filed by the two
students of Parshavanath College of Engineering run by
Parshavanath Charitable Trust for permission to file special
leave petition SLP (C) No............ of 2012 (CC No.15485 of 2012)
against the judgment dated 22nd August, 2012 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.460 of
2011. The applications are allowed subject to just
exceptions.
2. SLP (C) No.26086 of 2012 has been preferred by the
appellant-Trust against the same judgment.
3. Leave granted in both the SLPs.
4. As the challenge in both these appeals is to one and the
same judgment of the Bombay High Court, it will, thus, be
appropriate for us to dispose of both these appeals by this
common judgment.
FACTS :
5. The appellant, Parshvanath Charitable Trust, was formed
as a minority community trust in the year 1993. One of its
objects was to establish educational institutions. Consequently,
2
Page 3
it established the Parshavanath College, after obtaining
approval of all the concerned authorities on 11th June, 1994 with
the intake capacity of 140 students for academic year 1994-95.
This college was running at the premises being Survey No.27
(part) at Kasarvadavali, Ghodbunder Road in the district of
Thane. The annual approvals by the All India Council for
Technical Education (for short, the ‘AICTE’) continued till the
year 2008. On 29th April, 2008, the appellant sought a ‘No
Objection Certificate’ from the University of Mumbai. It also
applied for an ‘occupation certificate’ from the Municipal
Corporation of Bombay for shifting the college to new premises
located at a distance of barely 300 meters from the old site
being Survey No. 12/1, 2, 4, 13/8, 9, 10A and 13/10B. In
furtherance to this, the appellant had made an application
dated 24th May, 2008 to the Regional Office of the AICTE
seeking its permission to shift the college to the new premises
and also submitted all the requisite documents. The appellant
had also written to the Directorate of Technical Education for
issuance of a No Objection Certificate for the said purpose.
3
Page 4
6. It is not in dispute that in May, 2008, the college shifted its
location to the new site. This exercise was undertaken by the
college and the Trust without taking prior approval of the AICTE
and without receiving “No Objection Certificate” from the
University of Mumbai as well as the State Government. It is also
evident from the record that no Occupation Certificate was
received from the Municipal Corporation of Thane before
shifting.
7. On or about 24th June, 2008, the AICTE appointed an
Expert Committee to verify the infrastructure available at the
new site and the Expert Committee visited the college on 28th
June, 2008. It noted that No Objection Certificate of the
affiliating University for change in the location had not been
produced though they were informed that the same was in
process. It also made certain observations with regard to the
title of the land and the same, according to them, stood in the
name of some other Trust which in turn had leased out the land
to the appellant Trust. The Committee also noticed that all the
laboratories and other infrastructure had been shifted to the
new site. On 30th June, 2008, the AICTE granted an extension
4
Page 5
of approval to the Engineering College for the academic years
2008-2011 with an intake capacity of 280 students. Clause 3
of this approval letter reads as under :-
“3. That the institution shall operate only from the approved location, and that the institution shall not open any off campus study centres/extensive centres directly or in collaboration with any other institution/university organization for the purpose of imparting technical education without obtaining prior approval from the AICTE.”
8. As is obvious from a bare reading of the letter, the
appellant-college was to run its courses from the campus which
was approved. Thereafter vide letter dated 20th August, 2009,
AICTE granted approval to the appellant-college with increased
intake from 280 to 360 students for the academic year 2009.
9. The appellant college was running its courses when the
show cause notice dated 18th May, 2010 was issued by the
AICTE to the Trust on the ground that the college had shifted to
another location without obtaining prior approval of the AICTE.
It was stated therein that an institution has to run courses only
from an approved site and if it desires to shift to another site, it
5
Page 6
has to follow the complete procedure as per the norms of AICTE.
The show cause notice reads as under:-
“Your institutions i.e. PARSHWANATH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING and VEER MATA HIRABEN P. SHAH COLLEGE OF PHARMACY are approved by AICTE for running engineering and pharmacy course at GODBHUNDER ROAD, KASAR VADAVALI 400601 DIST. THANE as per our records as a permanent site.
As per AICTE norms, the institute has to run the courses in the approved site only. In any case, if the institute wants to shift the institute to another location, due process has to be followed as per AICTE norms to get AICTE approval for shifting.
However, it was found that you have shifted your Engineering And Pharmacy institutions to another location without obtaining approval from AICTE, which is gross violation of AICTE norms.
In the above circumstances, you are requested to show-cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated including withdrawal of approval or reducing your intake/stop admission. Your reply should reach AICTE headquarters and Regional Office within three working days.”
10. To this, the appellant Trust submitted its reply dated 21st
May, 2010 relevant extract of which reads as under:-
“We have reason to state that after filing proposal for shifting the aforesaid colleges to
6
Page 7
the new premises, we have applied for permission for shifting the aforesaid colleges in the new premises in the year 2008 only and accordingly we are conducting engineering and pharmacy colleges in the new premises.”
11. The matter remained in controversy, but as a result of
issuance of show cause notice, the college of the appellant
Trust was not included in the Centralised Admission Process
(CAP) by the State Government. The appellant, thus,
challenged the non- inclusion of the college in the CAP and
action of the State Government by filing a Writ Petition before
the Bombay High Court being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1776 of
2010. This Writ Petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the
High Court vide its order dated 11th August, 2010 wherein it
directed as under:-
“17. We, therefore, allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication of the Director of Technical Education and direct the respondents to permit the appellant-college to participate in the Central Admission Process when the second round has commenced.
18. In view of the submission already made by the petitioners in their reply dated 21st May, 2010 i.e. the Joint Charity Commissioner has passed the restraint against their Managing Trustee restraining him from
7
Page 8
interfering in the administration of the college and the educational institution run by the trust, we also direct that the respondent- Municipal Corporation of Thane should consider the petitioner’s application for grant of occupation certificate for the building in which the engineering college and the pharmacy college are being run without being influenced by any objection taken by Mr. Tekchand Shah against whom the order is passed by the Charity Commissioner.
19. It is clarified that it is open to the AICTE to proceed with the show-cause notice but if any order adverse to the petitioner-college is passed, the same shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from today.
20. This order is passed in presence of the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Director of Technical Education and Mr. S.V. Kolla, officer, Admission Section from the office of Director of Technical Education who shall immediately instruct the concerned persons to place the name of the petitioner-engineering college on the website of the centralised online admission process today itself.”
12. It needs to be noticed at this stage that during the
proceedings before the Division Bench, the Municipal
Corporation of Thane had stated that Occupancy Certificate had
not been granted to the appellant-college; however, reason
thereof could not be brought to the notice of the Court at that
stage because of shortage of time. In the meanwhile, certain
8
Page 9
disputes also arose among the management of the appellant-
Trust.
13. Subsequent to the above order of the High Court, on 7th
January, 2011, the AICTE passed an order withdrawing the
approval granted to the appellant-college in terms of Clause
2.11 of the Approval Process Handbook and the Guidelines for
the academic year 2008-2009 and the terms and conditions
mentioned in the Letter of Approval. The basis for withdrawing
the approval was shifting of the college to the new location
without Occupancy Certificate, without informing the State
Government and without obtaining the requisite permission
from the AICTE as per regulations. The Expert Committee had
also noticed in its inspection dated 28th June, 2008 that the
construction was not suitable.
14. This cancellation of approval was challenged by the
appellant-Trust before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
No.460 of 2011. Inter alia, the principal contention before the
High Court was that an application dated 24th May, 2008 was
made to the AICTE for change in location. Contemporaneously,
applications were also made to the University of Mumbai and
9
Page 10
the Directorate of Technical Education for the issuance of No
Objection Certificate and extension of approval by the AICTE
itself showed that the site in question met the requisite
standards and there was no justification for reducing the intake
capacity and withdrawing the approval. The High Court
noticed that there was no challenge to the Regulations or any
other clause of the Handbook. Clause 9.22 of the Hand Book for
Approval Process 2008 required a registered sale or gift deed in
favour of the institution and only a Government lease of 30
years was acceptable as per that clause. The relevant para of
Clause 9.22 reads as follows:-
“9.22. Procedure for Change of Site and Norms Concerning Land and Building on New Site.
Changing of location/Station may be permitted after getting “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from the concerned State Govt./UT Administration and Affiliating Body, by the Competent Authority in AICTE as per laid down procedure subject to the fulfilment of Norms and Standards of AICTE. No request/representation/Proposal for change of site will be considered after submission of application/proposal for establishment of a new Technical Institution, till the completion of at least two years after a new institution is started with the approval of AICTE. No partial shifting of institution to a different site shall be permitted.
10
Page 11
The following procedure shall be followed:
The applicant shall have to submit a Proposal along with the following documents in original in one lot to the concerned Regional Office of AICTE.
• Registration document of the Trust/Society indicating members of Society/Trust and its Objectives.
• Land document(s) in original for the new site showing ownership in the name of Trust/Society in the form of Registration Sale Deed/Irrevocable Gift Deed (Registered)/Irrevocable Government Lease (for a minimum of 30 years) by concerned authority of Government. In case, the land documents are in vernacular language, Notarized English translation of the document must to be produced.
• Land use Certificate/Land Conversion Certificate for the new site allowing the land to be used for educational purpose, from the Competent Authority along with Topo- sketch/Village Map indicating land Survey Nos. and a copy of city map showing location of proposal site of the institution.
• Site Plan, Building Plan for the new site prepared by a registered Architect and duly approved by the Competent Plan Sanctioning Authority designated by the concerned State.
• Proof of completion of the building structure at the new site as per approved Engineering & Architectural Building Plan, in the form of Color photographs giving External and Internal views.
11
Page 12
• An undertaking by the Institution stating that the changes shall not affect the admission procedure and the fee that a student has to pay.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. While noticing the above Clauses, the High Court
proceeded on the admitted position that the appellant-college
had shifted to the new site without the necessary permission
and further it had no ownership to the land in question at the
relevant time. The Court also noticed that an inspection was
carried out by the Municipal Corporation on 9th August, 2012
and they had still not issued the Occupancy Certificate to the
appellant-college.
16. In view of the above factual matrix of the case, the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide
order dated 22nd August, 2012 and also passed a direction with
regard to adjustment of students in other colleges keeping their
welfare in mind. The operative part of the order reads as
under:-
“20. In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it would not be permissible for this Court to direct AICTE to grant its approval for conducting the engineering college at
12
Page 13
the new location particularly in view of the fact that no Occupation Certificate has been granted; the Petitioners have not established a clear title to or ownership of land and they have not obtained the NOCs of the State government or of the University of Mumbai.
21. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of AICTE has stated before the Court that AICTE will take all necessary steps to ensure that the welfare of the students who have been allotted to the Petitioners would be duly taken care of by making alternative allotments to other institutions in consultation with the Directorate of Technical Education of the State government.
22.For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the decision which has been taken by the AICTE. The Petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
23. In view of the dismissal of the Petition, the Notices of Motion do not survive which shall accordingly stand disposed of.”
17. Aggrieved from the dismissal of the writ petition by the
High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeals.
18. As already noted, two students of Parshvanath College
of Engineering have filed a separate application for leave
to prefer Special Leave Petition against the same
13
Page 14
judgment of the High Court dated 22nd August, 2012.
According to the appellant-students in Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP (C) No. ..............of 2012 (CC No.15485/2012), the judgment
of the High Court has adversely affected their interests. It is
their contention that revocation of approval has resulted in
closure of the Engineering College and it has jeopardised the
future and career of the students studying in the college
including those studying in pursuance of the interim orders
passed by the same High Court.
19. We allow this application and, in fact, the affected
appellant-students have been heard along with parties in the
main appeal. Thus, as already noticed, we would dispose of
both these appeals by this common judgment.
20. Before we dwell upon the merit or otherwise of the
contentions raised, it is necessary for us to notice certain
settled legal principles which would help in judicious disposal of
these appeals.
21. 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
14
Page 15
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 paramount
importance to national progress.
22. The provisions of the AICTE Act, including its preamble,
make it abundantly clear that the 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. The 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
15
Page 16
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 the AICTE implies that the norms and standards to be set
should be such as would prevent isolated development of
education in the country.
23. 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(1)(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 the AICTE is empowered to inspect or
cause to inspect any technical institution in clause (p) of sub-
section (1) 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
16
Page 17
as may be prescribed, as envisaged in Section 11 of the AICTE
Act.
24. 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
17
Page 18
Institute [(1995) 4 SCC 104] and Bharathidasan University v. All
India Council for Technical Education [(2001) 8 SCC 676].
25. From the above principles, it is clear that the AICTE has
varied functions and powers under the AICTE Act. It is a
specialized body constituted for the purpose of bringing
uniformity in technical education all over the country and to
ensure that the institutions which are recognised by the AICTE
are possessed of complete infrastructure, staff and other
facilities and are capable of maintaining education standards
for imparting technical education.
26. It is not necessary for us to refer to various provisions of
the AICTE Act in any greater detail as no controversy in relation
to application or interpretation of any of its provisions is raised
for consideration in the present case. The facts are primarily
admitted and it is only the exercise of discretion vested in the
AICTE which is the subject matter of challenge in the present
appeals. In the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v.
Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education
Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and Anr. [(2000)
5 SCC 231], this Court after discussing all the relevant
18
Page 19
provisions of the AICTE Act and provisions of the Madras
University Act, 1923 (for short “the Madras Act”) which required
the Institute to obtain approval of the State Government before
it started the academic courses, found that the provisions of the
latter Act overlapped and were in conflict with the provisions of
the AICTE Act in various areas and granting of approval for
starting new technical institutions, inspection of technical
institutions, etc. The Court held as under:-
“17. ... Thus, in the two passages set out above, this Court clearly held that because of Section 19(K) of the Central Act which vested the powers of granting approval in the Council, the T.N. Act of 1976 and the University Act, 1923 could not deal with any questions of ‘approval’ for establishment of technical institutions. All that was necessary was that under the Regulations, the AICTE Council had to consult them.
XXX XXX XXX
22. As held in T.N. case the Central Act of 1987 and in particular, Section 10(k) occupied the field relating to “grant of approvals” for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the Central Act alone were to be complied with. So far as the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act or its statutes were concerned and in particular Statute 9(7), they merely required the University to obtain the “views” of the State Government. That could not be characterised as requiring the “approval” of the State Government. If,
19
Page 20
indeed, the University statute could be so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the State Government would be repugnant to the provisions of Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would again be void. As pointed out in T.N. case there were enough provisions in the Central Act for consultation by the Council of AICTE with various agencies, including the State Governments and the universities concerned. The State-Level Committee and the Central Regional Committees contained various experts and State representatives. In case of difference of opinion as between the various consultees, AICTE would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the State Governments and the universities. No doubt the question of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered by the Central Act but in T.N. case it was held that the University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by AICTE. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. The University could not, therefore, in any event have sought for “approval” of the State Government.
23. Thus we hold, in the present case that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and even if there was one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. The University Statute 9(7) merely required that the “views” of the State Government be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not amount to obtaining “approval”. If the
20
Page 21
University statute required “approval”, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. Point 1 is decided accordingly.
XXX XXX XXX
27. The so-called “policy” of the State as mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court was not a ground for refusing approval. In Thirumuruga Kirupananda & Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of T.N. which was a case relating to medical education and which also related to the effect of a Central law upon a law made by the State under Entry 25 List III, it was held (at SCC p. 35, para 34) that the
“essentiality certificate cannot be withheld by the State Government on any policy consideration because the policy in the matter of establishment of a new medical college now rests with the Central Government alone”.
(emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the State could not have any “policy” outside the AICTE Act and indeed if it had a policy, it should have placed the same before AICTE and that too before the latter granted permission. Once that procedure laid down in the AICTE Act and Regulations had been followed under Regulation 8(4), and the Central Task Force had also given its favourable recommendations, there was no scope for any further objection or approval by the State. We may however add that if thereafter, any fresh facts came to light after an approval was granted by AICTE or if the State felt that some conditions attached to the permission and required by AICTE to be
21
Page 22
complied with, were not complied with, then the State Government could always write to AICTE, to enable the latter to take appropriate action.
Decision of University in not granting further or final affiliation wrong on merits.
XXX XXX XXX
30. Thus, the University ought to have considered the grant of final or further affiliation without waiting for any approval from the State Government and should have acted on the basis of the permission granted by AICTE and other relevant factors in the University Act or statutes, which are not inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulations.”
27. The consistent view of this Court has been that where both
Parliament and State Legislature have the power to legislate,
the Central Act shall take precedence in the matters which are
covered by such legislation and the State enactments shall
pave way for such legislations to the extent they are in conflict
or repugnant. As per the established canons of law, primacy
of the Central Act is undisputable which necessarily implies
primacy of AICTE in the field of technical education. Statutes
like the present one as well as the National Council for Teachers
Education Act, 1993, the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, etc.
fall within the ambit of this canon of law. The AICTE is the
22
Page 23
authority constituted under the Central Act with the
responsibility of maintaining operational standards and judging
the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting
professional education. It shall take precedence over the
opinion of the State as well as that of the University. The
concerned department of the State and the affiliating university
have a role to play, but it is limited in its application. They
cannot lay down any guidelines or policies in conflict with the
Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body.
The State can frame its policies, but such policy again has to be
in conformity with the direction issued by the Central body.
Though there is no such apparent conflict in the present case,
yet it needs to be clarified that grant of approval by the State
and affiliation by the University for increased intake of seats or
commencement of new college should not be repugnant to the
conditions of approval/recommendation granted by the AICTE.
These authorities have to work in tandem as all of them have
the common object to ensure maintenance of proper standards
of education, examination and proper infrastructure for
betterment of technical educational system.
23
Page 24
28. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by
the central authorities such as the AICTE have the force of law
and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or
declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not
substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would
normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in
such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a
manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act.
In the case of AICTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC
726], this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may
not substitute their opinion in place of opinion of the Council,
held as under:-
“The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, courts will step in. In Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University: (1980) IILJ 175 SC this Court observed:
Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread... While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of prudence that
24
Page 25
courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth : [1985] 1 SCR 29, this Court reiterated:
..the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day- to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.”
18. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four year Advance Diploma holders who had passed the entry level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one time measure was extended for several years and was also extended to Post Diploma holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together
25
Page 26
they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education.”
29. Right from the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others etc.
etc. V. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others etc. etc. [(1993) 1
SCC 645], this Court has unequivocally held that the right to
establish an educational institution does not carry within it the
right to recognition or the right to affiliation. Grant of
recognition or affiliation is neither a matter of course nor is it a
formality. Admission to the privileges of a University is a power
to be exercised with great care keeping in view the interest of
the public at large and the nation. Recognition has to be as per
statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict adherence by
all concerned. These conditions of recognition and the duly
notified directions controlling the admission process are to be
construed and applied stricto sensu. They cannot be varied
from case to case. Time schedule is one such condition
specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence
to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict
conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in
26
Page 27
this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. v.
Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors. [(2012) 8
SCALE 71] at this stage, in addition to the case of Medical
Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 258].
30. In light of the above principles, let us now revert to the
facts of the case in hand. There is no dispute as to the fact that
the appellant-college had shifted to the new premises without
approval of the AICTE and without ‘No Objection Certificate’
from the State Government and Directorate of Technical
Education. Undisputedly, the college had no title to the
property in question inasmuch as the property had been sold in
a Court auction by the bank on 8th August, 2011 and had been
purchased by a firm in which the members of the Trust were
partners. This partnership firm had executed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the appellant Trust and given property on
lease to the Trust. These undisputed facts clearly show that
the appellant-college had no title to the property and, in fact, it
did not even have a registered lease deed in its favour to create
some recognizable interest in the property in question. The
High Court in its judgment had specifically noticed the defects
27
Page 28
pointed out by the Expert Committee. They, inter alia, related to
some disputes within the management of the Trust, failure to
obtain NOC from the State Government, Occupancy Certificate
from the Municipal Corporation, Thane and NOC from the
University of Mumbai, omission to seek/obtain the approval of
AICTE and finally shifting to the new premises despite such non-
compliance.
31. We have already noticed that the compliance with the
conditions for approval as well as regulations and provisions of
the AICTE Act is an unexceptionable condition. Clause 9.22 of
the Handbook of Approval Process issued by the AICTE provides
a complete procedure for change of location, station and the
same is permissible subject to compliance with the procedure.
It contemplates obtaining of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the
concerned State Government or UT Administration and
affiliating body. The same clause also requires submission of
the land documents in original and clearly provides that the
same may be a registered sale deed, irrevocable government
lease for a minimum period of 30 years, etc. by the concerned
authority of the Government. Further, it provides that site plan,
28
Page 29
building plan for new site should be prepared by a registered
architect and should be approved by the Competent Plan
Sanctioning Authority designated by the State.
32. One of the contentions raised before us is that the AICTE
itself had granted approval for the academic years 2008-09 and
2009-10 both vide letters dated 30th June, 2008 and 20th August,
2009, respectively. This itself should be taken to be a deemed
compliance of all the requirements. We shall separately deal
with the issue with regard to the effect of these letters and
whether withdrawal of approval was a step appropriately taken
by the AICTE or not as well as the effect of the prescribed time
schedule. As of now, suffice it to note that even these approvals
for the relevant academic years had clearly stated that the
institution shall operate only from the approved location and it
shall not open any campus/executive centres directly or in
collaboration with any other institution/university for the
purpose of imparting technical education without obtaining prior
approval from the AICTE. The approval for these academic
years was granted to the college being run at Survey Nos.27
29
Page 30
(part) at Lasandvali, Godbhunder Road, Kasar Vadavali, Thane,
and not at any other place.
33. Thus, there is no occasion to take it as a deemed and/or
implied approval for the new site of the appellant-college.
Approval can hardly be inferred. It is a matter of fact and the
authorities are expected to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law and upon due diligence and in compliance
with the procedure prescribed under law. For these reasons, we
find that the view taken by the High Court does not call for any
interference.
34. Thus, the view of the High Court that the college had failed
to comply with the requirements for grant of approval and had
shifted to the new site without approval of the AICTE and other
concerned authorities cannot be faulted with. There being no
compliance to the legal requirements and binding conditions of
recognition, the withdrawal of approval by the AICTE can also be
not interfered with. Shifting of students is a consequential
order and is in the interest of the students.
30
Page 31
35. The sequel to the above finding is that the appellant
college could not have been included in the counselling for the
current year. Even otherwise, the last date for admission was
30th August, 2012, which is since over and we see no reason
whatsoever to extend this date. We have already noticed
various judgments of this Court stating that the Court is
required to strictly construe and comply with the schedule for
admission. Even on that count, the appellant would not be
entitled to any other relief.
36. Another argument raised before us is that the appellant-
college had applied for shifting of the college to the new
premises on 24th May, 2008, but even after a lapse of two years,
the AICTE had not finally disposed of said request.
37. The college had shifted to the new premises without
requisite permission/approval and still permission was granted
for the two years, i.e., 2008-09 and 2009-10 and the show cause
notice was issued only on 18th May, 2010. We have no
hesitation in observing that the AICTE is evidentiary at fault and
it ought not to have granted any approval for the academic
31
Page 32
years 2008-09 and 2009-10. There has been definite slackness
and irresponsibility in functioning on the part of the AICTE.
The approval itself was issued by the Regional Committee when
the application for transfer was pending with the AICTE itself.
It is a matter of regret that as a result of such approval granted
by the AICTE, the career of these students has been jeopardised
to some extent. Now, they are required to shift colleges mid-
term, even in excess of specified seats of those colleges and
hinder their academic courses. All this is bound to prove
disadvantageous to their academic career.
38. It is the requirement of law that there should be strict
adherence to the time schedule for grant of approval as well as
for admissions without exception. In exercise of the powers
vested in the AICTE, under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the
AICTE Act, it had made regulations namely the All India Council
for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Staffing New
Technical Institution, Introduction of Course and Programmes
and Approval of Intake Capacity) Regulations, 1994. Schedule
to these regulations reads as under:-
32
Page 33
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 the Bureau RC to screen the application and (a) to return the incomplete applications to 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 Export Committees, and (iv) Bureaus MPCD, BOS and RA for their comments.
3. For receiving the comments is from (i) the State Government (ii) the University or State Board and (iii) the Regional Committee based on the Expert Committee’s report and (iv) from the Bureaus MPCD, BOS and RA
15th March
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
30th April
33
Page 34
intimation to the Regional office, Director of Technical Education, applicant, University or State Board
39. This Schedule has statutory backing. Thus, its adherence
is mandatory and not directory.
40. Non-adherence of this Schedule can result in serious
consequences and can jeopardize not only the interest of the
college students but also the maintenance of proper standards
of technical education. The authorities concerned, particularly
the AICTE, should ensure proper and timely action upon the
applications submitted to it. It must respond to the applicant
within a reasonable time period and should not let the matter
drag till the final date giving rise to avoidable speculations by
all stakeholders. Thus, it would be appropriate for these
authorities to bring to the knowledge of the parties concerned,
the deficiencies, if any, and the defects pointed out by the
Expert Committee during the inspection within three weeks
from the date of such inspection or pointing out of defects, as
the case may be. For better administration, the AICTE should
also state the time within which such deficiencies/defects
34
Page 35
should be removed by the applicant. This will help in building of
a coherent and disciplined method of working to ensure the
proper implementation of the entire formulated scheme of
technical education. The AICTE will not have any jurisdiction or
authority to issue approval for commencement of a new course
or for additional intake of students beyond 30th April of the year
immediately preceding the commencement of an academic
year.
41. Apparently, there seems to be some variations in the
Schedule issued under Regulation 8(15), as aforenoticed, and
the dates reflected in the Handbook. Another Schedule has
been printed as per the website of the AICTE according to which
the letter of approval for starting new technical institutions
could be issued by 10th October, if application was submitted
between January to June of the relevant year and 10th April, if
the application was submitted between July to December of that
year. Rejection of approval is an order which is appealable
to the Appellate Committee of the AICTE. If the applicant
wishes to file an appeal against the order, he is expected to file
the appeal and, in any case, after directions of the Appellate
35
Page 36
Committee are complied with, the order of approval after the
reconsideration/appeal has to be issued by 15th November in
the first case and 15th May in the other. If one reads these two
schedules collectively, it is clear that the letter of approval
should be issued by 15th April or by 30th April at the maximum.
It is only the Appellate Committee’s order which can be issued
by 15th May. If such order grants recognition, then it must
specify the academic year for which it is being granted. If it
falls foul of the admission schedule, then it ought not to be
granted for the current academic year. It has been brought to
our notice that the last date for admission to the courses and
the date on which the courses should begin is 30th August of the
academic year. In that event, admissions to such courses, if
permitted by the appellate authority, could be made strictly in
accordance with the academic Schedule and without violating
the same in any manner whatsoever. This brings us to the
admission schedule which again should be strictly obeyed by all
concerned.
42. We must notice that admission schedule should be
declared once and for all rather than making it a yearly
36
Page 37
declaration. Consistency and smoothness in admission process
would demand and require that there is a fixed and unaltered
time schedule provided 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
are to have their choice of college or course exercised. The
Schedule for admission for the coming academic year, i.e.,
2013-2014 has been submitted to the Court after the matter
was reserved for judgment. The said Schedule reads as under :
Event Schedule
Conduct of Entrance Examination (AIEEE/State CET/ Mgt. 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 June
2nd round 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 30th July.
37
Page 38
candidates in seats other than allotted above
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 upto which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason (no student should be admitted in any institution after the last date under any quota)
30th August
Last date of granting or refusing approval by AICTE
30th April
Last date of granting or refusing approval by University / State Govt.
31st May
43. The above Schedule though was finalized by the
Committee on 29th January, 2012 but the same appears to have
been notified only on 30th September, 2012. The reasons for
the same are again unknown. We are unable to appreciate
that once the academic session begins on 1st August, then as to
38
Page 39
why should admission be granted upto 30th August of the year,
particularly when, as per the terms of the Schedule, beyond or
after 30th April, AICTE will not issue any approval for
commencement of new course for additional intakes. The
Schedule, thus, introduces an element of arbitrariness and may
cause prejudice to the students who might miss their classes for
a period of one month without any justification. Thus, it is
required that the above-stated Schedule be modified to bring it
in line with the Schedule for approval as well as to prevent
inequalities, arbitrariness and prejudice from affecting the
students in relation to their academic courses. The order
granting or refusing approval, thus, should positively be passed
by 10th April of the relevant year. The appeal should be filed
within one week and the Appellate Committee should hear the
appeal and decide the same by 30th April of the relevant year.
The University should grant/decline approval/affiliation by 15th
May of the relevant year. Advertisement should be issued and
entrance examination conducted positively by the end of the
month of May. The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as
follows :
39
Page 40
Event Schedule
Conduct of Entrance Examination (AIEEE/State CET/ Mgt. 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 June
2nd round 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
40
Page 41
Last date upto which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason (no student should be admitted in any institution after the last date under any quota)
15th August
Last date of granting or refusing approval by AICTE
10th April
Last date of granting or refusing approval by University / State Govt.
15th May
44. 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.
45. We find that the above Schedule is in conformity with the
affiliation/recognition schedule afore-noticed. 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
41
Page 42
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.
46. Having declared the confirmed Schedule for grant of
approval and completion of admission process, now it is
necessary for us to revert to the apparent error in exercise of
power and discretion by the AICTE. Admittedly, the appellant-
college had been carrying on its education courses since the
year 1994. It had submitted its application for transfer to the
new site on 24th May, 2008. There is no document placed
before us by any party including the AICTE to show that this
application was dealt with either by the Regional Office or by
the main office of the AICTE. Having known the fact that the
college had shifted to a new site, the AICTE accorded approval
for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 for which again
there is no justification placed on record. It is the case of the
appellant that the Expert Committee visited the new site of the
appellant-college where the college was being run on 26th June,
2008. Thereafter approval for the two academic years was
42
Page 43
granted. Strangely, on the basis of the same report, on 18th
May, 2010 the show cause notice was issued and again the
Expert Committee is stated to have visited the college premises
on 16th July, 2010 leading to the issuance firstly of the rejection
of the seats and, secondly, of withdrawal/cancellation of
approval on 7th January, 2011.
47. We fail to understand why the college was granted
approval for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10
particularly when the Expert Committee is stated to have
visited the premises on 26th June, 2008 and found
inadequacies in the report. It is certainly a lapse on the part
of the AICTE which cannot be ignored by the Court as it had far-
reaching consequences including placing the career of the
students admitted during these two years in jeopardy. Even
though the High Court has directed allocation of these students
in other colleges, their academic course certainly stands
adversely affected and disturbed, for which the AICTE is
responsible. In this regard, the Court cannot overlook such
apparent erroneous approach and default which can be for
anything but bona fide reasons. Thus, we impose costs of
43
Page 44
Rs.50,000/- upon the AICTE for such irresponsible working. The
costs would be payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee and would be recovered from the salary of the
erring officials/officers involved in this erroneous approach. The
recovery shall be effected in accordance with law.
48. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit in both
the appeals afore-referred. While dismissing these appeals, we
issue the following directions :
(i) Both grant/refusal of approval and admission schedule, as
aforestated, shall be strictly adhered to by all the
authorities concerned including the AICTE, University,
State Government and any other authority directly or
indirectly connected with the grant of approval and
admission.
(ii) No person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction
to vary the Schedule prescribed hereinabove.
(iii) While dealing with the application for grant of approval to
new colleges or additional seats, the AICTE shall inform the
applicant within three weeks from the date of receipt of its
44
Page 45
application or date of inspection, as the case may be, the
shortcomings/defects, who, in turn, shall remove such
shortcomings/defects within 15 days from the date of such
communication or within such period as the AICTE may
grant and re-submit its papers without default. The
process of grant of approval has to be transparent and fair.
The AICTE or the concerned University or State
Government shall take disciplinary action against the
person who commits default in adherence to the Schedule
and performance of his duties in accordance therewith.
(iv) The reports submitted by the Expert Committee visiting
the college should be unambiguous and clear, and should
bear the date and time of inspection and should be
sufficiently comprehensive and inspection be conducted in
the presence of a representative of the institute.
(v) The students of the appellant-college shall be re-allocated
to the recognized and affiliated colleges in terms of the
judgment of the High Court; and the AICTE and the
concerned University shall ensure that the academic
courses of these students are completed within the
45
Page 46
balance period of the academic year in all respects. For
this purpose, if extra classes are required to be held, the
concerned institute, the University and the AICTE are
directed to ensure holding of such extra classes.
(vi) If the appellate authority decides the matter prior to 30th
April of the concerned year and grants approval to a
college, then alone such institution will be permitted to be
included in the list of colleges to which admissions are to
be made and not otherwise. In other words, even if the
appellate authority grants approval after 30th April, it will
not be operative for the current academic year. All
colleges which have been granted approval/affiliation by
10th or 30th April, as the case may be, shall alone be
included in the brochure/advertisement/website for the
purpose of admission and none thereafter.
…….…………................J. (A.K. Patnaik)
...….…………................J. (Swatanter Kumar)
New Delhi;
46
Page 47
December 13, 2012
47