VARUN SAINI Vs GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASATHA UNIVERSITY
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-000853-000853 / 2014
Diary number: 31622 / 2014
Advocates: SANJAY SHARAWAT Vs
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