Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2004

ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT  OF PRIVATE COLLEGES … APPELLANT

VS.

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL  EDUCATION & ORS.  … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  5736-5745 OF 2004

ADAIKALAMATH COLLEGE  ETC. ETC. … APPELLANTS

VS.

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL  EDUCATION & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

The appellants filed these civil appeals questioning the correctness of the  

common judgment and order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the High Court  of

Page 2

judicature at Madras in W.A. 2652 of 2001,  W.A. No. 3090 of 2001, WA 2835  

of 2001, WA 3087 of 2001, WA 2836 of 2001, WA 3091 of 2001, WA 3092 of  

2001, WA 2837 of 2001, WA 3088 of 2001, WA 2838 of 2001 and WA 3089 of  

2001,  dismissing  the  writ  appeals  thereby  affirming  the  dismissal  of  writ  

petitions  by  wrongly  interpreting  the  provisions  of  All  India  Council  for  

Technical  Education  Act,  1987  (for  short  AICTE Act)   and  held  that  even  

though the University  is  not  required to  take permission from the All  India  

Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE), its affiliated colleges are  

required to do so.  Further, the High Court has held, while dismissing the writ  

appeals,  that the appellant colleges should get its course of MCA ratified by  

AICTE as per the prescribed format which according to the appellants herein is  

in contravention of settled principles of interpretation of Statutes and also runs  

contrary  to  the  law  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  case  of  Bharathidasan  

University & Anr. Vs. AICTE & Ors.1   

2. Certain relevant facts in relation to the appeals are stated hereunder:--

The appellant colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu are running Arts and  

Science courses.  Most of them are affiliated to Bharathidasan University and  

some of  them are  affiliated  to  Manonmaniam Sundaranar  University.    The  

member colleges of the appellant in C.A.No.1145 of 2004 and the appellants in  

the connected appeals are running MCA course which have so far not obtained  

the approval of the AICTE.  According to the information placed before the  1 (2001) 8 SCC 676

2

Page 3

Court  by  the  AICTE,  as  of  the  academic  year  2001-2002,  there  were  865  

institutions in the country offering 40,792 seats for the MCA course which had  

the approval of the AICTE.  Within the State of Tamil Nadu the number of  

institutions which have received such approval are 208.  As per the affidavit  

filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that apart from the member colleges of  

the first  appellant  and colleges of  the second appellant,  all  other institutions  

offering MCA have obtained the approval of the AICTE.    

3. Regulations 1994 have been prescribed in Form II which is in terms of  

Regulation 5(2)(b) and were framed pursuant to Section 10(k) of the AICTE  

Act  for  grant  of  approval  to  the  colleges  who  have  started  new  technical  

institutions,  introduction  of  courses  or  programmes  and  approval  of  intake  

capacity of seats for the courses or programmes.   Form II is titled “Application  

for Existing Institution(s) seeking AICTE approval without additional course(s)  

and/or additional intake(s) in engineering/technology, architecture, pharmacy,  

applied arts, etc.”  

4. In the 1997, Regulation 2(2) framed by the AICTE was added by way of  

an amendment to the 1994 Regulations, providing that the regulations are not  

applicable  inter  alia,  to  the  proposals  relating  to  post  graduate  courses  for  

MBA, MCA or equivalent.    

5. On 16.8.2000, the aforesaid sub-regulation (2) was deleted and the said  

courses were added in Regulation 8(c) enabling the AICTE to prescribe the land  

3

Page 4

and deposit requirements even in respect of Arts and Science Colleges having  

MBA or MCA courses.

6. On 3.3.2001, a communication was sent by the AICTE to the member  

colleges of the appellant in C.A. No.1145 of 2004 in respect of its proposal to  

commence MCA course requiring the colleges to furnish information regarding  

the proposed land and building.  On 14.3.2001, a writ petition was filed by the  

appellant’s association seeking relief to prohibit the AICTE from in any way  

exercising its jurisdiction over its member colleges with reference to the MBA  

and MCA courses conducted by them.  The said writ petition was dismissed by  

the  learned  single  Judge  holding  that  the  AICTE  Act  and  Regulations  are  

enforceable against the said member colleges of the appellant, against which the  

Association had filed writ appeal.   The same came to be dismissed by affirming  

the  judgment  of  the  learned  single  Judge  by  passing  impugned  common  

judgment which is under challenge in CA No.1145 of 2004.

6(a) So far as the facts in the connected appeals are concerned, they are stated  

in brief as under:

The colleges run by the appellants in the connected appeals are affiliated  

to Bharathidasan University and it has approved the courses and programmes  

which are being conducted by the said colleges including MCA and MBA.  The  

AICTE  Regulation  is  applicable  to  professional  colleges  only  that  to  from  

academic year 1994.  There is no provision for existing arts and science colleges  

which are running MCA courses.  The letter dated 31.5.2000 from the AICTE  

4

Page 5

was received by Bharathidasan University wherein it  was mentioned that no  

admission  should  be  made  by  the  competent  authorities  in  unapproved  or  

unrecognized professional colleges from the academic year 1994. Some of the  

colleges  filed  writ  petitions  in  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Madras  

challenging the letter dated 31.5.2000 being ultravires of the AICTE Act itself.  

The High Court passed an interim order dated 20.7.2000 staying the direction of  

the AICTE as contained in its letter dated 31.5.2000.  During the pendency of  

the  writ  petition,  the  AICTE  amended  regulations  vide  notification  dated  

16.8.2000. By the said amendment it deleted the earlier amendment of 1997 in  

which MCA course was not within the purview of the AICTE Act. Through the  

said  amendment  MCA course  was conspicuously  added in  Rule  8(c)  of  the  

Regulations.  By virtue of the said amendment, the AICTE claimed that it has  

got powers to check and regulate the MCA course.  The High Court of Madras  

after hearing some of the appellant colleges quashed the letter dated 31.5.2000  

of the AICTE.  However, the High Court left it open to the appellant colleges to  

challenge  the  vires  of  the  amended  AICTE  Regulation  vide  order  dated  

22.11.2000.

The  appellant  colleges  preferred  writ  petitions  in  the  High  Court  of  

Madras  challenging the  amended Regulation  dated  16.8.2000 mainly  on the  

ground that it is ultra vires to the AICTE Act as the MCA course which are  

being run by the appellants colleges do not fall under the definition of technical  

education as contained in Section 2(g) of the Act and it was also challenged on  

5

Page 6

the ground that since the amended Regulation has not been placed before the  

Houses of Parliament for approval they cannot be enforced.  

The aforesaid appeals are filed framing certain questions of law which are  

mentioned hereunder:-

(a) Whether the colleges affiliated to University are obliged to take  

separate permission/approval from the AICTE to run classes in  

Technical  Courses  in  which  the  affiliated  university  of  the  

colleges  is  not  required  to  obtain  any  permission/approval  

under the AICTE Act itself?

(b) Whether the course leading to a degree of Master of Computer  

Applications is  a  technical  course within the purview of the  

definition of ‘technical education’ as contained in Section 2(g)  

of the AICTE Act as it stands today?

(c) Whether the Courts can read something in a Statute, which is  

not expressly provided in the language of the Act, and/or insert  

words and/or punctuations, which are not there?

(d) Whether the impugned amendment dated 16.8.2000 of the 1994  

Regulations  would  not  take  effect  without  the  same  being  

placed before the Parliament?

(e) Whether  the  Rules  or  Regulations  made  under  an  Act  can  

override or enlarge the provisions of the Act?

6

Page 7

7. In support of the aforesaid questions of law, the learned senior counsel  

and other counsel on behalf of the appellants have urged the following legal  

contentions:-

The High Court has erred in holding that even though the University is  

not  required  to  take  permission  of  the  AICTE  to  start  or  run  a  course  of  

technical  nature,  the  colleges  affiliated  to  the  University/Universities  cannot  

claim such a right.  This interpretation is not the correct legal position for the  

reason  that  when  the  Universities  are  exempted  from  taking  

permission/approval from the AICTE, the High Court in view of the law laid  

down in Bharathidasan University’s  case (supra) could not have held that the  

colleges affiliated to their respective universities which are imparting tuition to  

the students under them by conducting courses are required to take permission  

or approval from the AICTE.  

8. It is further contended that the colleges who have opened the courses in  

question are affiliated to the universities.  They are the controlling authorities  

with regard to their intake capacity for each course, the standards to be followed  

for each course, the syllabus of the course, the examination process etc.   It is  

urged that the High Court has failed to consider the relevant aspects of the case  

namely that it is the university/universities only which awards/confers degree on  

the students studying the course in question in their affiliated colleges. Thus, for  

all intents and purposes the courses are being run by the Universities.

7

Page 8

9. It is further urged that if the interpretation given by the High Court with  

regard to the provisions of the AICTE Act and Regulations is accepted by this  

Court,  it  will  run  contrary  to  the  law  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  the  

Bharathidasan University case (supra).   In this decision,  this Court clearly  

dealt  with  the  scope  and  purpose  of  the  University  for  which  it  has  been  

established, the relevant para of which reads as under:-

“2. The Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 created the University in  question to provide, among other things, for instruction and training  in  such branches  of  learning as  it  may determine;  to  provide  for  research and for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge;  to institute degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions;  to  hold  examinations  and  to  confer  degrees,  titles,  diplomas  and  other  academic  distinctions  on  persons  who  have  pursued  an  approved course of study in a university college or laboratory or in  an  affiliated  or  approved  college  and  have  passed  the  prescribed  examinations of the University; to confer honorary degrees or other  academic distinction under  conditions prescribed;  and to institute,  maintain and manage institutes of research, university colleges and  laboratories, libraries, museums and other institutions necessary to  carry out the objects of the University etc. In other words, it is a full- fledged University recognized by the University Grants Commission  also.”

10. The High Court has noticed that the University was created under the  

statute “to provide, among other things, for rendering instruction and training to  

their students of the affiliated colleges in such branches of learning as it may  

determine; to provide for research and for the dissemination of knowledge; to  

institute degrees,  titles,  diplomas and other academic distinctions on persons  

who  have  pursued  an  approved  course  of  study  in  a  university  college  or  

8

Page 9

laboratory and have passed the prescribed examination of the university” in the  

light of the afore-mentioned judgment pronounced by this Court.    

11. It  is  clear  from  the  Bharathidasan  University  Act  that  the  colleges  

affiliated to University impart education in different courses run by University  

in which the students have to pass the prescribed examination of the University  

for making themselves eligible for degrees.  Therefore, the interpretation given  

by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the colleges affiliated to the  

University  which  are  imparting  education  to  their  students  on  behalf  of  the  

University will have to seek AICTE’s approval for technical courses, though  

such approval is not required to be obtained by the affiliated colleges as the  

same will be contrary to the judgment of this Court referred to supra.   

12. Further, it is contended that the High Court has erred in not appreciating  

that  the  colleges  are  affiliated  to  a  University,  which  is  their  controlling  

authority and has been established by an Act  of  State  legislature  which has  

given  it  suitable  powers  to  regulate  the  procedure  of  the  affiliated  colleges  

regarding their education standards, infrastructure, examinations etc.   This can  

be  noticed  by  perusing  various  provisions  of  Bharathidasan  University  Act,  

1981 and especially Section 8, 33 (xvii) and (xviii), 39 and 63, which read as  

under:-  

“8.  Visitation-  The  Chancellor  shall  have  the  right  to  cause  an  inspection or inquiry to be made, by such person or persons as he  may  direct,  of  the  University,  its  buildings,  laboratories,  library,  museums,  workshops  and  equipment,  and  of  any  institutions  maintained,  recognized  or  approved  by,  or  affiliated  to,  the  

9

Page 10

University, and also of the examinations, teaching and other work  conducted or done by the university and to cause an inquiry to be  made in respect of any matter connected with the University, The  chancellor shall  in every case give notice to the University of his  intention to  cause such inspection or  inquiry to  be made and the  university shall be entitled to be represented thereat.   

33.  Statutes- Subject to the provisions of this Act the statutes may  provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- …. (xvii)  the  conditions  of  recognition  of  approved  colleges  and  of  affiliation to the University of affiliated colleges;

(xviii) the manner in which, and the conditions subject to which a  college  may  be  designated  as  an  autonomous  college  or  the  designation  of  such  college  may  be  cancelled  and  the  matters  incidental the administration of autonomous colleges including the  constitution  and  reconstitution,  powers  and  duties  of  Standing  Committee on Academic Affairs, Staff Council, Boards of Studies  and Boards of Examiners;  

39.  Admission to University examinations.- No candidate shall be  admitted to any University  examination unless he is enrolled as a  member of a University college or a laboratory or of an affiliated or  approved  college  and  has  satisfied  the  requirements  as  to  the  attendance required under the regulations for the same or unless he is  exempted  from such  requirements  of  enrolment  or  attendance  or  both by an order of the Syndicate passed on the recommendation of  the  Standing  Committee  on  Academic  Affairs  made  under  the  regulations prescribed. Exemptions granted under this section shall  be subject to such condition, as the syndicate may think fit.  

63. Report on affiliated colleges- The syndicate shall, at the end of  every  three  years  from  the  notified  date,  submit  a  report  to  the  Government  on  the  condition  of  affiliated  and approved  colleges  within the University area. The Government shall take such action  on it as they deem fit.”

10

Page 11

Therefore,  the control  upon the affiliated colleges of  the University  is  

vested with the University itself and it cannot be said that for certain type of  

courses the control will be with the AICTE. Further, the High Court has failed  

to  notice  the  fact  that  the  University  to  which  the  member  colleges  of  the  

appellants belong is controlled by the University Grants Commission, which is a  

Central  Governing  Body  formed  under  the  Act  of  Parliament  known  as  

University Grants Commission Act of 1956, for controlling the affairs of the  

University recognized by it.  The Bharathidasan University is recognized by the  

UGC. The relevant provisions of this Act which cover the said University and  

its colleges are Sections 12, 12A, 13 and 14, which will  be extracted in the  

relevant paragraphs of  this judgment.    It  is  further  urged that  the aforesaid  

provisions would show that the UGC provisions for controlling the University  

are applicable and analogous to its affiliated colleges also and therefore to carve  

out  a  distinction  between  the  University  and  its  affiliated  colleges  and  not  

treating  the  affiliated  colleges  as  an  integral  part  of  the  University  in  the  

impugned judgment by the High Court is not only erroneous in law but also  

suffers from error in law.

13. The High Court has failed to take into consideration the relevant legal  

aspect  of  the  cases  viz.  that  the  AICTE has  been  given adequate  power  to  

inspect  the  colleges  and  University  running  technical  courses,  to  check  the  

syllabus, standard of education being imparted in them and their examination  

process under Section 10 of the AICTE Act.

11

Page 12

14. Dr.  Rajiv  Dhavan,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant  in  CA  No.1145  of  2004  submits  that  the  AICTE  Act  and  its  

Regulations do not apply to University/Universities or constituent colleges and  

its institutions but according to the AICTE the provisions of AICTE Act would  

apply to  the affiliated colleges of the Universities. He further submits that the  

issues in questions in this case are-- notification of 6th February, 2001 about the  

governing  body  of  the  member  colleges  of  the  appellant  Association,  

notification of  3rd March,  2001 regarding land area and also pointed out the  

other  notifications  issued  by  the  AICTE  covering  a  wide  canvas   namely  

notifications issued on 9.9.2002 in relation to the governing body, staff etc. of  

the member colleges of the appellant, notification dated 22.10.2003 regarding  

the  unaided  institutions,  notification  dated  30.10.2003  regarding  salary  and  

notification dated 28.10.2003 regarding guidelines for common entrance test(s)  

for admission to MCA Programmes in the country.  In contrast, UGC guidelines  

are  issued  on  20th December,  2003  and  29th December,  2003  whereby  

instructions were given not to issue the advertisement for admission and not to  

conduct any entrance test for admission to professional programmes until they  

receive the policy guidelines of the UGC.  He submits that the notifications  

issued  by  the  AICTE  amount  to  AICTE  having  control  over  the  colleges  

affiliated by the Universities by displacing UGC norms.  

12

Page 13

15. Further,  the  learned  senior  counsel  places  strong  reliance  on  

Bharathidasan University’s  case (supra) and contends that the affidavit filed  

by the UGC does not raise any issue which has been dealt with by this Court in  

the Bharathidasan University’s case. He has placed reliance upon paragraph 8  

of  the  Bharathidasan University’s judgment in support  of  his  submissions,  

that though legislative intent finds specific mention in the provisions of the Act  

itself, the same cannot be curtailed by conferring undue importance to the object  

underlying the  Act  particularly,  when  the  AICTE Act  does  not  contain  any  

evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy the authority or autonomy of  

other  statutory bodies,  having their  own assigned  roles  to  perform.  Further  

strong  emphasis  is  placed  by  him  at  Paragraph  10  of  the  Bharathidasan  

University’s case (supra) wherein this Court, with reference to the provisions of  

AICTE Act held that the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to  

or supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon  

such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting technical education or  

programmes in any of its departments or units. Further, observations are made  

after careful scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of  

the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the  

Universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby  

subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms  

and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself,  

except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action. Further, he had placed  

13

Page 14

reliance on Paragraph 12 of the abovementioned case and contended that the  

intention of the Parliament was very clear while enacting the AICTE Act as it  

was fully alive of the existence of the provisions of the UGC Act which was in  

full  force  and  its  effect  and  which  specifically  dealt  with  coordination  and  

determination  of  standards  at  university  level  of  institutions  as  well  as  

institutions for higher studies. Further, with reference to definition of “technical  

institution” as defined in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act,  the Parliament has  

taken  special  care  to  make  conspicuous  and  deliberate  mention  of  the  

universities to highlight wherever and whenever the AICTE alone was expected  

to  interact  with  the  university,  its  departments  as  well  as  its  constituent  

institutions. In this regard, he also placed strong reliance upon Section 12A of  

the UGC Act under Chapter III which deals with the powers and functions of  

the  University  Grants  Commission.  Clause  (a)  of  Section  12A  speaks  of  

affiliation with its grammatical variations and includes in relation to a college,  

recognition of such college, Association of such college with admission of such  

college  to  the  privileges  of  a  university.   Clause  (d)  speaks  of  qualification  

which means a degree or any other qualification awarded by a University. Also  

strong reliance is placed upon sub-section (4) of Section 12A which authorizes  

UGC to conduct an inquiry in the manner provided under the Regulations, if the  

Commission is satisfied after providing reasonable opportunity to such colleges  

that  such college contravenes the provisions of  sub-section (3)  of  the above  

Section  of  the  Act.  In  such  case,  the  Commission  may,  with  the  previous  

14

Page 15

approval of the Central Government pass an order prohibiting such college from  

presenting any students then undergoing such course of study therein to any  

university for the award of the Degree for the qualification concerned.   Sub-

section (5) of Section 12A further provides for the Commission to forward a  

copy of the order made by it under sub-section (4) to the University concerned,  

and on and from the date of receipt by the University of a copy of such order,  

the affiliation of such college to such University shall, in so far as it relates to  

the course of study specified in such order, stand terminated and on and from  

the date of termination of such affiliation for a period of three years thereafter  

affiliation shall not be granted to such college in relation to such similar course  

of study by that or any other University.   Sub-Section (6) speaks that in case of  

termination of affiliation of any college under sub-section (5),   the Commission  

shall  take all  such steps as it  may consider  appropriate for  safeguarding the  

interests  of  the  students  concerned.    Sub-section  (7)  further  states  that  

regulations made for the purpose of the aforesaid provisions of Section 12A of  

the UGC Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith  

contained in any other law for the time being in force.

16. Further, reliance has been placed by him upon Section 12B of the UGC  

Act which confers power on the Commission to pass an order of prohibition  

regarding giving any grant to a University declared by the Commission not fit to  

receive such grant.  This  provision was inserted in the UGC Act  through an  

15

Page 16

Amendment  Act,  1972  (33  of  1972)  which  came  into  force  on  17.6.1972.  

Further,  reliance  was  also  placed  upon  Section  13  regarding  the  power  of  

inspection upon the UGC for the purpose of ascertaining the financial needs of  

the university or its standards of teaching, examination and research.  

17. Dr.  Dhavan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  placing  reliance  

upon the aforesaid provisions of the UGC Act, submits that the provisions of the  

UGC Act will regulate and control the functions of the university as defined in  

terms of Section 2(f) of the UGC Act and also its affiliated colleges. He has  

placed  reliance  upon  the  observations  made  by  this  Court  in  Para  19  of  

Parashavananth  Charitable  Trust  &  Ors. v.  AICTE2.   In the  written  

submission  submitted  by  the  appellant’s  counsel  with  reference  to  UGC  

affidavit  filed in this Court he has placed reliance upon  Para 20 of the case  

referred to supra wherein it is observed by this Court in the said decision that  

the  AICTE created  under  the  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 the  

technical education or programmes in any of their departments or units.   He  

further submitted that a careful scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act  

and the provisions of UGC Act, 1956 in juxtaposition it is observed that the said  

provision  will  show  that  the  role  of  AICTE  with  regard  to  the  

university/universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing  2 2013 (3) SCC 385

16

Page 17

guidance,  to  subserve  the  cause  of  maintaining  appropriate  standards  and  

qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any  

sanctions by itself.  

18. Further, it is stated with reference to the UGC’s affidavit on the question  

of affiliated colleges that it is very mechanical;  and is simply gratuitous and  

without foundation,  it adds affiliated colleges of a university to the definition of  

technical institution.  Paragraph 23 of its affidavit is without any foundation and  

it  has  stated  that  the  affiliated  colleges  are  distinct  and  different  than  the  

constituent  colleges  of  the  University,  therefore,  it  cannot  be  said  that  

constituent colleges also include affiliated colleges.  The learned senior counsel  

further submitted that the assertion made by the UGC that the UGC Act does  

not have any provision to grant approval to technical institution, is facile.  It is  

stated in its written submission that the AICTE norms will apply through UGC  

as  observed  by  this  Court  in  Bharathidasan  University and  Parshvanath  

Charitable Trust cases (supra).  A reading of the notifications referred to supra  

issued by the AICTE shows that regulation of governing council, infrastructure  

such as land and in matters of salary and employment of staff in the affiliated  

colleges are totally without jurisdiction and contrary to the decisions of  this  

Court.  Further, strong reliance is placed by learned senior counsel Dr. Dhavan  

that  issues  which  are  raised  in  this  case  are  answered  in  the  TMA  Pai  

Foundation v. State of Karnataka.3

3  (2002) 8 SCC 481

17

Page 18

 19. The learned senior counsel submitted that Section 14 of the UGC Act  

provides  for  consequences  of  failure  by  Universities  to  comply  with  

recommendations  of  the  Commission  which  provides  that  if  any  University  

grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to in  

sub-section (5) of Section 12A in contravention of the provision of that sub-

section or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any recommendation  

made by the Commission under Section 12 or Section 13 or contravenes the  

provisions of any rule made under sub-section 2(f) or 2(g) of Section 25, or of  

any regulation made under clauses (e), (f) or (g) of Section 26, the Commission  

after taking into consideration the cause,  if  any,  shown by the University or  

such  failure  or  contravention,  may  withhold  from the  University  the  grants  

proposed to be made out of the fund of the Commission. This clearly goes to  

show that there is control of the functions of the university by the UGC under  

the  provisions  of  UGC Act,  Rules  and Regulations.   Therefore,  the  learned  

senior counsel Dr. Dhavan submits that the role of AICTE under the provisions  

of the Act is only advisory and recommendatory in nature and it cannot have  

any administrative or any other control upon the colleges which are affiliated to  

the universities which fall within the definition of Section 2 (f) of the UGC Act  

including  the  grant  of  approval  for  opening  of  a  new course  in  relation  to  

technical education including MCA.

18

Page 19

20.  Further,  after  referring to the earlier  decisions  of  this Court,  namely,  

State of  Tamil  Nadu  v.  Adhiyaman Education  and  Research  Institute4,  

Jaya  Gokul  Educational  Trust  v.  Commissioner  and  Secretary  to  

Government  High  Education  Department,  Thiruvananthapuram5 and  

Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra),  wherein this Court has referred to the  

provisions of UGC Act and made certain observations that if there is conflict  

between  two  legislations   namely  the  State  Legislation  and  the  Central  

Legislation,  under  clause  (2)  of  Article  254  of  the  Constitution,  the  State  

Legislation being repugnant to the Central legislation would be inoperative as  

the State Law encroaches upon Entry 66 of Union List under which AICTE Act  

of  1987 is enacted by the Parliament  and the Bharathidasan University Act,  

1981 enacted by the State Legislature under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List.  

The observations and conclusions arrived at in those cases that the provisions of  

AICTE Act must prevail over the State enactments is totally untenable in law.  

Learned senior counsel submits that the legislation can be derived from a single  

Entry from the List  mentioned in VIIth Schedule of  the Constitution.  For a  

single Legislation that is AICTE Act, the Parliament cannot operate under both,  

List I as well as List III.   He further submits that the phrase “subject to’ used in  

Entry 25 of List III of VIIth Schedule limits the power of both the Union as well  

as  the  State.  Therefore,  reference to  Article  254 in those  judgments  by this  

Court in the cases referred to supra are wholly inapplicable to the fact situation  

4 (1995) 4 SCC 104 5 (2000) 5 SCC 231

19

Page 20

in  this  case  on  the  question  of  repugnancy  under  Article  254  (2)  of  the  

Constitution  as  it  does  not  arise  for  the  reason  that  the  law  in  relation  to  

establishment of Bharathidasan University and other University in respect of  

which  member  colleges  of  the  appellant  Association  are  affiliated  to,  is  

legislated  by  the  State  legislature  and  the  AICTE  Act  is  enacted  by  the  

Parliament  under  Entry  66 of  List  I.  Therefore,  the  question  of  repugnancy  

between  the  two  enactments  referred  to  supra  do  not  arise  at  all  since  

repugnancy  under  Article  254(2)  of  the  Constitution  would  accrue  only  in  

relation to the law legislated by the Parliament and the State legislature from the  

entries of the concurrent list of VII schedule.

21. Learned senior counsel Dr. Dhavan has also placed strong reliance upon the  

report of Kothari Commission (1964-1966) which shows that the AICTE Act  

should  be  held  to  cover  only  non-university  education  and  the  said  report  

emphasizes  upon  the  importance  of  education  and  universities  and  further  

emphasizes the importance of autonomy of the university and finances of the  

universities and the role of UGC.   Further, he placed reliance upon the National  

Policy of Education which envisages vesting of statutory authority for planning,  

formulation  and  the  maintenance  of  norms  and  standards  in  the  education.  

Therefore,  he  submits  that  the  AICTE cannot  have  any  kind  of  control  or  

regulation for the functioning of the colleges affiliated to the universities which  

20

Page 21

are governed by the provisions of the respective Universities Act and the UGC  

Rules and Regulations.

22. Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  in  the  

connected appeals contended that in the impugned judgment, the High Court  

has erred in holding that the Master of Computer Applications is a technical  

education  course  and  is  therefore  covered  by  the  definition  of  ‘technical  

education’ as defined in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, which is extracted in  

the relevant portion of the judgment. It is further contended by learned counsel  

that the definition of ‘technical education’ in the Act as it stands today is an  

exclusive  definition  and does  not  cover  the  courses  of  Master  of  Computer  

Applications  imparted  by  the  colleges  run  by  the  appellant  colleges.   The  

Central  Government  has  been  given  power  to  include  any  other  area  or  

course/courses in its purview by issuing an official notification to be published  

in the Official Gazette to this effect.  Such notification has not been issued so  

far  by  the  Central  Government.  Therefore,  he  submits  that  when  the  MCA  

course is not covered within the definition of ‘technical education’ it does not  

come under the purview of the AICTE Act at all and the question of the AICTE  

exercising its power on the institutions/colleges running MCA course does not  

arise.

23. Further, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the learned counsel has vehemently urged  

that the High Court has committed serious error in reading a comma in between  

21

Page 22

the words ‘engineering’ and ‘technology’ when it is one word in the statute and  

is  mentioned  as  “engineering  technology”  in  the  definition  of  ‘technical  

education’ as contained in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act.  The High Court has  

committed serious error in giving such an erroneous reading of the aforesaid  

provision of Section 2(g) and enlarging the scope of the Act and extending its  

sphere to the colleges involved in these proceeding  which was not intended by  

the Parliament.  Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the interpretation  

made by the High Court on the phrase ‘engineering technology’ by reading the  

words  ‘engineering’  and  ‘technology’  to  bring  within  the  definition  of  the  

“technical education” as defined in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, is not only  

in contravention of the settled principles of interpretation of statutes but also in  

contravention to the settled position of law as laid down by this Court in catena  

of cases.

24. It is further contended by the learned counsel that this Court has held in  

number of cases that the courts cannot add or delete words or punctuations in a  

statute.  It is also well settled proposition of law that the court shall gather the  

meaning of the statute by its simple and plain reading specially where there is  

no ambiguity in the language used in the definition provision and it should be  

construed in its literal sense.

25. It  is  further  urged by him that  the High Court  has failed to take into  

consideration that the amendment dated 16.8.2000, i.e. deletion of Regulation  

22

Page 23

No. 2(2) and addition of 8(c) and 8(iv) of Regulations of 1994 could not take  

effect  unless  the  same  was  placed  before  the  Parliament  as  required  under  

Section 24 of  the AICTE Act,  wherein the amended Regulations  have been  

framed. The amendments must be laid before both the Houses of the Parliament  

which is mandatory as provided under the aforesaid provision of the Act.   The  

authority which frames Regulations as provided under Section 23 could not be  

validly exercised unless such Regulations are laid before both the Houses of the  

Parliament at the earliest opportunity.  The very amendment dated 16.8.2000 of  

Regulations 2(2), 8(c) and 8(iv) has been kept ignoring the mandatory provision  

of  Section  24  and  therefore  the  impugned  amendment  to  the  aforesaid  

Regulations has been rendered invalid and void ab initio in law.    This aspect of  

the matter has not been considered by the High Court while interpreting the said  

provisions  in  holding  that  as  a  result  of  the  amendment  of  the  aforesaid  

Regulations,  the provisions  of  AICTE Act  will  be applicable  to  the courses  

which  are  being  conducted  by  the  colleges  affiliated  to  the  

University/Universities.  This  approach  of  the  High  Court  is  erroneous  and  

therefore the same cannot be allowed to sustain in law.

Further, it is contended by the learned counsel that the High Court has  

failed  to  examine  the  above  said  legal  aspect  of  the  amendment  to  the  

Regulations of AICTE in the year 2000 enlarging the scope of the Act to areas  

for which it is not meant.  Such amendment in Regulations will be ultra vires to  

the Act itself and cannot be sustained on this count alone.  This Court in several  

23

Page 24

cases has laid down the legal principle that the Rules and Regulations made  

under the Act cannot override or enlarge the object or purpose of the Act.

26. The learned counsel further contended that 7 out of 10 colleges of the  

appellants  herein  in  the  connected  appeals  were  granted  approval  by  the  

Bharathidasan University under the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 before  

the amended AICTE Regulations, 1994 came into force and undoubtedly all the  

colleges of the appellants herein got approval from the above said University  

and started running MCA course much before the amended Regulations of 2000  

came  into  force.   Therefore,  the  said  regulations  cannot  be  applied  to  the  

appellants’ colleges.   Further, the provision of Section 10 (k) of the AICTE  

Act, which deals with power and functions of the Council, clearly states that the  

council  may  “grant  approval  for  starting  new  technical  institutions  and  for  

introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies  

concerned”.  

27. The learned counsel further contends that the Bharathidasan University is  

regulated and controlled by the UGC constituted under the provisions of the  

UGC Act,  Rules and Regulations.   The relevant provisions of the UGC Act  

cover  the  institutions  and  its  constituents  colleges  as  well  as  its  affiliated  

colleges  which  are  being  run  by  the  appellants  herein  and  similarly  placed  

colleges under Section 12, 12A, 13 and 14 of the UGC Act.   

24

Page 25

The aforesaid provisions of UGC Act would show that those provisions  

would speak of Regulations of the university that is applicable and analogous to  

its affiliated colleges also.

28. Further,  the learned counsel  placing strong reliance upon the law laid  

down in the judgment of this Court in Bharathidasan University case (supra)  

wherein this Court has specifically held after referring to certain provisions of  

the AICTE Act and earlier judgments of this Court in Adhiyaman Education  

and Research Institute (supra) and  Jaya Gokul Educational Trust  (supra)  

that the AICTE is not intended to be controlling or supervising authority over  

the  University  merely  because  the  University  is  also  imparting  courses  of  

“Technical Education”.  Further, it was held that Regulation No.4 insofar as it  

compels the university to seek for and obtain prior approval and not start any  

new department or course or programme in Technical Education and empower  

itself  to  withdraw  such  approval,  in  a  given  case  of  contravention  of  the  

Regulation No.12, is directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provisions of  

Section 10 (k) of the AICTE Act and consequently void and unenforceable in  

law.   

Placing  strong  reliance  on  the  observations  made  in  para  14  of  said  

judgment and after referring to the Regulations, this Court held that the AICTE  

could not have been made to bind universities/UGC within the confines of the  

powers conferred upon it. It cannot be enforced against or to bind a university  

25

Page 26

as  a  matter  of  any  necessity  to  seek  prior  approval  to  commence  a  new  

department or course and programme in technical education in any university or  

any of its departments and constituent institutions.  The said observation also  

applies in the present case that the Regulations have no application to the MCA  

course which is being run by the colleges of the appellants herein.

29. It  is  further  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  that  Bharathidasan  

University which was incorporated under the provisions of UGC Act, 1956 is a  

controlling authority of its affiliated colleges for all its courses including MCA  

course.  The University confers degrees on the students studying in its affiliated  

colleges.   Thus,  for  all  intents  and  purposes,  the  courses  are  run  by  the  

University.  In fact in Bharathidasan University’s case (supra) at paragraph 2,  

this Court has dealt with the scope and purpose of the University.  It says that  

the University has been created “to provide among other things, instruction and  

training  in  such  branches  of  learning  as  it  may  determine;  to  provide  for  

research  and  for  the  dissemination  of  knowledge;  to  confer  degrees,  titles,  

diplomas  and  other  academic  distinctions  on  persons  who  have  pursued  an  

approved course of study in a university college or laboratory or in an affiliated  

or  approved  college  and  have  passed  the  prescribed  examination  of  the  

University”.  Thus, it is clear that the colleges are affiliated to the university to  

impart education in different courses run by the university in which the students  

have  to  pass  the  prescribed  examination  of  the  University  for  making  

26

Page 27

themselves  eligible to obtain degrees.   Therefore,  any provision or  direction  

requiring  the  colleges  affiliated  to  university  or  imparting  education  to  the  

students on behalf of the university to seek AICTE’s approval for conducting  

MCA  course  when  no  such  approval  is  required  for  the  university  for  the  

aforesaid purpose will be contrary to the judgment rendered in Bharathidasan  

University’s case (supra).

30. Learned counsel placed strong reliance upon the counter affidavit filed by  

the AICTE on 16.1.2013 in Civil Appeal No.1145 of 2004. Subsequent to the  

filing of the present appeal in 2004, the AICTE framed new Regulations in 2005  

and  2006  which  provide  that  “technical  institution”  means  institution  

conducting the course, inter alia, in the field of technical education, training and  

research in engineering, technology including MCA.  The Regulations of 2005  

and  2006  further  provide  that  not  only  new  technical  institutions  but  even  

existing technical institution cannot conduct any technical course without prior  

approval  of  the AICTE. The learned counsel  submitted  that  it  is  more  than  

apparent that the said Regulations have been specifically framed to counter the  

challenges posed by the appellant institutions to their authorities and power to  

regulate  the  course  of  MCA.   Also  after  taking  clues  from  the  impugned  

judgment in Bharathidasan University’s case they had taken care that there is  

comma  in  between  ‘engineering’  and  ‘technology’  in  the  definition  of  

“technical institution”.  Therefore, it is submitted that the said Regulation which  

27

Page 28

has not only come into force much after the introduction of MCA course in the  

appellant colleges but also after the impugned judgment in this appeal and after  

filing of the appeals, cannot be made applicable to the colleges of the appellant  

herein who are running MCA course since this will result in giving the amended  

Regulations retrospective effect as the Regulations do not provide for it.

31. On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  on  behalf  of  respondent  AICTE,  sought  to  justify  the  impugned  

judgment  in  these  appeals  by  placing  strong  reliance  upon  the  dictionary  

meaning of the expression “engineering” and “technology” from the following  

dictionaries,  namely  Webster’s  Comprehensive  Dictionary,  Wharton’s  Law  

Lexicon,  Encyclopedic  Law  Lexicon,  The  New  Shorter  Oxford  English  

Dictionary, Advanced Law Lexicon, P Ramanatha Aiyar’s the Law Lexicon and  

Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases.  After a careful reading of  

the meanings of ‘technical engineering’ which speaks of the art or source of  

making  practical  applications  of  the  knowledge  of  pure  science  as  physics,  

chemistry,  etc.  as  in  the  construction  of  engines,  bridges,  buildings,  mines,  

chemical  plants and the like, he submits that the expression ‘technology’ by  

itself  is  very  wide  and  also  comprehends  ‘engineering’.    The  Institutes  of  

Technology  Act,  1961  envisages  imparting  of  education  in  technology  and  

Section 6(1) of the Act empowers it to provide instruction and research in such  

branches of engineering and technology, science and arts as the institute may  

28

Page 29

think fit.   Further,  the National Institute of  Technology Act,  2007 envisages  

certain  institutions  of  national  importance  to  provide  for  instructions  and  

research  in  branches  of  engineering,  technology,  management,  education,  

sciences and arts.   He further contends that though one does not find a comma,  

between ‘engineering’ and ‘technology’ in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, the  

composition of the council envisaged by Section 3(4)(f)(iii) and (iv) and Section  

13(1)(iii) and (iv) in relation to establishment of Board of Studies would clearly  

go to show that engineering and technology are two separate branches of study.  

Even if, ‘engineering technology’ is considered to be a single expression that  

will not reduce the width and scope of the subject, it will nevertheless indicate  

both the branches of study of engineering and technology and will cover both  

the subjects.  Therefore, the existence or absence of comma between the two  

words is of no significance and the crucial issue is delineation of the scope of  

‘engineering  technology’.   Existence  and  absence  of  comma  and  its  scope  

should be determined with reference to the entire object and purpose of the Act  

that  is,  the  proper  planning  and  coordinated  development  of  the  “technical  

education” system throughout the country.  Therefore, the regulation and proper  

maintenance of norms and standards in the “technical education” system in the  

Preamble of AICTE Act is very important.  

32. Further, strong reliance was placed by the learned senior counsel for the  

respondent  upon  Parshvanath  Charitable  Trust  case  (supra)  wherein  the  

29

Page 30

course content of the three years MCA course with six semesters would clearly  

go  to  show  that  the  course  undertaken  by  the  colleges  affiliated  to  the  

Universities in the cases is very wide and covers the fundamentals of computer  

engineering  including  software  engineering  as  well  as  the  technology  of  

computer system.  Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act reads as under:-  

“Technical  Education”  means  programmes  of  education,  research  and training in engineering technology, architecture, town planning,  management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other  programme or areas as the Central Government may, in consultation  with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare;”  

The expression “Engineering Technology” in Section 2(g) of AICTE Act  

would clearly comprehend within its  scope,  the MCA course offered by the  

appellant colleges.   The contention on behalf of the appellants herein is that the  

colleges affiliated to the universities are outside the scope and purview of the  

AICTE Act in relation to obtaining approval from the AICTE for establishing  

technical institution or introducing new course or programme as required under  

Section  10(k)  read  with  Section  2(h)  of  the  Act.  Since  the  definition  of  

“technical  institution”  makes  no  mention  of   colleges  providing  technical  

education which are affiliated to the universities thereby expressly excluding  

such colleges from the definition of “technical institution” under the AICTE Act  

as  they  are  covered  under  the  affiliated  colleges  of  the  universities,  the  

contention made above is not tenable in law.  Also, the said definition, based on  

the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Bharathidasan University’s case  referred  to  

30

Page 31

supra  and  reliance  placed  upon  Kothari  Commission  Report  by  the  learned  

senior counsel on behalf of the appellant member colleges, is wholly untenable  

in law for the reasons mentioned in the said case.  In the earlier judgments of  

this  Court,  namely,  Adhiyaman Education and Research  Institute  (supra)  

and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra) referred to in Paragraph 11 of the  

Bharathidasan University case, the powers of AICTE under the AICTE Act  

and Regulations framed thereunder, are lucidly explained and it is held that the  

provisions of the UGC Act enacted by the Parliament are also applicable to the  

university under State enactments in so far as technical education is concerned.  

Learned senior counsel submits that in  Bharathidasan University’s case the  

earlier judgments in Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute and Jaya  

Gokul Educational Trust were noted but their correctness was not considered.  

Also, the Bharathidasan University case did not make any observation about  

their actual accuracy and in the said case this Court did not go into the question  

as to whether the AICTE Act would prevail over the UGC Act or the effect of  

competing entries in the three lists of VII Schedule of the Constitution.  On the  

other hand, a bare perusal of  Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute  

and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust  cases would clearly show that this Court  

was  considering the  applicability  of  AICTE Act  to  the  engineering colleges  

affiliated  to  universities  and  whose  courses  included  programmes  of  

Engineering and Computer Sciences.  Also, in both the cases, the two Judge  

Bench examined the competing entries in the List 1 and List III in the VIIth  

31

Page 32

Schedule of the Constitution and held that the State enactment-UGC Act would  

not  prevail  over  the AICTE Act  and rather  to  the  extent  of  repugnancy the  

enactment of the UGC Act would be impliedly repealed. It was held in those  

cases  that  power  of  universities  to  affiliate  such  colleges  would  depend  on  

compliance  of  norms  and  standards  fixed  by  the  AICTE  and  the  approval  

granted by the AICTE and also that if AICTE grants approval to such colleges  

then  they  need  not  obtain  the  approval  of  the  State  Government  and  the  

universities  should  not  insist  upon  obtaining  the  approvals  from  the  State  

Government.   Heavy reliance has been placed on the two judgments of this  

Court in Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute case (supra) and Jaya  

Gokul Education Trust case (supra).   

The  relevant  portions  of  the  Adhiyaman  Education  and  Research  

Institute case are extracted hereunder:

“12. The  subject  “coordination and determination of  standards  in  institutions  for  higher  education  or  research  and  scientific  and  technical institutions” has always remained the special preserve of  Parliament. This was so even before the Forty-second Amendment,  since Entry 11 of List II even then was subject, among others, to  Entry  66 of  List  I.  After  the  said  Amendment,  the  constitutional  position on that score has not undergone any change. All that has  happened  is  that  Entry  11  was  taken  out  from  List  II  and  amalgamated with Entry 25 of List III. However, even the new Entry  25 of List III is also subject to the provisions, among others, of Entry  66 of  List  I.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be doubted nor  is  it  contended  before  us,  that  the  legislation  with  regard  to  coordination  and  determination  of  standards  in  institutions  for  higher  education  or  research and scientific and technical institutions has always been the  preserve of Parliament. What was contended before us on behalf of  the  State  was  that  Entry  66  enables  Parliament  to  lay  down  the  minimum standards but does not deprive the State legislature from  

32

Page 33

laying down standards above the said minimum standards. We will  deal with this argument at its proper place.

27. The provisions of the State Act enumerated above show that if it  is made applicable to the technical institutions, it will overlap and  will be in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act in various  areas and, in particular, in the matter of allocation and disbursal of  grants, formulation of schemes for initial and in-service training of  teachers and continuing education of teachers, laying down norms  and standards for courses, physical and institutional facilities, staff  pattern,  staff  qualifications,  quality  instruction  assessment  and  examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition and  other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions  and for introduction of new courses or programmes, taking steps to  prevent  commercialisation  of  technical  education,  inspection  of  technical institutions, withholding or discontinuing grants in respect  of  courses  and  taking  such  other  steps  as  may  be  necessary  for  ensuring  compliance  of  the  directions  of  the  Council,  declaring  technical institutions at various levels and types fit to receive grants,  the constitution of the Council and its Executive Committee and the  Regional Committees to carry out the functions under the Central  Act, the compliance by the Council of the directions issued by the  Central Government on questions of policy etc. which matters are  covered by the Central Act. What is further, the primary object of  the  Central  Act,  as  discussed  earlier,  is  to  provide  for  the  establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a  view,  among  others,  to  plan  and  coordinate  the  development  of  technical education system throughout the country and to promote  the qualitative improvement of such education and to regulate and  properly maintain the norms and standards in the technical education  system which is a subject within the exclusive legislative field of the  Central Government as is clear from Entry 66 of the Union List in  the Seventh Schedule. All the other provisions of the Act have been  made in furtherance of the said objectives. They can also be deemed  to have been enacted under Entry 25 of List III. This being so, the  provisions of the State Act which impinge upon the provisions of the  Central Act are void and,  therefore, unenforceable.  It  is  for these  reasons that the appointment of the High Power Committee by the  State Government to inspect the respondent-Trust was void as has  been rightly held by the High Court.

41. What emerges from the above discussion is as follows:

33

Page 34

(i) The expression ‘coordination’ used in Entry 66 of the Union List  of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean  evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform  pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme  or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for  removal  of  disparities  in  standards  but  also  for  preventing  the  occurrence  of  such  disparities.  It  would,  therefore,  also  include  power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would  make  ‘coordination’  either  impossible  or  difficult.  This  power  is  absolute  and  unconditional  and  in  the  absence  of  any  valid  compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its  plain and express intention. (ii)  To the extent  that  the State  legislation is  in  conflict  with the  Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made  under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon  legislation  including  subordinate  legislation  made  by  the  Centre  under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of  the Union List, it would be void and inoperative.

(iii)  If  there is a conflict  between the two legislations,  unless the  State legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of clause  (2)  of  Article  254,  the  State  legislation  being  repugnant  to  the  Central legislation, the same would be inoperative.

(iv)Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union  List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of  the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination  of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case.

(v)  When  there  are  more  applicants  than  the  available  situations/seats,  the  State  authority  is  not  prevented  from  laying  down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the  Centre or the Central authority to short-list the applicants. When the  State authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the  Union List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central law.

(vi) However, when the situations/seats are available and the State  authorities  deny  an  applicant  the  same  on  the  ground  that  the  applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications,  as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or  qualifications  laid  down  by  the  Central  law,  they  act  unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities de-recognise or  

34

Page 35

disaffiliate  an  institution  for  not  satisfying  the  standards  or  requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and  requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State authorities  act illegally.”

Also, the relevant paragraphs of the Jaya Gokul Education Trust case  

are extracted hereunder:

“16. …… It was held that the AICTE Act was referable to Entry 66  List  I  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  relating  to  “coordination  and  determination  of  standards  in  institutions  for  higher  education  or  research  and  scientific  and  technical  institutions”.  After  the  constitutional  amendment  (Forty-second  Amendment  Act,  1976)  Entry 25 of List III in the Concurrent List read: “Education,  included  technical  education,  medical  education  and  universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of  List I; vocational and technical training of labour.”

Thus, the State law under Entry 23 of List III would be repugnant to  any law made by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I, to the extent of  inconsistency. The Tamil Nadu Act was of 1976 and the University  Act was of 1923 and were laws referable to List III. Whether they  were pre-constitutional  or  post-constitutional  laws,  they would be  repugnant to the AICTE Act passed by Parliament under Entry 66 of  List I. In the above case this Court referred to the various provisions  of the AICTE Act and on the question of repugnancy held (see SCC  p. 120) as follows: (SCC para 22)

“Hence, on the subjects covered by this statute, the State could not  make  a  law  under  Entry  11  of  List  II  prior  to  Forty-second  Amendment nor can it make a law under Entry 25 of List III after  the Forty-second Amendment. If  there was any such existing law  immediately before the commencement of  the Constitution within  the  meaning  of  Article  372  of  the  Constitution,  as  the  Madras  University Act, 1923, on the enactment of the present Central Act,  the provisions of the said law if repugnant to the provisions of the  Central  Act  would  stand  impliedly  repealed  to  the  extent  of  repugnancy.  Such repugnancy would have  to  be  adjudged on the  

35

Page 36

basis of the tests which are applied for adjudging repugnancy under  Article 254 of the Constitution.”

17. …….It was held (see SCC p. 126) that Section 10 of the Central  Act  dealt  with  various  matters  (including  granting  approval  for   starting new technical institutions), and that so far as these matters  were concerned “it is not the University Act and the University but it is the Central  Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction.  To that extent, after the coming into operation of the Central Act, the  provisions  of  the University Act  will  be deemed to have become  unenforceable”. (SCC pp. 126-27, para 30) Thus, in the two passages set out above, this Court clearly held that  because of Section 10(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.

19. …… In our opinion, even if there was a State law in the State of  Kerala  which  required  the  approval  of  the  State  Government  for  establishing  technical  institutions,  such  a  law  would  have  been  repugnant to the AICTE Act and void to that extent, as held in T.N.  case.  

22. …..  If,  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  

36

Page 37

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.

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.”

33. The learned senior counsel further submits that the question of law which  

was being considered was whether the universities created in the Bharathidasan  

University  Act,  1981  should  seek  prior  approval  of  the  AICTE  to  start  a  

department  or  imparting a  course  or  a  programme in technical  education or  

technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself to conduct technical  

courses  of  its  choice.   In  that  case,  this  Court  was  not  concerned  with  the  

question of starting of a college/technical institution by private persons which  

were merely affiliated to the university for the purposes of pursuing courses of  

study and participating in examinations for degree/diploma.

  34. By perusal of the observations made in Bharathidasan University’s case  

supra upon which strong reliance was placed by the learned senior counsel for  

the appellant, would show that this Court referred to Section 2(h) of the AICTE  

Act where the definition of ‘technical institution’ excludes university from its  

scope.  In  the  said  judgment,  this  court  has  observed  that  the  AICTE  Act  

37

Page 38

maintains  a  complete  dichotomy  between  a  ‘University’  and  a  ‘Technical  

Institution’.   It  was  further  submitted  that  the  expression  ‘constituent  

institutions’  as  used  in  paragraphs  12  and  15  of  the  Bharathidasan  

University’s judgment refers to technical institutions which are started by the  

university itself or as an adjunct to the university or affiliated colleges or are not  

started,  managed  and  governed  by  the  university  itself,  whereas  constituent  

institutions are started,  managed and governed by the university  itself  under  

powers given by the university enactment.   In view of the aforesaid factual  

position  he  submits  that  issues  in  relation  to  coverage  of  affiliated  colleges  

imparting technical education under Section 10(k) of AICTE Act stand decided  

and  concluded  by  the  judgments  in  Adhiyaman  Education  and  Research  

Institute and  Jaya  Gokul  Educational  Trust  cases  whereas  the  

Bharathidasan University’s case  deals  with the  department  and constituent  

institutions and units of the university itself. It was further submitted that the  

contention of the appellant colleges that they do not require prior approval from  

the AICTE since they are not covered by Section 10(k) read with Section 2(g) &  

(h) of the Act, is not tenable in law.  This Court took care to make observations  

that universities have to maintain the norms and standards fixed by the AICTE,  

even  though  they  do  not  need  prior  approval  for  starting  a  department  or  

constituent institutions and units.  Further, strong reliance was placed by the  

learned senior counsel  upon the provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 22 of the  

AICTE Act.  A careful analysis of the said provision would go to show the role  

38

Page 39

of inspection conferred upon the AICTE vis-à-vis Universities which is limited  

to the purpose of ensuring the proper maintenance of norms and standards in the  

technical education system in the country so as to conform to the standards laid  

down  by  it.   Therefore,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  respondent  AICTE  

submits that the contention urged by Dr. Dhavan, with respect to the member  

colleges of the appellant and learned counsel Mr.Prashant Bhushan in connected  

appeals  that  the  AICTE,  except  bringing  to  the  notice  of  UGC  regarding  

standards  to  be  maintained  by  the  colleges  affiliated  to   the  universities  in  

relation to technical education,  has no role to play or it has no power to regulate  

or  control  such  colleges,  is  wholly  untenable  in  law  and  therefore  the  

submissions made in this regard cannot be accepted.

35. On the basis of the factual and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of  

the parties the following points would arise for consideration of this Court in  

these civil appeals:--   

(1)Whether  the  colleges  affiliated  to  a  university  comes  within  the  

purview of exclusion of the definition of “Technical  Institution” as  

defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987?

(2)Whether  the  AICTE has  got  the  control  and  supervision  upon  the  

affiliated  colleges  of  the  respective  universities  of  the  member  

colleges of the appellant in C.A.No.1145/2004 and the appellants in  

connected appeals?

39

Page 40

(3)Whether the MCA course be construed as technical education in terms  

of definition under section 2(g) of the AICTE Act?  

(4)Whether the Regulation 8(c) and 8(iv) by way of amendment in the  

year 2000 inserting the words ‘MBA and MCA’ before Architecture  

and Hotel Management courses is applicable to the concerned colleges  

of the appellants?

(5)Whether non placement of the amended Regulations before Houses of  

the  Parliament  as  required  under  Section  24  of  the  AICTE Act  is  

vitiated in law?   

(6)Whether  the  law  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  Bharathidasan  

University’s  case,  Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute  

case and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust case is applicable to the fact  

situation of the concerned colleges of the appellants?

Answer to the points framed above

36. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellants by assigning  

the following reasons:-

For  this  purpose,  it  would  be  very  much  necessary  to  extract  the  

definition  of  ‘technical  institution’,  ‘university’  and  ‘technical  education’  in  

Sections 2(h), 2(i) and 2(g) respectively read with Section 10(k) of the AICTE  

40

Page 41

Act and also the definition of 2(f) of the UGC Act read with Sections 12, 12A,  

12B, 12(2) (c) of the UGC Act.    

Section 2 (f), (g), (h) and (i) of the AICTE Act read as:

“2. Definitions.       ……..

 (f)  “Regulations” means regulations made under this Act.

(g)  “Technical  education”  means  programmes  of  education,  research and training in engineering technology, architecture, town  planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and  such other programme or areas as the Central Government may, in  consultation  with  the  Council,  by  notification  in  the  Official  Gazette, declare;

(h)  “Technical  institution”  means  an  institution,  not  being  a  university  which  offers  courses  or  programmes  of  technical  education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central  Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification  in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions:

 (i)  “University” means a University defined under clause (f)  of  Section  2  of  the  University  Grants  Commission  Act,  1956  (3  of  1956) and includes an institution deemed to be a University under  section 3 of that Act.  

10. Functions of the Council.- It shall be the duty of the Council to  take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and  integrated development of technical education and management and  maintenance  of  standards  and  for  the  purposes  of  performing  its  functions under this Act, the Council may- …… (k)  grant  approval  for  starting  new technical  institutions  and  for  introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the  agencies concerned:”

Further, the relevant sections of University Grants Commission Act,  

1956 read as under:

41

Page 42

“2.Definitions. …….. (f) “University” means a University established or incorporated by  

or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes  any  such  institution  as  may,  in  consultation  with  the  University  concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the  regulations made in this behalf under this Act.  

12. Functions of the Commission- It shall be the general duty of the  Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other  bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion  and co-ordination of University education and for the determination  and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research  in Universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under  this Act, the Commission may-

(a) inquire into the financial needs of Universities;

(b)  allocate  and disburse,  out  of  the  Fund of  the Commission,  grants  to  Universities  established or  incorporated by or  under  a  Central Act for the maintenance and development of such Univer- sities or for any other general or specified purpose:

(c) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission, such  grants to other Universities as it may deem 1[necessary or appro- priate for the development of such Universities or for the mainte- nance, or development, or both, of any specified activities of such  Universities]  or  for  any other general  or specified purpose:  Pro- vided that in making any grant to any such University, the Com- mission  shall  give  due  consideration  to  the  development  of  the  University concerned, its financial needs, the standard attained by  it and the national purposes which it may serve, 2[(cc) allocate and  disburse out of the Fund of the Commission, such grants to institu- tion deemed to be Universities in pursuance of a declaration made  by the Central Government under section 3, as it may deem neces- sary, for one or more of the following purposes, namely:-

(i) for maintenance in special cases, (ii) for development, (iii) for any other general or specified purpose;]

42

Page 43

1[“(ccc) establish, in accordance with the regulations made under  this Act, institutions for providing common facilities, services and  programmes for a group of universities or for the universities in  general and maintain such institutions or provide for their maintenance by allocating and, disbursing out of the Fund  of the Commission such grants as the Commission may deem nec- essary”.]

(d) recommend to any University the measures necessary for the  improvement  of  University  education  and  advise  the  University  upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such  recommendation;

(e) advise the Central Government or any State Government on the  allocation of any grants to Universities for any general or specified  purpose out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State, as the case may be;

(f) advise any authority, if such advice is asked for, on the estab- lishment of a new University or on proposals connected with the  expansion of the activities of any University;

(g)  advise  the Central  Government  or  any State  Government  or  University on any question which may be referred to the Commis- sion by the Central Government or the State Government or the  University, as the case may be;

(h) collect information on all such matters relating to University  education in India and other countries as it thinks fit and make the  same available to any University;

(i) require a University to furnish it with such information as may  be needed relating to the financial position of the University or the  studies in the various branches of learning undertaken in that Uni- versity, together with all the rules and regulations relating to the  standards of teaching and examination in that University respecting  each of such branches of learning;

(j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be  deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of  higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to  the discharge of the above functions.  

43

Page 44

12A. Regulation of fees and prohibition of donations in certain  cases-

(1) In this section-

(a) “affiliation”, together with its grammatical variation, includes,  in relation to a college, recognition of such college by, associa- tion of such college with, and admission of such college to the  privileges of, a university;

(b) “college” means any institution, whether known as such or by  any other name which provides for a course of study for obtain- ing any qualification from a university and which, in accordance  with the rules and regulations of such university, is recognized  as competent to provide for such course of study and present  students undergoing such course of study for the examination  for the award of such qualification.  

(c) “prosecution” in relation to a course of study, includes promo- tion from one part or stage of the course of study to another part  or stage of the course of study.

(d) “qualification”  means  a  degree  or  any  other  qualification  awarded by a university.

(e) “regulations” means regulations made under this Act.  

(f) “specified course of study” means a course of study in respect  of which regulation of the nature mentioned in sub-section (2)  have been made.  

(g) “student” includes a person seeking admission as a student;

(h) “university” means a university or institution referred to in sub- section (1) of Section 22.

(2)Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of section 12  if, having regard to- ……. (c) the minimum standards which a person possessing such qualifi- cation should be able to maintain in his work relating to such activ- ities and the consequent need for ensuring, so far as may be, that no  candidate secures admission to such course of study by reason of  

44

Page 45

economic power and thereby prevents a more meritorious candi- date from securing admission to such course of study; and  

(d) all other relevant factors, the commission is satisfied that it is  necessary so to do in the public interest, it may, after consultation  with the university or universities concerned, specify by regulations  the matters in respect of which fees may be charged and the scale  of fees in accordance with which fees shall be charged in respect of  those matters on and from such date as may be specified in the reg- ulation in this behalf, by any college providing for such course of  study from, or in relation to, any student in connection with his ad- mission to, and prosecution of, such course of study;……..

13.  Inspection.- (1) For the purpose of ascertaining the financial  needs of a University or its standards of teaching, examination and  research, the Commission may, after consultation with the Univer- sity, cause an inspection of any department or departments thereof  to be made in such  manner as may be prescribed and by such per- son or persons as it may direct.

(2) The Commission shall communicate to the University the date  on which any inspection under sub-section (1) is to be made and  the University shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection  in such manner as may be prescribed.  

(3)  The Commission shall communicate to the University its views  in regard to the results of any such inspection and may, after as- certaining the opinion of the University, recommend to the Uni- versity the action to be taken as a result of such inspection.

(4)All communications to a University under this section shall be  made to the executive authority thereof and the executive au- thority of the University shall report to the Commission the ac- tion, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purpose of im- plementing any such recommendation as is referred to in sub- section (3).

14. Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with rec- ommendations of the Commission- If any University  [grants af- filiation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to  in sub-section (5) of section 12-A in contravention of the provi- sions of that sub-section or] fails within a reasonable time to com-

45

Page 46

ply with any recommendation made by the Commission under sec- tion 12 or section 13 [or contravenes the provisions of any rule  made under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 25,  or of any regulation made under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause  (g) of section 26,] the Commission, after taking into consideration  the cause, if any, shown by the university [for Such failure or con- traventions]  may withhold from the University the grants proposed  to be made out of the Fund of the Commission.”  

37.  In  Bharathidasan  University’s  case,  the  question  which  fell  for  

consideration is referred to in the first paragraph of the judgment upon which  

strong reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent Mr.  

Rakesh  Dwivedi  to  substantiate  his   submission  that  the  ratio  laid  down in  

Bharathidasan University’s  case (supra) is in relation  to the question raised  

regarding the university  created under the Bharathidasan Universities  Act  to  

start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education  

or a technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself for conducting  

technical courses of its choice and selection. Therefore, the ratio laid down in  

the  said  case  has  no  application  to  the  fact  situation  of  these  education  

institutions/colleges  which are  run  by  the  appellants  herein  though they are  

affiliated to their respective universities.  Therefore, he placed strong reliance  

upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Adhiyaman Education and Research  

Institute and  Jaya Gokul Educational Trust’s cases wherein this Court has  

clearly enunciated the law after elaborately adverting to the legislative entries in  

List  I  Entry  66  and  List  III  Entry  25  regarding  the  respective  legislative  

competence  of  the  Parliament  and the  State  Legislature.  To substantiate  his  

46

Page 47

contention, he claimed that the AICTE Act is enacted by the Parliament under  

Entry 66 of List I and the Universities are established under the provisions of  

Bharathidasan University Act which was enacted by the State Legislature from  

Entry 25 of List III. The Bharathidasan University Act, fell for consideration of  

this Court in the above said judgments.  Therefore, in those cases this Court had  

clearly held that the AICTE Act is relatable to Entry 66 and must prevail over  

the State Enactments covered in those cases.  Therefore, the said decisions are  

applicable to the fact situation of this case. This contention is rightly rebutted by  

the learned senior  counsel Dr. Rajiv Dhavan and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the  

learned counsel  appearing on behalf of the appellants in both set  of appeals  

inviting our attention to the various provisions of the AICTE Act and UGC Act  

with reference to the principles laid down in Bharathidasan University’s case.  

Also,  the  relevant  paragraphs  from  the  decision  rendered  in  T.M.A.  Pai  

Foundation (supra) will be referred to in this judgment.   With reference to the  

above said rival legal contentions, it will be worthwhile to refer to the principle  

laid  down  in  Bharathidasan  University  and  Parashavananth  Charitable  

Trust cases  (supra).  The  relevant  paragraphs of Bharathidasan  University  

case (supra) read as under:

“8. We  have  bestowed  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the  submissions made on either side. When the legislative intent finds  specific mention and expression in the provisions of the Act itself,  the  same  cannot  be  whittled  down  or  curtailed  and  rendered  nugatory  by  giving  undue  importance  to  the  so-called  object  underlying the Act or the purpose of creation of a body to supervise  the implementation of the provisions of the Act, particularly when  

47

Page 48

the AICTE Act  does not  contain any evidence of  an intention to  belittle  and  destroy  the  authority  or  autonomy of  other  statutory  bodies, having their own assigned roles to perform. Merely activated  by some assumed objects or desirabilities, the courts cannot adorn  the mantle of the legislature. It is hard to ignore the legislative intent  to give definite meaning to words employed in the Act and adopt an  interpretation  which  would  tend  to  do  violence  to  the  express  language as well as  the plain meaning and patent  aim and object  underlying  the  various  other  provisions  of  the  Act.  Even  in  endeavouring to maintain the object and spirit of the law to achieve  the goal fixed by the legislature, the courts must go by the guidance  of  the  words  used  and  not  on  certain  preconceived  notions  of  ideological  structure  and  scheme  underlying  the  law.  In  the  Statement  of  Objects  and  Reasons  for  the  AICTE  Act,  it  is  specifically stated that AICTE was originally set up by a government  resolution as a national expert body to advise the Central and State  Governments for ensuring the coordinated development of technical  education  in  accordance  with  approved standards  was  playing  an  effective role, but,  “[h]owever, in recent years, a large number of  private  engineering  colleges  and  polytechnics  have  come  up  in  complete disregard of the guidelines, laid down by the AICTE” and  taking  into  account  the  serious  deficiencies  of  even  rudimentary  infrastructure necessary for imparting proper education and training  and  the  need  to  maintain  educational  standards  and  curtail  the  growing erosion of  standards statutory authority  was  meant  to  be  conferred upon AICTE to play its role more effectively by enacting  the AICTE Act.

9. Section 2(h) defines “technical institution” for the purposes of the  Act, as follows: “2.  (h)  ‘technical  institution’  means  an  institution,  not  being  a  university,  which  offers  courses  or  programmes  of  technical  education,  and shall  include such other institutions as  the Central  Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in  the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions;”

10. Since it is intended to be other than a university, the Act defines  in  Section  2(i)  “university”  to  mean  a  university  defined  under  clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act,  1956  and  also  to  be  inclusive  of  an  institution  deemed  to  be  a  university under Section 3 of the said Act.  Section 10 of the Act  enumerates the various powers and functions of AICTE as also its  

48

Page 49

duties and obligations to take steps towards fulfilment of the same.  One such 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”.  Section  23,  which  empowers  the  Council  to  make  regulations  in  the  manner  ordained  therein  emphatically  and  specifically,  mandates  the  making  of  such  Regulations  only  “not  inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the Rules”. The Act,  for all purposes and throughout maintains the distinct identity and  existence of “technical  institutions” and “universities” and it  is in  keeping tune with the said dichotomy that wherever the university or  the activities of the university are also to be supervised or regulated  and  guided  by  AICTE,  specific  mention  has  been  made  of  the  university  alongside  the  technical  institutions  and  wherever  the  university is to be left out and not to be roped in merely refers to the  technical  institution  only  in  Sections  10,  11  and  22(2)(b).  It  is  necessary and would be useful to advert to Sections 10(1)(c), (g), (o)  which would go to show that universities are mentioned alongside  the “technical institutions” and clauses (k), (m), (p), (q), (s) and (u)  wherein there is conspicuous omission of reference to universities,  reference  being made to  technical  institutions  alone.  It  is  equally  important to see that when 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, 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 cause 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 Act. Clause (t) of  sub-section (1) of Section 10 envisages AICTE to only advise UGC  for  declaring  any  institution  imparting  technical  education  as  a  deemed university and not do any such thing by itself.  Likewise,  clause (u) of the same provision which envisages the setting up of a  National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation  of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines,  norms and standards specified by it to make recommendation to it,  or to the Council, or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding  recognition or derecognition of the institution or the programme. All  these vitally important aspects go to show that AICTE created under  the  Act  is  not  intended  to  be  an  authority  either  superior  to  or  supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself  upon  such  universities  merely  for  the  reason  that  it  is  imparting  teaching  in  technical  education  or  programmes  in  any  of  its  

49

Page 50

departments or units. A careful scanning-through of the provisions  of  the  AICTE  Act  and  the  provisions  of  the  UGC  Act  in  juxtaposition,  will  show  that  the  role  of  AICTE  vis-à-vis  the  universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor  and  thereby  subserves  the  cause  of  maintaining  appropriate  standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered  to  issue  and enforce  any sanctions  by itself,  except  submitting  a  report to UGC for appropriate action. The conscious and deliberate  omission to enact any such provision in the AICTE Act in respect of  universities is not only a positive indicator but should be also one of  the determining factors in adjudging the status, role and activities of  AICTE vis-à-vis universities and the activities and functioning of its  departments  and  units.  All  these  vitally  important  facets  with  so  much glaring significance of the scheme underlying the Act and the  language of the various provisions seem to have escaped the notice  of  the  learned  Judges,  their  otherwise  well-merited  attention  and  consideration  in  their  proper  and  correct  perspective.  The  ultra- activist view articulated in  M. Sambasiva Rao case on the basis of  supposed  intention  and  imagined  purpose  of  AICTE  or  the  Act  constituting it, is uncalled for and ought to have been avoided, all the  more so when such an interpretation is not only bound to do violence  to the language of the various provisions but also inevitably render  other  statutory authorities  like  UGC and universities  irrelevant  or  even  as  non-entities  by  making  AICTE  a  superpower  with  a  devastating role undermining the status, authority and autonomous  functioning of  those  institutions  in  areas  and  spheres  assigned  to  them under  the  respective  legislations  constituting  and  governing  them.”

38. Paragraphs  19  and  20  of  Parashavananth  Charitable  Trust’s  case  

(supra) read as hereunder:

“19. Section 10 of the AICTE Act enumerates various powers and  functions of AICTE as also its duties and obligations to take steps  towards fulfillment 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  

50

Page 51

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  a  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 authority empowered to  issue and enforce any sanction 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  Univesity  v.  All  India   Council for Technical Education [(2001) 8 SCC 676]”  

(emphasis supplied)

The underlined portions from the said decision referred to supra would make it  

clear  that  the  AICTE Act  does  not  contain any evidence  of  an  intention to  

belittle and destroy the authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies which  

they are assigned to perform. Further, 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  

51

Page 52

the AICTE Act, the Parliament was fully alive to the existence of the provisions  

of UGC Act, 1956 particularly, the said provisions extracted above.  Therefore,  

the  definition  in  Section  2(h)  technical  institution  in  AICTE  Act  which  

authorizes the AICTE to do certain things,  special  care has consciously and  

deliberately been taken to make specific mention of university, wherever and  

whenever  the  AICTE alone was expected to  interact  with 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-à-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-à-vis  Entry  25  of  List  III  of  the  VII  Schedule  of  the  Constitution.   A  

cumulative reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of Bharathidasan University’s  

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 the AICTE.  Also, from the reading of paragraphs 19 and 20 of  

Parashvanath Chartitable Trust case it is made clear after careful scanning of  

52

Page 53

the provisions of the AICTE Act and the University Grants Commission Act,  

1956   that  the  role  of  AICTE  vis-à-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.   It is rightly pointed  

out from the affidavit filed by UGC as directed by this Court in these cases on  

the question of affiliated colleges to the university, that the affidavit  is  very  

mechanical  and it  has  simply and gratuitously  without  foundation,  added as  

technical institutions including affiliated colleges without any legal foundation.  

In paragraphs 13,  14, 15 and 19 of  the Affidavit filed by the UGC and the  

assertion made in paragraph 23 is without any factual foundation, which reads  

as under:     

“That it is further submitted that affiliated colleges are distinct and  different than the constituent colleges.  Thus, it cannot be said that  constituent colleges also include affiliated colleges.”

Further,  the assertion of  UGC as rightly pointed out  by Dr.   Dhavan in the  

written submission filed on behalf of the appellant in CA No. 1145 of 2004 that  

the claim that UGC does not have any provision to grant approval of technical  

institution,  is  facile  as  it  has  already been laid down by this  Court  that  the  

AICTE norms can be applied to the affiliated colleges through UGC.  It can  

only  advise  the  UGC  for  formulating  the  standard  of  education  and  other  

aspects  to  the  UGC.    In  view  of  the  law  laid  down  in  Bharathidasan  

University and  Parashvanath Charitable Trust  cases (supra),   the learned  

senior counsel Dr. Dhavan has rightly submitted for rejection of the affidavit of  

53

Page 54

the  UGC,  which  we  have  to  accept  as  the  same  is  without  any  factual  

foundation and also contrary to the intent and object of the Act.

39. It  is  also  relevant  to  refer  to  the  exclusion  of  university  from  the  

definition of ‘technical institution’ as defined under section 2(h) of the AICTE  

Act.  The Institution means an institution not being university, the applicability  

of bringing the university as defined under clause 2 (f) of UGC Act includes the  

institution  deemed  to  be  a  university  under  Section  3  of  the  said  Act  and  

therefore  the  affiliated  colleges  are  excluded  from the  purview of  technical  

institution definition of the AICTE Act. The submission made on behalf of the  

colleges which are affiliated to the respective universities which are being run  

by the appellants in the connected appeals will also come within the purview of  

the university referred to in the above definition of technical institution. The  

above  interpretation  sought  to  be  made  by  the  learned  senior  counsel  and  

another counsel is supported by the provisions of the UGC Act.    Section 12A  

of  the  UGC  Act  clearly  speaks  of  regulation  of   fees   and   provisions  of  

donation in certain cases which refers to the  phrase  affiliation together with its  

grammatical  variation included in relation to a  college,   recognition of  such  

college by, association of such college with, and admission of such college to  

the privileges of universities.    A careful reading of sub-sections (2)(c), (3), (4)  

and  (5)  of  Section  12A  of  the  UGC  Act  makes  it  abundantly  clear  about  

colleges  which  are  required  to  be  affiliated  to  run  the  courses  for  which  

54

Page 55

sanction/approval will be accorded  by the university or under the control and  

supervision  of  such  universities.  Therefore,  affiliated  colleges  to  the  

university/universities are part of them and the exclusion of university in the  

definition of technical institution as defined in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act  

must be extended to the affiliated colleges to the university also, otherwise, the  

object and purpose of the UGC Act enacted by the Parliament will be defeated.  

The enactment of UGC Act is also traceable to Entry 66 of List I.  The aforesaid  

provisions of the UGC Act have been examined by this Court with reference to  

the provisions of AICTE Act in Bharathidasan University’s case. Therefore, it  

has  clearly  laid  down the  principle  that  the  role  of  the  AICTE Act  is  only  

advisory in nature and is confined  to submitting   report or giving suggestions  

to the UGC for the purpose of implementing its suggestions to maintain good  

standards in technical education in terms of definition under Section 2(h) of the  

AICTE Act and to see that there shall be uniform education standard throughout  

the country to be maintained which is the laudable object of the AICTE Act for  

which it is enacted by the Parliament. The provisions of the AICTE Act shall be  

implemented through the UGC as the universities and its affiliated colleges are  

all governed by the provisions of the said Act under Section 12A of the UGC  

Act read with Rules Regulations that will be framed by the UGC in exercise of  

its power under Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act.  Therefore, the conclusions  

arrived at in Bharathidasan University case is supported by the eleven Judge  

Constitution Bench decision in T.M.A. Pai case (supra) wherein this Court has  

55

Page 56

overruled  the  directions  given  in  Unni  Krishnan  J.P.  & Ors.  v.  State  of  

Andhra Pradesh & Ors.6 to the Central Government and others regarding the  

reservations and schemes. The relevant paragraphs of T.M.A. Pai case read as  

under:-

“37. Unni  Krishnan judgment  has  created  certain  problems,  and  raised thorny issues. In its anxiety to check the commercialization of  education, a scheme of “free” and “payment” seats was evolved on  the assumption that the economic capacity of the first 50% of admit- ted students would be greater than the remaining 50%, whereas the  converse has proved to be the reality. In this scheme, the “payment  seat” student would not only pay for his own seat, but also finance  the cost of a “free seat” classmate. When one considers the Constitu- tion Bench’s earlier statement that higher education is not a funda- mental right, it seems unreasonable to compel a citizen to pay for   the education of another, more so in the unrealistic world of com- petitive examinations which assess the merit for the purpose of ad- mission solely on the basis of the marks obtained, where the urban   students always have an edge over the rural students. In practice, it   has been the case of the marginally less merited rural or poor stu- dent bearing the burden of a rich and well-exposed urban student.

38. The scheme in Unni Krishnan case has the effect of nationaliz- ing education in respect of important features viz. the right of a pri- vate  unaided institution  to  give  admission and to  fix  the  fee.  By  framing this scheme, which has led to the State Governments legis- lating in conformity with the scheme, the private institutions are in- distinguishable from the government institutions; curtailing all the  essential features of the right of administration of a private unaided  educational  institution  can  neither  be  called  fair  nor  reasonable.  Even in the decision in Unni Krishnan case it has been observed by  Jeevan Reddy, J., at p. 749, para 194, as follows: “194. The hard reality that emerges is that private educational insti- tutions are a necessity in the present-day context. It is not possible to  do without them because the governments are in no position to meet  the demand — particularly in the sector of medical and technical ed- ucation which call for substantial outlays. While education is one of  the most important functions of the Indian State it has no monopoly  

6 1993 (1) SCC 645

56

Page 57

therein. Private educational institutions — including minority educa- tional institutions — too have a role to play.”

It has been clearly held that the decision in Unni Krishnan’s case in so far as it  

framed the scheme relating to the grant of admission and the existing of fee, is  

not correct and the consequent directions given to UGC, AICTE and Medical  

Council  of  India,  Central  Government  and  the  State  Government  etc.  are  

overruled. It is worthwhile to mention paragraphs 29 and 31 of the UGC Report  

of the University Education Commission headed by late Dr. S. Radhakrishnan  

as its  Chairman and nine other  renowned educationists  as  its  members.  The  

report which is extracted at paragraph 51 in the said  T.M.A. Pai  case reads  

thus:

“51. A University Education Commission was appointed on 4-11- 1948, having Dr S. Radhakrishnan as its Chairman and nine other  renowned educationists as its members. The terms of reference, in- ter alia, included matters relating to means and objects of university  education and research in India and maintenance of higher standards  of teaching and examination in universities and colleges under their  control. In the report submitted by this Commission, in paras 29 and  31, it referred to autonomy in education which reads as follows:

“University autonomy.—Freedom of individual development is  the basis of democracy. Exclusive control of education by the State  has been an important factor in facilitating the maintenance of total- itarian tyrannies. In such States institutions of higher learning con- trolled and managed by governmental agencies act like mercenaries,  promote the political purposes of the State, make them acceptable to  an increasing number of their population and supply them with the  weapons  they need.  We must  resist,  in  the  interests  of  our  own  

57

Page 58

democracy, the trend towards the governmental domination of the  educational process.

Higher education is, undoubtedly, an obligation of the State but  State aid is not  to be confused with State control  over academic  policies  and  practices.  Intellectual  progress  demands  the  mainte- nance of the spirit of free inquiry. The pursuit and practice of truth  regardless of consequences has been the ambition of universities.  Their prayer is that of the dying Goethe: ‘More light’, or that of  Ajax in the mist ‘Light, though I perish in the light.’ * * *

The respect in which the universities of Great Britain are held is  due to the freedom from governmental interference which they en- joy  constitutionally  and  actually.  Our  universities  should  be  re- leased from the control of politics.

Liberal  education.—All education is expected to be liberal.  It  should free us from the shackles of ignorance,  prejudice and un- founded belief. If we are incapable of achieving the good life, it is  due to faults in our inward being, to the darkness in us. The process  of education is the slow conquering of this darkness.  To lead us  from darkness to light, to free us from every kind of domination ex- cept that of reason, is the aim of education.”

Para 71 of the said decision, which deals with the rights of the private  

aided non-minority professional institutions, is extracted hereunder:

“Private aided professional institutions (non-minority) 71. While giving aid to professional  institutions,  it  would be  

permissible for the authority giving aid to prescribe by rules or reg- ulations,  the conditions on the basis of which admission will  be  granted to different aided colleges by virtue of merit, coupled with  the reservation policy of the State. The merit may be determined  either through a common entrance test conducted by the university  or the Government followed by counselling, or on the basis of an  entrance test conducted by individual institutions — the method to  be followed is for the university or the Government to decide. The  authority may also devise other means to ensure that admission is  granted to an aided professional institution on the basis of merit. In  the case of such institutions, it will be permissible for the Govern-

58

Page 59

ment  or  the  university  to  provide  that  consideration  should  be  shown to the weaker sections of the society.”

At paragraph 72 in the said judgment, it has been held that once aid is  

granted to a private professional educational institution, the Government or the  

State agency, as a condition of the grant of aid, can put fetters on the freedom in  

the matter of administration and management of the institution. It is stated as  

under:   

“72. .............The State, which gives aid to an educational institu- tion, can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper  maintenance  of  the  high standards  of  education  as  the financial  burden is shared by the State. The State would also be under an  obligation to protect the interest of the teaching and non-teaching  staff. In many States, there are various statutory provisions to regu- late  the  functioning  of  such  educational  institutions  where  the  States give, as a grant or aid, a substantial proportion of the rev- enue expenditure including salary, pay and allowances of teaching  and non-teaching staff. It would be its responsibility to ensure that  the teachers working in those institutions are governed by proper  service conditions. The State, in the case of such aided institutions,  has ample power to regulate the method of selection and appoint- ment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualifications for the  same. Ever since In Re, Kerala Education Bill, 1957 this Court has  upheld,  in  the  case  of  aided  institutions,  those  regulations  that  served the interests of students and teachers. Checks on the admin- istration may be necessary in order to ensure that the administra- tion is efficient and sound and will serve the academic needs of the  institutions.  In  other  words,  rules  and  regulations  that  promote  good administration and prevent maladministration can be formu- lated so as to promote the efficiency of  teachers,  discipline and  fairness in administration and to preserve harmony among affili- ated institutions. At the same time it has to be ensured that even an  aided institution does not become a government-owned and con- trolled institution. Normally, the aid that is granted is relatable to  the pay and allowances of the teaching staff. In addition, the man- agement of the private aided institutions has to incur revenue and  capital expenses. Such aided institutions cannot obtain that extent  

59

Page 60

of  autonomy  in  relation  to  management  and  administration  as  would be available to a private unaided institution, but at the same  time, it cannot also be treated as an educational institution depart- mentally run by Government or as a wholly owned and controlled  government institution and interfere with constitution of the gov- erning bodies or thrusting the staff without reference to manage- ment.”

40. A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs extracted from  TMA Pai’s case  

makes it very clear that in view of decision of the eleven Judges Constitution  

Bench of this Court, the scheme framed under the  Unni Krishnan’s case has  

been overruled. Therefore, the autonomy of the university is recognized in the  

said  case  and the  object  and intendment  of  the  Parliament  in  excluding the  

universities from the definition of technical  institution as defined under Section  

2(h) of  the AICTE Act makes is explicitly clear, after scanning the definition of  

education institution with reference to the exclusion of universities and Sections  

10, 11, 12 and 13 of the AICTE Act. The object of the statutory enactment made  

by  the  Parliament  has  been  succinctly  examined  by  this  Court  in  

Bharathidasan  University    and Parshvanath  Charitable  Trust   cases  

referred to supra therefore they have rightly made observations that the role of  

the  AICTE  Act  in  view  of  the   UGC  Act  and  the  powers  and  functions  

conferred by the UGC for controlling and regulating the universities  and its  

affiliated colleges has been explicitly conferred upon the UGC. Hence,  they  

have  been  given  the  power  to  regulate  such  universities  and  regulations  in  

relation  to  granting  sanctions/approvals  and  also  maintaining  educational  

60

Page 61

standards  and over-seeing the  prescription  of  the fee structure  including the  

admission of students in various courses and programmes that will be conducted  

by the university and its institutions, constituent colleges, units and the affiliated  

colleges.  Therefore, we have to hold that the Bharathidasan University case  

(supra) on all fours be applicable to the fact situation of these appeals and we  

have to apply the said principle in the cases in hand whereas in the decisions of  

Adhiyaman  Education  and  Research  Institute case  and  Jaya  Gokul  

Education Trust’s case (supra) this Court has not examined the cases from the  

aforesaid  perspective.   Therefore,  the  same  cannot  be  applied  to  the  fact  

situation.   The  reliance  placed  upon  those  judgments  by  the  learned  senior  

counsel on behalf of the AICTE is misplaced.     

Accordingly, point nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellants.

Answer to Point No.3

41. Learned senior counsel for AICTE, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, with reference  

to the definition of technical education under the provisions of the AICTE Act,  

urged that the definition of engineering and technology has to be construed and  

interpreted to bring MCA course under its fold in view of the meaning assigned  

to  those  words  occurred  in  the  definition  clause  by placing  reliance  on  the  

different dictionaries, which are extracted as hereunder:

As per the Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary, ‘Technology’ means:

61

Page 62

“(1)  Theoretical  knowledge  of  industry  and  the  industrial  arts.  (2) The application of science to the arts.  (3) That branch of ethnology which treats of the development of  the arts”.  

Wharton’s Law Lexicon defines ‘Technology’ as:

“any  information  (including  information  embodied  in  software)  other than information in the public domain, that is capable of being  used in-  (i)  the  development,  production  or  use  of  any goods or  software; (ii) the development of, or the carrying out of, an industrial  or  commercial  activity  or  the provision of  a  service of  any kind.  Explanation,  when  technology  is  described  wholly  or  partly  by  reference to the uses to which it (or the goods to which it relates)  may be put, it shall include services which are provided or used, or  which are capable of being used, in the development, production or  use of such technology or goods. [Weapons of Mass Destruction and  their  delivery  system…].  Means  a  branch  of  knowledge;  the  knowledge and means used to produce the material necessities of a  society….”  

Further, Encyclopedia Law Lexicon presents ‘Technology’ as:

“any  information  (including  information  embodied  in  software)  other than information in the public domain, that is capable of being  used  in-  (i)  the  development  production  or  use  of  any  goods  or  software; (ii) the development of, or the carrying out of, an industrial  or  commercial  activity  or  the provision of  a  service of  any kind.  [Section 4(1), The Weapons of Mass Destruction and their delivery  system (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities Act, 2005].”

The New Shorter Oxford English dictionary defines ‘Technology’ as:  

“1(a) The branch of knowledge that deals with the mechanical arts of  applied sciences; a discourse or treaties on (one of) these subjects,  orig. on an art or arts. (b). The terminology of a particular subject;  technical  nomenclature.    2(a).  The  mechanical  arts  or  applied  sciences  collectively;  the  application  of  (any  of)  these.   (b).  A  particular mechanical art or applied science.”

Further, ‘Technology’, in Advanced Law Lexicon is defined as  

62

Page 63

“any special or technical knowledge or any special service required  for  any  purpose  whosoever  by  an  industrial  concern  under  any  foreign  collaboration,  and includes  designs,  drawings,  publication  and technical personnel.”  

and ‘knowledge’ is defined in the same dictionary as  

“the means and methods of  producing goods and services,  or  the  application of science to production or distribution, resulting in the  creation  of  new products,  new manufacturing processes,  or  more  efficient methods of distribution. (WTO).”

  The meaning of Engineering as given in Dictionaries are read as under:

Webster’s  Comprehensive Dictionary -  Engineering –  Enginering  in the broader sense, is that branch of human endeavour by which  the  forces  of  nature   are  brought  under  human  control  and  the  properties of matter made useful in structures and machines”

Advanced  Law  Lexicon  –  The  activity  or  the  functions  of  an  Engineer;  the  science  by  which  the  properties  of  matter  and  the  sources of energy in nature are made useful to man in structures,  machines and products; relating to engineering.

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary – The work done by or  the  occupation  of,  an  engineer,  the  application of  the  science  for  directly useful purposes as, construction, propulsion, communication  or manufacture.  The action of working artfully to bring something  about.   A  field  of  study  or  activity  concerned  with  deliberate  alteration or modification in some  particular area.

Law Lexicon –  The activity  or  the  functions  of  an  engineer;  the  science by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy  in  nature  are  made  useful  to  man  in  structures,  machines  and  products.”

42. The above meanings of the words ‘technology’ and ‘engineering’ as per  

the  dictionaries  referred  to  supra  would  clearly  go  to  show that  MCA also  

comes  within  the  definition  of  technology.  Therefore,  the  contention  that  

63

Page 64

technical education includes MCA as raised by the learned senior counsel on  

behalf of the AICTE stand to its reasoning and logic in view of the nature of  

MCA course which is being imparted to the students at post graduation level  

which is being conducted by the institutions, constituent colleges and affiliated  

colleges to the universities.  The same is a technical education and therefore, it  

comes within the definition of technical education but for its proper conduct of  

courses and regulation the role of AICTE must be advisory and for the same, a  

note shall be given to the UGC for its implementation by it but not the AICTE.  

Accordingly, point no.3 is answered in favour of respondent AICTE.

43. As  per  definition  of  ‘technical  education’  under  Section  2(g)  of  the  

AICTE Act and non production of any material by the AICTE to show that  

MBA  course  is  a  technical  education,  we  hold  that  MBA  course  is  not  a  

technical course within the definition of the AICTE Act and in so far as reasons  

assigned for MCA course being ‘technical education’, the same does not hold  

for  MBA  course.   Therefore,  for  the  reasons  assigned  while  answering  the  

points which are framed in so far as the MCA course is concerned, the approval  

from the AICTE is not required for obtaining permission and running MBA  

course by the appellant colleges.

64

Page 65

44. So far as point nos.4 and 5 are concerned, the amended Regulation Nos.  

8(c) and 8(iv) of 2000 were introduced by the AICTE in exercise of its power  

under  section  10(k)  of  AICTE Act  by  adding  the  MBA and  MCA courses  

within  the  purview  of  the  provisions  of  AICTE  as  it  is  included  in  the  

Regulation as a technical education.  It is the case made out by learned counsel  

for the appellant Mr. Prashant Bhushan that the amended Regulation has not  

been placed before the Parliament which is mandatory as per the provisions of  

Section 24 of the AICTE Act, the said contention has not been disputed by the  

AICTE in these cases.  The provision of Section 24 reads thus:

“24. Rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament:-  Every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid,  as  soon  as  may  be  after  it  is  made,  before  each  House  of  Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days  which  may  be  comprised  in  one  session  or  in  two  or  more  successive  sessions,  and  it  before  the  expiry  of  the  session  immediately  following  the  session  or  the  successive  sessions,  aforesaid, both Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not  be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in  such modified form or be of  no effect,  as  the case may be;  so,  however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without  prejudice to the validity of  anything previously done under that  rule or regulation.”

The position of law is well settled by this Court that if the Statute prescribes a  

particular procedure to do an act in a particular way, that act must be done in  

that manner, otherwise it is not at all done. In the case of  Babu Verghese v.  

Bar Council of Kerala7,  after referring to this Court’s earlier decisions and  

Privy Council and Chancellor’s Court, it was held as under: 7 1999 (3) SCC 422

65

Page 66

“31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of  doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be  done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable  to  the decision in  Taylor v.  Taylor which was followed by Lord  Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under:

32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Ba- hadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Ra- jasthan. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this  Court in  State of U.P. v.  Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in  Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been ap- plied  to  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  by  courts  and  has  also  been  recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.”

In view of the above said decision, not placing the amended Regulations on the  

floor of the Houses of Parliament as required under Section 24 of the AICTE  

Act vitiates the amended Regulations in law and hence the submissions made on  

behalf of the appellants in this regard deserve to be accepted.   Accordingly,  

point Nos. 4 and 5 are answered in favour of the appellants.

 45. In so far as point no.6 is concerned, the law laid down in Bharathidasan  

University case, for the reasons recorded by us while answering point nos.1 and  

2 in favour of the appellants, the said decision on all fours be applicable. We  

have distinguished  Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute  and  Jaya  

Gokul Educational Trust  cases from  Bharathidasan University case in the  

reasoning portion while answering point nos.1 and 2.  Therefore, the said two  

cases need not be applied to the present case.

66

Page 67

46. For the foregoing reasons,  the common impugned judgment and order  

passed in W.A. 2652 of 2001, W.A. No. 3090 of 2001, WA 2835 of 2001, WA  

3087 of 2001, WA 2836 of 2001, WA 3091 of 2001, WA 3092 of 2001, WA  

2837 of 2001, WA 3088 of 2001, WA 2838 of 2001 and WA 3089 of 2001 is  

hereby set aside. The civil appeals are allowed. The relief sought for in the Writ  

Petitions is granted in so far as not to seek approval from the AICTE for MBA  

and MCA courses are concerned.  

There will be no order as to costs.  

………………………..J. [ Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN ]

………………………..J. [ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]

New Delhi, April  25, 2013.    

67