Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   9048              OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26086 of 2012)

Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors.           …  Appellants

Versus

All India Council for Tech. Edu & Ors.          … Respondents

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9047           OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.27021of 2012 @ CC No. 15485  

of 2012)

Chetan Pathare & Anr.         …  Appellants

Versus   

All India Council for Technical  Education & Ors.     ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Swatanter Kumar, J.  

1

Page 2

1. IA  Nos.1-2  of  2012  are  applications  filed  by  the  two  

students  of  Parshavanath  College  of  Engineering  run  by  

Parshavanath  Charitable  Trust  for  permission  to  file  special  

leave petition SLP (C) No............ of 2012 (CC No.15485 of 2012)  

against the judgment dated 22nd August, 2012 passed by the  

High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.460 of  

2011.   The  applications  are  allowed  subject  to  just  

exceptions.   

2. SLP  (C)  No.26086  of  2012  has  been  preferred  by  the  

appellant-Trust against the same judgment.

3. Leave granted in both the SLPs.

4. As the challenge in both these appeals is to one and the  

same  judgment  of  the  Bombay  High  Court,  it  will,  thus,  be  

appropriate  for  us  to  dispose  of  both  these  appeals  by  this  

common judgment.

FACTS :

5. The appellant, Parshvanath Charitable Trust, was formed  

as a minority community trust in the year  1993.  One of its  

objects was to establish educational institutions.  Consequently,  

2

Page 3

it  established  the  Parshavanath  College,  after  obtaining  

approval of all the concerned authorities on 11th June, 1994 with  

the intake capacity of 140 students for academic year 1994-95.  

This college was running at the premises being Survey No.27  

(part)  at  Kasarvadavali,  Ghodbunder  Road  in  the  district  of  

Thane.   The  annual  approvals  by  the  All  India  Council  for  

Technical  Education (for  short,  the ‘AICTE’)  continued till  the  

year  2008.   On 29th April,  2008,  the  appellant  sought  a  ‘No  

Objection Certificate’  from the University of Mumbai.   It  also  

applied  for an  ‘occupation  certificate’ from  the  Municipal  

Corporation of Bombay for shifting the college to new premises  

located at a distance of barely 300 meters from the old site  

being  Survey  No.  12/1,  2,  4,  13/8,  9,  10A  and  13/10B.   In  

furtherance  to  this,  the  appellant  had  made  an  application  

dated  24th May,  2008  to  the  Regional  Office  of  the  AICTE  

seeking its permission to shift the college to the new premises  

and also submitted all the requisite documents.  The appellant  

had also written to the Directorate of Technical Education for  

issuance of a No Objection Certificate for the said purpose.   

3

Page 4

6. It is not in dispute that in May, 2008, the college shifted its  

location to the new site.   This exercise was undertaken by the  

college and the Trust without taking prior approval of the AICTE  

and  without  receiving  “No  Objection  Certificate”  from  the  

University of Mumbai as well as the State Government.  It is also  

evident  from the  record  that  no  Occupation  Certificate  was  

received  from  the  Municipal  Corporation  of  Thane  before  

shifting.

7. On  or  about  24th June,  2008,  the  AICTE  appointed  an  

Expert Committee to verify the infrastructure available at the  

new site and the Expert Committee visited the college on 28th  

June,  2008.   It  noted  that  No  Objection  Certificate  of  the  

affiliating University for change in  the location had not been  

produced  though  they  were  informed  that  the  same  was  in  

process.   It also made certain observations with regard to the  

title of the land and the same, according to them, stood in the  

name of some other Trust which in turn had leased out the land  

to the appellant Trust.    The Committee also noticed that all the  

laboratories and other  infrastructure had been shifted to the  

new site.   On 30th June, 2008, the AICTE granted an extension  

4

Page 5

of approval to the Engineering College for the academic years  

2008-2011 with an intake capacity of 280 students.   Clause 3  

of this approval letter reads as under :-

“3.   That the institution shall operate only from  the approved location, and that the institution  shall  not  open  any  off  campus  study  centres/extensive  centres  directly  or  in  collaboration  with  any  other  institution/university  organization  for  the  purpose  of  imparting  technical  education  without  obtaining  prior  approval  from  the  AICTE.”

8. As  is  obvious  from  a  bare  reading  of  the  letter,  the  

appellant-college was to run its courses from the campus which  

was approved.  Thereafter vide letter dated 20th August, 2009,  

AICTE granted approval to the appellant-college with increased  

intake from 280 to 360 students for the academic year 2009.

9. The appellant  college was running its  courses when the  

show cause  notice  dated  18th May,  2010  was  issued  by  the  

AICTE to the Trust on the ground that the college had shifted to  

another location without obtaining prior approval of the AICTE.  

It was stated therein that an institution has to run courses only  

from an approved site and if it desires to shift to another site, it  

5

Page 6

has to follow the complete procedure as per the norms of AICTE.  

The show cause notice reads as under:-

“Your  institutions  i.e.  PARSHWANATH  COLLEGE  OF  ENGINEERING  and  VEER  MATA  HIRABEN  P.  SHAH  COLLEGE  OF  PHARMACY  are  approved  by  AICTE  for  running engineering and pharmacy course  at GODBHUNDER ROAD, KASAR VADAVALI  400601 DIST. THANE as per our records as  a permanent site.

As  per  AICTE norms,  the  institute  has  to  run the courses in the approved site only.  In any case, if the institute wants to shift  the  institute  to  another  location,  due  process has  to  be  followed as  per  AICTE  norms to get AICTE approval for shifting.

However,  it  was  found  that  you  have  shifted  your  Engineering  And  Pharmacy  institutions  to  another  location  without  obtaining  approval  from  AICTE,  which  is  gross violation of AICTE norms.

In  the  above  circumstances,  you  are  requested  to  show-cause  as  to  why  disciplinary action should not be initiated  including  withdrawal  of  approval  or  reducing your intake/stop admission.   Your  reply should reach AICTE headquarters and  Regional Office within three working days.”  

10. To this, the appellant Trust submitted its reply dated 21st  

May, 2010 relevant extract of which reads as under:-

“We  have  reason  to  state  that  after  filing  proposal for shifting the aforesaid colleges to  

6

Page 7

the  new  premises,  we  have  applied  for  permission for shifting the aforesaid colleges  in  the  new premises in  the year  2008 only  and  accordingly  we  are  conducting  engineering  and  pharmacy  colleges  in  the  new premises.”

11. The matter  remained  in  controversy,  but  as  a  result  of  

issuance  of  show cause  notice,  the  college  of  the  appellant  

Trust  was not  included in  the  Centralised  Admission Process  

(CAP)  by  the  State  Government.    The  appellant,  thus,  

challenged  the  non-  inclusion of  the  college in  the  CAP and  

action of the State Government by filing a Writ Petition before  

the Bombay High Court being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1776 of  

2010.   This Writ Petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the  

High Court  vide its  order dated 11th August,  2010 wherein it  

directed as under:-

“17. We,  therefore,  allow  this  petition  and  quash  and  set  aside  the  impugned  communication  of  the  Director  of  Technical  Education  and  direct  the  respondents  to  permit the appellant-college to participate in  the  Central Admission  Process  when  the  second round has commenced.

18.   In view of the submission already made  by  the  petitioners  in  their  reply  dated  21st  May, 2010 i.e. the Joint Charity Commissioner  has  passed  the  restraint  against  their  Managing  Trustee  restraining  him  from  

7

Page 8

interfering in the administration of the college  and  the  educational  institution  run  by  the  trust,  we  also  direct  that  the  respondent- Municipal  Corporation  of  Thane  should  consider the petitioner’s application for grant  of  occupation  certificate  for  the  building  in  which  the  engineering  college  and  the  pharmacy college are being run without being  influenced  by  any  objection  taken  by  Mr.  Tekchand  Shah  against  whom  the  order  is  passed by the Charity Commissioner.

19. It is clarified that it is open to the AICTE  to proceed with the show-cause notice but if  any order adverse to the petitioner-college is  passed, the same shall  not be implemented  for a period of two weeks from today.

20. This order is passed in presence of the  learned  Assistant  Government  Pleader  appearing  for  the  Director  of  Technical  Education  and  Mr.  S.V.  Kolla,  officer,  Admission Section from the office of Director  of Technical Education who shall immediately  instruct  the concerned persons to place the  name of the petitioner-engineering college on  the  website  of  the  centralised  online  admission process today itself.”

12. It  needs  to  be  noticed  at  this  stage  that  during  the  

proceedings  before  the  Division  Bench,  the  Municipal  

Corporation of Thane had stated that Occupancy Certificate had  

not  been  granted  to  the  appellant-college;  however,  reason  

thereof could not be brought to the notice of the Court at that  

stage because of shortage of time.   In the meanwhile, certain  

8

Page 9

disputes also arose among the management of the appellant-

Trust.

13. Subsequent to the above order of the High Court, on 7th  

January,  2011,  the  AICTE  passed  an  order  withdrawing  the  

approval  granted to the appellant-college in  terms of Clause  

2.11 of the Approval Process Handbook and the Guidelines for  

the  academic  year  2008-2009 and the  terms and conditions  

mentioned in the Letter of Approval.   The basis for withdrawing  

the  approval  was shifting  of  the  college to the  new location  

without  Occupancy  Certificate,  without  informing  the  State  

Government  and  without  obtaining  the  requisite  permission  

from the AICTE as per regulations.   The Expert Committee had  

also noticed  in  its  inspection dated  28th June,  2008 that  the  

construction was not suitable.

14. This  cancellation  of  approval  was  challenged  by  the  

appellant-Trust before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition  

No.460 of 2011.    Inter alia, the principal contention before the  

High Court was that an application dated 24th May, 2008 was  

made to the AICTE for change in location.  Contemporaneously,  

applications were also made to the University of Mumbai and  

9

Page 10

the Directorate of Technical Education for the issuance of No  

Objection Certificate and extension of approval  by the AICTE  

itself  showed  that  the  site  in  question  met  the  requisite  

standards and there was no justification for reducing the intake  

capacity  and  withdrawing  the  approval.     The  High  Court  

noticed that there was no challenge to the Regulations or any  

other clause of the Handbook.  Clause 9.22 of the Hand Book for  

Approval Process 2008 required a registered sale or gift deed in  

favour  of the  institution and only a  Government  lease  of  30  

years was acceptable as per that clause.   The relevant para of  

Clause 9.22 reads as follows:-

“9.22.   Procedure for Change of Site and  Norms  Concerning  Land  and  Building  on  New Site.

Changing  of location/Station may be permitted  after  getting  “No Objection Certificate”  (NOC)  from  the  concerned  State  Govt./UT  Administration  and  Affiliating  Body,  by  the  Competent Authority in AICTE as per laid down  procedure  subject  to  the  fulfilment  of  Norms  and  Standards  of  AICTE.     No  request/representation/Proposal  for  change  of  site  will  be  considered  after  submission  of  application/proposal for establishment of a new  Technical  Institution,  till  the  completion  of  at  least two years after a new institution is started  with the approval of AICTE.   No partial shifting  of  institution  to  a  different  site  shall  be  permitted.

10

Page 11

The following procedure shall be followed:

The  applicant  shall  have  to  submit  a  Proposal along with the following documents in  original  in  one  lot  to  the  concerned  Regional  Office of AICTE.

• Registration document of the Trust/Society  indicating members of Society/Trust and its  Objectives.

• Land  document(s)  in  original  for  the  new  site  showing  ownership  in  the  name of  Trust/Society  in  the form of  Registration Sale Deed/Irrevocable Gift  Deed  (Registered)/Irrevocable  Government Lease (for  a minimum of  30  years)  by  concerned  authority  of  Government.    In  case,  the  land  documents are in vernacular language,  Notarized  English  translation  of  the  document must to be produced.

• Land  use  Certificate/Land  Conversion  Certificate for the new site allowing the land  to  be  used  for  educational  purpose,  from  the Competent  Authority along with Topo- sketch/Village  Map  indicating  land  Survey  Nos.  and  a  copy  of  city  map  showing  location of proposal site of the institution.

• Site  Plan,  Building  Plan  for  the  new  site prepared by a registered Architect  and duly approved by the Competent  Plan Sanctioning Authority designated  by the concerned State.

• Proof  of  completion  of  the  building  structure  at  the  new  site  as  per  approved Engineering & Architectural  Building  Plan,  in  the  form  of  Color  photographs  giving  External  and  Internal views.

11

Page 12

• An  undertaking  by  the  Institution  stating  that  the  changes  shall  not  affect  the  admission  procedure  and  the  fee  that  a  student has to pay.”

(emphasis supplied)

15. While  noticing  the  above  Clauses,  the  High  Court  

proceeded on the admitted position that the appellant-college  

had shifted to the new site without the necessary permission  

and further it had no ownership to the land in question at the  

relevant time.   The Court also noticed that an inspection was  

carried out by the Municipal Corporation on 9th August, 2012  

and they had still not issued the Occupancy Certificate to the  

appellant-college.

16. In  view  of  the  above  factual  matrix  of  the  case,  the  

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide  

order dated 22nd August, 2012 and also passed a direction with  

regard to adjustment of students in other colleges keeping their  

welfare  in  mind.    The operative  part  of  the  order  reads  as  

under:-

“20.    In  the  exercise  of  the  jurisdiction  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of  India  it  would  not  be  permissible  for  this  Court to direct AICTE to grant its approval  for  conducting  the  engineering  college  at  

12

Page 13

the new location particularly in view of the  fact that no Occupation Certificate has been  granted;  the  Petitioners  have  not  established a clear title to or ownership of  land and they have not obtained the NOCs  of the State government or of the University  of Mumbai.

21.   Learned Counsel appearing on behalf  of AICTE has stated before the Court that  AICTE  will  take  all  necessary  steps  to  ensure that the welfare of the students who  have been allotted to the Petitioners would  be duly taken care of by making alternative  allotments  to  other  institutions  in  consultation  with  the  Directorate  of  Technical  Education  of  the  State  government.

22.For  these  reasons,  it  would  not  be  appropriate  to  interfere  with  the  decision  which has been taken by the AICTE.   The  Petition shall stand dismissed.   There shall  be no order as to costs.

23. In  view  of  the  dismissal  of  the  Petition,  the  Notices  of  Motion  do  not  survive  which  shall  accordingly  stand  disposed of.”  

17. Aggrieved from the dismissal  of the writ  petition by the  

High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeals.

18. As already noted, two students of Parshvanath College  

of Engineering have filed a separate application for leave  

to  prefer  Special  Leave  Petition  against  the  same  

13

Page 14

judgment  of  the  High  Court  dated  22nd August,  2012.  

According to the appellant-students in Civil Appeal arising out of  

SLP (C) No. ..............of 2012 (CC No.15485/2012), the judgment  

of the High Court has adversely affected their interests.  It is  

their  contention  that  revocation  of  approval  has  resulted  in  

closure of the Engineering College and it has jeopardised the  

future  and  career  of  the  students  studying  in  the  college  

including  those  studying  in  pursuance  of  the  interim  orders  

passed by the same High Court.

19. We  allow  this  application  and,  in  fact, the  affected  

appellant-students have been heard along with parties in the  

main appeal.  Thus, as already noticed, we would dispose of  

both these appeals by this common judgment.

20. Before  we  dwell upon  the  merit  or  otherwise  of  the  

contentions  raised,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  notice  certain  

settled legal principles which would help in judicious disposal of  

these appeals.

21. The  provisions  of  the  All  India  Council  for  Technical  

Education Act, 1987 (for short ‘the AICTE Act’) are intended to  

improve  the  technical  education  system  throughout  the  

14

Page 15

country.  The various authorities under the AICTE Act have been  

given exclusive responsibility to coordinate and determine the  

standards of higher education.   It is a general power given to  

evaluate,  harmonise  and  secure  proper  relationship  to  any  

project of national importance.    Such coordinated action in  

higher  education  with  proper  standard  is  of  paramount  

importance to national progress.

22. The provisions of the AICTE Act,  including its  preamble,  

make it abundantly clear that the AICTE has been established  

under the Act for coordinated and integrated development of  

the  technical  education  system  at  all  levels  throughout  the  

country  and  is  enjoined  to  promote  qualitative  

improvement  of  such  education  in  relation  to planned  

quantitative growth.  The AICTE is required to regulate and  

ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in technical  

education  system.    The  AICTE  is  to  further  evolve  suitable  

performance  appraisal  system  for  technical  institutions  and  

universities incorporating norms and mechanisms in enforcing  

their  accountability.   It  is  required to provide  guidelines  for  

admission  of  students  and  has  the  power  to  withhold  or  

15

Page 16

discontinue grants to such technical institutions where norms  

and standards laid down by it and directions given by it from  

time to time are not followed.  The duty and responsibility cast  

on the AICTE implies that the norms and standards to be set  

should  be  such  as  would  prevent  isolated  development  of  

education in the country.

23. Section 10 of the AICTE Act  enumerates various powers  

and functions of AICTE as also its duties and obligations to take  

steps  towards  fulfilment  of  the  same.   One  such  power  as  

envisaged in Section 10(1)(k) is to “grant approval for starting  

new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or  

programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned”.   It  

is important to see that the AICTE is empowered to inspect or  

cause to inspect any technical institution in clause (p) of sub-

section (1) of  Section 10 without any reservation whatsoever.  

However,  when it  comes to the question of universities,  it  is  

confined and limited to ascertaining the financial needs or its  

standards  of  teaching,  examination  and  research.  The  

inspection  may  be  made  or  caused  to  be  made  of  any  

department or departments only and that too, in such manner  

16

Page 17

as may be prescribed, as envisaged in Section 11 of the AICTE  

Act.    

24. All  these  vitally  important  aspects  go  to  show that  the  

Council (AICTE) created under the AICTE Act is not intended to  

be an authority either superior to or to supervise and control  

the  universities  and  thereby  superimpose  itself  upon  such  

universities  merely  for  the  reason  that  they  are  imparting  

teaching in technical education or programmes in any of their  

departments or units. A careful scanning of the provisions of the  

AICTE  Act  and  the  provisions  of  the  University  Grants  

Commission Act, 1956 in juxtaposition, will show that the role of  

AICTE  vis-à-vis  the  universities  is  only  advisory,  

recommendatory  and  one  of  providing  guidance,  thereby  

subserving the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and  

qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue  

and enforce any sanctions by itself.   Reference can be made to  

the  judgments  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Adarsh  Shiksha  

Mahavidyalaya  v.  Subhash  Rahangdale [(2012)  2  SCC  425],  

State  of  Tamil  Nadu  v.  Adhiyaman  Educational  &  Research   

17

Page 18

Institute [(1995) 4 SCC 104] and Bharathidasan University v. All   

India Council for Technical Education [(2001) 8 SCC 676].

25. From the above principles, it is clear that the AICTE has  

varied  functions  and  powers  under  the  AICTE  Act.    It  is  a  

specialized  body  constituted  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  

uniformity in  technical  education all  over the country and to  

ensure that the institutions which are recognised by the AICTE  

are  possessed  of  complete  infrastructure,  staff  and  other  

facilities and are capable of maintaining education standards  

for imparting technical education.

26. It is not necessary for us to refer to various provisions of  

the AICTE Act in any greater detail as no controversy in relation  

to application or interpretation of any of its provisions is raised  

for consideration in the present case.  The facts are primarily  

admitted and it is only the exercise of discretion vested in the  

AICTE which is the subject matter of challenge in the present  

appeals.     In  the  case  of  Jaya  Gokul  Educational  Trust  v.  

Commissioner  &  Secretary  to  Government  Higher  Education  

Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and Anr. [(2000)  

5  SCC  231],  this  Court  after  discussing  all  the  relevant  

18

Page 19

provisions  of  the  AICTE  Act  and  provisions  of  the  Madras  

University Act, 1923 (for short “the Madras Act”) which required  

the Institute to obtain approval of the State Government before  

it started the academic courses, found that the provisions of the  

latter Act overlapped and were in conflict with the provisions of  

the  AICTE  Act  in  various  areas  and  granting  of  approval  for  

starting  new  technical  institutions,  inspection  of  technical  

institutions, etc.    The Court held as under:-

“17.  ...  Thus,  in  the  two  passages  set  out  above, this Court clearly held that because of  Section 19(K) of the Central Act which vested  the  powers  of  granting  approval  in  the  Council,  the  T.N.  Act  of  1976  and  the  University Act, 1923 could not deal with any  questions  of  ‘approval’  for  establishment  of  technical institutions.  All that was necessary  was  that  under  the  Regulations,  the  AICTE  Council had to consult them.   

XXX XXX XXX

22.  As  held  in  T.N. case the  Central  Act  of  1987 and in particular, Section 10(k) occupied  the field relating to “grant of approvals” for  establishing  technical  institutions  and  the  provisions of the Central Act alone were to be  complied with. So far as the provisions of the  Mahatma Gandhi University Act or its statutes  were  concerned  and  in  particular  Statute  9(7), they merely required the University to  obtain the “views” of the State Government.  That could not be characterised as requiring  the  “approval” of the State  Government.  If,  

19

Page 20

indeed,  the  University  statute  could  be  so  interpreted,  such  a  provision  requiring  approval of the State Government would be  repugnant to the provisions of Section 10(k)  of the AICTE Act,  1987 and would again be  void. As pointed out in  T.N. case there were  enough  provisions  in  the  Central  Act  for  consultation  by  the  Council  of  AICTE  with  various  agencies,  including  the  State  Governments and the universities concerned.  The State-Level  Committee  and  the  Central  Regional  Committees  contained  various  experts and State representatives. In case of  difference of opinion as between the various  consultees,  AICTE would have  to  go by the  views of the Central Task Force. These were  sufficient  safeguards  for  ascertaining  the  views  of  the  State  Governments  and  the  universities.  No  doubt  the  question  of  affiliation was a different matter and was not  covered by the Central Act but in T.N. case it  was held that the University could not impose  any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act  or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by  AICTE. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining  the affiliation and any conditions which could  be imposed by the University,  could not  be  inconsistent with the provisions of the Central  Act.  The  University  could  not,  therefore,  in  any event have sought for “approval” of the  State Government.

23.  Thus we hold,  in  the  present  case  that  there  was  no  statutory  requirement  for  obtaining  the  approval  of  the  State  Government  and  even  if  there  was  one,  it  would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act.  The University  Statute  9(7)  merely  required  that the “views” of the State Government be  obtained  before  granting  affiliation  and  this  did not amount to obtaining “approval”. If the  

20

Page 21

University  statute  required  “approval”,  it  would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act.  Point 1 is decided accordingly.

XXX XXX XXX

27.  The  so-called  “policy”  of  the  State  as  mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed in the  High  Court  was  not  a  ground  for  refusing  approval.  In  Thirumuruga  Kirupananda  &  Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical  Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of T.N.  which  was  a  case  relating  to  medical  education and which also related to the effect  of a Central law upon a law made by the State  under Entry 25 List III, it was held (at SCC p.  35, para 34) that the

“essentiality  certificate  cannot  be  withheld  by  the  State  Government  on  any  policy  consideration  because  the  policy in the matter of establishment of  a new medical college now rests with the  Central Government alone”.

     (emphasis supplied)

Therefore,  the  State  could  not  have  any  “policy” outside the AICTE Act and indeed if it  had a policy, it should have placed the same  before AICTE and that  too before the latter  granted permission. Once that procedure laid  down in the AICTE Act and Regulations had  been followed under Regulation 8(4), and the  Central  Task  Force  had  also  given  its  favourable  recommendations,  there  was  no  scope for any further objection or approval by  the  State.  We  may  however  add  that  if  thereafter, any fresh facts came to light after  an approval was granted by AICTE or if the  State  felt  that  some conditions  attached  to  the permission and required by AICTE to be  

21

Page 22

complied with, were not complied with, then  the State Government could always write to  AICTE, to enable the latter to take appropriate  action.

Decision of University in not granting further  or final affiliation wrong on merits.  

XXX XXX XXX

30.  Thus,  the  University  ought  to  have  considered  the  grant  of  final  or  further  affiliation  without  waiting  for  any  approval  from the State Government and should have  acted on the basis of the permission granted  by  AICTE  and  other  relevant  factors  in  the  University  Act  or  statutes,  which  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  AICTE  Act  or  its  Regulations.”

27. The consistent view of this Court has been that where both  

Parliament and State Legislature have the power to legislate,  

the Central Act shall take precedence in the matters which are  

covered  by  such  legislation  and  the  State  enactments  shall  

pave way for such legislations to the extent they are in conflict  

or repugnant.    As per the established canons of law, primacy  

of  the  Central  Act  is  undisputable  which  necessarily  implies  

primacy of AICTE in the field of technical education.  Statutes  

like the present one as well as the National Council for Teachers  

Education Act, 1993, the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, etc.  

fall  within the ambit of this canon of law.   The AICTE is the  

22

Page 23

authority  constituted  under  the  Central  Act  with  the  

responsibility of maintaining operational standards and judging  

the  infrastructure  and  facilities  available  for  imparting  

professional  education.    It  shall  take  precedence  over  the  

opinion of the State as well as that of the University.   The  

concerned department of the State and the affiliating university  

have a role to play, but it is limited in its application.   They  

cannot lay down any guidelines or policies in conflict with the  

Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body.  

The State can frame its policies, but such policy again has to be  

in  conformity  with  the  direction issued  by  the  Central  body.  

Though there is no such apparent conflict in the present case,  

yet it needs to be clarified that grant of approval by the State  

and affiliation by the University for increased intake of seats or  

commencement of new college should not be repugnant to the  

conditions of approval/recommendation granted by the AICTE.  

These authorities have to work in tandem as all of them have  

the common object to ensure maintenance of proper standards  

of  education,  examination  and  proper  infrastructure  for  

betterment of technical educational system.

23

Page 24

28. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by  

the central authorities such as the AICTE  have the force of law  

and are binding on all concerned.  Once approval is granted or  

declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not  

substitute their view in this regard.   Such expert views would  

normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in  

such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a  

manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act.  

In the case of AICTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC  

726], this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may  

not substitute their opinion in place of opinion of the Council,  

held as under:-

“The  role  of  statutory  expert  bodies  on  education and role of courts are well defined  by  a  simple  rule.     If  it  is  a  question  of  educational  policy  or  an  issue  involving  academic matter, the courts keep their hands  off.    If any provision of law or principle of law  has  to  be  interpreted,  applied  or  enforced,  with  reference  to  or  connected  with  education,  courts  will  step  in.    In  Dr.  J.P.  Kulshreshtha  v.  Chancellor,  Allahabad  University:  (1980)  IILJ  175  SC  this  Court  observed:

Judges  must  not  rush  in  where  even  educationists fear to tread... While there is no  absolute  bar,  it  is  a  rule  of  prudence  that   

24

Page 25

courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of  academic bodies.

In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and  Higher  Secondary  Education  v.  Paritosh  Bhupesh Kumar Sheth : [1985] 1 SCR 29, this  Court reiterated:

..the Court should be extremely reluctant to  substitute its  own views as to what is wise,  prudent  and proper  in  relation to  academic  matters in preference to those formulated by  professional  men  possessing  technical  expertise and rich experience of actual day- to-day working of educational institutions and  the departments controlling them.”

18. This  is  a  classic  case  where  an  educational  course  has  been  created  and  continued  merely  by  the  fiat  of  the  court,  without  any  prior  statutory  or  academic  evaluation  or  assessment  or  acceptance.  Granting  approval  for  a  new  course  or  programme requires  examination  of  various  academic/technical facets which can only be  done by an expert  body like AICTE.    This  function  cannot  obviously  be  taken  over  or  discharged  by  courts.    In  this  case,  for  example,  by  a  mandamus  of  the  court,  a  bridge  course  was  permitted  for  four  year  Advance Diploma holders who had passed the  entry  level  examination  of  10+2  with  PCM  subjects.   Thereafter, by another mandamus  in  another  case,  what  was  a  one  time  measure was extended for several years and  was also extended to Post Diploma holders.  Again by another mandamus, it was extended  to  those  who  had  passed  only  10+1  examination.   Each direction was obviously  intended  to  give  relief  to  students  who  wanted  to  better  their  career  prospects,  purely as an ad hoc measure.  But together  

25

Page 26

they  lead  to  an  unintended  dilution  of  educational  standards,  adversely  affecting  the  standards  and  quality  of  engineering  degree courses.   Courts should guard against  such forays in the field of education.”

29. Right from the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others etc.   

etc. V.  State of Andhra Pradesh and Others etc. etc. [(1993) 1  

SCC 645], this Court has unequivocally held that the right to  

establish an educational institution does not carry within it the  

right  to  recognition  or  the  right  to  affiliation.   Grant  of  

recognition or affiliation is neither a matter of course nor is it a  

formality.   Admission to the privileges of a University is a power  

to be exercised with great care keeping in view the interest of  

the public at large and the nation.   Recognition has to be as per  

statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict adherence by  

all  concerned.   These conditions of  recognition and the  duly  

notified directions controlling the admission process are to be  

construed and applied  stricto sensu.    They cannot be varied  

from  case  to  case.   Time  schedule  is  one  such  condition  

specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges.  Adherence  

to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict  

conformity by all concerned, without exception.   Reference in  

26

Page 27

this  regard  can  be  made  to  Ranjan  Purohit  and  Ors.  v.  

Rajasthan  University  of  Health  Science  and  Ors.  [(2012)  8  

SCALE  71]  at  this  stage,  in  addition  to  the  case  of  Medical  

Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 258].

30. In light of the above principles, let us now revert to the  

facts of the case in hand.   There is no dispute as to the fact that  

the appellant-college had shifted to the new premises without  

approval  of  the  AICTE  and  without  ‘No Objection  Certificate’  

from  the  State  Government  and  Directorate  of  Technical  

Education.   Undisputedly,  the  college  had  no  title  to  the  

property in question inasmuch as the property had been sold in  

a Court auction by the bank on 8th August, 2011 and had been  

purchased by a firm in which the members of the Trust were  

partners. This partnership firm had executed a Memorandum of  

Understanding with the appellant Trust and given property on  

lease to the Trust.   These undisputed facts clearly show that  

the appellant-college had no title to the property and, in fact, it  

did not even have a registered lease deed in its favour to create  

some recognizable interest  in  the  property in  question.   The  

High Court in its judgment had specifically noticed the defects  

27

Page 28

pointed out by the Expert Committee. They, inter alia, related to  

some disputes within the management of the Trust, failure to  

obtain NOC from the State Government, Occupancy Certificate  

from  the  Municipal  Corporation,  Thane  and  NOC  from  the  

University of Mumbai, omission to seek/obtain the approval of  

AICTE and finally shifting to the new premises despite such non-

compliance.

31. We  have  already  noticed  that  the  compliance  with  the  

conditions for approval as well as regulations and provisions of  

the AICTE Act is an unexceptionable condition.  Clause 9.22 of  

the Handbook of Approval Process issued by the AICTE provides  

a complete procedure for change of location, station and the  

same is permissible subject to compliance with the procedure.  

It contemplates obtaining of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the  

concerned  State  Government  or  UT  Administration  and  

affiliating body.  The same clause also requires submission of  

the  land documents  in  original  and clearly  provides that  the  

same may be a registered sale deed, irrevocable government  

lease for a minimum period of 30 years, etc. by the concerned  

authority of the Government.   Further, it provides that site plan,  

28

Page 29

building plan for new site should be prepared by a registered  

architect  and  should  be  approved  by  the  Competent  Plan  

Sanctioning Authority designated by the State.

32. One of the contentions raised before us is that the AICTE  

itself had granted approval for the academic years 2008-09 and  

2009-10 both vide letters dated 30th June, 2008 and 20th August,  

2009, respectively.   This itself should be taken to be a deemed  

compliance of all the requirements.  We shall separately deal  

with  the  issue with  regard  to the  effect  of  these letters  and  

whether withdrawal of approval was a step appropriately taken  

by the AICTE or not as well as the effect of the prescribed time  

schedule.  As of now, suffice it to note that even these approvals  

for  the  relevant  academic  years  had  clearly  stated  that  the  

institution shall operate only from the approved location and it  

shall  not  open  any  campus/executive centres  directly  or  in  

collaboration  with  any  other  institution/university  for  the  

purpose of imparting technical education without obtaining prior  

approval  from the  AICTE.   The  approval  for  these  academic  

years was granted to the college being run at Survey Nos.27  

29

Page 30

(part) at Lasandvali, Godbhunder Road, Kasar Vadavali, Thane,  

and not at any other place.

33. Thus, there is no occasion to take it as a deemed and/or  

implied  approval  for  the  new  site  of  the  appellant-college.  

Approval can hardly be inferred.    It is a matter of fact and the  

authorities  are  expected  to  pass  appropriate  orders  in  

accordance with law and upon due diligence and in compliance  

with the procedure prescribed under law. For these reasons, we  

find that the view taken by the High Court does not call for any  

interference.

34. Thus, the view of the High Court that the college had failed  

to comply with the requirements for grant of approval and had  

shifted to the new site without approval of the AICTE and other  

concerned authorities cannot be faulted with.   There being no  

compliance to the legal requirements and binding conditions of  

recognition, the withdrawal of approval by the AICTE can also be  

not  interfered  with.    Shifting  of  students  is  a  consequential  

order and is in the interest of the students.

30

Page 31

35. The  sequel  to  the  above  finding  is  that  the  appellant  

college could not have been included in the counselling for the  

current year.   Even otherwise, the last date for admission was  

30th August, 2012, which is since over and we see no reason  

whatsoever  to  extend this  date.     We have already noticed  

various  judgments  of  this  Court  stating  that  the  Court  is  

required to strictly construe and comply with the schedule for  

admission.   Even  on  that  count,  the  appellant  would  not  be  

entitled to any other relief.   

36. Another argument raised before us is that the appellant-

college  had  applied  for  shifting  of  the  college  to  the  new  

premises on 24th May, 2008, but even after a lapse of two years,  

the AICTE had not finally disposed of said request.

37. The  college  had  shifted  to  the  new  premises  without  

requisite permission/approval and still permission was granted  

for the two years, i.e., 2008-09 and 2009-10 and the show cause  

notice  was  issued  only  on  18th May,  2010.    We  have  no  

hesitation in observing that the AICTE is evidentiary at fault and  

it  ought  not  to  have granted any approval  for  the academic  

31

Page 32

years 2008-09 and 2009-10.   There has been definite slackness  

and  irresponsibility  in   functioning on the  part  of  the  AICTE.  

The approval itself was issued by the Regional Committee when  

the application for transfer was pending with the AICTE itself.  

It is a matter of regret that as a result of such approval granted  

by the AICTE, the career of these students has been jeopardised  

to some extent.  Now, they are required to shift colleges mid-

term, even in excess of specified seats of those colleges and  

hinder  their  academic  courses.   All  this  is  bound  to  prove  

disadvantageous to their academic career.

38. It  is  the  requirement  of  law that  there  should  be  strict  

adherence to the time schedule for grant of approval as well as  

for admissions without exception.   In exercise of the powers  

vested in the AICTE, under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the  

AICTE Act, it had made regulations namely the All India Council  

for  Technical  Education  (Grant  of  Approvals  for  Staffing  New  

Technical  Institution,  Introduction of  Course  and  Programmes  

and Approval of Intake Capacity) Regulations, 1994.   Schedule  

to these regulations reads as under:-

32

Page 33

Sl.  No .  

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

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

Bureau RC. 31st December

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

3. For receiving the comments  is  from (i)  the State Government  (ii)  the  University  or  State  Board  and  (iii)  the  Regional  Committee based on the Expert  Committee’s  report  and  (iv)  from  the  Bureaus  MPCD,  BOS  and RA

15th March

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

31st March

5. For  recommendations  to  be  made by the Central Task Force 15th April

6. For  communicating  the  final  decision  to  the  State  Government  or  the  University  Grants  Commission,  under  

30th April

33

Page 34

intimation  to  the  Regional  office,  Director  of  Technical  Education, applicant, University  or State Board

39. This Schedule has statutory backing.   Thus, its adherence  

is mandatory and not directory.

40. Non-adherence  of  this  Schedule  can  result  in  serious  

consequences and can jeopardize not only the interest of the  

college students but also the maintenance of proper standards  

of technical education.  The authorities concerned, particularly  

the  AICTE,  should ensure proper  and timely  action upon the  

applications submitted to it.  It must respond to the applicant  

within a reasonable time period and should not let the matter  

drag till the final date giving rise to avoidable speculations by  

all  stakeholders.   Thus,  it  would  be  appropriate  for  these  

authorities to bring to the knowledge of the parties concerned,  

the  deficiencies,  if  any,  and  the  defects  pointed  out  by  the  

Expert  Committee  during  the  inspection  within  three  weeks  

from the date of such inspection or pointing out of defects, as  

the case may be.  For better administration, the AICTE should  

also  state  the  time  within  which  such  deficiencies/defects  

34

Page 35

should be removed by the applicant.  This will help in building of  

a  coherent  and disciplined method of working to ensure the  

proper  implementation  of  the  entire  formulated  scheme  of  

technical education.  The AICTE will not have any jurisdiction or  

authority to issue approval for commencement of a new course  

or for additional intake of students beyond 30th April of the year  

immediately  preceding  the  commencement  of  an  academic  

year.

41. Apparently,  there  seems  to  be  some  variations  in  the  

Schedule issued under Regulation 8(15), as aforenoticed, and  

the  dates  reflected  in  the  Handbook.   Another  Schedule has  

been printed as per the website of the AICTE according to which  

the  letter  of  approval  for  starting  new  technical  institutions  

could be issued by 10th October, if application was submitted  

between January to June of the relevant year and 10th April, if  

the application was submitted between July to December of that  

year.  Rejection of approval is an order which is appealable  

to the Appellate Committee of the AICTE.  If the applicant  

wishes to file an appeal against the order, he is expected to file  

the appeal and, in any case, after directions of the Appellate  

35

Page 36

Committee are complied with, the order of approval after the  

reconsideration/appeal  has to be issued by 15th November in  

the first case and 15th May in the other. If one reads these two  

schedules  collectively,  it  is  clear  that  the  letter  of  approval  

should be issued by 15th April or by 30th April at the maximum.  

It is only the Appellate Committee’s order which can be issued  

by  15th May.   If  such  order  grants  recognition,  then  it  must  

specify the academic year for which it is being granted.  If it  

falls  foul  of  the  admission schedule,  then it  ought  not  to  be  

granted for the current academic year.  It has been brought to  

our notice that the last date for admission to the courses and  

the date on which the courses should begin is 30th August of the  

academic year.  In that event, admissions to such courses, if  

permitted by the appellate authority, could be made strictly in  

accordance with the academic Schedule and without violating  

the same in any manner  whatsoever.   This brings us to  the  

admission schedule which again should be strictly obeyed by all  

concerned.

42. We  must  notice  that  admission  schedule  should  be  

declared  once  and  for  all  rather  than  making  it  a  yearly  

36

Page 37

declaration.  Consistency and smoothness in admission process  

would demand and require that there is a fixed and unaltered  

time schedule provided for admission to the colleges so that the  

students know with certainty and well in advance the admission  

schedule that is to be followed and on the basis of which they  

are to have their choice of college or course exercised.  The  

Schedule  for  admission  for  the  coming  academic  year,  i.e.,  

2013-2014 has been submitted to the Court after the matter  

was reserved for judgment.  The said Schedule reads as under :

Event Schedule  

Conduct  of  Entrance  Examination  (AIEEE/State  CET/ Mgt. quota exams etc.)

In  the  month  of  May  

Declaration  of  Result  of  Qualifying Examination (12th  Exam  or  similar)  and  Entrance Examination  

On  or  before  5th  June  

1st round  of  counselling/  admission  for  allotment  of  seats  

To be  completed  on or before 30th  June  

2nd round  counselling  for  allotment of seats  

To be  completed  on or before 10th  July  

Last round of counselling for  allotment of seats  

To be  completed  on or before 20th  July  

Last  date  for  admitting 30th July.

37

Page 38

candidates  in  seats  other  than allotted above  

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

Commencement  of  academic session  

1st August  

Last  date  upto  which  students  can  be  admitted  against  vacancies  arising  due  to  any  reason  (no  student should be admitted  in  any  institution  after  the  last date under any quota)  

30th August  

Last  date  of  granting  or  refusing approval by AICTE  

30th April  

Last  date  of  granting  or  refusing  approval  by  University / State Govt.

31st May  

43. The  above  Schedule  though  was  finalized  by  the  

Committee on 29th January, 2012 but the same appears to have  

been notified only on 30th September, 2012.  The reasons for  

the same are again unknown.   We are unable to appreciate  

that once the academic session begins on 1st August, then as to  

38

Page 39

why should admission be granted upto 30th August of the year,  

particularly when, as per the terms of the Schedule, beyond or  

after  30th April, AICTE  will  not  issue  any  approval  for  

commencement  of  new  course  for  additional  intakes.  The  

Schedule, thus, introduces an element of arbitrariness and may  

cause prejudice to the students who might miss their classes for  

a  period of  one month  without  any  justification.   Thus,  it  is  

required that the above-stated Schedule be modified to bring it  

in  line with  the  Schedule  for  approval  as  well  as  to  prevent  

inequalities,  arbitrariness  and  prejudice  from  affecting  the  

students  in  relation  to  their  academic  courses.   The  order  

granting or refusing approval, thus, should positively be passed  

by 10th April of the relevant year.  The appeal should be filed  

within one week and the Appellate Committee should hear the  

appeal and decide the same by 30th April of the relevant year.  

The University should grant/decline approval/affiliation by 15th  

May of the relevant year.  Advertisement should be issued and  

entrance examination conducted positively by the end of the  

month of May.  The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as  

follows :

39

Page 40

Event Schedule  

Conduct  of  Entrance  Examination  (AIEEE/State  CET/ Mgt. quota exams etc.)

In  the  month  of  May  

Declaration  of  Result  of  Qualifying Examination (12th  Exam  or  similar)  and  Entrance Examination  

On  or  before  5th  June  

1st round  of  counselling/  admission  for  allotment  of  seats  

To be  completed  on or before 30th  June  

2nd round  counselling  for  allotment of seats  

To be  completed  on or before 10th  July  

Last round of counselling for  allotment of seats  

To be  completed  on or before 20th  July  

Last  date  for  admitting  candidates  in  seats  other  than allotted above  

30th July.

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

Commencement  of  academic session  

1st August  

40

Page 41

Last  date  upto  which  students  can  be  admitted  against  vacancies  arising  due  to  any  reason  (no  student should be admitted  in  any  institution  after  the  last date under any quota)  

15th August  

Last  date  of  granting  or  refusing approval by AICTE  

10th April  

Last  date  of  granting  or  refusing  approval  by  University / State Govt.

15th May  

44. The  admission  to  academic  courses  should  start,  as  

proposed,  by  1st August  of  the  relevant  year.   The  seats  

remaining vacant should again be duly notified and advertised.  

All seats should be filled positively by 15th August after which  

there shall be no admission, whatever be the reason or ground.

45. We find that the above Schedule is in conformity with the  

affiliation/recognition schedule afore-noticed.  They both can co-

exist.  Thus, we approve these admission dates and declare it to  

be the law which shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned  

and none of the authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction  

to vary these dates of admission.  Certainty in this field is bound  

to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious method of  

41

Page 42

grant  of  admission  and  commencement  of  the  technical  

courses.   Any  variation  is  bound  to  adversely  affect  the  

maintenance  of  higher  standards  of  education  and  systemic  

and proper completion of courses.   

46. Having  declared  the  confirmed  Schedule  for  grant  of  

approval  and  completion  of  admission  process,  now  it  is  

necessary for us to revert to the apparent error in exercise of  

power and discretion by the AICTE.  Admittedly, the appellant-

college had been carrying on its education courses since the  

year 1994.  It had submitted its application for transfer to the  

new site  on  24th May,  2008.   There  is  no  document  placed  

before us by any party including the AICTE to show that this  

application was dealt with either by the Regional Office or by  

the main office of the AICTE.  Having known the fact that the  

college had shifted to a new site, the AICTE accorded approval  

for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 for which again  

there is no justification placed on record.  It is the case of the  

appellant that the Expert Committee visited the new site of the  

appellant-college where the college was being run on 26th June,  

2008.   Thereafter  approval  for  the  two academic  years  was  

42

Page 43

granted.  Strangely, on the basis of the same report, on 18th  

May, 2010 the show cause notice was issued and again  the  

Expert Committee is stated to have visited the college premises  

on 16th July, 2010 leading to the issuance firstly of the rejection  

of  the  seats  and,  secondly,  of  withdrawal/cancellation  of  

approval on 7th January, 2011.   

47. We  fail  to  understand  why  the  college  was  granted  

approval  for  the  academic  years  2008-09  and  2009-10  

particularly  when  the  Expert  Committee  is  stated  to  have  

visited  the  premises  on  26th June,  2008  and  found  

inadequacies in the report.  It is certainly a lapse on the part  

of the AICTE which cannot be ignored by the Court as it had far-

reaching  consequences  including  placing  the  career  of  the  

students admitted during these two years in jeopardy.  Even  

though the High Court has directed allocation of these students  

in  other  colleges,  their  academic  course  certainly  stands  

adversely  affected  and  disturbed,  for  which  the  AICTE  is  

responsible.   In  this  regard,  the  Court  cannot  overlook such  

apparent  erroneous  approach  and  default  which  can  be  for  

anything  but  bona  fide  reasons.   Thus,  we  impose  costs  of  

43

Page 44

Rs.50,000/- upon the AICTE for such irresponsible working.  The  

costs would be payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services  

Committee  and  would  be  recovered  from  the  salary  of  the  

erring officials/officers involved in this erroneous approach.  The  

recovery shall be effected in accordance with law.

48. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit in both  

the appeals afore-referred.  While dismissing these appeals, we  

issue the following directions :

(i) Both grant/refusal of approval and  admission schedule, as  

aforestated,  shall  be  strictly  adhered  to  by  all  the  

authorities  concerned  including  the  AICTE,  University,  

State  Government  and  any  other  authority  directly  or  

indirectly  connected  with  the  grant  of  approval  and  

admission.

(ii) No person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction  

to vary the Schedule prescribed hereinabove.

(iii) While dealing with the application for grant of approval to  

new colleges or additional seats, the AICTE shall inform the  

applicant within three weeks from the date of receipt of its  

44

Page 45

application or date of inspection, as the case may be, the  

shortcomings/defects,  who,  in  turn,  shall  remove  such  

shortcomings/defects within 15 days from the date of such  

communication or  within  such period as  the  AICTE may  

grant  and  re-submit  its  papers  without  default.   The  

process of grant of approval has to be transparent and fair.  

The  AICTE  or  the  concerned  University  or  State  

Government  shall  take  disciplinary  action  against  the  

person who commits default in adherence to the Schedule  

and performance of his duties in accordance therewith.

(iv) The reports submitted by the Expert  Committee visiting  

the college should be unambiguous and clear, and should  

bear  the  date  and  time  of  inspection  and  should  be  

sufficiently comprehensive and inspection be conducted in  

the presence of a representative of the institute.

(v) The students of the appellant-college shall be re-allocated  

to the recognized and affiliated colleges in terms of the  

judgment  of  the  High  Court;  and  the  AICTE  and  the  

concerned  University  shall  ensure  that  the  academic  

courses  of  these  students  are  completed  within  the  

45

Page 46

balance period of the academic year in all respects.  For  

this purpose, if extra classes are required to be held, the  

concerned  institute,  the  University  and  the  AICTE  are  

directed to ensure holding of such extra classes.

(vi) If the appellate authority decides the matter prior to 30th  

April  of  the  concerned  year  and  grants  approval  to  a  

college, then alone such institution will be permitted to be  

included in the list of colleges to which admissions are to  

be made and not otherwise.  In other words, even if the  

appellate authority grants approval after 30th April, it will  

not  be  operative  for  the  current  academic  year.   All  

colleges which have been granted approval/affiliation by  

10th or  30th April,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall  alone  be  

included  in  the  brochure/advertisement/website  for  the  

purpose of admission and none thereafter.   

…….…………................J.  (A.K. Patnaik)

...….…………................J.  (Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi;

46

Page 47

December 13, 2012

47