wp(c) 3684/2016 guru teg bahadur institute...
TRANSCRIPT
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 1 of 29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 28th
July, 2016
Judgment delivered on: 02nd
August, 2016
+ WP(C) 3684/2016
GURU TEG BAHADUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. ....Petitioners
versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ANR. …. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Dr. Sarbjit
Sharma, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Ms. Priamvada Surohi, Mr.
Dipender Chauhan and Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate for respondent No.1/AICTE.
Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for respondent No.3/GGS,
I.P. University.
Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra and Mr. Shiva Sharma, Advocates
for respondent No.4
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA.
Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Varun Nagrath, Advocates.
Mr. Sachin Dutta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhilesh
Kumar for applicants in CM 18407/2016.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGEMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
CM No.15761/2016 in WP(C) 3684/2016
1. The Petitioners in this Writ Petition seek the following reliefs:-
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 2 of 29
“(i) quash/set aside the impugned letters dated
19.04.2016, issued to Petitioner No.1 & 3, by All India
Council for Technical Education, categorizing the
petitioner no.1 and 3 in NO ADMISSION category and;
(ii) further direct for entitling the Petitioner No.1 and 3
to be included in the process of admission for the
academic session 2016-17, by granting extension of
approval.”
2. The petitioner No.1 is Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of
Technology (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner Institute”) and the
petitioner No.3 is Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Petitioner Polytechnic’). The petitioner No.1/Petitioner
Institute operates from G-8 Area, Rajouri Garden, Opposite Swarg
Ashram Mandir, Delhi. The petitioner No.3/Polytechnic operates
from Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Both the petitioners 1 and 3 are
governed by the petitioner No.2 i.e. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara
Management DSGM Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘DSGM
Committee’). The petitioner No.1 undertakes undergraduate courses
and is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. The
petitioner No.3 is a Polytechnic Institute granting diplomas in
engineering.
3. By the two impugned letters dated 19.04.2016, issued by the
respondent No.1 – All India Council for Technical Education
(hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’), both the petitioner No.1 as well
as the petitioner No.3 have been placed under NO ADMISSION
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 3 of 29
category status for the academic year 2016-17 and the intake of
students has been set to “zero”.
4. By way of this application, the petitioners seek ad-interim stay
of the operation of the letters dated 19.04.2016 and a direction to
AICTE to grant extension of approval to the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 for
the academic session 2016-17 during pendency of the present petition.
5. As per the petitioners, both the petitioner No.1 and the
petitioner No.3 rank very high in terms of imparting education in
India.
6. It is contended that the Petitioner Institute was established in
the year 1995 and claims minority status and imparts higher education
to students after qualifying 10 + 2 examination. The Petitioner
Institute conducts under-graduate engineering courses and has a total
sanctioned intake capacity of 600 students. The Petitioner Institute
runs several engineering courses. It is contended that the Petitioner
Institute has produced over 7000 qualified Engineers and has
approximately 300 staff members including teaching and non-
teaching staff. The Petitioner Polytechnic has 420 seats and provides
diploma course in Computer Science, Automobile Engineering,
Electronics and Communication Engineering.
7. The Petitioner Polytechnic was conceived in the year 1993. For
setting of the Petitioner Polytechnic, DSGM Committee provided land
in the premises of Guru Harkishan Public School Building Vasant
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 4 of 29
Vihar, New Delhi. Recognition was granted by the respondent No.1 –
AICTE. The Petitioner Polytechnic was affiliated to Board of
Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
8. The DSGM Committee applied to DDA for allotment of land
for setting up of the Petitioner Polytechnic, which land was allotted to
the DSGM Committee for running the Polytechnic Institute at Rajouri
Garden.
9. The said land that was allotted for setting up a Polytechnic, has
been utilised by the DSGM Committee for setting up the petitioner
No.1 Institute. It is contended that since the Petitioner Polytechnic
was only providing diplomas and the DSGM Committee intended to
enlarge the scope of imparting higher education by imparting status of
engineering, the Petitioner Institute was setup on the said land.
10. It is contended that though, the DSGM Committee intended to
set up both the Polytechnic and the Institute on the said land, but, as
the AICTE norms were strict, both could not be accommodated. The
said land continues to be utilized by the Petitioner Institute and the
Petitioner Polytechnic continues to operate from the premises of Guru
Harkishan Public School at Vasant Vihar.
11. It is contended that AICTE has now relaxed its norms because
of which, it has become possible for the DSGM Committee to
accommodate both the Polytechnic as well as the Institute on the same
land.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 5 of 29
12. The staff members of the Petitioner Polytechnic filed a writ
petition before this Court being WP(C) 3027/2016 titled Sardar
Harinder Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic
Institute & Ors. contending that since the land at Rajouri Garden was
allotted by lease deed dated 11.04.1997 for setting up of a
Polytechnic, the DSGM Committee be directed to shift the
Polytechnic to Rajouri Garden.
13. By order dated 19.04.2016, a single Judge of this Court, on
perusal of the paper book, found that for the session 2015-2016,
AICTE had given approval only after an undertaking is submitted on
29.04.2015 by DSGM Committee to the effect that the Petitioner
Polytechnic would be shifted to the land allotted to it within a period
of six months from the date of submission of the undertaking. The
learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioners were in breach of the
undertaking given to AICTE for shifting the Petitioner Polytechnic to
Rajouri Garden on or before October, 2015.
14. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the DSGM
Committee could not run the Petitioner Institute from Rajouri Garden
premises as it had been doing for the last 19 years, as the said land had
been specifically allotted by the DDA for running a Polytechnic. By
the order dated 19.04.2016 DDA was directed to take steps to dispose
of the application filed by the DSGM Committee for running both the
Petitioner Institute as well as the Petitioner Polytechnic from Rajouri
Garden.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 6 of 29
15. It is contended that even though the Court on 19.04.2016 had
granted DDA seven days to decide the application of the DSGM
Committee for permission to run both the Institute and the Polytechnic
from the land at Rajouri Garden, DDA has failed to decide the same.
16. It is submitted that the petitioners had applied to AICTE for
extension of approval for the academic session 2016-17 contending
that both the Petitioner Institute as well as the Petitioner Polytechnic
be permitted to run from at Rajouri Garden. However, by the two
impugned letters dated 19.04.2016, the respondent No.1 – AICTE has
placed both the Petitioner Institute as well as the Petitioner
Polytechnic under NO ADMISSION status for the academic year
2016-17. It is contended that because of the categorization as NO
ADMISSION, grave prejudice and loss is being caused to the
Petitioners.
17. It is contended that both the allotment of land at Vasant Vihar
and Rajouri Garden are for institutional purposes and are being
utilized for the same. The DSGM Committee has been
communicating with DDA for issuance of ‘no objection’ to run both
the Institute and the Polytechnic from Rajouri Garden. However,
DDA has not been able to take a decision and issue the NOC.
18. It is submitted that because of zero intake of students, the staff
and teachers would become surplus and the infrastructure would be
underutilized. The effect of NO ADMISSION would continue for four
consecutive years. It is further contended that the Expert Visiting
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 7 of 29
Committee had reported nil deficiency for the Petitioner Institute and
despite that, the AICTE has placed the Petitioner Institute in NO
ADMISSION category. It is contended that the deficiencies pointed
out are not such which cannot be rectified and are minor in nature.
19. It is further submitted that as DDA failed to decide the
application of the petitioners within one week, as directed by order
dated 19.04.2016 in WP(C) 3027/2016, this Court in Contempt Case
(C) 685/016, by order dated 25.05.2016, noted the contention of the
counsel for DDA that order dated 19.04.2016 would be complied
within a period of four weeks. It is submitted, that despite taking
further time, DDA has still not taken a decision on the application.
20. On 17.05.2016, in the present petition, the petitioner filed an
affidavit stating that part of the administrative and teaching
department of the Petitioner Polytechnic had already been shifted to
Rajouri Garden and all administrative activities/classes/office for the
Petitioner Polytechnic shall start functioning from Rajouri Garden plot
on or before 30.05.2016. It was undertaken that change of
site/location for the Petitioner Polytechnic would be in accordance
with the AICTE norms. Noting the above submissions, this Court
gave opportunity to the petitioners to file an application with AICTE
for change of site/location. For the said purpose, AICTE was directed
to open the web portal between 30.05.2016 and 01.06.2016 so that the
petitioners could apply online.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 8 of 29
21. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of MP & Ors.: (2013)
15 SCC 677, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that
the education is a constitutional right and is an essential part in every
one’s life.
22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that
though the Supreme Court of India in Parshavanath Charitable Trust
& Ors. v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.: (2013)
3 SCC 385, laid down a schedule for admission for academic courses
and declared it to be the law that is to be strictly adhered to by all
concerned and none of the authorities have the power or jurisdiction
to vary the dates of admission, it is not binding on a Court exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the
Court could, in the facts and circumstances of a case, vary the
schedule.
23. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dated 06.06.2013 in LPA 1099/2013 (O & M) titled The Regional
Officer, All India Council of Technical Education v. Jind Institute
of Engineering & Technology:, wherein, the Division Bench, after
noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in Parshavanath
Charitable Trust (supra), held that power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India was wide enough to enable the Court to pass
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 9 of 29
orders under the given set of facts of the case and to ensure substantial
justice.
24. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court
dated 24.07.2013 in WP(C) 415/2013 Jind Institute of Engineering
& Technology vs. All India Council for Technical Education: to
contend that as late as 24.07.2013, the Supreme Court directed AICTE
to forthwith grant approval to the Petitioner Institute therein for
academic session 2013-2014 and further allowed the Institute to
participate in the admission for the academic year 2013-2014.
25. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the High Court of
Bombay dated 16.07.2013 in WP(C) 5106/2013: Bhartiya Gramin
Punarrachna Sansthan Hi-tech Institute of Technology & Hi-tech
Polytechnic v. All India Council of Technical Education whereby
AICTE was directed to grant approval to the petitioner therein for the
relevant academic session for degree and diploma level courses.
26. Attention is drawn to the interim order dated 06.06.2016 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. (ST) No.1488/2016:
Thadomal Shahani Engineering College v. AICTE where interim
relief was granted subject to the petitioners therein filing an
undertaking that they shall get the occupation certificate within a
period of four months. Further conditions were imposed directing that
the petitioners would admit students and make it clear to the students
that against the refusal to grant extension of approval, the writ petition
was pending. It was also to be made clear to every student that any
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 10 of 29
admission made by the petitioners would be subject to the outcome of
the petition and students shall not be entitled to claim any equity
based on the interim order.
27. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court
dated 16.02.2015 in WP(C) 134/2010: Mahatma Education Society’s
Pillai’s Institute of Information Technology Engineering, Media
Studies and Research v. All India Council for Technical Education
wherein the Supreme Court directed AICTE to grant letter of approval
to the concerned colleges managed by the petitioner therein for the
academic year 2014-15.
28. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, contends that the
above-referred decisions show that the variation of the schedule fixed
in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra) is permissible. He further
attempted to distinguish the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust
(supra) by contending that the present petition did not relate to grant
of approval for a new Institute but extension of approval for intake for
the current academic year for Institutes that have been running
successfully for several years.
29. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that
admissions may be permitted to be made provisionally and subject to
the outcome of the present petition and the concerned students would
be put to notice, prior to admission, that the subject petition is pending
and that the admission is subject to the outcome of the said petition.
He further submits that the petitioners are willing to undertake that if
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 11 of 29
the petitioners do not succeed in the present petition, they would have
the students accommodated/adjusted in other colleges.
30. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent AICTE contends
that the land at Rajouri Garden had been specifically allotted for
running a Polytechnic, but the DSGM Committee, instead of setting
up of a Polytechnic on the land set up the Petitioner Institute. The
Polytechnic was continued on the land which was allotted for running
a school and from which a school is also functioning. Repeated
opportunities had been granted by the respondents to shift the
Polytechnic to Rajouri Garden but till date, the Polytechnic has not
been shifted.
31. Reference is made to the inquiry reports of AICTE that pointed
out several deficiencies and to the several opportunities given to the
petitioners to rectify the deficiencies and to furnish documents. It is
contended that there are several deficiencies with regard to the land,
building, faculty and infrastructure. It is submitted that the report
points out that 50% of the faculty members are on contract basis
without proper selection process. The faulty members have not even
been paid salary as per AICTE norms and some of the faculty
members do not have the required qualification as per AICTE norms.
Reference is also made to the report of the Expert Visiting Committee
with regard to the inspection carried out on 28.03.2016, which has
pointed out several deficiencies. It is submitted that despite several
opportunities, the petitioners have failed to rectify the defects and as
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 12 of 29
such, AICTE was constrained to put the petitioners in the NO
ADMISSION category.
32. Learned counsel for the AICTE further contends that the
Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra) has laid
down the time schedule for inspection, grant of approvals and
admissions and specifically declared it to be the law and to be strictly
adhered to by all concerned. It is submitted that even if the petitioners
remove all the deficiencies today, to the satisfaction of AICTE,
AICTE can only grant an approval for the following academic
session. For the current academic session, in view of Parshavanath
Charitable Trust (supra), AICTE cannot grant any approval.
33. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court dated 07.01.2016 in LPA 540/2015: ACM College of
Pharmacy v. All India Council for Technical Education wherein the
Division Bench, noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in
Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra), has held that grant of
recognition is neither a matter of course nor a formality and the
conditions of recognition and the duly notified directions controlling
the admission process are to be construed and applied stricto sensu.
34. It is contented, by the learned counsel for the AICTE, that the
Petitioner Institute has been getting approvals in the past by filing
various petitions before this Court and by giving undertakings to
remove the deficiencies pointed out by AICTE and to comply with the
norms and regulations. However, till date, the deficiencies have not
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 13 of 29
been removed. Even salaries of teaching staff have not been paid. It is
submitted that about 5 years have already been given to the petitioners
to cure the deficiencies but to no avail. It is contended that there are
several deficiencies that have been pointed out with regard to lack of
infrastructure but the deficiencies have, admittedly, not been removed
and thus the Petitioner Institute and Petitioner Polytechnic were put in
NO ADMISSION category.
35. Learned counsel appearing for the University Grants
Commission submits that as per the schedule fixed in Parshavanath
Charitable Trust (supra), the last date for grant of approval is
15.05.2016. The first round of counseling/admission for allotment of
seats had to be completed by 30.06.2016, the second round of
counseling by 10.07.2016 and the last round of counseling by
20.07.2016. It is contended that since the petitioners did not have any
approval from AICTE, there could be no affiliation granted by the
University, the last date for which was 15.05.2016.
36. It is submitted that a common entrance test for B. Tech. was
conducted on 08.05.2016. 64,000 candidates appeared, out of which
47,991 candidates were declared eligible for admission as per their
rank in 17 different Institutes affiliated to UGC. 23,364 candidates
registered themselves for admission. 6,870 candidates were allotted
seats as per their rank and as per the rank of the Institutes and choice
of the candidates. The third round of counseling was concluded on
16.07.2016 and 6,870 seats were allotted from the total of 6,879 seats.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 14 of 29
By 19.07.2016, the candidates were called to pay the fees and confirm
the offer of admission to the respective Institutes as per their rank and
choice. The sliding round i.e. where the candidates are given an
opportunity to shift from one Institute to the other as per merit and
choice was held on 21.07.2016. The remaining vacancies, if any, are
to be filled up in the spot round of counseling which is notified to be
held between 31.07.2016 to 06.08.2016. The academic session is to
commence from 01.08.2016.
37. It is contended that the entire exercise of allocation of
seats/counseling takes about two months and is to be completed
before the start of the academic session. It is contended that in case
the Petitioner Institute was even provisionally permitted to take
students, the entire exercise conducted by the UGC spanning over two
months would be set to naught. The inclusion of seats of the
Petitioner Institute in counseling, at this stage, would have a rippling
effect where the candidates who have already taken admission may
seek to take admission in the Petitioner Institute resulting in vacation
of the seats that have already been allotted in other Institutes and
further, the candidates in some other Institutes may then want to shift
to the seats which fall vacant on account of shifting of the candidates
to the Petitioner Institute. This, it is contended, would result in
upsetting the entire process of counseling. The fresh process of
counseling would then take a considerable period of time to be
completed. It is further contended, that it is also very difficult to
adjust students who are provisionally admitted, in other colleges at a
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 15 of 29
later point of time because limited number of seats are available in the
NCT region. Adjustment on a subsequent date leads to further
litigation and causes great inconvenience to the students.
38. Learned counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority
(DDA for short) contended that the land at Rajouri Garden had been
allotted for setting up of a Polytechnic. Instead of setting up of
Polytechnic, the DSGM Committee started running an engineering
Institute. It is contended that the DSGM Committee was also allotted
land admeasuring 10 acres for running an engineering college at
Narela, however, the DSGM Committee did not take up the land and
the allotment was cancelled. It is submitted that as far back as in the
year 2009, the DDA had issued a show cause notice to the DSGM
Committee for running a Polytechnic from the land allotted for
running a senior secondary school.
39. It is submitted that, as per the zonal development plan, the land
use of the land at Rajouri Garden was “Recreational (District Park)
and partly residential”. The designated land use has now been
changed to “Public and semi public (PSI) (College)” and a notification
to the said effect has been issued on 15.07.2016.
40. With regard to the proposal of the petitioners for running both a
Polytechnic and an Institute from the land at Rajouri Garden, it is
contended that, the issue is being deliberated in the DDA at the
highest level and the decision is likely to be taken shortly.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 16 of 29
41. An application for intervention being CM 18407/2016 has also
been filed on behalf of the employees/staff members of the Petitioner
Polytechnic. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing
for the interveners that they were the petitioners in WP(C) 3027/2016,
wherein directions were issued to shift the Petitioner Polytechnic to
the land at Rajouri Garden. Learned senior counsel for the interveners
pointed out that a Committee had been constituted by the Petitioner
Polytechnic for inspection of the facilities at Rajouri Garden where it
is proposed to be shifted. The Committee inspected the said premises
on 06.05.2016 and pointed out several deficiencies in the building that
is being built for the Petitioner Institute and the area that is being
provided. Learned senior counsel further contended that there is an
apprehension that the DSGM Committee would shut down the
Polytechnic because the degree college is more beneficial.
42. In rebuttal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
contended that in terms of the regulations of AICTE, the decision, in
the first instance, has to be taken by the Executive Committee. It is
contended, that the Executive Committee instead of taking a decision
referred the matter to the Standing Appellate Committee. It is on the
recommendations of the Standing Appellate Committee that the
impugned order dated 19.04.2016 has been passed. It is contended
that the petitioners have been deprived of one right to appeal as the
decisions of the Executive Committee are appealable before the
Standing Appellate Committee. It is further contended that no notice
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 17 of 29
for rectification of any of the deficiencies pertaining to the faculty
were ever given to the petitioners.
43. It is contended, that the petitioners are not to be blamed for not
shifting the Polytechnic as the DDA is sitting over the matter and is
not taking a decision and since DDA has not decided with regard to
the land use, New Delhi Municipal Council cannot be approached for
further approvals. It is further submitted, AICTE has raised the issue
of ownership of land in the case of the petitioners, however for the
current academic session, AICTE has given permission to several
Institutes that are running from school buildings/rented
buildings/agriculture land premises and even from non-conforming
areas (Lal Dora/extended Lal Dora). It is contended that AICTE has
clearly violated the principles of the equality enshrined in Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
44. It is contended that even as per schedule fixed by
Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra), AICTE had to take a
decision by 10.04.2016. However, the impugned orders were passed
on 19.04.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already
given an undertaking to AICTE on 06.06.2016 that the deficiencies in
respect of infrastructure, which were pointed out, have been rectified
and all facilities are already available in the Petitioner Polytechnic. It
is further contended that the DSGM Committee has no intention of
shutting down the Petitioner Polytechnic.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 18 of 29
45. Keeping, the above factual position in mind, let us look at the
directions given by the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable
Trust (supra). The Supreme Court held as under:
“25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations
framed by the Central authorities such as 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 All India Council for Technical Education 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 the opinion of the Council, held
as under: (SCC pp. 732-33 & 736, paras 17-18 & 32)
“17. The role of statutory expert bodies on
education and the 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, the courts will step in. In J.P.
Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3
SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436 : (1980) 2 LLJ
175] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424-26, paras
11-17)
‘11. … Judges must not rush in where even
educationists fear to tread. …
***
17. … While there is no absolute ban, it is a
rule of prudence that courts should hesitate
to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.’
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 19 of 29
(emphasis supplied)
18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : (1985) 1
SCR 29] this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57,
para 29)
‘29. … 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.’
***
32. 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 instead of the
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 20 of 29
required minimum of 10+2 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 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.”
(emphasis in original)
26. Right from Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of
A.P. [(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 this regard can be made to Rajan
Purohit v. Rajasthan University of Health
Sciences [(2012) 10 SCC 770] at this stage, in addition
to Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7
SCC 258] .”
46. The Supreme Court has held that the regulations framed by the
Central authorities such as AICTE have the force of law and are
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 21 of 29
binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by
such expert body, 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. 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.
47. The Supreme Court has further 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 neither is 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.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 22 of 29
48. The Supreme Court further fixed a time schedule for approvals,
admissions and commencement of academic session. It was held as
under:
“41. The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as follows:
Event Schedule
Conduct of entrance examination
(AIEEE/State CET/Management quota exams,
etc.)
In the month of May
Declaration of result of qualifying
examination (12th exam or similar) and
entrance examination
On or before 5th June
1st round of counselling/admission for
allotment of seats
To be completed on or before 30th
June
2nd round of counselling for allotment of
seats
To be completed on or before 10th
July
Last round of counselling for allotment of
seats
To be completed on or before 20th
July
Last date for admitting candidates in seats
other than allotted above
30th July
However, any number of rounds
for counselling could be conducted
depending on local requirements,
but all the rounds shall be
completed before 30th July
Commencement of academic session 1st August
Last date up to which students can be
admitted against vacancies arising due to
any reason (no student should be admitted in
any institution after the 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 Government
15th May
42. The admission to academic courses should start,
as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The seats
remaining vacant should again be duly notified and
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 23 of 29
advertised. All seats should be filled positively by 15th
August after which there shall be no admission, whatever
be the reason or ground.
43. We find that the above schedule is in conformity
with the affiliation/recognition schedule aforenoticed.
They both can co-exist. Thus, we approve these
admission dates and declare it to be the law which shall
be strictly adhered to by all concerned and none of the
authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary
these dates of admission. Certainty in this field is bound
to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious
method of grant of admission and commencement of the
technical courses. Any variation is bound to adversely
affect the maintenance of higher standards of education
and systemic and proper completion of courses.”
49. The Supreme Court, finding that any variation in the above
academic schedule is bound to adversely affect the maintenance of
higher standards of education and systemic and proper completion of
courses, declared it to be the law to be strictly adhered to by all
concerned and further directed that and none of the authorities shall
have the power or jurisdiction to vary these dates of admission.
50. The Supreme Court thereafter issued the following directions:
“46. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit
in both the appeals afore-referred. While dismissing
these appeals, we issue the following directions:
46.1. Both grant/refusal of approval and
admission schedule, as aforestated, shall be
strictly adhered to by all the authorities concerned
including Aicte, the University, the State
Government and any other authority directly or
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 24 of 29
indirectly connected with the grant of approval
and admission.
46.2. No person or authority shall have the power
or jurisdiction to vary the schedule prescribed
hereinabove.
46.3. While dealing with the application for grant
of approval to new colleges or additional
seats, Aicte shall inform the applicant within three
weeks from the date of receipt of its 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 Aicte may grant and re-submit its papers
without default. The process of grant of approval
has to be transparent and fair. Aicte or the
University or the State Government concerned
shall take disciplinary action against the person
who commits default in adherence to the schedule
and performance of his duties in accordance
therewith.
46.4. 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.
46.5. The students of the appellant College shall
be re-allocated to the recognised and affiliated
colleges in terms of the judgment [WP (OS) No.
460 of 2011, decided on 22-8-2012 (Bom)] of the
High Court; and Aicte and the university
concerned shall ensure that the academic courses
of these students are completed within the balance
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 25 of 29
period of the academic year in all respects. For
this purpose, if extra classes are required to be
held, the institute concerned, the University
andAicte are directed to ensure holding of such
extra classes.
46.6. If the appellate authority decides the matter
prior to 30th April of the year concerned 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.”
51. The Supreme Court has thus laid down that, even if the
approval is granted after 30th April, it would not operate for the
current academic session.
52. Perusal of the orders/judgments relied upon by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Jind Institute of
Engineering & Technology (Supra), Bhartiya Gramin Punarrachna
Sansthan Hi-tech Institute of Technology & Hi-tech Polytechnic
(Supra), Thadomal Shahani Engineering College (Supra) &
Mahatma Education Society’s Pillai’s Institute of Information
Technology Engineering, Media Studies and Research (Supra),
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 26 of 29
show that orders/judgments, permitting intake, have been passed in
the peculiar facts of each of the cases.
53. By this application, the petitioners seek ad-interim stay of the
impugned letters of AICTE dated 19.04.2016. The effect of such an
order would amount to stay of the direction of AICTE placing the
petitioners 1 and 3 in NO ADMISSION category. Which would
imply that the petitioners would be permitted to admit students
without there being any approval of AICTE or affiliation with the
University or Technical Board, as the case may be. It is not in dispute
that all institutes, existing and new, require approval of the AICTE
prior to any intake of students for any academic session. Without any
approval of AICTE, there cannot be any affiliation with any university
or technical board.
54. AICTE in the impugned letters dated 19.04.2016 has pointed
out to deficiencies in both the petitioner Institute and Polytechnic.
Both the Institute and Polytechnic have been refused approval for
intake of students for the academic session 2016 – 2017. Since there is
no approval by AICTE, the Petitioner Institute cannot seek any
affiliation from the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
(Respondent No. 3) and the Petitioner Polytechnic cannot seek
affiliation with the Directorate of Training and Technical Education
(Respondent No. 4).
55. In the present case, apart from the objection of AICTE, with
regard to the use of Rajouri Garden land by the Institute and the
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 27 of 29
shifting of the polytechnic from Vasant Vihar to Rajouri Garden,
various deficiencies have been pointed out with regard to
infrastructure, lack of sufficient number faculty members,
employment of faculty on contractual basis without proper selection,
nonpayment of salary, qualification of some of the faculty members
etc.
56. Even if assuming the issue of the use of land were to be ignored
for the time being, because of delay on the part of DDA, the
petitioners would have to remove the other deficiencies. After
removal of the deficiencies, the petitioners would have to approach
AICTE for approval which would then have to have the facilities
inspected once again. If approval is accorded, the Petitioner would
have to then approach the University or the Technical Board for
affiliation. Only once all this is done would the petitioners be able to
have intake of students. The entire process would take time.
57. One can also not lose sight of the facts submitted by the
Counsel for UGC that 6870 candidates have already been allotted
seats as per their rank and as per the rank of the Institutes and choice
of the candidates. The third round of counseling was concluded on
16.07.2016 The sliding round was held on 21.07.2016. The remaining
vacancies, are to be filled up in the spot round of counseling to be
held between 31.07.2016 to 06.08.2016. The academic session is to
commence from 01.08.2016.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 28 of 29
58. In case, the Petitioner Institute is provisionally permitted to
admit students, the entire exercise of allocation of seats/counseling
undertaken over a period of two months in various institutes would be
set to naught. It would have a cascading effect of unsettling the entire
allocation of seats and would disrupt the academic schedule. Further,
in case the petitioner does not to succeed in the Writ Petition, the
students admitted by interim orders, would have to be adjusted in
different institutes in and around Delhi which may not be possible on
account of unavailability of seats at that point of time and may also
lead to litigation and harassment to students.
59. No doubt, a High Court while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India would have the power, in the
facts of a case, to direct AICTE to grant approval and also permit
intake of students after the scheduled date. However, exercise of such
a power would be the exception and not the rule. In my view, the facts
of the present case do not justify such an exceptional exercise of
power.
60. Orders permitting provisional admission of students imposing
conditions such as making it clear to the students that against the
refusal to grant extension of approval, the writ petition was pending
and any admission made would be subject to the outcome of the
petition and students shall not be entitled to claim any equity on the
basis of the interim order, in my view, create a lot of uncertainty. It
puts the career of students, who take provisional admission, at risk.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 29 of 29
The mere fact, that students are willing to take such a risk, does not
justify putting them at such a crossroad unless the peculiar facts of the
case warrant such an interim order. As noted above, the facts of the
present case, do not justify such an interim order.
61. In view of the above, I find no merit in the application. It is
accordingly dismissed.
WP(C) 3684/2016
List for directions on 17.08.2016.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
August 02, 2016
st/HJ