Patna High Court
The Institute Of Business Management ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 2 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)BLJR1288
JUDGMENT Sachchidanand Jha, J.
1. The dispute in these two writ petitions relates to holding of examination in the Master of Business Administration (MBA) Course for the students of the First Semester of 1998-2000 batch and Third Semester of 1997-99 batch of the Institute of Business Management, Bela, Darbhanga. In CWJC No. 11183/2001 the petitioner is the Institute, in the other case the petitioners are students. The cases have been argued treating CWJC No. 11183/2001 as the leading case though, counter affidavit on behalf of the University has been filed in CWJC No. 7096/2001.
2. According to the petitioners, the Institute of Business Management, Bela, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') was granted affiliation by the L.N. Mithila University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') in the year 1984 itself, for the Sessions 1984-86, and the examinations have been held for the students of the Institute from time to time. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has also accorded approval from time to time valid, presently, up to 2003, and therefore, the students of the Institute cannot be denied the right to appear at the examination.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the Institute was established by the National Institute of Management Training and Education, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 24.11.1979. On application for affiliation inspection was held by the University and on the basis of inspection report dated 25.4.1984, by letter dated 5.6.1984, the approval of the State Government was sought. The then Education Department of the Government accorded temporary permission for the Session 1984-85 pursuant to which the University vide its Memo No. 17272-74 dated 10.10.1984 granted affiliation. After it transpired that pursuant to the enactment of Bihar State Engineering and Pharmacy Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Act, 1982, as amended in 1984, the affiliation of technical Institutes including Management teaching Institutes came under the jurisdiction of the Science and Technology Department, in the light of the amended provisions, the Education Department withdrew the approval vide it Memo No. 7114 dated 11.7.1985. The said order however, was stayed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3346/85. The Institute in the meantime also submitted application in the Department of Science and Technology on 10.10.1985 for grant of permanent affiliation. The said Department on the basis of inspection report dated 7.1.1986 granted affiliation to the Institute vide its Memo No. 1855 dated 15.5.1986 till completion of other formalities. Later on the request of the Institute on 21.5.1986 the Science and Technology Department recommended its case to the Government of India for its approval in terms of the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act, in short). On 1.8.1990 the State Government cancelled the affiliation which was set aside by this Court in CWJC No. 4792/90 on 17.4.1992 and in the light of the said decision of this Court the affiliation earlier granted by the State Government was restored.
4. The further case of the petitioners is that by letter dated 17.8.1992 the University put a ban on admission of students in the Institute from 1992 batch with a direction to the Institute to move the AICTE for its approval. Against the said order the Institute moved this Court in CWJC No. 8326/92 which was dismissed on 20.1.1993 with an observation that the AICTE should take a decision on the recommendation of the State Government in the matter of approval of the Institute. The Institute moved the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4713/93 against that order. During pendency of the SLP the AICTE took a decision not to grant approval to the Institute. In view of the said order the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.9.1994 with liberty that the Institute could approach the AICTE. On 18.10.1994 the University vide its Memo No. RC 14/94 recommended the case of the Institute to the AICTE clarifying its position that affiliation could be continued if approval is granted by the AICTE. Finally the AICTE accorded its approval, initially for two years from 1995-96. The approval was extended from time to time and presently, it is valid upto 2003 as mentioned above. After the AICTE accorded its approval the University lifted the ban on the admission of the students vide Letter No. RRC/178/85 dated 9.12.1995, duly communicated to the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi as well as the AICTE vide letter dated 3.2.1996.
5. The case of the petitioners thus is that as a consequence of the aforesaid approval and the affiliation orders of the AICTE and the University, the Institute admitted the students in different batches, undertook academic programmer of two years teaching in the MBA course with effect from 1995-96 Session. It also allowed registration of the migrated students, held examinations and declared results for different semesters. Though the University allowed the students of the Institute to appear at the examinations for the 1995-97 and 1997-99 batches, it withheld declaration of results and examination for the students of the next semester, it also withheld registration of the migrated students for the subsequent sessions details whereof have been mentioned in Para 16 of the petition.
6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the students having been admitted in the Institute after proper selection at the Test conducted by the Institute at All India basis during currency of the approval and affiliation granted by the AICTE and the University, respectively, the University has no option but to hold examinations for them. It has been stated that when the University arbitrarily withheld the result of examinations held earlier, and refused to conduct the subsequent examinations, the aggrieved students moved this Court in CWJC No. 745/2000 which was disposed of on 31.1.2000 with a direction to the University to allow the students of such Technical Institutions which prima-facie had the approval or recognition of the AICTE for the sessions in question after being satisfied about the genuineness of the documents by which approval was granted. Pursuant to said direction the University allowed the students of the Institute to appear in different semester examinations as per details mentioned in Paragraph 21 of the Petition. Meanwhile on 24.2.2001 the Vice-Chancellor of the University directed the Dean and Director, Department of Commerce and Business Administration to visit the Northern Regional Office of the AICTE at Kanpur for verification of the approval. The Dean and Director by his letter dated 3.3.2002 informed the Controller of Examinations that AICTE had granted the approval upto Session 1999-2000 with intake of 60 students. The Controller of Examinations by his letter dated 20.2.2001 directed the Director of the Institute to send list of candidates who were to appear at the concerned examinations, namely, First Semester examinations of 1998-2000 batch and the Third Semester Examination of 1997-99 batch. The Director of the Institute submitted details and made a request to conduct examination of the concerned students. Through the University published examination programme with respect to MBA First Semester examination of 1998-2000 batch and Third Semester Examination of 1997-99 batch, copy of the programme was not forwarded to the Institute implying that the students of the Institute are not to be allowed to appear at the scheduled examination. In the circumstances, two students of the Institute filed CWJC No. 7096/2001 (one of the case in hand). Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the University, the Institute represented its case before the Vice-Chancellor with a request to allow the students of the Institute to appear at the ensuing examination and finding no response, in the circumstances approached this Court in the present writ petition.
7. The University in its affidavit has taken the stand that the affiliation has been granted to one National Institute of Management Training and Education, Darbhanga on the application of the said Institute whereas the direction has been sought in these two writ petitions for holding examinations with respect to the students of the Institute of Business Management, Bela which is not affiliated with the University. The Institutes are separate entities. The National Institute of Management Training and Education is a corporate entity being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the Institute of Business Management, Bela is not part thereof, Secondly, there is apparent conflict between the approval granted by the AICTE which is in favour of the Institute of Business Management, Bela and the one granted by the University in favour of the National Institute of Management Training and Education, Darbhanga. The affiliation even in respect of the National Institute of Management Training and Education was granted without the prior approval of the State Government as required under Section 21(2)(d) of the Bihar State Universities Act and therefore, has no legal value.
8. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that the National Institute of Management Training and Education, is not an Institute but a registered society which has established the Institute of Business Management at Bela which is imparting education in Business Management course and therefore, the grant of affiliation in favour of the National Institute of Management Training and Education which is not a teaching Institution but a society has no meaning. On merit it was submitted that once the approval is granted by the AICTE, the grant of affiliation by the University is a formality because the University has no discretion left but to permit the students of the Institute to appear at the examinations held by it in the Management Courses. Reliance was placed on State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Sanjeev Kumar v. The State of Bihar 1999 (3) PLJR 349.
9. Both the pleas of the petitioners appear to be well founded. It is true that on the application submitted for the purpose of affiliation the name of the Institution was mentioned as National Institute of Management Training and Education, Darbhanga, but this was clearly an error on the part of whoever filled the application form. The definite case of the petitioners is that the Institute of Business Management, Bela has been founded by the National Institute of Management Training and Education, Darbhanga, a registered society, and this part of the petitioners case is not disputed by the University. It is not the case of the University that the National Institute of Management Training and Education is imparting education in the Management Courses or any other course. The University is clearly trying to take advantage of the mistake committed by the concerned functionary of the 'National Institute' who wrote the application for affiliation at the relevant time. I do not think it would be proper to non-suit the petitioners on that technical ground. It is true that as the affiliation stands in the name of National Institute of Management Training and Education, there may be difficulty in allowing the students of the Institute of Business Management, Bela to appear in the examination but this difficulty can be resolved by giving an opportunity to the said 'National Institute' for necessary amendment in the order of affiliation making it applicable to the Institute of Business Management, Bela, on the University being satisfied that it is really the Institute of Business. Management, Bela for which affiliation was sought for.
10. On the second point the Supreme Court dwelt upon the predominant role of the AICTE in the case of Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (supra) and observed that where an Institution obtains approval from the AICTE, on satisfying the standards and norms laid down by it, it is no longer open to the State or the University to derecognize or disaffiliate the Institution on the ground that it does not satisfy the standards or requirements laid down by them. Following the said Judgment, this Court in Chas Bokaro Vikas Samiti and Anr. v. The Union of India and Ors. 1998(1) PLJR 138 : 1998(1) BLJR 666, held that the State Government and the University cannot lay down norms and guidelines which may be-in conflict or inconsistent with or higher than those laid down by the AICTE. Thus non-issuance of objection by the State Government cannot be a ground for the AICTE to wait for the grant of final approval to the Institute for imparting technical education. Similar view was expressed in Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Bihar, (supra) relied upon on behalf of the petitioners. Thus there being approval by the AICTE valid up to 2003, the University cannot deny the students of the petitioner-Institute the right to appear at the examinations in question.
11. The fact that temporary and conditional approval has been granted by the AICTE from time to time for different periods, and perusal of the 'Progress Profile' submitted by the Institute on which latest approval has been granted, as also the so-called Expert Committee Report, enclosed with the counter-affidavit of the AICTE, gave rise to a doubt as to whether the approval had been granted after proper scrutiny of the case and due application of mind that the Institution really fulfills the standards and norms laid down by the AICTE. The Court also wanted to know as to why temporary approval was being granted since 1995. By order dated 3.12.2001 counsel for the AICTE was directed to produce the records. The relevant file bearing No. 431-31-13/MCP(M)/95 with respect to the petitioner-Institute was accordingly produced at the time of hearing. Having perused the said file I am satisfied that the approval communicated by letter dated 19.11.2001 for the years 2001-2002 was accorded without making any endeavor to satisfy itself that the Institute possesses the requisite infrastructure and fulfills the norms and standards laid down by the Council. The Progress Profile submitted by the Institute was forwarded by the Northern Regional Council to the Head Office of the All India Council for Technical Education on 24.8.2001. On 29.8.2001 on receipt of the letter of the Northern Regional Council and the Progress Profile, the Deputy Director submitted it before the Director (MAP) to approve the proposal for the year 2001-2002 or 2001-2003. On 4.9.2001 the Director made a query as to whether any expert visit was made and whether the matter was placed before the sub-committee. This was all. The reply of the Deputy Director was that since the Progress Profile was not received in time it could not be placed before the concerned Committee. The query as to whether any inspection had been made by the experts was conveniently avoided not only by the Deputy Director but by all the officials in the subsequent nothings. After few cryptic notes recorded by the officials, now and then, on 10.9.2001 the proposal was approved and on 12.9.2001 the approval order was signed communicated on the same. The corrigendum letter was issued on 19.11.2001 referred to above. It is clear that the approval has been accorded without any enquiry merely on the basis of the Progress Profile submitted by the petitioner-Institute.
12. The AICTE has framed "Norms and Standards for Management Education (MBA & PGPM) and Computer Education (MCA)" with respect to, among other things, Infrastructure norms relating to (a) Computer facilities (b) Library (c) Teaching Aids (d) Building and Space Requirement and (e) Campus. With respect to Computer facilities, as per the laid down standards the Institute should have state-of-the-art hardware, software and statistical package, at least 15 computer terminals (hooked to a mainframe computer) or 15 personal computers incorporating the latest available technology, for in intake of 60 students on full time basis i.e. a minimum of 12 hours a day for 6 days a week. As per the relevant column in the Progress Profile the Institute is shown to be in possession of two computers though it has been allowed intake of 60 students.
Regarding Library, as per the laid down standards the Institute should have its Library, carefully selected books in all areas of management and social sciences. It should also subscribe to the journals/periodicals from both India and abroad to be in touch with contemporary developments. The Library should also have collection of audio/video material in management and related areas. The Library should also have minimum of 100 titles in each subject offered or taught. The minimum number of titles should be 1500 (out of the list of books available with AICTE). The Institution should add one book per student per year i.e. 120 per year for the intake of 60 students. The Institute may subscribe to a minimum of 30 journals out of the list available with AICTE. In monetary terms, the Institute should initially invest rupees two lacs on books, journals and periodicals and, subsequently, every year 10 per cent of the fee must be spent for addition of books, Journals and periodicals in the library. In the relevant column of the Progress Profile the number of titles in the categories of books, text books, journals and periodicals has been mentioned as 312, 1716 and 35 respectively and there is no indication as to whether notwithstanding the number of titles the books etc., they conform to the description and requirements laid down in the AICTE standards. The least that could be done was to make inspection to find out whether the Library facilities are adequate or not.
13. It is not necessary to refer to the other items of Infrastructure facilities. As regards the faculty profile it appears that there are only 9 staff in the Institute including four non-teaching staff, namely, Librarian, Accountant and Assistant. All of them including the Director are temporary employees. I wonder whether it is possible to run a Business Management Institute with the help of 5 teaching staff. It is not known whether they possess requisite qualifications. Being temporary staff, the question of their appointment in accordance with the procedure laid down by the AICTE does not arise.
14. These are some of the salient features of the petitioner Institute. I do not wish to express any opinion whether despite the apparent deficiencies, the Institute can still be approved by the AICTE. As in my opinion, non-conscious decision has been taken by it, much less after proper scrutiny and inspection, the approval cannot be treated as final or of any legal value. The AICTE has been made watch dog of the Technical Institutions and imparting of technical education in the country but the manner in which it is discharging its functions. I regret to say, deserves condemnation. For a while I considered the desirability of getting the affairs of the AICTE enquired into by a Central Investigating Agency but retrain from doing so with the hope that the AICTE will discharge its obligations perform its duty properly in future so as to win the confidence of the people and the Courts.
15. As the impugned approval of the Council which is the sheet-anchor of the petitioners case, had been held to be lacking in sanctity and value. I find myself unable to direct the university to allow the students of the petitioner-Institute to appear at the concerned examinations.
16. The dismissal of the case however will not stand in the way of the petitioner-Institute in pursuing its case before the AICTE and the AICTE will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter of approval of the Institute in accordance with law. In case such approval is granted by the Council in accordance with law, the Institute will be entitled to approach the University to permit the students to appear at the MBA examinations. Meanwhile, it will also be open to the Institute to apply for amendment of the affiliation order in its name.
17. The writ petitions stand dismissed with the observations mentioned above. No order as to costs.