Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Dadaji Dhuniwale Professional ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2016

                                                                                      1


                                     W.P. No.10458/2015
               (Shri Dadaji Dhuniwale Professional Education and Development
             Cooperative Limited vs. All India Council for Technical Education and
                                            another)

                                     W.P. No.13946/2015
                  (Jagannath Mane vs. All India Council for Technical Education and
                                               others)

                                     W.P. No.22007/2015
                  (Shri Dadaji Dhuniwale Professional Education and Development
                       Cooperative Limited vs. The State of M.P. And others )

08.01.2016
                     Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the
             petitioner       in     W.P.      No.10458/2015          and      W.P.
             No.22007/2015.
                     Shri Vivek Rusia, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P.
             No.13946/2015.
                     Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the
             respondent - All India council for Technical Education.

Shri Manish Verma, Advocate for the Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya.

Heard counsel for the parties.

1. By consent, matters are taken up for final disposal as short question is involved and also because of the urgency involved, which has arisen on account of the stand taken by the University of not allowing the students admitted in the petitioner - College i.e. Shri Daddaji Institute of 2 Technology and Science to appear in the examinations for the academic year 2015-2016.

2. In the first writ petition, the decision of respondent No.1-AICTE dated 30th June, 2015 is the subject matter of challenge. The AICTE while processing the application for grant of approval to the petitioner-College for the academic year 2015-2016 found that the proposal was acceptable on all parameters but still declined to grant approval only on one count - as can be discerned from the impugned order dated 30th June, 2016. The reason recorded in the impugned decision is that the Supreme Court has fixed the last date for grant of approval as 30th April, 2015 and for which reason it was not feasible to consider the proposal of the petitioner-College in the current academic year at this belated stage.

3. As a result, the petitioner has challenged that decision by way of writ petition No.10458/2015. Being prima facie satisfied with the grounds urged in the writ petition, this Court permitted the petitioner-college to participate in the counseling process and to admit students selected during that process for the academic year 2015-2016. The petitioner-institute, accordingly, admitted around 166 students, who have completed the technical course for that 3 year.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-college has been functioning under the approvals/permissions granted from time to time by AICTE, since academic year 2004-2005. The petitioner-college has fulfilled all the conditions specified by AICTE for allowing it to continue since then. Even for academic year 2015-2016, AICTE which is a Technical Body and has the prerogative of recommending proposal for approval/recognition of the concerned College, vide impugned judgment has answered all other issues in favour of the petitioner-College but has declined to extend the approval/permission only on one count. The only reason, which has weighed with the AICTE is that the cut off date of 30th April, 2015 has already lapsed.

5. Therefore, the principal question that arises in the present writ petitions is : whether the said approach of the AICTE can be countenanced in the fact situation of the present case. We may usefully turn to the Supreme Court decision on which reliance has been placed by AICTE to deny approval is in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Others vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Others, (2013) 3 SCC 385. Para 36 of the said decision reads thus:-

"36. Non-adherence of this Schedule can result in 4 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 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, AICTE should also state the time within which such deficiencies/defects 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. 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."

(emphasis supplied)

6. This decision stipulates the cut off date of 30th April of the year immediately preceding the commencement of a new course or for additional intake of students. That was not the proposal submitted by the petitioner. The proposal of the petitioner was only for continuation or extension of the approval already granted to the petitioner-Institute and 5 was in force since academic year 2004-2005. Somewhat similar aspect has been dealt with by us in Writ Petition No.7521/2015 decided on 1st July, 2015 whilst relying on Supreme Court decision in the case of Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and another, 2013 (12) SCAL 145, interalia in para 35 onwards. In other words, AICTE has misread and misapplied the decision of the Supreme Court. On this count alone, the impugned decision of AICTE deserves to be quashed and set aside considering the fact that the application for continuation/extension of approval submitted by the petitioner-college was found to be otherwise satisfying all parameters including having been submitted within the specified time coupled with the fact that petitioner-College has been so functioning from academic year 2004-2005 and that the fate of large number of students is dependent on this decision.

7. While setting aside the impugned decision of AICTE, we direct the AICTE to issue a formal approval on the extension proposal for academic year 2015-2016, in favour of the petitioner-College forthwith.

8. The matter does not rest with this judgment as some 6 public spirited person has filed writ petition as public interest litigation to question the decision of AICTE on the ground that AICTE has overlooked the crucial aspect about the total land holding of the petitioner-college to qualify to get permission or for that matter extension of approval. The argument proceeds that the petitioner-college is situated outside the Corporation limits. In respect of rural area, the requirement as specified in the Handbook Clause 4.1 issued by the AICTE is 10 acres of contiguous land possessed by the Institute. The petitioner-college does not fulfill that requirement. This aspect has been dealt with by the AICTE in the impugned decision which reads thus:-

"As regards the contiguity of the land used by the institute for the construction of the building it may be stated that approval was given to the institute in the A/Y 2004-2005 and as per APHB of the above year two pieces of land was allowed. However it is important to mention that the institute building has been constructed over the land measuring 2.08 hectares/5.139 acres, which is not less than the required land. The other land of the institute is lying vacant.

For the above reasons the committee is of the opinion that neither the Institute encroached upon the Government land nor the building was constructed over the land less than the required area. The Institute has these not contravened any rules or regulations.

The committee, therefore, recommends that the EOA for AY 2015-16 may be accorded."

9. The view taken by AICTE in this behalf, in our 7 opinion, is unexceptionable. The petitioner, who has filed public interest litigation to oppose grant of extension to the subject College is not in a position to point out any statutory provision in the form of Act or Rules or for that matter Regulations made by AICTE under the Act having statutory force, which require the College established in the academic year 2004-2005 to possess contiguous land more than 2.50 hectares.

10. Understood thus, the petition filed by the public spirited person does not merit consideration. Besides the fact that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the only ground urged to oppose extension of permission, but, we are of the opinion that larger public interest commends us to reject this petition - as entertaining this petition would inevitably jeopardize the career of not less than 166 students, who are pursuing the different technical Engineering Courses in the petitioner-College. Hence, the P.I.L. is rejected.

11. That takes us to the second writ petition filed by the petitioner-college, being W.P. No.22007/2015. This petition is, essentially, sequel to the stand taken by the University that the students admitted in the petitioner-

College through Centralized counseling for academic year 2015-2016 cannot be permitted to appear in the examination scheduled to be commenced from 29.12.2015 for want of formal extension granted by AICTE. In this judgment, we have already directed AICTE to issue formal extension letter forthwith. In our opinion, the University must act upon this judgment and proceed on the basis that AICTE has already issued extension permission in favour of the petitioner-College and thus permit the students of petitioner-College to appear in the examination of remaining subjects from 9th January, 2016 by issuing hall tickets to the respective eligible students.

12. We were informed that the University has already verified the eligibility criteria of the respective students admitted in the petitioner-College. With regard to examination of subjects already completed by the University, the concerned students be permitted to appear in the Supplementary Examination to be conducted by the University in that behalf. It is for the University to decide about the dates on which Supplementary Examination will be conducted with regard to those subjects.

13. For any reason, the hall tickets are not issued to the students to enable them to appear in the examination to be conducted on 9th January, 2016, the University must 9 ensure that the hall ticket for the examination of the remaining subjects from 11th January, 2016 is issued to the concerned eligible students, at least, by tomorrow (09.01.2016) before 4:30 p.m.

14. At this stage, counsel for the University submits that the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the University has already verified the eligibility aspects of students of petitioner-College is incorrect. He submits that the verification can be done by the University, if already not done. That may be expedited; and, in cases where such verification is not done, must be completed by tomorrow before issuance of hall tickets to the concerned students.

15. All three petitions are disposed of on the above terms.

16. Registry shall forward copy of this judgment to the Registrar of Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya, Bhopal by e-mail and fax for information and necessary action.

           (A. M. Khanwilkar)                    (K.K.Trivedi)
             Chief Justice                          Judge
psm