Kerala High Court
Sree Gurudeva Charitable And ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 5 March, 2016
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 21798 of 2016 (Y)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. SREE GURUDEVA CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
REG.NO.APL/TC/369/2015, PALLICKAL P.O.,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
SRI.SUBHASH VASU.
2. SRI.VELLAPPALLY NATESAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
PALLICKAL P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
SRI.C.D.ANIL
SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
7TH FLOOR, CHANDRALOK BUILDING,
GANAPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
7TH FLOOR, CHANDRALOK BUILDING,
GANAPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001,
3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER,
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
SOUTH WESTERN REGION CAMP OFFICE KERALA,
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CAMPUS
SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016.
BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMURTHY, SC, AICTE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 01-07-2016 ALONG WITH WPC. 21351/2016, THE COURT
ON 15-07-2016, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 21798 of 2016 (Y)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS
HANDBOOK 2016-17, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
COLLEGE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH ONLINE ON 22/2/2016.
P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
COLLEGE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH ONLINE ON 22/2/2016
P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER-I SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
COLLEGE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH ONLINE ON 22/02/2016.
P2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER-2 SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
COLLEGE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH ONLINE ON 10/03/2016.
P2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER-3 SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
COLLEGE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH ONLINE ON 2/4/2016.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION REPORT PART-I DATED 5/3/2016
SUBMITTED TO REGIONAL OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE 2ND PETITIONER COLLEGE.
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/3/2016 SUBMITTED
BY THE 2ND PETITIONER COLLEGE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P5 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 5/4/2016 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA.
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEFICIENCY REPORT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS
PER CURRENT INTAKE SHOWING THE ZERO DEFICIENCY IN THE CASE OF
2ND PETITIONER COLLEGE
P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10/5/2016 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL OF 2ND PETITIONER COLLEGE
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/6/2016 WITH COVERING
LETTER DATED 21/6/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF
2ND PETITIONER COLLEGE
P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/7/2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL
NO.4848/2012 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351 of 2016
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2016
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions pertain to the extension of the approval granted to Sri.Vellappally Natesan College of Engineering, Pallickal and Vimal Jyothi Engineering College, Chemperi, by the All India Council for Technical Education. The petitioners represent the said engineering colleges. Though these matters were heard separately, since common issues arise for consideration, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The All India Council for Technical Education ('the AICTE' for short) is the statutory body which accredits and approves technical education programmes of engineering colleges in the country. The engineering colleges referred to above are engineering colleges functioning with the approval of the AICTE for quite some W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 2 time. As per the existing norms, the approval of AICTE has to be renewed/extended every year. Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.21798 of 2016 is the approval process handbook of AICTE for the year 2016-17. As per Ext.P1, existing institutions had to submit applications for extension of approval online through the web portal of AICTE. As per the norms, the existing engineering colleges are entitled to fill up 5% of the seats within the sanctioned intake under NRI quota with the prior approval of AICTE. Separate infrastructure facilities are to be provided for admitting students under NRI quota. Since both the engineering colleges have the requisite infrastructure facilities for admitting students under the NRI quota, they have been granted approval for the same by the AICTE during the previous years. During the current year, according to the petitioners, when applications were submitted by them for extension of the approval, on account of some technical snag, the web portal of AICTE did not accept their requests W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 3 for approval of NRI quota. Had the web portal accepted the requests of the petitioners for approval of NRI quota, facility would have been provided by the web portal for remittance of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the fees payable to AICTE. Since the requests of the petitioners for approval of NRI quota were not accepted, the web portal of AICTE facilitated payment of only Rs.1,00,000/-, which is the fee applicable to institutions which do not apply for NRI quota approval.
3. The case of the petitioners is that immediately, the matter was informed to the AICTE. Exts.P2 series in W.P.(C) No.21798 of 2016 are the various e-mails sent in this connection by the petitioners therein to the AICTE. Exts.P9 and P10 in W.P.(C) No.21351 of 2016 are the communications sent by the petitioner therein to the AICTE in this connection. It is alleged by the petitioners that the complaints preferred by the petitioners have not been attended to by the AICTE. While so, the petitioners have been granted approval by the AICTE without NRI intake. W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 4 Thereafter, as per Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No.21798 of 2016, the petitioners therein were informed by the AICTE that there is no provision to rectify the mistake in their applications and therefore nothing can be done in the matter. A similar communication was issued by the AICTE to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21351 of 2016 also. Ext.P11 in the said case is the communication in this regard. In Ext.P11, it is stated that the petitioner had not applied online for NRI quota approval and in the light of the various directions issued by the Apex Court in this regard, the request for approval of NRI quota cannot be considered now. The petitioners therefore challenge Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No.21798 of 2016 and Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.21351 of 2016. They also seek directions to the AICTE to extend the approval for admitting students under the NRI quota.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE, on instructions, pointed out that the requests of the petitioners for NRI intake cannot now be considered on any W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 5 grounds, as the outer time limit prescribed by the Apex Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust vs. All India Council for Technical Education [(2013) 3 SCC 385] for grant of approval is over. The learned Standing Counsel asserted that there could not have been any technical snag at all for the web portal of the AICTE as claimed by the petitioners, for, if there had been any technical snag, others also could not have applied for. According to the Standing Counsel, all other engineering colleges in the State who were enjoying the benefit of NRI quota admissions during the previous years had in fact applied through the very same web portal during the relevant time and they have been granted approval for NRI intake during the current year by the AICTE.
5. The fact that the petitioners have the requisite infrastructure for admitting students under the NRI quota was not disputed by the Standing Counsel. Likewise, the fact that the petitioners were enjoying the benefit of NRI W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 6 quota admissions during the previous years was also not disputed by the Standing Counsel. In other words, had the petitioners applied for NRI intake, they would have been certainly granted approval for the same by the AICTE. Since the petitioners have all the infrastructure facilities for admitting students under the NRI quota and since they were enjoying the benefit of NRI quota admissions during the previous years, there is no reason for them not to submit applications for approval of NRI intake during the current year. Since both the petitioners assert that they had experienced difficulties in submitting the online applications for NRI intake, the possibility of the technical error of the web portal cannot be ruled out. If, in fact, the applicants could not have submitted the applications for approval of NRI intake through the web portal of the AICTE due to the technical errors of the web portal, it is unjust to deny them the approval sought by them, especially when they have all the infrastructure facilities for admitting students under the W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 7 NRI quota and since they were enjoying the benefit of NRI quota admissions during the previous years. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners have preferred complaints well before the outer time limit prescribed for grant of approvals, pointing out their inability to submit the applications online for NRI quota and the said complaints are not seen attended to by the AICTE. In the circumstances, I am inclined to accept the case of the petitioners that they could not submit applications for the approval of NRI quota on account of the technical errors of the web portal.
6. The surviving issue is whether the decision of the Apex Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust case (supra) precludes this Court from issuing directions to the AICTE to grant the approval sought by the petitioners for NRI intake. The learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE relied on paragraph 46 of the judgment of the Apex Court to contend that the said decision creates an embargo for W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 8 this Court to grant the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in the writ petitions. Paragraph 46 or the judgment of the Apex Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust case (supra) reads thus;
"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 AICTEE, the University, the State Government and any other authority directly or 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, AICTEE 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 AICTEE may grant and re-submit its papers without default. The process of grant of W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 9 approval has to be transparent and fair. AICTEE or the University or the State Government concerned shall take disciplinary action against the person who commits default in adherance 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 of the High Court; and AICTEE and the university concerned shall ensure that the academic courses of these students are completed within the balance period of the academic year in all respects. For this purpose, if extra classes are required to be held, the institute concerned, the University and AICTEE 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 W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 10 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."
It is seen that this Court in W.P.(C) No.13969 of 2015 took the view that the directions issued by the Apex Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust case (supra) do not preclude this Court from issuing directions to the AICTE to grant approval/extension of approval in appropriate cases. The decision in the said case is seen confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1361 of 2016 also. In the light of the said decisions of this Court, according to me, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed, Ext.P7 communication issued by the AICTE in W.P.(C) No.21798 of 2016 and Ext.P11 communication issued by the AICTE in W.P.(C) No.21351 of 2016 are quashed. The AICTE is directed to grant approval to the petitioners for admitting W.P.(C)No. 21798 & 21351/ 11 students under the NRI quota during the current year, forthwith. The petitioners shall pay the deficit fee payable to the AICTE in the manner directed by the AICTE.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
smm (true copy)