Gujarat High Court
New Progressive Mca College - Managed By ... vs Gujarat Technological University ... on 16 July, 2015
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/13202/2013 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13202 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
NEW PROGRESSIVE MCA COLLEGE - MANAGED BY THE NEW
PROGRESSIVE....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH REGISTRAR &
3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPEN DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MITUL K SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR VILAS G GOSWAMY, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent9S) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Page 1 of 9
C/SCA/13202/2013 JUDGMENT
Date : 16/07/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Pratik Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Dipen Desai, learned advocate for respondent no.1, Mr. Vilas Goswami, learned advocate for respondent no.2, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for respondent no.3 and Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate for respondent no.4.
2. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"8(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to upload the name of the college run b the petitioner trust i.e. The New Progressive MCA College in the web portal within the list of affiliated colleges.
8(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to grant permanent affiliation to the college run by the petitioner trust i.e. The New Progressive MCA College as the petitioner has fulfilled the Conditions as mentioned by the respondent No.1 while granting an order of temporary affiliation dated 16.07.2013.
8(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 & 3 to allot students to the college run by the petitioner trust i.e. the New Progressive MCA College.
8(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to hold that the petitioner, for running MCA Course, is not required to obtain recognition from the respondent No.2 AICTE in view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Page 2 of 9 C/SCA/13202/2013 JUDGMENT Education & Others, Civil Appeal No.1145/2004.
8(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to hold that the respondent No.2 AICTE is having no powers/authority to grant recognition to the petitioner trust for starting MCA College, in view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & Others, Civil Appeal No.1145/2004.
8(F) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the petition.
3.1. The petitioner is a registered trust and runs various educational institutions since the year 1934 in Mehsana District, Gujarat State. It is the case of the petitioner trust that no college imparting education in the course of Masters of Computer Application (MCA) is situated within vicinity of the three colleges imparting education of Bachelor in Computer Application (BCA). The petitioner trust made an application on 07/01/2013 with respondent No.1-University. The record further indicates that respondent no.1-University, on scrutiny of the said application, granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 02/02/2013 stating that respondent no.1-University has no objection to grant affiliation to the college run by the petitioner trust with an intake capacity of 60 students in the course of Masters of Computer Application (MCA). The record further indicates that thereafter, the petitioner trust also deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the affiliation fees. The record further indicates that Page 3 of 9 C/SCA/13202/2013 JUDGMENT the University deputed its visiting team to inspect the instructional and infrastructural facilities of the college. It is the say of the petitioner that as some discrepancies were found, the petitioner trust also undertook to comply with such formalities and ultimately respondent no.1-University granted temporary affiliation vide its order dated 16/07/2013.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Management of Private Colleges vs. All India Council for Technical Education & ors., in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7277 of 2014 and other cognate appeals, role of respondent no.2-Council is only advisory in nature and for starting the course of MCA, no permission or approval is necessary from respondent no.2-Council. It is further the case of the petitioner that however, as abundant caution, the petitioner made an application with the respondent no.2- Council seeking permanent recognition to run MCA course. The record also indicates that by letter dated 06/03/2013, respondent no.2-Council rejected the application filed by the petitioner. As indicated in the petition, the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the Standing Appellate Committee of respondent no.2-Council. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner fulfills all the conditions imposed while granting temporary affiliation, the petitioner ought to have been allotted students and the name of the college of the petitioner trust should have been included in the web portal and the petitioner trust college should have been included in the affiliated colleges. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had also given an undertaking to the respondent no.1-University that it is ready Page 4 of 9 C/SCA/13202/2013 JUDGMENT to seek approval from the AICTE or the UGC, respondent no.4 herein. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Association of Management of Private Colleges vs. AICTE & ors. (supra), it is contended that the petitioner is not a technical institute and, therefore, is not required to take any approval from the AICTE and in such circumstances, as the college run by the petitioner trust complies with the requirements and conditions imposed by the respondent no.1- University while granting temporary affiliation, the petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for.
4. Mr. Pratik Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner has raised the same contentions in his submissions as enumerated above.
5. Per contra, Mr. Vilas Goswami, learned advocate for respondent no.2-Council has pointed out that the Apex Court by an order dated 17/04/2014 and 09/05/2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7277 of 2014 has clarified that it is compulsory and mandatory even for the colleges running MBA and Management Courses to seek prior approval of respondent no.2-Council. Mr. Goswami, learned advocate, therefore, submitted that sole reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Association of Management of Private Colleges vs. AICTE & ors. (supra) which is now modified in the order dated 09/05/2014, as aforesaid, would not exempt the petitioner from seeking approval from respondent no.2-Council. Mr. Goswami, learned advocate further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Standing Appellate Committee of respondent no.2-Council has been rejected in the month of Page 5 of 9 C/SCA/13202/2013 JUDGMENT March 2013 itself and the said order has become final as the same is not challenged by the petitioner. Mr. Goswami, learned advocate contended that prior approval of respondent no.2-Council is necessary. Considering the letter of rejection by the Council as well as order of the appellate authority, it was contended by Mr. Goswami, learned advocate that as the petitioner trust does not fulfill the requirements as per the regulations applicable, the approval is not granted. Mr. Goswami, learned advocate submitted that prayers prayed for cannot be granted in light of the order dated 09/05/2014 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was also contended that after the order dated 09/05/2014, respondent no.2-Council has granted affiliation/recognition to other similarly situated colleges imparting education in Master of Computer Application (MCA). It was, therefore, contended that the petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed.
6. Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that University Grant Commission (UGC) vide communication dated 27/05/2013, informed respondent no.1-University that no further affiliation for the colleges offering courses/programs of professional and technical in the nature should be granted till the regulations are formed. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate further relying upon communication dated 07/08/2013 addressed by the UGC to Vice Chancellor of respondent No.1-University contended that the concerned University has to consider the factum of approval being granted by respondent no.2-Council. Mr.Shelat, learned advocate contended that as the clarification is made by the Apex Court vide its order dated Page 6 of 9 C/SCA/13202/2013 JUDGMENT 09/05/2014, the UGC has not finalized or framed any further regulations and it is for the petitioner to apply as per the regulations of the AICTE. It was pointed out that conscious decision was taken by the UGC to keep the regulations in abeyance till the final outcome of the pending petition before the Apex Court. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate contended that in such a factual scenario, the UGC has now not to play any role in the affiliation and/or approval. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate contended that as such the prayers prayed for in this petition have become academic and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for respondent no.1- University has relied upon the affidavit filed by the in-charge Registrar. Mr. Desai, learned advocate has pointed out that the petitioner trust filed an application for approval before the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 25/04/2013 and in fact the application so filed by the petitioner trust came to be rejected on 06/03/2013. Relying upon the contentions which are raised by Mr. Shelat, learned advocate for the UGC- respondent no.4 herein, it was contended on behalf of respondent no.1-University that as per the instructions issued by the UGC, no further affiliation can be granted. Mr. Desai, learned advocate also pointed out that as such the prayers prayed for have become academic, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP, while adopting the arguments of learned advocates for the respondents, pointed out that as the college of the petitioner is not affiliated any more with respondent no.1-University, the college run by the Page 7 of 9 C/SCA/13202/2013 JUDGMENT petitioner trust cannot be included in the list of affiliated colleges and no students can be alloted which does not have any approval and/or recognition. Learned AGP has pointed out that the prayers prayed for in the petition, therefore, cannot be granted and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. No other and further submissions are made by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on bare perusal of the prayers prayed for in para-8 of the petition, prayer 8(A) and 8(C) cannot be granted. As far as prayers 8(D) and 8(E) are concerned, it would be appropriate to quote the order passed by the Apex Court dated 09/05/2014 in SLP (C) No.7277 of 2014 wherein the Apex Court has observed thus:
"The order dated 17/04/2014 passed by this Court is clarified and it is directed that prior approval of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is compulsory and mandatory for conduct of a technical course including the MBA/Management Course by an existing affiliated Technical College and also new Technical College which will require affiliation by a University for conduct of its Technical Courses/Programmes for the academic year 2014-2015."
11. In light of the observations of the Apex Court, it is compulsory and mandatory for the college like present petitioner to apply for prior approval of respondent no.2- Council and, therefore, prayer prayed for in para 8(D) and 8(E) cannot be considered and granted by this Court.
12. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate as well as Mr. Desai, Page 8 of 9 C/SCA/13202/2013 JUDGMENT learned advocate have rightly contended that in light of the order dated 09/05/2014 passed by the Apex Court, as such the UGC has no role to play and in absence of any approval having been granted by respondent no.2-Council, the University cannot even grant any affiliation. Considering the discrepancies which were noted by respondent no.2-Council while passing order of rejection dated 06/03/2013 as well as order in appeal which is shown to the Court for perusal of Mr. Goswami, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.2, even prayer prayed for in para-8(B) deserve to be rejected. However, institute or a college, intending to impart education in a particular course, is duty bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable. As directed by the Apex Court, as prior approval is mandatory and compulsory, no concession or exemption can be granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner has candidly submitted that prayer prayed in para 8(A) and 8(C) are concerned, the same has become academic. Considering the totality of facts the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs prayed for. This petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) ila Page 9 of 9