Allahabad High Court
Robin Memorial Educational Welfare And ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 14 September, 2023
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7820 of 2023 Petitioner :- Robin Memorial Educational Welfare And Charitable Trust Thru. Auth.Signatory Sri Rohit Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Paavan Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lalit Shukla Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the material brought on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned decision of the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Board of Technical Education, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of affiliation for the academic session 2023-24, after summoning the same.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Board to grant the requisite affiliation to the petitioner for conducting Diploma in Engineering and Technology for 5 courses namely -Electrical Engineering (60 seats), Mechanical Engineering (60 seats), Computer Science (120 seats), Civil Engineering (60 seats) and Artificial Intelligence (60 seats) for the academic session 2023-24 as per the approval granted by the AICTE.
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Board to allow the petitioners' institution to participate in the counselling process for the academic session 2023-24 and take admission as per the approval granted by AICTE."
3. The instructions filed by the learned Standing Counsel are taken on record. The order dated 24.08.2023 whereby the request for affiliation was rejected is also annexed with instructions.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's college was established with an aim to impart technical education and infrastructure was accordingly established. It is on record that the respondent no. 3- All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi (in short "AICTE") is the statutory apex body which governs the grant of approval to the colleges imparting technical education with a view to maintain standards of technical education throughout the country, however the respondent no. 2, which is a Board is basically an examining body and is entitled to grant diploma in various courses. It is on record that ultimately it is the AICTE-respondent no. 3 which is empowered to control the technical standards of education as has been held by the Supreme Court in the following cases:-
(i) Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others Versus All India Council for Technical Education and others (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 385;
(ii) State of T.N. and another Versus Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 104;
(iii) Jaya Godul Educational Trust Versus Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and another (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 231.
5. My attention is drawn to paragraph nos. 24 & 25 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others Versus All India Council for Technical Education and others (Supra), which reads as under:-
24. The consistent view of this Court has been that where both Parliament and State Legislature have the power to legislate, the Central Act shall take precedence in the matters which are covered by such legislation and the State enactments shall pave way for such legislations to the extent they are in conflict or repugnant. As per the established canons of law, primacy of the Central Act is undisputable which necessarily implies primacy of AICTE in the field of technical education. Statutes like the present one as well as the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, etc. fall within the ambit of this canon of law. The AICTE is the authority constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining operational standards and judging the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting professional education. It shall take precedence over the opinion of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned department of the State and the affiliating university have a role to play, but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. The State can frame its policies, but such policy again has to be in conformity with the direction issued by the Central body. Though there is no such apparent conflict in the present case, yet it needs to be clarified that grant of approval by the State and affiliation by the University for increased intake of seats or commencement of new college should not be repugnant to the conditions of approval/recommendation granted by the AICTE. These authorities have to work in tandem as all of them have the common object to ensure maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and proper infrastructure for betterment of technical educational system.
25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the central authorities such as the 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 the case of AICTE 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 opinion of the Council, held as under:-
"The role of statutory expert bodies on education and 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, courts will step in. In Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University: (1980) IILJ 175 SC this Court observed:
Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread... While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth : [1985] 1 SCR 29, this Court reiterated:
..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."
18. 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. 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."
6. In the present case, after establishment of the institution for imparting the technical education by the petitioner, an inspection was carried out by the respondent no. 3- AICTE and in terms of the report which is on record as Annexure No. 5, a detailed inspection was carried out and the report was granted in favour of the petitioner noticing 'Nil deficiency'.
7. On perusal of the said report which is record, all the parameters were found to be fulfilled by the petitioner- institution. In terms of the said report, the respondent no. 3-AICTE granted approval as contained at Annexure No. 6 vide communication dated 25.06.2023. On receiving the said approval, the petitioner institution approached before the respondent no. 3 for granting approval in terms of the provisions contained in regulations framed under the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam-1962 as amended. In terms of the said request made by the petitioner, an order came to be passed holding that the application filed by the petitioner was liable to be rejected, reasons for rejection as uploaded on the website are contained at page no. 28 of the writ petition which record "Rejected by Inspection Team". It further record that inspection was done on 31.07.2023. After uploading all the reasons for not granting the affiliation, the petitioner approached this Court seeking liberty to entertain this writ petition out of turn. In terms of the said mention, the matter is being taken up today.
8. Learned Standing counsel has produced the instructions which contains the reasons for rejecting the request made by the petitioner. In terms of the said instructions, the power to refuse the approval can be exercised after the inspection to be carried out in terms of the regulation 12, which empowers the State to prescribe standards for buildings and equipment of affiliated institutions. Instructions further record that the inspection was carried out on 27.07.2023 and in the said inspection, the deficiencies were observed by the committee, which are as under:
(1) As per local information , a private school is also running in the same premises. (2) Room sizes are below norms. (3) Lab equipments are insufficient. Not ready to start. (4) Library size below norms. (5) Ramps slope not available as per norms. (6) Trust minutes not provided hence resolution is under doubt.
In the light of the said deficiencies pointed out and extracted above, the learned Standing Counsel emphasized that the request of affiliation was rightly rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the last date as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsvanath Charitable Trust Versus All India Council for Technical Education & Others in Miscellaneous Application No. 1927 of 2023 in C.A. No. 9048/2012, the Supreme Court has fixed the cut-off date for grant of affiliation upto 15.09.2023. He further argues that reasons for rejecting the request for affiliation, although not uploaded on the website, however even in terms of the instructions are totally arbitrary as in the inspection carried out by the AICTE, the petitioner was found to have fulfilled all the eligibility conditions. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is argued that it is the decision and inspection carried out by AICTE which will prevail. He further draws attention the reasons with regard to not having library room, computer centre etc were inspected by the AICTE and were found to be in order. He further argues the manner in which the rejection order has been passed is wholly arbitrary and even the instruction is contrary to the inspection carried out by the AICTE and this is nothing but harassment by the respondent and thus rights of the petitioner to impart the technical education in accordance with law has been adversely effected.
10. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand justified the order in the light of the powers vested in the State by virtue of regulation framed under the Act for grant of affiliation and it is argued that on inspection, the building in question was found to be improper in several aspects and thus the same has been rightly rejected, as such, the present writ petition is liable to be rejected.
11. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the law is reasonable well settled that it is the AICTE which is the body empowered to regulate the standard of technical education in the country and in terms of the said powers conferred upon them by virtue of the Act, they have framed several guidelines which have to be adhered by the institutions seeking affiliation. The respondent no. 2 mainly acts as an examination conducting authority. In terms of the regulation framed by the respondent no. 2, although the power of inspection and power of recording satisfaction is prescribed, however, in view of the scheme of the AICTE and the Board, clearly AICTE would have supremacy in taking the decision with regard to grant of affiliation subject to conditions that are prescribed. In the present case, even the inspection report although never served upon the petitioner, is in clear contradiction with the inspection report of the AICTE. No basis for inspection report are forthcoming even in the instructions as to how the inspection committee found various labs to be not ready; rooms are not as per norms; library size below norms, whereas in the inspection report carried out by AICTE, the size of library room is depicted as 303 sqm and the labs were found to be in order so also the rooms were found to be in order.
12. Thus on both the reasons i.e. that supremacy of AICTE in granting affiliation on the technical parameters specified by them as well as the report of the State Government being contrary to the report of AICTE cannot be held to be valid exercise of power of the State Government, as such, the order dated 24.08.2023 rejecting the request of affiliation deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to pass an order granting affiliation to the petitioner institution for the courses as sought based upon the report of the AICTE positively by tomorrow. This Court also notices that no objections were ever filed by the State Government before the AICTE for recalling the affiliation granted by them.
13. The writ petition, on the reasonings contained herein above, is allowed. Consequently, the respondent no. 2 shall permit the petitioner to take part in the counselling as and when it starts.
14. Learned Standing counsel shall communicate this order to the respondent no. 2 for its compliance.
Order Date :- 14.9.2023 Arun