Allahabad High Court
Shri Baijnath Singh College Of Higher ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38186 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6242 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shri Baijnath Singh College Of Higher Edu. Throu. Its Authorized Signatory Amti Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Edu. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lalit Shukla Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and perused the material available on record.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging and challenging an order passed by the Appellate Committee of the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi ( in short AICTE) by which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of approval to run the course of Diploma in Engineering and Technology (Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical and Computer Science and Engineering) has been rejected.
3. The fact in brief are that the petitioner claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has established an institution with an aim and object to provide the Diploma in Engineering, Mechanical and Technology for 60 seats in each sections for which, an application has also been made.
4. It is argued that the petitioner had applied for grant of approval before the O.P. No. 3 in terms of the instructions issued in the process handbook, which was relevant to the year 2024-2027. It is stated that a visit was made by the respondent on 06.03.2025, however some document could not be verified on account of failure of internet connection, as such, some deficiencies were shown in the report dated 06.03.2025. The petitioner approached the respondent no. 3 for re-scrutiny, which was done on 24.03.2025, in which, scrutiny was found in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that after the re-scrutiny of the papers submitted by the petitioner, an expert visit was made on 02.04.2025, however, a report was given by the said committee against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the report dated 02.04.2025, once again a letter of rejection was passed by the Standing Appellate Committee in view of the deficiencies which could not be finalized. The petitioner once again moved an application by depositing the requisite fees for re-inspection of the institution by the Standing Appellate Committee. The Standing Appellate Committee conducted re-inspection on 18.06.2025, and all the defects which were mentioned in the earlier inspection dated 18.04.2025 were found to be removed, however, the order impugned came to be passed rejecting the application. In the said order, remarks were made to the following effect:-
"The institute is not ready to start the institute from this academic year, the compliances are not fulfilled by the institute".
5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that even as per the impugned document, all the compliances were made as is evident from the report, however, without any rhyme and reason, the inability of the institute to start the institute in this academic year has been mentioned which is contrary to the record and the petitioner has never given anything in writing, to demonstrate that the petitioner is not ready to start the institute in this academic year. In the light of the said, the present petition has been filed challenging the said order.
6. In the light of the allegations made, this Court had called for instructions from the counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as well as the State.
7. Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, based upon instructions states that State Government had issued certain directions through its communication dated 29.04.2025, whereby the State Government had advised the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that no NOC has been provided for establishing of new Diploma Engineering institutions with a further request that no approval be granted for the year 2025-26 to any private Diploma Engineering institutions. The said letter was reiterated by another communication dated 27.05.2025, wherein once again a request was made by the State not to grant any approval for the Session 2025-26. It is argued that based upon these instructions, the petitioner was confronted with the same and the petitioner orally stated that his application may be considered for the next year and accordingly, the order was passed. He however states that the compliances, which were earlier found to be deficient were rectified as is also noticed in the impugned order.
8. In the light of the said instructions, learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions dated 05.07.2025 stating that in furtherance of the earlier notification dated 05.01.2024, which had prescribed for NOC for grant of affiliation and the procedure to be observed, it was found by the State Government that the admission percentage in the private institutions offering Diploma courses was as low as 17.3% for the Session 2024-25, as such, as a policy decision, further setting up of private institution granting Diploma in Engineering were not found to be proper, as such, directions were issued with a request to the AICTE not to grant approval to the proposed newly set up institution for granting Diploma in Engineering and other allied subjects. It was further observed in the communication that fresh appraisals shall be done after getting a report from Deloitte India Consultant, a private body, which would submit a report and thereafter a decision shall be taken for permission to set up the institutions for grant of Diploma in Engineering, etc for the Academic Year 2025-26, however, no such decision has been taken so far for the new institutions. Both the instructions filed by the State Government as well as the respondent nos. 3 & 4 are taken on record.
9. In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that 'approval' and 'affiliation' are two different steps, for establishing an institution, which is enabled to grant Diploma in Engineering and other allied subjects, it is the AICTE, which is the umbrella body, which is equipped to grant 'approval' in terms of the provisions contained in the AICTE Act 1987. Reference is made to Section 10(k) of the said Act, which is quoted herein below:-
"10. Functions of the Council-- It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring co-ordinate and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may--
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned."
10. My attention is also drawn to regulation 23, which enables the Councils established under Act to bring regulations for carrying out the purposes of the Act. It is stated that in pursuance to the said powers conferred by regulation 23, regulations known as AICTE (Grant of approvals for technical institutions) Regulation 2020 have been framed. My attention is drawn to the provision contained in the said regulations which do not anywhere prescribe for any NOC from the State Government prior to grant of approval by the expert body i.e. AICTE. My attention is also drawn to the handbook approval process issued by the AICTE, which is valid for the period 2024-25 to 2026-27, wherein various prescriptions have been provided, however, there is no mention of any approval by the State prior to either the grant or rejection of the approval by the AICTE. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu Versus Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 104, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the mandate and scope of the provisions of the AICTE Act 1987 had recorded as under :
"44.What emerges from the above discussion is as follows:
[i] The expression "coordination" used in Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make "coordination" either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention.
[ii] To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative.
[iii] If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless the State legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of clause [2] of Article 254, the State legislation being repugnant to the Central legislation, the same would be inoperative.
[iv] Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case.
[v] When there are more applicants than the available situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the Central authority to short- list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central law.
[vi] However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the central authority, the State authorities act illegally.
46. As a result, as has been pointed out earlier, the provisions of the Central statute on the one hand and of the State statutes on the other, being inconsistent and, therefore, repugnant with each other, the Central statute will prevail and the derecognition by the State Government of the, disaffiliation by the, State University on grounds which are inconsistent wit those enumerated in the Central statute will be inoperative."
11. My attention is also drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others versus AICTE, (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 385, and in particular emphasis on para 24 has been made, which is as under:-
"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."
12. My attention is also drawn to the judgment of this Court in the case of Maa Maturani Devi Educational and Welfare Trust Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, passed in Writ C No. 7819 of 2023 decided on 14.09.2023, wherein this Court had the occasion to deal the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust (Supra), wherein this Court had observed as under:-
" 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 the size of library room to be 177.35 sqm whereas in the inspection report carried out by AICTE, the size of library room is depicted as 314 sqm.
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. In the backdrop of the facts as recorded above and the law as extracted above with regard to grant of approval, it is fairly well settled that at the time of approval, it is only the AICTE, which is expert body empowered under the Central Act to grant of approval subject to the prescriptions contained in the regulation, in the entire scheme of the Act, the State Government has no role to play at the time of grant of approval by a expert body. Thus the contention of the respondents that on account of the advise by the State Government, the approval was not processed cannot be accepted and is rejected.
14. In the present case, the impugned order has refused to grant approval solely on the ground that the institute is not ready to start in this academic year, which is factually incorrect, also cannot be sustained. Thus for all the reasons above, the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Appellate Committee is quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 4 to pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that the approval shall not be refused on account of the ground that the State Government has issued certain advisories and shall be processed on its own merits strictly in accordance with the AICTE Act, the regulation framed under Section 23, approval process handbook issued by the AICTE and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust (Supra), The said fresh order is directed to be passed within a period of three weeks from today.
15. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Arun