Madras High Court
Amudhasurabi Educational & Charitable ... vs The All India Council For Technical ... on 12 July, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.07.2012 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.15453 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 Amudhasurabi Educational & Charitable Trust, No.4/1-A, Semmandapatti Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District - 636 309 Represented by its Trustee & Secretary. ... Petitioner Vs 1.The All India Council for Technical Education, Rep. By its Member Secretary, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 002. 2.The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, The Southern Regional Office, Shastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006. 3.The Director/Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025. 4.The Anna University, Rep. By its Registrar, Guindy - 600 025, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent All India Council for Technical Education dated 16.05.2012 rejecting the petitioner's application for approval to establish the college, quash the same, and further direct the first respondent to give approval forthwith to the petitioner college from the academic year 2012-2013. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Godson Swaminath For Respondents : Ms.A.L.Ganthimathi for R1 and R2 Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi,AGP (Edn) for R3 Mr.V.Shanmugasundar for R4 O R D E R
The writ petition is filed by the Educational Trust seeking to challenge an order dated 16.05.2012 rejecting their application for approval to establish a college and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to the first respondent viz., All India Council for Technical Education ("AICTE" for short) to give approval forthwith to establish the College to function from the academic year 2012 - 2013.
2. When the matter came up on 19.06.2012, this Court directed the learned Standing Council for AICTE to take notice and get instructions from the respondent. Accordingly, Ms.A.L.Ganthimathi, learned Standing Counsel took notice and also filed a counter affidavit dated 01.07.2012 on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.
3. The case of the petitioner Trust was that it is a Public Charitable Trust registered during January 2008. Considering the large scale need for new Engineering Courses in the region, the petitioner Trust wanted to start an Engineering College in the name and style viz., Amudhasurabi College of Engineering and Technology in Mettur Taluk. They acquired land in Pannavadi Village and established necessary infrastructure and instructional facilities for the new college. The constructions were made with the site approval and building plan approval given by the competent authority. They submitted on-line application to the second respondent AICTE Regional Office on 07.02.2012 with necessary processing fee. They intend to start B.E.Courses in 5 disciplines with total annual intake of 300 students. The second respondent on receipt of the application invited the petitioner for Scrutiny of Documents on 14.02.2012. They also appeared before the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee pointed out certain deficiencies including non-production of approval for the site and buildings from the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai. An Expert Committee was also sent by the second respondent to inspect the college on 04.03.2012.
4. The Committee after its inspection reported certain deficiencies which was uploaded in the official website on 04.03.2012. As against the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Standing Appellate Committee of AICTE at New Delhi on 15.04.2012 in terms of AICTE Regulations. They also appeared before the Standing Appellate Committee on 22.04.2012. The Appellate Committee recommended a second visit by the Expert Committee. The Expert Committee also visited the College on 06.05.2012. The Expert Committee pointed out certain deficiencies in the up-loaded report on 06.05.2012.
5. The short fall pointed out by the Expert Committee were as follows:-
"a)Language Lab not presented.
b)The College has 5 printers as against the requirement of 8
c)Multimedia Personal computer not ready.
d)Central Store incomplete.
e)Maintenance incomplete
f)Security incomplete
g)Housekeeping incomplete
h)Exam Control Office incomplete
i)Office All Inclusive incomplete.
j)Boys common room not ready
k)Cafeteria not ready
l)Stationary Store not ready
m)First Aid cum Sick Room not ready
n)Laboratories UG incomplete
o)Workshops incomplete
p)Drawing Hall incomplete
q)Seminar Hall not provided"
In respect of 'amenities area', the Committee found that they were in semi-furnished stage including the staircase.
6. According to the petitioner Trust, the deficiencies pointed out are minor in nature and several things are not noted properly by the Expert Committee. In so far as deficiencies regarding 'Language Laboratory', microphones are concerned, they were not switched on at the time of inspection. Similarly, the shortage of three printers and Multimedia Personal Computer are concerned, they had already been purchased and made available but not installed in place. The availability of these materials are found reflected in the Stock Register entries. It is also pointed out that the findings given by the Expert Committee regarding Boys Common Room, Cafeteria, Stationary Store, First Aid cum Sick Room were all provided and the Committee's findings were incorrect. The rejection by the AICTE once again on the basis of the Expert Committee was communicated to the petitioner Trust by E-mail on 16.05.2012. It is this communication which is under challenge in this writ petition.
7. The contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were erroneous and they have not taken note of the Stock Register Entries regarding availability of the facilities though were not installed.
8. In the impugned communication dated 16.05.2012, the first respondent AICTE informed the petitioner College as follows:-
"In terms of the provisions under the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations 2011 notified by the Council vide notification number F-No.37-3/Legal/2011 dated 10.12.2010 and other notifications, as applicable and published from time to time. I am directed to convey the Rejection of Application for establishing a Technical Institution/ Campus bearing Application ID 1-812417593, for the detailed reasons as noted in the following reports, as applicable to this institute.
i)Scrutiny Report,
ii)Re-scrutiny Report,
iii)Expert Committee visit report,
iv)Regional Committee report,
v)Reasons for rejection in EC,
vi)SAC Report.
These reports containing deficiencies are attached/available on web portal at w.w.w.aicte-india.org on your login which may be down loaded and be treated as part of this letter of rejection."
9. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that on an appeal being made by the petitioner Trust another Expert Committee was sent to the College and the Committee recorded as follows:-
"the availability of Language Laboratory, the Printer, Multi Media PC and Central Store, Maintenance and Security, Housekeeping, Examination Control Office were all found to be incomplete".
It was further observed that the area is available as per the requirement, but it is semi-furnished, especially the stair case. Apart from that, Boys Common room, Cafeteria, Stationery Store, First Aid-cum-Sick Room were also found to be incomplete, As such, after re-visit, it was found that Under-graduate Laboratory, Workshop, Drawing Hall, Seminar Hall etc. were found to be incomplete."
10. Thereafter, in the counter affidavit in paragraphs 6 and 8, it was averred as follows:-
"6. It is submitted that even according to the petitioner, the deficiencies appear to have been not rectified till date. Even though the petitioner had stated that the Printer and Multi Media Pcs have already been purchased, the same had not been installed and further, the Central Store, Maintenance and Security, Housekeeping, Laboratory etc were all not put into operation. The Laboratory was not in complete shape and the Drawing Hall and Workshop were also not ready. As such, the petitioner's college is not having the required infrastructure as per the norms of the respondent Council and hence, the petitioner's application was rejected.
8. I respectfully submit, the Expert Committee consists of Experts who personally visited the Institution and submitted the report and the same cannot be substituted and rectified by a mere representation of the petitioner and as per the report of the Committee, the deficiencies still exist and the infrastructure available in the College premises is not in accordance with the norms and regulations of AICTE. Hence, the approval was not granted."
11. In the present case, the petitioner Trust had the option of an appeal being heard by the Standing Appellate committee and the Committee had in its discretion had deputed a fresh Expert Committee which also noted certain deficiencies. The contention of the petitioner Trust that those deficiencies were rectified or that they were minor in nature cannot be accepted. In fact, the Committee as a matter of fact found certain necessary infrastructure was not completed and the necessary instruments were not installed. This fact was also admitted by the petitioner Trust. Therefore, the present prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. The petitioner has not chosen to allege an improper conduct on the part of the Expert Committee and also could not deny the factual findings recorded by the Expert Committee sent pursuant to the recommendation of the Standing Appellate Committee. Even assuming that the petitioner Trust is willing to rectify the deficiencies, that cannot be a ground to invalidate the findings of the Inspection Committee as well as the Expert Committee. In any event as the academic year had already begun, the question of petitioner seeking for approval for the academic year 2012-13 cannot be feasible for compliance.
12. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Council For Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in (2009) 11 SCC 726, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Court has got no power to interfere with the decisions taken by the Expert Bodies. It is necessary to refer to the following passages founds in paragraphs 15 to 18:-
"15. ...what should be the norms and standards in regard to entry qualification, content of course instructions and manner of assessing the performance by examinations, are all decisions in academic matters of technical nature. AICTE consists of professional and technical experts in the field of education qualified and equipped to decide on those issues. In fact, a statutory duty is cast on them to decide these matters.
16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.
17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the 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, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University1 this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 & 17) 11. Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. ...
* * *
17. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.
18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth2 this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) 29. 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. (emphasis supplied)
13. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
svki To
1.The Member Secretary, The All India Council for Technical Education, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 002.
2.The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, The Southern Regional Office, Shastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Director/Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025.
4.The Registrar, The Anna University, Guindy - 600 025, Chennai, Tamil Nadu