Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gnana Bharathi Educational Academy vs A.P. State Council Of Higher Education ... on 23 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(5)ALD432
ORDER V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. Gnana Bharathi Educational Society, the petitioner herein, established a Degree college in the year 1993. It obtained necessary permission from the competent authority and obtained affiliation from Sri Venkateswara University, the third respondent herein. The second respondent namely, Dravidian University, Kuppam commenced a graduate course in B.Sc., with Mathematics, Computer Science and Computational Linguistics and also Computer Science, Mathematics and Statistics from the academic year 1999-2000. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the Dravidian University in offering B.Sc., Degree courses is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 ('the Education Act') and the statutory rules known as A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 (hereafter called 'the Higher Education Rules').
2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate counter-affidavits. It is stated that the second respondent University established under the Dravidian University Act, 1997 (Act No. 17 of 1997) and, therefore, the Education Act and Higher Education Rules have no application to the same. It is also revealed that in the meeting of the Planning & Monitoring Board held on 23-3-19.99 at Raj Bhavan under the Chairmanship of Chancellor of the University, Governor of Andhra Pradesh, it was decided to commence. B.Sc., (Computer Science) programme with specialization on language as one of the subjects. In the said meeting, the Chairman of the first respondent Council was present. Subsequently, the Council by letter dated 7-7-1999 endorsed the proposals made by the Vice-Chancellor of Dravidian University vide letter dated 23-6-1999 for starting initially B.Sc., Degree course offering Computer Science, Statistics or Computational Linguistics and Mathematics from the academic year 1999-2000.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nuty Ramamohan Rao, submits that the action of the second respondent University in commencing B.Sc., Degree course in Computer Science, Mathematics and Computational Linguistics without obtaining permission from the competent authority i.e., first respondent is illegal and cannot be sustained. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Azeez Basha v. Union of India, , the learned Counsel would submit that an University is an educational institution and, therefore, it has to obtain necessary permission and affiliation from the competent authority. Reliance is placed on Section 20 of the Education Act and Rules 1(2) and 4 of the Higher Education Rules.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the first respondent, Sri K.Ramesh Babu as well as the learned Counsel for the second respondent, Sri K.S. Gopalakrishna Murthy, submit that the Education Act or the Rules have no application to the Dravidian University. Reliance is placed on Clause (iii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 as well as Sub-section (1) of Section 20 read with Section 2(17) of the Education Act. Learned Counsel for the Dravidian University also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ameeruddin Academy of General Technical, Professional Education Society v. State of A.P., 1995 (1) ALD 202 = 1995 (1) An.WR 67, in support of the contention that the Education Act has no application to the University.
5. In the background of facts and having regard to the rival contentions of the respective Counsel, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the action of the Dravidian University in commencing B.Sc., (Computer Science, Mathematics and Computational Linguistics) and B.Sc., (Computer Science, Mathematics and Statistics) from the academic year 1999-2000 suffers from the vice of illegality?
6. The Education Act is an Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the educational system in the State of Andhra Pradesh for reforming, organising and developing educational system. Section 1 which deals with short title, extent, application and commencement of the said Act reads as under:
Section 1. Short title, extent, application and commencement :--(1) This Act may be called the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(3) It applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except,--
(i) Institutions for scientific or technical education financed by the Central Government and declared by Parliament by law to be institutions of national importance;
(ii) institutions established or maintained and administered by, or affiliated to, or recognized by the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University and the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University;
(iii) colleges and institutions insofar as the matters pertaining to them are dealt with in the enactments, relating to the establishment of Universities in force in the State, including the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974;
(iv) educational institutions imparting intermediate education insofar as the matters pertaining to them are dealt with in the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1971.
(4) It shall come into force on such date as the Government may, by notification, appoint.
7. Section 2 contains definitions of words and terms used in the Act. It is relevant to notice the definitions of educational agency and educational institution as defined in Clauses 17 and 18 of Section 2 which read as under:
2(17) "educational agency" means in relation to--
(a) any minority educational institution, any body of persons which has established and in administering or proposes to establish and administer such minority educational institution, and
(b) any other private educational institution, any body of persons entrusted with the establishment, management and maintenance of such private educational institution;
2(18) "educational institution" means a recognized school, colleges including Medical College, special institution or other institution (including an orphanage or boarding home or hostel attached to it by whatever name called, the management of which carries on either exclusively or among other activities, the activity of imparting education therein, and includes every premises attached thereto; but does not include a tutorial institution;
8. Section 20 requires permission for establishment of educational institution. Any person who establishes an educational institution except in accordance with the provisions of the Education Act is liable for penal action as per Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Be that as it is, Sub-section (1) of Section 20 requires every competent authority to conduct survey and identify educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction. Such need has to be notified in the prescribed manner in the local newspaper. Then only any educational agency desirous of establishing educational institution which is the need of the locality has to make an application to the competent authority. The Act and various rules made therein prescribe various competent authorities for School Education, Intermediate Education, College Education etc. Be it also noted that as per Section 2(17) of the Education Act, an educational agency means a private educational institution or minority educational institution and Government or its organizations do not fall within the definition of educational institution.
9. Insofar as the Higher Education Rules are concerned, they were made in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 20 and 21 read with Section 99 of the Education Act. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 lays down that the Higher Education Rules shall apply to all educational institutions both Government and private imparting Intermediate Education, education at Degree level, legal education and post-graduate education. As per Rule 5 of the said Rules, all applications, inter alia, for establishment of Degree Colleges/Oriental Colleges shall have to be made to the Registrar of the University concerned. But the Rules are silent as to the procedure to be followed when an University itself will commence the course.
10. The Dravidian University Act was enacted for establishment of Dravidian University. As per A.P. Stale Council of Higher Education (APSCHE), the said University was intended to be a multi-disciplinary University devoted to research, teaching and publications in the areas of Literature, Culture, Archaeology, Language, History, Rural Development, Indigenous Science and Technology, Engineering, Computer Applications and other modern Sciences and Social Sciences. It was conceived as an international University with focus on the contribution of Dravidian studies to knowledge in general and Indian culture in particular. A reading of the objects of the University as adumbrated in Section 4 would justify the profile of the University given by the first respondent. Clause (vi) of Section 4 and Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Dravidian University Act, which appear to be similar, read as under:
4 (vi) To provide for instruction in such branches of knowledge, sciences, technologies, vocations and professions as the University may determine from time to time and to make provision for research;
5(i) To provide for instruction in such branches of knowledge, technology, vocations and professions as the University may determine from time to time and to make provision for research;
11. A reading of the relevant provisions of the Education Act and the Higher Education Rules and Dravidian University Act would show that the Education Act has no application to Universities which are governed by special enactment. Clause (iii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Education Act makes it clear that the Education Act shall not apply to any college and/or institution governed by the enactment relating to establishment of Universities and courses in the State. In view of this, if any college or institution is established by reason of a Special University Act, Section 20 of the Education Act has no application. The submission that Section 20 (1) mandates obtaining permission even by University ignores the effect of Clause (iii) of Sub-section (3) of the Section 1 of the Education Act. Indeed, as rightly contended by the Counsel for Dravidian University, University is not an educational agency as defined in Section 2(17) and, therefore, ex facie, Section 20(1) has no application. For the same reason, the Higher Education Rules have no application, for, the Education Act itself is not made applicable to the Dravidian University.
12. As seen from the objects and powers of the Dravidian University, it is within the power of the said University to provide for instruction in such branches of knowledge, science, technology and professions as the University may determine from time to time. It is also within the power of the University to provide for instruction in all branches of knowledge and technology which it may determine from time to time. In the minutes of the meeting of the Planning & Monitoring Board of the Dravidian University held on 23-3-1999 at 11.00 a.m. at Raj Bhavan, we find the following:
The Chancellor referred to the two departments, namely, Department of Comparative Literature and Philosophy and the Department of Computer Science being started and advised the University to go ahead with research and teaching programmes in these two departments. Regarding Computer Science, it was suggested that the University may initially take up B.Sc. Programme in Computer Science with specialization on language as one of the subjects. For example, the University can offer B.Sc. in Computer Science with the following subjects, namely, Computer Science, Mathematics, Statistics etc. It was agreed that the Department of Computer Science may initially go in for B.Sc. Degree and plan to introduce M.Sc. Computer Science at a later stage after getting competent staff and developing sufficient infrastructure facilities. Chancellor observed that it may not be necessary to have separate Faculty positions for Mathematics/Statistics as persons being recruited for Computer Science posts would have requisite qualification and background in these disciplines.
13. In the meeting of the Planning and Monitoring Board, Chairman of APSCHE, who is a member of the Planning and Monitoring Board was present. Be that as it is, presumably, having regard to the minutes of the meeting of the Board, Prof. Arunachalam, the then Vice-Chancellor of Dravidian University addressed a letter to the first respondent requesting to accord permission to go ahead with the plan for starting B.Sc. courses from the academic year 1999-2000. The said letter was addressed on 23-6-1999 and responding to the same, the first respondent formally informed the second respondent that APSCHE endorses the proposal for starting B.Sc., Degree course. Therefore, it cannot be said that the second respondent commenced B.Sc. Computer Science without obtaining any permission. As already concluded hereinabove, Dravidian University being University established under a special enactment is entitled to start its own courses as they determine from time to time.
14. In Ameeruddin Academy of General, Technical, Professional Education Society v. State of A.P. (supra), this Court observed that the Education Act has no application to the Universities in the State. The observations made therein are as under:
In view of such conclusions reached the questions raised by the learned Counsel are no longer res integra to be agitated. It is not open to canvass that a minority institution is not governed by the A.P. Education Act, 1982, As it is, the submission is also devoid of substance since what Section 1(3)(iii) states in effect is only that so far as any matter is dealt within enactment relating to establishment of Universities in the State including the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 regarding colleges and institutions, such colleges and institutions shall, to that extent, be governed by the relative statutes and not by the Act 1 of 1982. What the exceptions mean is that the Colleges and Institutions would be generally governed by Act No. 1 of 1982 except to the extent they are excepted under the provision of Section 1(3)(iii).
15. In Bharatidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, AIR 2001 SC 2861, the Supreme Court considered the question whether the University created under a special enactment should seek approval of AICTE to start a department for imparting course of technical education or a technical institution. After referring to the various provisions of AICTE Act, 1987, University Grants Cbmmission Act, 1956, the apex Court laid down that a University established under a special enactment is not required to seek prior approval to commence a new department or a new course. The following observations are apt.
.................. The UGC and Universities have always had and have an accepted and well-merited role of Primacy to play in shaping as well as stepping up a co-ordinated development and improvement in the standards of education and research in the sphere of education. When it is only Institutions other than Universities which are to seek affiliation, it was not correct to state in the decisions under challenge that an University, which cannot grant affiliation to a technical institution, cannot grant the same to itself. Consequently, the conclusions rendered based on the principles for classifying enactments into 'general law' and 'special law' to keep them within their respective limits or area of operation are not warranted and wholly uncalled for and do not merit our approval or acceptance.
16. Again dealing with the submission that regulations made by AICTE are also binding on the University, the Supreme Court observed as under:
.............. Consequently, when the power to make regulations are confined to certain limits and made to flow in a well defined canal within stipulated banks, those actually made or shown and found to be not made within its confines but outside them, the Courts are bound to ignore them when the question of their enforcement arise and the mere fact that there was no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires, particularly when the party in sufferance is a respondent to the lis or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack. It would, therefore, be a myth to state that regulations made under Section 23 of the Act have "Constitutional" and legal status, even unmindful of the fact that anyone or more of them are found to be not consistent with specific provisions of the Act itself. Thus, the regulations in question, which the AICTE could not have made so as to bind Universities/UGC within the confines of the powers conferred upon it, cannot be enforced against or bind an University in the matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course and programme in technical education in any university or any of its departments and constituent institutions.
17. As noticed, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Azeez Basha v. Union of India (supra). In the said decision, the Supreme Court laid down that an educational institution includes University also and, therefore, minorities have a fundamental right to establish a University under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the provisions of Section 1(3)(iii) of the Education Act, when the application of the Act is specifically excluded, the said decision has no application. It is now well settled that the words and terms and phrases used in the enactment have to be interpreted in the light of the interpreting Clause. If the word has no definition in the enactment, it has to be interpreted having regard to the precedents. Even if any precedent is not available, the Court can always rely on Dictionaries and Thesaurus, By interpreting the words and terms in the definition "educational institution", it is not possible to countenance the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the University is an educational institution for the purpose of the Education Act. It is no doubt true that Dravidian University is an educational institution, but it is not so for the purpose of the A.P. Education Act, 1982.
18. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.