Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Regional Officer vs Jind Institute Of Engineering And ... on 6 June, 2013
Bench: Mahesh Grover, G.S. Sandhawalia
LPA No. 1099 of 2013 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1099 of 2013 (O & M)
Date of Decision:- June 06, 2013
The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, Chandigarh and
another
..............APPELLANT(S)
vs.
Jind Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jind and others
...........RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present:- Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
MAHESH GROVER, J. (ORAL)
The appellants impugn orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.04.2013 and 27.05.2013.
We may note the facts in passing that the respondent-institute had submitted an application, for getting an approval from the appellants for the academic session 2013-14, within the stipulated time frame. The appellants responded to the application by stating that the same had to be filed under Chapter I of the Approval Process Handbook for the Session 2013-14 as also online. Ostensibly, this view of the appellants was prompted by the earlier withdrawal of the approval of the respondent-institute for the Session 2011-12 and thus treating the attempt of the respondent as a fresh application.
The matter was agitated in CWP No. 19509 of 2011 and during its subsistence, an order dated 03.09.2012 was passed calling upon the council (appellant) to reconsider the issue in the light of the reply that had been submitted LPA No. 1099 of 2013 (O & M) 2 by the respondent-institute to the show cause notice served by the appellants.
The respondent-institute refuted the stand of the appellants regarding this insistence of an application under Chapter I of the Approval Process Handbook by contending that it related only to institutes where a fresh approval is sought for and did not regulate approvals sought by institutes who already had been granted approval relating to the previous academic sessions.
The appellants, on the other hand, had insisted on the justification of their stand and the Court, in the peculiar circumstances and the facts, as detailed above, directed the respondent-institute to submit an application afresh online as well including a hard copy of Chapter I without prejudice to its rights and the appellants were required to consider the same as per provisions of the Approval Process Handbook by conducting necessary and requisite process.
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, learned senior counsel confronted with this situation before the writ Court had then submitted that in the eventuality of an application being submitted by the respondent-institute by 10.04.2013, the same would be processed in the light of Chapter I of the Approval Process Handbook and a final order for the academic session 2013-14 passed within a period of 15 days thereafter. However, subsequently an application was moved by the appellants to withdraw this part of the order on the premise that no such concession was ever given.
The aforesaid withdrawal of the stand was prayed for by the appellants in C.M. No. 6254 of 2013 and Review application No. 175 of 2013 and both these applications were decided by virtue of the order dated 27.05.2013 which have also been impugned by the appellants primarily on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others, (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 385 has prescribed a schedule and declared it to be the law and not to be altered by any authority. Para no. 43 of the judgment would be relevant and is thus, extracted LPA No. 1099 of 2013 (O & M) 3 herebelow:-
"43. We find that the above Schedule is in conformity with the affiliation/recognition schedule afore- noticed. They both can co-exist. Thus, we approve these admission dates and declare it to be the law which shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned and none of the authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary these dates of admission. Certainty in this field is bound to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious method of grant of admission and commencement of the technical courses. Any variation is bound to adversely affect the maintenance of higher standards of education and systemic and proper completion of courses."
The schedule, in turn, is contained in para no. 41 of the judgment which is also extracted for the purposes of reference.
41. The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as follows:
Event Schedule Conduct of Entrance Examination (AIEEE/State In the month of May CET/ Management quota exams, etc.) Declaration of result of qualifying examination On or before 5th June (12th exam or similar) and entrance examination 1st round of counselling/admission for allotment To be completed on or before 30th of seats June 2nd round counselling for allotment of seats To be completed on or before 10th July Last round of counselling for allotment of seats To be completed on or before 20th July Last date for admitting candidates in seats other 30th July than allotted above However, any number of rounds for counselling could be conducted depending on local requirements, but all the rounds shall be completed before 30th July Commencement of academic session 1st August LPA No. 1099 of 2013 (O & M) 4 Event Schedule Last date upto which students can be admitted 15th August against vacancies arising due to any reason (no student should be admitted in any institution after the last date under any quota) Last date of granting or refusing approval by 10th April AICTE Last date of granting or refusing approval by 15th May University State Government It may not be out of place to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no. 45 of the judgment had frowned upon the conduct of the AICTE i.e. the appellant herein, for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 particularly when the Expert Committee had found inadequacies in the report. The said para reads as under:-
"45. We fail to understand why the college was granted approval for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009- 10 particularly when the Expert Committee is stated to have visited the premises on 26th June, 2008 and found inadequacies in the report. It is certainly a lapse on the part of the AICTE which cannot be ignored by the Court as it had far-reaching consequences including placing the career of the students admitted during these two years in jeopardy. Even though the High Court has directed allocation of these students in other colleges, their academic course certainly stands adversely affected and disturbed, for which the AICTE is responsible. In this regard, the Court cannot overlook such apparent erroneous approach and default which can be for anything but bona fide reasons. Thus, we impose costs of Rs.50,000/- upon the AICTE for such irresponsible working. The costs would be payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and would be LPA No. 1099 of 2013 (O & M) 5 recovered from the salary of the erring officials/officers involved in this erroneous approach. The recovery shall be effected in accordance with law."
The situation here is no different and that is the reason why the learned Single Judge, while noticing Parshvanath Charitable Trust's (supra), noticed the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court calling upon AICTE to ensure proper and timely action upon the application submitted to it.
The learned Single Judge then went on to observe further that the conduct of the AICTE against the sequence of facts noticed in the order did not inspire any confidence and it was evident that the council was merely delaying the matter on one pretext or the other so as to frustrate the application submitted by the respondent-institute (writ petitioner in the impugned orders).
The details which would throw light on the delaying tactics of the appellants in the context of the instant case and as noticed by the learned Single Judge also show glaring lapses. We would like to reiterate the same in our order.
On 05.11.2011, the appellant-council had withdrawn the approval granted to the respondent-institute and on 03.09.2012, while disposing of CWP No. 19509 of 2011, this Court had issued directions to the Council to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders after considering the replies submitted by the petitioner-institute to the show cause notice dated 27.07.2011. No such reconsideration took place at least till the date when the impugned orders were passed or even today, as has been projected by learned counsel for the appellants. On 12.12.2012, an order was passed by this Court in CWP No. 9844 of 2012 permitting the respondent-institute (writ petitioner) to submit an application for approval in relation to the academic session 2013-14, which was submitted within the stipulated time frame inviting an objection from the council regarding the same not being in conformity with Chapter I of the Approval Handbook and possibly with a justification for such a stand in view of the earlier withdrawal of the LPA No. 1099 of 2013 (O & M) 6 approval on 05.11.2011. Thereafter, subsequent directions were given which were noticed in the foregoing paragraphs of the order but yet no decision has been taken by the council.
The appellants now seek shelter behind the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust's (supra) and as extracted hereinabove where a time schedule has been prescribed and the authorities are bound to such a schedule.
According to learned counsel for the appellants, the Courts too would be restrained from giving any such directions which may result in deviating from the above schedule.
We are not in agreement with the contention raised before us as the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough to enable the Court to pass orders in the given set of facts of the case and to ensure substantial justice.
We may notice that the conduct of the appellants and the stand taken can at best be termed to be 'audacious'. On the one hand, it is the principal obstructionist but instead of bowing to the orders of this Court, they have taken a stand which is evident from filing of the instant appeal which displays reluctance on their part to decide the application of the respondent-institute, the decision regarding which, for reasons best known to the appellants, have been kept in abeyance. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed at this stage upon the conduct of the appellants. This obviously has not chastened them.
The fault lies squarely on the doors of the appellants and it is they who are trying to subvert the whole process including the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
We are under no disillusion about the justification of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the given set of circumstances and, therefore, do not wish to interfere. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal by also LPA No. 1099 of 2013 (O & M) 7 noticing that the same is barred by delay of 22 days which, in the given set of circumstances, we do not condone as the appellants were sufficiently on notice about the process.
(Mahesh Grover)
Judge
06.06.2013 (G.S. Sandhawalia)
shivani Judge