Allahabad High Court
Nehru Audhogik Sangthan Thru. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 14 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39894 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6286 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nehru Audhogik Sangthan Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Paavan Awasthi,Mohd. Ashad,Surendra Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K. Singh Chauhan,Lalit Shukla Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Rahul Shukla, learned ACSC for the State; Shri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri D.K. Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had applied for grant of approval for running a Diploma in Engineering and Technology before the All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'AICTE') - a body empowered to grant the approval in terms of the provisions contained in the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act').
3. It is stated that in pursuance to the said application, the AICTE granted approval to the petitioner on 30.04.2025. It is stated that after the approval is granted, it is incumbent to take affiliation from respondent no.2. It is further stated that after seeking approval, it is essential that the applications and the documents be uploaded on a portal known as 'URISE' opened by respondent no.2 in respect of institutions which are desirous of seeking affiliations with the Board of Technical Education. It is argued that unless respondent no.2, which is the Board and the examining body for conducting the examination for the Diploma in Engineering and Technology Courses, grants affiliation no students can be admitted. It is further argued that it is the AICTE which is the apex body for implementing and planning the guaranteed development of the technical educational system throughout the country as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Ors. v. All India Council For Technical Education and Ors.; (2013) 3 SCC 385.
4. In the nutshell, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the approval has been granted by the AICTE for the current academic year, however, as URISE portal has not been opened by respondent no.2, the petitioner is suffering and cannot undertake the classes in view of there being a lack of affiliation by respondent no.2.
5. In the light of the said arguments, this Court had called for instructions from learned Standing Counsel as to who are empowered to take steps for opening the URISE portal for the institutes desirous of getting affiliation.
6. Shri Rahul Shukla, learned ACSC, based upon instructions received on 14.07.2025, places on record letter dated 29.04.2025 & communication dated 27.05.2025 written by respondent no.2 to the AICTE requesting that not to grant approval to any new institutes which had applied for grant of approval. It is stated that based upon the said letters, the institutes which have been granted approval subsequent to the communications referred above, they are not being permitted to upload their documents on URISE portal for affiliation and for other purposes.
7. It is further argued by learned ACSC that the said was done in view of there being a provision in Regulation 4.9(d) of All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2020, which is as under:
"4. Generic Conditions for Approval ...
4.9 Requirements for the new/ existing Institutions/ Institutions Deemed to be Universities conducting Technical Programmes d. NOC from Affiliating University/ Board/ State Government/ UT shall be required, as applicable, for such applications as specified in the Approval Process Handbook."
8. It is argued that prior to grant of approval, it was incumbent upon the AICTE to have verified whether NOC has been granted by the University/Board/State Government or not and thus, the grant of approval is also contrary to the provisions contained in Regulations, 2020.
9. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Act, the functions of the council include the function to undertake survey with regard to needed growth of technical educational institutions and other factors and thus, no role has been assigned to the State Government in the function/council for grant of approval as enumerated in Section 10.
10. He further argues that all these issues were squarely considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra) and the supremacy of AICTE for grant of approval has been upheld. He further argues that even if the contention of learned ACSC is seen for the purpose of argument, once the approval is granted, no role is left for the State Government unless steps are taken for withdrawal of the approval, which is not present in the present case.
11. He further draws my attention to the Approval Process Handbook issued by the AICTE wherein steps have been taken by introducing new changes for grant of approval and the stringent condition with regard to compliances related to requirement of land document and NOC from the affiliated University/State has been dispensed with.
12. In the light of the said, it is argued that once the petitioner has been granted approval, his right to run courses in terms of the approval is being stifled by the State Government on account of bureaucratic intervention, without there being any provision of law empowering the State to take such decision.
13. Considering the said submissions made at the Bar, in terms of the provisions contained under Section 10 of the Act, which is quoted herein under, process of grant of approval for running the Technical Education in the country vests with the AICTE as has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra). Once the said position is crystallized, the State Government has little/no role to play with regard to the technical education; the role of the affiliating University/Board is only for the purposes of conducting the examination and the State Government had no authority to issue the letters/communications to AICTE as has been done and referred herein above.
"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 coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may?
(a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical education, collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the needed growth and development in technical education;
(b) coordinate the development of technical education in the country at all levels;
(c) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council such grants on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to?
(i) technical institutions, and
(ii) Universities imparting technical education in co-ordination with the commission;
(d) promote innovations, research and development in established and new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet developmental requirements and for over-all improvement of educational processes;
(e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education for women, handicapped and weaker sections of the society;
(f) promote an effective link between technical education system and other relevant systems including research and development organisations, industry and the community;
(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education, incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability;
(h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of teachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new centres for offering staff development programmes including continuing education of teachers;
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations;
(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees;
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned;
(l) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for the promotion of such profession in its field including conduct of examinations and awarding of membership certificates;
(m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions;
(n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education;
(o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education;
(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution;
(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses, programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council;
(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to set up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the Council's responsibilities and to create positions of professional, technical and supporting staff based on requirements;
(s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offering courses in technical education fit to receive grants;
(t) advise the Commission for declaring any institution imparting technical education as a deemed University;
(u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to make recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of the institution or the programme;
(v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed."
14. In any case, irrespective of the two letters, the approval has been granted in the present case and no steps have been taken with regard to the recall/withdrawal of the approval either by the AICTE or anybody else. In the absence of there being any steps for recall/withdrawal of the approval, the approval granted by AICTE stands affirmed in favour of the petitioner.
15. The necessary consequences with regard to the affiliation with respondent no.2 has to take place failing which the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be stifled, as such, present petition is allowed.
16. Respondent No.2 is directed to open the URISE portal insofar as it relates to the petitioner to enable them to apply for affiliation.
17. The petitioner shall be entitled to upload the documents as are required.
18. The said shall be processed by respondent no.2 within a period of three days, in any case positively by 17.07.2024.
19. The said directions are being issued in view of the councilling schedule issued by Opposite Party No.4 wherein the third round of councilling is to commence from 18.07.2025 up to 20.07.2025.
Order Date :- 14.7.2025/nishant