Delhi High Court
Guru Teg Bahadur Institute Of ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 2 August, 2016
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 28th July, 2016
Judgment delivered on: 02nd August, 2016
+ WP(C) 3684/2016
GURU TEG BAHADUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND
ORS. ....Petitioners
versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
& ANR. .... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Dr. Sarbjit
Sharma, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Ms. Priamvada Surohi, Mr.
Dipender Chauhan and Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate for respondent No.1/AICTE.
Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for respondent No.3/GGS,
I.P. University.
Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra and Mr. Shiva Sharma, Advocates
for respondent No.4
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA.
Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Varun Nagrath, Advocates.
Mr. Sachin Dutta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhilesh
Kumar for applicants in CM 18407/2016.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGEMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J CM No.15761/2016 in WP(C) 3684/2016
1. The Petitioners in this Writ Petition seek the following reliefs:-
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 1 of 29"(i) quash/set aside the impugned letters dated 19.04.2016, issued to Petitioner No.1 & 3, by All India Council for Technical Education, categorizing the petitioner no.1 and 3 in NO ADMISSION category and;
(ii) further direct for entitling the Petitioner No.1 and 3 to be included in the process of admission for the academic session 2016-17, by granting extension of approval."
2. The petitioner No.1 is Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner Institute") and the petitioner No.3 is Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner Polytechnic'). The petitioner No.1/Petitioner Institute operates from G-8 Area, Rajouri Garden, Opposite Swarg Ashram Mandir, Delhi. The petitioner No.3/Polytechnic operates from Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Both the petitioners 1 and 3 are governed by the petitioner No.2 i.e. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management DSGM Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DSGM Committee'). The petitioner No.1 undertakes undergraduate courses and is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. The petitioner No.3 is a Polytechnic Institute granting diplomas in engineering.
3. By the two impugned letters dated 19.04.2016, issued by the respondent No.1 - All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE'), both the petitioner No.1 as well as the petitioner No.3 have been placed under NO ADMISSION WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 2 of 29 category status for the academic year 2016-17 and the intake of students has been set to "zero".
4. By way of this application, the petitioners seek ad-interim stay of the operation of the letters dated 19.04.2016 and a direction to AICTE to grant extension of approval to the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 for the academic session 2016-17 during pendency of the present petition.
5. As per the petitioners, both the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.3 rank very high in terms of imparting education in India.
6. It is contended that the Petitioner Institute was established in the year 1995 and claims minority status and imparts higher education to students after qualifying 10 + 2 examination. The Petitioner Institute conducts under-graduate engineering courses and has a total sanctioned intake capacity of 600 students. The Petitioner Institute runs several engineering courses. It is contended that the Petitioner Institute has produced over 7000 qualified Engineers and has approximately 300 staff members including teaching and non- teaching staff. The Petitioner Polytechnic has 420 seats and provides diploma course in Computer Science, Automobile Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering.
7. The Petitioner Polytechnic was conceived in the year 1993. For setting of the Petitioner Polytechnic, DSGM Committee provided land in the premises of Guru Harkishan Public School Building Vasant WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 3 of 29 Vihar, New Delhi. Recognition was granted by the respondent No.1 - AICTE. The Petitioner Polytechnic was affiliated to Board of Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
8. The DSGM Committee applied to DDA for allotment of land for setting up of the Petitioner Polytechnic, which land was allotted to the DSGM Committee for running the Polytechnic Institute at Rajouri Garden.
9. The said land that was allotted for setting up a Polytechnic, has been utilised by the DSGM Committee for setting up the petitioner No.1 Institute. It is contended that since the Petitioner Polytechnic was only providing diplomas and the DSGM Committee intended to enlarge the scope of imparting higher education by imparting status of engineering, the Petitioner Institute was setup on the said land.
10. It is contended that though, the DSGM Committee intended to set up both the Polytechnic and the Institute on the said land, but, as the AICTE norms were strict, both could not be accommodated. The said land continues to be utilized by the Petitioner Institute and the Petitioner Polytechnic continues to operate from the premises of Guru Harkishan Public School at Vasant Vihar.
11. It is contended that AICTE has now relaxed its norms because of which, it has become possible for the DSGM Committee to accommodate both the Polytechnic as well as the Institute on the same land.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 4 of 2912. The staff members of the Petitioner Polytechnic filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) 3027/2016 titled Sardar Harinder Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic Institute & Ors. contending that since the land at Rajouri Garden was allotted by lease deed dated 11.04.1997 for setting up of a Polytechnic, the DSGM Committee be directed to shift the Polytechnic to Rajouri Garden.
13. By order dated 19.04.2016, a single Judge of this Court, on perusal of the paper book, found that for the session 2015-2016, AICTE had given approval only after an undertaking is submitted on 29.04.2015 by DSGM Committee to the effect that the Petitioner Polytechnic would be shifted to the land allotted to it within a period of six months from the date of submission of the undertaking. The learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioners were in breach of the undertaking given to AICTE for shifting the Petitioner Polytechnic to Rajouri Garden on or before October, 2015.
14. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the DSGM Committee could not run the Petitioner Institute from Rajouri Garden premises as it had been doing for the last 19 years, as the said land had been specifically allotted by the DDA for running a Polytechnic. By the order dated 19.04.2016 DDA was directed to take steps to dispose of the application filed by the DSGM Committee for running both the Petitioner Institute as well as the Petitioner Polytechnic from Rajouri Garden.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 5 of 2915. It is contended that even though the Court on 19.04.2016 had granted DDA seven days to decide the application of the DSGM Committee for permission to run both the Institute and the Polytechnic from the land at Rajouri Garden, DDA has failed to decide the same.
16. It is submitted that the petitioners had applied to AICTE for extension of approval for the academic session 2016-17 contending that both the Petitioner Institute as well as the Petitioner Polytechnic be permitted to run from at Rajouri Garden. However, by the two impugned letters dated 19.04.2016, the respondent No.1 - AICTE has placed both the Petitioner Institute as well as the Petitioner Polytechnic under NO ADMISSION status for the academic year 2016-17. It is contended that because of the categorization as NO ADMISSION, grave prejudice and loss is being caused to the Petitioners.
17. It is contended that both the allotment of land at Vasant Vihar and Rajouri Garden are for institutional purposes and are being utilized for the same. The DSGM Committee has been communicating with DDA for issuance of 'no objection' to run both the Institute and the Polytechnic from Rajouri Garden. However, DDA has not been able to take a decision and issue the NOC.
18. It is submitted that because of zero intake of students, the staff and teachers would become surplus and the infrastructure would be underutilized. The effect of NO ADMISSION would continue for four consecutive years. It is further contended that the Expert Visiting WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 6 of 29 Committee had reported nil deficiency for the Petitioner Institute and despite that, the AICTE has placed the Petitioner Institute in NO ADMISSION category. It is contended that the deficiencies pointed out are not such which cannot be rectified and are minor in nature.
19. It is further submitted that as DDA failed to decide the application of the petitioners within one week, as directed by order dated 19.04.2016 in WP(C) 3027/2016, this Court in Contempt Case (C) 685/016, by order dated 25.05.2016, noted the contention of the counsel for DDA that order dated 19.04.2016 would be complied within a period of four weeks. It is submitted, that despite taking further time, DDA has still not taken a decision on the application.
20. On 17.05.2016, in the present petition, the petitioner filed an affidavit stating that part of the administrative and teaching department of the Petitioner Polytechnic had already been shifted to Rajouri Garden and all administrative activities/classes/office for the Petitioner Polytechnic shall start functioning from Rajouri Garden plot on or before 30.05.2016. It was undertaken that change of site/location for the Petitioner Polytechnic would be in accordance with the AICTE norms. Noting the above submissions, this Court gave opportunity to the petitioners to file an application with AICTE for change of site/location. For the said purpose, AICTE was directed to open the web portal between 30.05.2016 and 01.06.2016 so that the petitioners could apply online.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 7 of 2921. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of MP & Ors.: (2013) 15 SCC 677, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the education is a constitutional right and is an essential part in every one's life.
22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that though the Supreme Court of India in Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.: (2013) 3 SCC 385, laid down a schedule for admission for academic courses and declared it to be the law that is to be strictly adhered to by all concerned and none of the authorities have the power or jurisdiction to vary the dates of admission, it is not binding on a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Court could, in the facts and circumstances of a case, vary the schedule.
23. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 06.06.2013 in LPA 1099/2013 (O & M) titled The Regional Officer, All India Council of Technical Education v. Jind Institute of Engineering & Technology:, wherein, the Division Bench, after noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra), held that power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was wide enough to enable the Court to pass WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 8 of 29 orders under the given set of facts of the case and to ensure substantial justice.
24. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court dated 24.07.2013 in WP(C) 415/2013 Jind Institute of Engineering & Technology vs. All India Council for Technical Education: to contend that as late as 24.07.2013, the Supreme Court directed AICTE to forthwith grant approval to the Petitioner Institute therein for academic session 2013-2014 and further allowed the Institute to participate in the admission for the academic year 2013-2014.
25. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the High Court of Bombay dated 16.07.2013 in WP(C) 5106/2013: Bhartiya Gramin Punarrachna Sansthan Hi-tech Institute of Technology & Hi-tech Polytechnic v. All India Council of Technical Education whereby AICTE was directed to grant approval to the petitioner therein for the relevant academic session for degree and diploma level courses.
26. Attention is drawn to the interim order dated 06.06.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. (ST) No.1488/2016:
Thadomal Shahani Engineering College v. AICTE where interim relief was granted subject to the petitioners therein filing an undertaking that they shall get the occupation certificate within a period of four months. Further conditions were imposed directing that the petitioners would admit students and make it clear to the students that against the refusal to grant extension of approval, the writ petition was pending. It was also to be made clear to every student that any WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 9 of 29 admission made by the petitioners would be subject to the outcome of the petition and students shall not be entitled to claim any equity based on the interim order.
27. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court dated 16.02.2015 in WP(C) 134/2010: Mahatma Education Society's Pillai's Institute of Information Technology Engineering, Media Studies and Research v. All India Council for Technical Education wherein the Supreme Court directed AICTE to grant letter of approval to the concerned colleges managed by the petitioner therein for the academic year 2014-15.
28. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, contends that the above-referred decisions show that the variation of the schedule fixed in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra) is permissible. He further attempted to distinguish the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra) by contending that the present petition did not relate to grant of approval for a new Institute but extension of approval for intake for the current academic year for Institutes that have been running successfully for several years.
29. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that admissions may be permitted to be made provisionally and subject to the outcome of the present petition and the concerned students would be put to notice, prior to admission, that the subject petition is pending and that the admission is subject to the outcome of the said petition. He further submits that the petitioners are willing to undertake that if WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 10 of 29 the petitioners do not succeed in the present petition, they would have the students accommodated/adjusted in other colleges.
30. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent AICTE contends that the land at Rajouri Garden had been specifically allotted for running a Polytechnic, but the DSGM Committee, instead of setting up of a Polytechnic on the land set up the Petitioner Institute. The Polytechnic was continued on the land which was allotted for running a school and from which a school is also functioning. Repeated opportunities had been granted by the respondents to shift the Polytechnic to Rajouri Garden but till date, the Polytechnic has not been shifted.
31. Reference is made to the inquiry reports of AICTE that pointed out several deficiencies and to the several opportunities given to the petitioners to rectify the deficiencies and to furnish documents. It is contended that there are several deficiencies with regard to the land, building, faculty and infrastructure. It is submitted that the report points out that 50% of the faculty members are on contract basis without proper selection process. The faulty members have not even been paid salary as per AICTE norms and some of the faculty members do not have the required qualification as per AICTE norms. Reference is also made to the report of the Expert Visiting Committee with regard to the inspection carried out on 28.03.2016, which has pointed out several deficiencies. It is submitted that despite several opportunities, the petitioners have failed to rectify the defects and as WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 11 of 29 such, AICTE was constrained to put the petitioners in the NO ADMISSION category.
32. Learned counsel for the AICTE further contends that the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra) has laid down the time schedule for inspection, grant of approvals and admissions and specifically declared it to be the law and to be strictly adhered to by all concerned. It is submitted that even if the petitioners remove all the deficiencies today, to the satisfaction of AICTE, AICTE can only grant an approval for the following academic session. For the current academic session, in view of Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra), AICTE cannot grant any approval.
33. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 07.01.2016 in LPA 540/2015: ACM College of Pharmacy v. All India Council for Technical Education wherein the Division Bench, noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra), has held that grant of recognition is neither a matter of course nor a formality and the conditions of recognition and the duly notified directions controlling the admission process are to be construed and applied stricto sensu.
34. It is contented, by the learned counsel for the AICTE, that the Petitioner Institute has been getting approvals in the past by filing various petitions before this Court and by giving undertakings to remove the deficiencies pointed out by AICTE and to comply with the norms and regulations. However, till date, the deficiencies have not WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 12 of 29 been removed. Even salaries of teaching staff have not been paid. It is submitted that about 5 years have already been given to the petitioners to cure the deficiencies but to no avail. It is contended that there are several deficiencies that have been pointed out with regard to lack of infrastructure but the deficiencies have, admittedly, not been removed and thus the Petitioner Institute and Petitioner Polytechnic were put in NO ADMISSION category.
35. Learned counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission submits that as per the schedule fixed in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra), the last date for grant of approval is 15.05.2016. The first round of counseling/admission for allotment of seats had to be completed by 30.06.2016, the second round of counseling by 10.07.2016 and the last round of counseling by 20.07.2016. It is contended that since the petitioners did not have any approval from AICTE, there could be no affiliation granted by the University, the last date for which was 15.05.2016.
36. It is submitted that a common entrance test for B. Tech. was conducted on 08.05.2016. 64,000 candidates appeared, out of which 47,991 candidates were declared eligible for admission as per their rank in 17 different Institutes affiliated to UGC. 23,364 candidates registered themselves for admission. 6,870 candidates were allotted seats as per their rank and as per the rank of the Institutes and choice of the candidates. The third round of counseling was concluded on 16.07.2016 and 6,870 seats were allotted from the total of 6,879 seats.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 13 of 29By 19.07.2016, the candidates were called to pay the fees and confirm the offer of admission to the respective Institutes as per their rank and choice. The sliding round i.e. where the candidates are given an opportunity to shift from one Institute to the other as per merit and choice was held on 21.07.2016. The remaining vacancies, if any, are to be filled up in the spot round of counseling which is notified to be held between 31.07.2016 to 06.08.2016. The academic session is to commence from 01.08.2016.
37. It is contended that the entire exercise of allocation of seats/counseling takes about two months and is to be completed before the start of the academic session. It is contended that in case the Petitioner Institute was even provisionally permitted to take students, the entire exercise conducted by the UGC spanning over two months would be set to naught. The inclusion of seats of the Petitioner Institute in counseling, at this stage, would have a rippling effect where the candidates who have already taken admission may seek to take admission in the Petitioner Institute resulting in vacation of the seats that have already been allotted in other Institutes and further, the candidates in some other Institutes may then want to shift to the seats which fall vacant on account of shifting of the candidates to the Petitioner Institute. This, it is contended, would result in upsetting the entire process of counseling. The fresh process of counseling would then take a considerable period of time to be completed. It is further contended, that it is also very difficult to adjust students who are provisionally admitted, in other colleges at a WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 14 of 29 later point of time because limited number of seats are available in the NCT region. Adjustment on a subsequent date leads to further litigation and causes great inconvenience to the students.
38. Learned counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority (DDA for short) contended that the land at Rajouri Garden had been allotted for setting up of a Polytechnic. Instead of setting up of Polytechnic, the DSGM Committee started running an engineering Institute. It is contended that the DSGM Committee was also allotted land admeasuring 10 acres for running an engineering college at Narela, however, the DSGM Committee did not take up the land and the allotment was cancelled. It is submitted that as far back as in the year 2009, the DDA had issued a show cause notice to the DSGM Committee for running a Polytechnic from the land allotted for running a senior secondary school.
39. It is submitted that, as per the zonal development plan, the land use of the land at Rajouri Garden was "Recreational (District Park) and partly residential". The designated land use has now been changed to "Public and semi public (PSI) (College)" and a notification to the said effect has been issued on 15.07.2016.
40. With regard to the proposal of the petitioners for running both a Polytechnic and an Institute from the land at Rajouri Garden, it is contended that, the issue is being deliberated in the DDA at the highest level and the decision is likely to be taken shortly.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 15 of 2941. An application for intervention being CM 18407/2016 has also been filed on behalf of the employees/staff members of the Petitioner Polytechnic. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the interveners that they were the petitioners in WP(C) 3027/2016, wherein directions were issued to shift the Petitioner Polytechnic to the land at Rajouri Garden. Learned senior counsel for the interveners pointed out that a Committee had been constituted by the Petitioner Polytechnic for inspection of the facilities at Rajouri Garden where it is proposed to be shifted. The Committee inspected the said premises on 06.05.2016 and pointed out several deficiencies in the building that is being built for the Petitioner Institute and the area that is being provided. Learned senior counsel further contended that there is an apprehension that the DSGM Committee would shut down the Polytechnic because the degree college is more beneficial.
42. In rebuttal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that in terms of the regulations of AICTE, the decision, in the first instance, has to be taken by the Executive Committee. It is contended, that the Executive Committee instead of taking a decision referred the matter to the Standing Appellate Committee. It is on the recommendations of the Standing Appellate Committee that the impugned order dated 19.04.2016 has been passed. It is contended that the petitioners have been deprived of one right to appeal as the decisions of the Executive Committee are appealable before the Standing Appellate Committee. It is further contended that no notice WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 16 of 29 for rectification of any of the deficiencies pertaining to the faculty were ever given to the petitioners.
43. It is contended, that the petitioners are not to be blamed for not shifting the Polytechnic as the DDA is sitting over the matter and is not taking a decision and since DDA has not decided with regard to the land use, New Delhi Municipal Council cannot be approached for further approvals. It is further submitted, AICTE has raised the issue of ownership of land in the case of the petitioners, however for the current academic session, AICTE has given permission to several Institutes that are running from school buildings/rented buildings/agriculture land premises and even from non-conforming areas (Lal Dora/extended Lal Dora). It is contended that AICTE has clearly violated the principles of the equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
44. It is contended that even as per schedule fixed by Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra), AICTE had to take a decision by 10.04.2016. However, the impugned orders were passed on 19.04.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already given an undertaking to AICTE on 06.06.2016 that the deficiencies in respect of infrastructure, which were pointed out, have been rectified and all facilities are already available in the Petitioner Polytechnic. It is further contended that the DSGM Committee has no intention of shutting down the Petitioner Polytechnic.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 17 of 2945. Keeping, the above factual position in mind, let us look at the directions given by the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra). The Supreme Court held as under:
"25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the Central authorities such as AICTE have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act. In All India Council for Technical Education v.Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726] , this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may not substitute their opinion in place of the opinion of the Council, held as under: (SCC pp. 732-33 & 736, paras 17-18 & 32) "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 v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436 : (1980) 2 LLJ 175] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424-26, 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.' WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 18 of 29 (emphasis supplied)
18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : (1985) 1 SCR 29] 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.' ***
32. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four-year advance diploma-holders who had passed the entry-level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one-time measure was extended for several years and was also extended to post diploma-holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 19 of 29 required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education."
(emphasis in original)
26. Right from Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P. [(1993) 1 SCC 645] this Court has unequivocally held that the right to establish an educational institution does not carry within it the right to recognition or the right to affiliation. Grant of recognition or affiliation is neither a matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission to the privileges of a university is a power to be exercised with great care keeping in view the interest of the public at large and the nation. Recognition has to be as per statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict adherence by all concerned. These conditions of recognition and the duly notified directions controlling the admission process are to be construed and applied stricto sensu. They cannot be varied from case to case. Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception.
Reference in this regard can be made to Rajan Purohit v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences [(2012) 10 SCC 770] at this stage, in addition to Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 258] ."
46. The Supreme Court has held that the regulations framed by the Central authorities such as AICTE have the force of law and are WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 20 of 29 binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act. 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.
47. The Supreme Court has further held that the right to establish an educational institution does not carry within it the right to recognition or the right to affiliation. Grant of recognition or affiliation neither is a matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission to the privileges of a university is a power to be exercised with great care keeping in view the interest of the public at large and the nation. Recognition has to be as per statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict adherence by all concerned. These conditions of recognition and the duly notified directions controlling the admission process are to be construed and applied stricto sensu. They cannot be varied from case to case.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 21 of 2948. The Supreme Court further fixed a time schedule for approvals, admissions and commencement of academic session. It was held as under:
"41. The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as follows:
Event Schedule Conduct of entrance examination In the month of May (AIEEE/State CET/Management quota exams, etc.) Declaration of result of qualifying On or before 5th June examination (12th exam or similar) and entrance examination 1st round of counselling/admission for To be completed on or before 30th allotment of seats June 2nd round of counselling for allotment of To be completed on or before 10th seats July Last round of counselling for allotment of To be completed on or before 20th seats July
Last date for admitting candidates in seats 30th July other 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 Last date up to which students can be 15th August admitted 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 10th April by AICTE Last date of granting or refusing approval by 15th May University/State Government
42. The admission to academic courses should start, as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The seats remaining vacant should again be duly notified and WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 22 of 29 advertised. All seats should be filled positively by 15th August after which there shall be no admission, whatever be the reason or ground.
43. We find that the above schedule is in conformity with the affiliation/recognition schedule aforenoticed.
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."
49. The Supreme Court, finding that any variation in the above academic schedule is bound to adversely affect the maintenance of higher standards of education and systemic and proper completion of courses, declared it to be the law to be strictly adhered to by all concerned and further directed that and none of the authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary these dates of admission.
50. The Supreme Court thereafter issued the following directions:
"46. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit in both the appeals afore-referred. While dismissing these appeals, we issue the following directions:
46.1. Both grant/refusal of approval and admission schedule, as aforestated, shall be strictly adhered to by all the authorities concerned including Aicte, the University, the State Government and any other authority directly or WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 23 of 29 indirectly connected with the grant of approval and admission.
46.2. No person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary the schedule prescribed hereinabove.
46.3. While dealing with the application for grant of approval to new colleges or additional seats, Aicte shall inform the applicant within three weeks from the date of receipt of its application or date of inspection, as the case may be, the shortcomings/defects, who, in turn, shall remove such shortcomings/defects within 15 days from the date of such communication or within such period as Aicte may grant and re-submit its papers without default. The process of grant of approval has to be transparent and fair. Aicte or the University or the State Government concerned shall take disciplinary action against the person who commits default in adherence to the schedule and performance of his duties in accordance therewith.
46.4. The reports submitted by the Expert Committee visiting the College should be unambiguous and clear, and should bear the date and time of inspection and should be sufficiently comprehensive and inspection be conducted in the presence of a representative of the institute.
46.5. The students of the appellant College shall be re-allocated to the recognised and affiliated colleges in terms of the judgment [WP (OS) No. 460 of 2011, decided on 22-8-2012 (Bom)] of the High Court; and Aicte and the university concerned shall ensure that the academic courses of these students are completed within the balance WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 24 of 29 period of the academic year in all respects. For this purpose, if extra classes are required to be held, the institute concerned, the University andAicte are directed to ensure holding of such extra classes.
46.6. If the appellate authority decides the matter prior to 30th April of the year concerned and grants approval to a college, then alone such institution will be permitted to be included in the list of colleges to which admissions are to be made and not otherwise. In other words, even if the appellate authority grants approval after 30th April, it will not be operative for the current academic year. All colleges which have been granted approval/affiliation by 10th or 30th April, as the case may be, shall alone be included in the brochure/advertisement/website for the purpose of admission and none thereafter."
51. The Supreme Court has thus laid down that, even if the approval is granted after 30th April, it would not operate for the current academic session.
52. Perusal of the orders/judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Jind Institute of Engineering & Technology (Supra), Bhartiya Gramin Punarrachna Sansthan Hi-tech Institute of Technology & Hi-tech Polytechnic (Supra), Thadomal Shahani Engineering College (Supra) & Mahatma Education Society's Pillai's Institute of Information Technology Engineering, Media Studies and Research (Supra), WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 25 of 29 show that orders/judgments, permitting intake, have been passed in the peculiar facts of each of the cases.
53. By this application, the petitioners seek ad-interim stay of the impugned letters of AICTE dated 19.04.2016. The effect of such an order would amount to stay of the direction of AICTE placing the petitioners 1 and 3 in NO ADMISSION category. Which would imply that the petitioners would be permitted to admit students without there being any approval of AICTE or affiliation with the University or Technical Board, as the case may be. It is not in dispute that all institutes, existing and new, require approval of the AICTE prior to any intake of students for any academic session. Without any approval of AICTE, there cannot be any affiliation with any university or technical board.
54. AICTE in the impugned letters dated 19.04.2016 has pointed out to deficiencies in both the petitioner Institute and Polytechnic. Both the Institute and Polytechnic have been refused approval for intake of students for the academic session 2016 - 2017. Since there is no approval by AICTE, the Petitioner Institute cannot seek any affiliation from the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Respondent No. 3) and the Petitioner Polytechnic cannot seek affiliation with the Directorate of Training and Technical Education (Respondent No. 4).
55. In the present case, apart from the objection of AICTE, with regard to the use of Rajouri Garden land by the Institute and the WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 26 of 29 shifting of the polytechnic from Vasant Vihar to Rajouri Garden, various deficiencies have been pointed out with regard to infrastructure, lack of sufficient number faculty members, employment of faculty on contractual basis without proper selection, nonpayment of salary, qualification of some of the faculty members etc.
56. Even if assuming the issue of the use of land were to be ignored for the time being, because of delay on the part of DDA, the petitioners would have to remove the other deficiencies. After removal of the deficiencies, the petitioners would have to approach AICTE for approval which would then have to have the facilities inspected once again. If approval is accorded, the Petitioner would have to then approach the University or the Technical Board for affiliation. Only once all this is done would the petitioners be able to have intake of students. The entire process would take time.
57. One can also not lose sight of the facts submitted by the Counsel for UGC that 6870 candidates have already been allotted seats as per their rank and as per the rank of the Institutes and choice of the candidates. The third round of counseling was concluded on 16.07.2016 The sliding round was held on 21.07.2016. The remaining vacancies, are to be filled up in the spot round of counseling to be held between 31.07.2016 to 06.08.2016. The academic session is to commence from 01.08.2016.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 27 of 2958. In case, the Petitioner Institute is provisionally permitted to admit students, the entire exercise of allocation of seats/counseling undertaken over a period of two months in various institutes would be set to naught. It would have a cascading effect of unsettling the entire allocation of seats and would disrupt the academic schedule. Further, in case the petitioner does not to succeed in the Writ Petition, the students admitted by interim orders, would have to be adjusted in different institutes in and around Delhi which may not be possible on account of unavailability of seats at that point of time and may also lead to litigation and harassment to students.
59. No doubt, a High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would have the power, in the facts of a case, to direct AICTE to grant approval and also permit intake of students after the scheduled date. However, exercise of such a power would be the exception and not the rule. In my view, the facts of the present case do not justify such an exceptional exercise of power.
60. Orders permitting provisional admission of students imposing conditions such as making it clear to the students that against the refusal to grant extension of approval, the writ petition was pending and any admission made would be subject to the outcome of the petition and students shall not be entitled to claim any equity on the basis of the interim order, in my view, create a lot of uncertainty. It puts the career of students, who take provisional admission, at risk.
WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 28 of 29The mere fact, that students are willing to take such a risk, does not justify putting them at such a crossroad unless the peculiar facts of the case warrant such an interim order. As noted above, the facts of the present case, do not justify such an interim order.
61. In view of the above, I find no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed.
WP(C) 3684/2016 List for directions on 17.08.2016.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J August 02, 2016 st/HJ WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 29 of 29