Madhya Pradesh High Court
Modern Institute Of Pharmaceutical ... vs Union Of India on 20 July, 2017
Author: Ved Prakash Sharma
Bench: Ved Prakash Sharma
W.P. No.3573/2017 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
DIVISION BENCH : Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal and
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ved Prakash Sharma
W.P. No.3573/2017
MODERN INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Ajinkya Dagaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Shri Anand Soni, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
ORDER
(Passed on 20th day of July, 2017) Per: Ved Prakash Sharma, J.
The petitioner by way of this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to quash order dated 30.04.2017 (Annexure P/21) issued by All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'respondent No.2'). The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the compliance report submitted by the petitioner and thereafter pass fresh order for grant of permission to start Diploma in Pharmacy in Modern Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner-institute').
02. The petitioner-institute is presently conducting courses in B. Pharma and M. Pharma. Approval for W.P. No.3573/2017 2 conducting B. Pharma course with an intake capacity of 60 was granted in favour of the institute, vide order dated 26/01/2007 (Annexure P/3). Subsequently, vide order dated 01.09.2011 the intake capacity for B. Pharma course was allowed to be increased from 60 to 120. Vide order dated 01/09/2011 the petitioner-institute was also permitted to conduct M. Pharma courses with an intake capacity of 18. The sanction to conduct these courses was renewed by respondent No.2 from time to time. The petitioner-institute vide application dated 02.02.2017 (Annexure P/11) made to respondent No.2 sought approval for starting new course in Diploma in Pharmacy from academic session 2017-2018. An inspection was carried out by the team constituted by respondent No.2 for considering request in this regard. The expert visit committee during its visit to the petitioner-institute on 20.03.2017 noted following deficiencies in the institution.
i) Shortfall in faculty.
ii) Less number of computers, system software, application software and printers.
iii) Lack of barrier free environment, and toilets not present for physically challenged.
iv) Non-subscription of international journals.
v) Non-submission of certificate by Architect relating to sewage disposal system, barrier free environment and toilet created for physically challenged and all weather approach road.
vi) Non-grant of VI Pay Commission salary to the employees.
vii) Blue print copy of land and building not available.
viii) Number of toilets are 2 in place of 7.
ix) No rain water harvesting and solar power system available.
x) Teaching faculty not approved by University / W.P. No.3573/2017 3 Government.
03. In this regard a compliance report was sought by respondent No.2 from the petitioner-institute which was submitted on 21.04.2017. The petitioner-institute as regards deficiency consisting shortfall in faculty informed that though requisite strength is maintained by the institute, however, 6 persons were on leave while 4 persons were recently appointed, thus, there was no shortfall in the faculty. As regards less number of computer systems, softwares, application softwares and printers, it was submitted on behalf of the institute that the same were available as per AICTE norms. To substantiate the response in this regard 'stock register' of hardware was submitted. Likewise, response with regard to other deficiencies was also made. It was claimed that most of the deficiencies either have been cured or are simply desirable items which will be fulfilled in near future.
04. The respondent No.2 on consideration of the response/reply submitted by the petitioner-institute was of the view that most of the material deficiencies have not been removed. The strength of faculty is short of 10 in number and that the institute was not paying salaries as per Sixth Pay Commission and further there was no barrier free environment in the premises of the institute. Considering all these aspects, the respondent No.2, vide the impugned order dated 30.04.2017 declined to grant sanction for starting new stream in B. Pharma and further ordered reduction in the intake W.P. No.3573/2017 4 capacity of B. Pharma and M. Pharma students by 25%.
05. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the same is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice because respondent No.2 did not provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-institute with regard to reduction in the intake capacity of B. Pharma and M. Pharma. It is submitted that the petitioner-institute had simply applied for grant of permission to start Diploma in Pharmacy stream and while considering this request an order for reduction in intake capacity has been passed which is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to settled legal norms. It is further submitted that the petitioner-institute is having infrastructure and all other facilities as per AICTE norms and that entire action of respondent No.2 in passing impugned order dated 30.04.2017 being in gross violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed.
06. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No.2 that role of respondent No.2 is that of true facilitator of quality technical education and that respondent No.2 is expected to create an academic ambiance in the technical institutions for nurturing and supporting quality so that technical education in India becomes one of the best in the world. The submission is that the grant of permission to start a new stream and renewal of the existing streams is considered on the basis of 'Approval Process Handbook' which contains detailed guidelines in this regard. That relevant policy issued W.P. No.3573/2017 5 under All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 has recently been published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 30th November, 2016. It is contended that the petitioner- institute has not complied with the applicable statutory provisions and regulations as prescribed in the 'Approval Process Handbook' and several deficiencies still exist. It is further submitted that on 20.03.2017 the expert visit committee conducted its visit in the presence of representatives of petitioner-institute and on due consideration found a number of deficiencies, therefore, standing hearing committee recommended that the institute be not permitted to start new Diploma course from academic year 2017-2018 and extension of approval for academic year 2017-2018 may be granted subject to reduction of 25% intake for the existing courses. The submission is that as the deficiencies were not cured despite being asked to do so, the permission to start Diploma in Pharmacy stream was declined and reduction in the intake capacity by 25% was ordered by the impugned order and that it is incorrect to say that the deficiencies/shortcomings have been removed. The further submission is that the order has been passed in an unbiased manner purely on the basis of factual information provided by the institute itself as the committee members are neither associated nor have any interest in the affairs of the institute, therefore, the petition having no force, deserves to be dismissed.
07. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the W.P. No.3573/2017 6 submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It is not a matter of dispute that initially approval to conduct B. Pharma course with an intake capacity of 60 was granted in favour of the petitioner-institute. It is noticeable that vide order dated 01.09.2011, not only the intake capacity in B. Pharma stream was allowed to be increased from 60 to 120; at the same time the petitioner- institute was also permitted to start new stream in M. Pharma with an intake capacity of 18 students. The petitioner-institute had applied for grant of permission to start a new stream for B. Pharma and while considering the prayer made in this regard, expert visit committee visited the institution on 20.03.2017 and found a number of deficiencies including with regard to shortfall in faculty by 10, lack of barrier free environment and toilets for physically challenged persons, none grant of Sixth Pay Commission salary to the employees, only two toilets were found in place of 7 and only 15 faculty numbers were approved by the University. Considering these deficiencies a decision was taken not to grant permission for fresh stream of B. Pharma. The deficiencies were discerned / detected on the basis of information provided by the institute itself.
08. As regards strength of faculty, it was found that almost 30% of the faculty numbers were not present. A lame excuse thereto was offered by the petitioner-institute that six of the numbers were on leave and four have been recently appointed, however, necessary supporting documents were not W.P. No.3573/2017 7 produced in that regard before the committee at the time of inspection and subsequently copy of certain leave applications was submitted along with the reply/representation, however, a bare perusal of the same, copies whereof have been filed with the petition, reveals that they are lacking in necessary details, which raises a reasonable doubt about their veracity. Faculty happens to be the most important pillar of an institute and in absence of requisite faculty strength the academic activities cannot be carried out in proper and effective manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 committed any illegality in refusing to grant permission for starting Diploma in Pharmacy stream from academic session 2017- 2018. Obviously, the decision in this regard has been taken by respondent No.2 in an objective manner on the basis of material which was available before it. Further due opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner-institute in this regard, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order to the extent it relates to refusal to grant permission/sanction to start D. Pharma stream in the institute.
09. As regards reduction in sanctioned intake by 25%, indubitably Clause 10(3) of Notification dated 30.11.2016 (issued by All India Council for Technical Education published in Gazette of India extraordinary Part-III, Section 4 Annexure-R/2-1) empowers respondent No.2 to reduce sanctioned intake in case institution is not adhering to pay- scales and/or qualifications prescribed for faculty for more than 12 months and not maintaining prescribed faculty -
W.P. No.3573/2017 8student ratio. Likewise, reduction in sanction intake as per Clause-10(4) may be directed if institute is not maintaining prescribed requirement of computers, software, internet, printers, laboratory equipments, books, journals and library facilities. However, any such reduction should have been resorted to only after complying with the principles of natural justice; one of the important pillars whereof is due opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, respondent No.2 while considering the prayer for opening new stream in B. Pharma and on the basis of material collected during spot visit with regard to various requisites in that regard directed reduction in the stream of the existing faculties of B. Pharma and M. Pharma; which were permitted by respondent No.2 itself, presumably, after its satisfaction that petitioner-institute is confirming to requisite norms, standard procedures and conditions. It is pertinent to state that in 2011, vide order dated 01/09/2011, the respondent No.2 permitted the petitioner- institute to increase its intake capacity from 60 to 120. At the same time, the institute was also permitted to conduct courses in Master of Pharmacy stream. The permission granted in this regard was time to time renewed from year 2011 to 2016. It can well be said that respondent No.2 permitted increase in the strength, from 60 to 120 for B. Pharma stream; granted permission to conduct new course in M. Pharma stream and further granted renewal of all these courses from 2011-2016 only after being satisfied that requisite conditions with regard to standard procedures and norms are being fulfilled by the petitioner-institute. Therefore, any reduction in the intake W.P. No.3573/2017 9 capacity ought to have been visited only after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing in that very regard to the petitioner-institute. In the instant case, that has not been done, therefore, impugned order to the extent it relates to the reduction in the intake capacity of B. Pharma and M. Pharma streams suffers from illegality and, therefore, deserves to be quashed to that extent.
10. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order to the extent it relates to reduction in the stream of B. Pharma and M. Pharma courses conducted by petitioner-institute is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to decide the matter in that regard afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-institute. The decision, if any, taken in this regard shall take effect prospectively. Parties to bear their own costs.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Ved Prakash Sharma)
Judge Judge
soumya