Delhi High Court
University Of Delhi And Anr. vs Shri Karan Ahuja And Ors. on 16 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002IIAD(DELHI)822
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: S.B. Sinha, A.K. Sikri
JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. These two Letters Patent Appeals are filed against common judgment and order dated 5-11-2001 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP Nos.5307/2001 and 4656/2001 allowing the said writ petitions.
2. The appellants herein are University of Delhi and one of its faculties, namely, Faculty of Technology (hereinafter referred to as `University of Delhi'). Official respondents are All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), Government of NCT of Delhi and also Delhi College of Engineering and Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology (hereinafter to be referred as `Colleges'). Both these Colleges are run by Government of NCT of Delhi. Other respondents who are private respondents are the students who were the petitioners in writ petitions. These Colleges are affiliated to Delhi University. As the Colleges are imparting technical education, such courses are governed by the provisions of All India Council of Technical Education Act,1987 as well( hereinafter to be referred as `Technical Education Act'). Delhi University is a statutory body incorporated under University of Delhi Act. The two colleges being affiliated to Delhi University are also governed by Delhi University Act, Statutes & Ordinances.
3. These colleges intended to start new course, namely, B.E. (Information Technology) for the academic year 2001-2002. They also wanted to increase/variation in the approved intake capacity of some other courses already in existence with effect from the same academic year. For introduction of such new course and/or variation in the approved intake capacity of another course, approval of AICTE is required under the Technical Education Act. This approval has been granted by AICTE. However, Delhi University has expressed its reservations for starting of the new course and increase intake capacity of another course w.e.f. academic year 2001-2002 for various reasons. Since Delhi University did not grant permission and refused the same vide communication dated 28.6.2001, the private respondents i.e. the students filed aforesaid two writ petitions. These writ petitions, as mentioned above, stand allowed by the impugned judgment whereby communication dated 28.6.2001 of Delhi University is quashed and Delhi University as well as other official respondents were directed to start the counselling for admission to these courses immediately. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction in the impugned judgment, present appeals are filed by the Delhi University.
4. There is not much dispute as far as facts are concerned. It is not necessary to repeat these facts in detail as learned Single Judge has taken note thereof in extenso in the impugned judgment. However, in order to appreciate the controversy and have the feel of the matter, it would be appropriate to highlight salient events, as they happened in chronological order.
5. The AICTE published a Notification in July/August,2000 inviting applications for introduction of new course and/or variation in the approved intake capacity of course for the academic year 2001-02. In response to the said advertisement both the above-said colleges made applications in the prescribed forms and sought permission for introduction of new course in the subject of Information Technology and some variation in the intake of students in other courses.
6. Both the colleges before the approval of AICTE gave the information about this increase in intake and introduction of new course in the prospectus. The University objected to these deviations being made by Colleges in the prospectus without the approval of University. In fact, Dean Faculty of Technology wrote to the colleges and directed them to issue Corrigendum in this regard.
7. AICTE accorded its approval vide its letter dated 14.6.2001. In this approval, permission was granted for starting of new Information Technology course and increase in intake of students in other courses. The University wrote vide letter dated 28.6.2001 to the AICTE about the difficulties in starting of the new course and the increase/decrease in the intake of students in various courses.
8. Aggrieved by this letter certain students filed writ petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 5.11.2001 allowed the petition. Thus aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 5.11.2001 the University has filed this appeal. Review of this judgment was also sought by the University which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.12.2001.
9. It is not in dispute that AICTE is a statutory body established by the Act of Parliament i.e. Technical Education Act. It is also not in dispute that Delhi University is also a creature of Central Statute, namely, Delhi University Act. AICTE has been established with a view to promote, plan and coordinate the development of technical education system throughout the country and for the promotion of qualitative improvements of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith. Its powers and functions are set out in Section 10 of the Technical Education Act which reads as under:
"Section 10 : Power 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 purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may:-
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;
o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education."
10. As per the provisions of aforesaid section, it is also not disputed that for starting new course or programmes or even for increasing the seats in a particular course, the concerned Institute has to take the approval of AICTE. As already noticed, while stating the chronological events, both the colleges have obtained necessary approval from AICTE.
11. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to what is the jurisdiction of Delhi University (or for that matter any statutory University with which Institutes are affiliated who start such courses) after approval is granted by AICTE. Whether Delhi University has any say thereafter and can lay down its own conditions before such a new course or increase in the intake of the existing course is started by the two colleges? In other words, whether the approval of Delhi University for the aforesaid purposes is also required and if so, on what grounds such approval can be refused?
12. Before addressing the aforesaid question, it would be appropriate to take stock of the relevant provisions of the Technical Education Act and some of the decisions of the Apex Court on the powers and jurisdiction of the AICTE interpreting such provisions.
13. Under Regulation 4 of the Regulations, as amended up to date, no course or programme shall be introduced by any technical institute, University or college and no approved intake capacity of seats shall be varied except with the approval of the AICTE. An application for introduction of a new course or increase intake of students in the degree level institutions is to be made in the prescribed form in terms of Regulation No.5. Procedure as to how the application for introduction of a new course or increase intake of students in the existing course has to be processed, is laid down in Regulation 8.
14. Regulation 8 of the Regulations of the Council consists of 12 sub-Regulations and the extract of Regulation 8 relevant for the purposes of this appeal is as under:
15. 8. [Scrutiny of Applications] :-
(1) On receipt of a copy of the application submitted to the Council for obtaining a letter of viability, the concerned University or the Directorate of Technical Education, having jurisdiction in the area in which the new technical institution is to be started, shall make arrangements for scrutiny and verification of the information contained therein.
(2) It is the University or the Directorate of Technical Education, as the case may be, desires to have a local inspection of the site, it may constitute its Local Inspection Committee (LIC) and under intimation to the applicant make such inspection of site.
(3) On receipt of the report of the Local Inspection Committee or after verification of the particulars contained in the application to the satisfaction of the University or the Directorate of Technical Education as the case may be or by such other means as it may deem proper, it shall give its recommendations to the respective State Government or the University Grants Commission with a copy to the Council.
(4) Requirement of grant of approval - (1) - After the commencement of these regulations:-
(a) no new technical institutions or Universities Technical Department shall be started; or
(b) no course or programme shall be introduced by any technical institution, University including a deemed University or University Department or College; or
(c) no technical institutions, Universities or deemed Universities or University Departments or Colleges shall continue to admit students for Degree or Diploma courses or programmes;
(d) no approved intake capacity of seats shall be increased or varied; except with the approval of the Council.
(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation 9, the Regional Committee or the Board of Studies, as the case may be shall deliberate on the status of the various proposals and the recommendations of the State Government, University or the Directorate of Technical Education and University Grants Commission thereon and give its recommendations to the Council by March 31.
(7) After considering the recommendations of the agencies concerned and after making such further enquiry as it may deem necessary, the Council may, by 15th April -
(i) issue a letter of viability on the proposal to the applicant stating therein that the proposal is viable and that the applicant may proceed to take further action for getting final approval of the Council under these regulations; or
(ii) issue a letter of regret to the applicant stating therein the specific ground or grounds on which the application has been rejected :
Provided that no application shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(9) In case of applicants for introduction of new courses or programme or for increase in the intake capacity of seats in any institution facilities only shall be required to be furnished by May 15.
(10) An Expert Committee appointed by the Chairman of the Council shall, at the cost of the applicant visit the premises of the proposed institution or existing institution, as the case may be, and verify all the details furnished in the application, prior to final approval being given.
(11) The report of the Expert Committee and other relevant information obtained by the Council shall be placed before Executive Committee for its decision.
(12) Subject to the provisions of Sub-regulation (8), the final decision of the Council shall be communicated to the State Government concerned or the University Grants Commission, the University of the Directorate of Technical Education concerned, as the case may be, the Regional Office concerned and the applicant by 15th June in case the application was made before the preceding 31st December."
16. The aforesaid regulation prescribes in detail the procedure which is to be adopted by the AICTE before granting approval to a particular course. As per this procedure even the comments from the University, to which the concerned colleges are affiliated, are called for and its views are considered before taking final decision. The University can also desire the AICTE to have an inspection of the college to find out the viability of introduction of new course or increasing intake in an existing course.
17. The Apex Court had occasion to interpret the aforesaid Regulation and other provisions of the Technical Education Act in few cases. Two such cases as referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment are State of Tamil Nadu & another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others, etc., and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Kerala and another . The learned Single Judge stated the ratio, as carved out from the aforesaid decisions by making the following observations in the impugned judgment.
18. In State of Tamil Nadu & Another Vs.Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Others, etc. (Supra), it was held that the provisions of the AICTE Act including its preamble make it abundantly clear that the Council was established for coordinated and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is also required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system. It is also required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to with-hold or discontinue grants and to derecognise the institutions where norms and standards laid down by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed.
It was held by the Supreme Court that the Council has on its Board, representatives not only of the States but also of the State Universities who have a say in the matter of laying down the norms and standards which may be prescribed by the Council for such education from time to time. The Council has further the regional committees and the constitution and functions of the committees are to be prescribed by the regulations of the Council. It was further held that the subject covered by this statute is fairly within the scope of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III. These regulations Along with other regulations made by the Council and the rules to be made by the Central Government under the Act are laid before the Parliament.
Hence, on the subjects covered by this statute, the State could not make a law under Entry 11 of List II prior to Forty-Second Amendment nor can it make a law under Entry 25 of List III after the Forty-Second Amendment. It was held by the Court that if there was any such existing law immediately before the commencement of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution, as the Madras University Act, 1923, on the enactment of the present Central Act, the provisions of the said law if repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act would stand impliedly repealed to the extent of repugnance. It was further held that under Section 10 of the Central Act (AICTE Act) it is the Council which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technical institutions, laying down norms and standards for courses, curricula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new courses or programmes, to lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions, providing guidelines for admission of students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes, etc.
19. Thus so far as these matters are concerned, in the case of institutions imparting technical education, it is not the University Act but it is the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction.
20. There is no dispute up to this stage. Mr.Neeraj K.Kaul, learned counsel appearing for the Delhi University, however, submitted that the ratio of the aforesaid judgment cannot be taken to the extent of holding that the Delhi University or the State Government become meaningless and are rendered mute spectators. His submission was that the Delhi University, also being a creature of Central Act is governed by the provisions of Delhi University Act and, therefore, such of the functions and powers which it derives under these enactment cannot be rendered nugatory. Before proceeding to note his submissions on this aspect in detail, it would be appropriate to take note of the observations in the impugned judgment to know as to what learned Single Judge has decided on this aspect. The impugned judgment goes on to say;
After the coming into force of the AICTE Act, it is entirely within the domain of the Council to grant approval to a new course or to recognise a new institute for imparting technical education. The University or the State Government do not have any role to play in the matter except that they can send their comments to the Council before the new course is introduced or the seats are increased and these comments are then taken into consideration by the Council at the time of approval of the new course. Once procedure laid down by the regulations has been followed and the Council has recommended approval of the course, in my opinion, there is no scope for any further approval by the University. The objection taken by the University in the counter-affidavit that necessary infrastructure or faculty is not available in the institutes is also not supported by the letter dated 28th June, 2001 written by it to the Council. The only thing the University has written to the Council is that it would take some time before the course was really available for introduction and it would not be possible to start the course during the academic year 2001-02.
University, however, expressed its desire to start the course w.e.f. academic year 2002-03 and requested the Council to extend the validation for that year as well. It is now well settled that after the coming into force of the AICTE Act, the University cannot lay down standards different from the standards which are laid down by the AICTE. The objection of the University to the approval granted by the Council, in my view, is mis-conceived and cannot be sustained.
21. It is this conclusion of the learned Single Judge against which the appellants are aggrieved at. Mr.Kaul submitted that the learned Single Judge was not correct in law in holding that the University or the State Government did not have any role to play in the matter except that they can send their comments to AICTE before a new course is introduced or the seats are increased. It was submitted that even if the necessary approval was granted by the AICTE, in a given case, such an exercise by the AICTE may not be proper and, therefore, it was still open for the Delhi University to question the same particularly having regard to the exercise done by the Delhi University also and finding cogent and valid reasons for refusing the institute to start such a fresh course or increase the intake of course in an existing course. It was further submitted that even after the required approval is given by the AICTE, the Delhi University is still empowered to ensure compliance of the provisions of Delhi University Act by the two colleges, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Technical Education Act, before the colleges are permitted to start new course or to increase the intake of the existing course. The learned counsel in support of his submission referred to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University & Anr. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. 2001 (6) SCALE 429. He also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rahul Dhaka Vikas Society & Anr. Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors. 89 (2001) DLT 337(DB) submitting that the endeavor should be to harmonise the provisions of two enactments in such a way that respective roles assigned to the two bodies, viz, Delhi University and AICTE by the concerned statutes are not diminished in any manner.
22. His submission was that insofar as the starting of new course, namely, B.E. (Information Technology) is concerned, even if the AICTE had approved for starting of this Course for the academic year 2001-2002, before the course could actually start the same had to be approved by different statutory bodies of the Delhi University. It also required a peer review of the course/syllabi by an expert group. These were the statutory requirements of Delhi University Act as well as Ordinances framed there under and could not be by-passed by the two colleges.
23. Insofar as the approval of AICTE for increase in the intake of the existing course by the two colleges is concerned, the learned counsel for the University of Delhi submitted that what the University wanted to know was as to whether proper exercise was done by the AICTE before granting this approval. He referred to Civil Miscellaneous Application dated 19.9.2001 filed in CWP.No.5307/2001 by the Delhi University with the prayer that AICTE be directed to file the inspection report conducted by them with regard to two colleges before granting approval to the increase intake and introduction of new course in these two institutions. His submission was that if proper exercise is done by the AICTE and AICTE is satisfied that the two colleges were in a position to take the load of increased intake, the Delhi University would not have any objection regarding the same.
24. Let us deal with second contention relating to the grant of approval by AICTE for increase intake of the students, as this does not pose much problem in view of the stand taken by the Delhi University. It may be stated at the outset that once the AICTE gives approval of this nature, there may be a presumption that the AICTE, being a statutory body has taken necessary measures and satisfied itself to the effect that the two colleges have necessary infrastructure to accommodate increase intake of the students in the existing courses. Nevertheless, on our direction Mr.Ravi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the AICTE produced the relevant records. A perusal thereof shows that on application for increase in intake capacity of existing courses submitted by the two colleges, AICTE constituted the Expert Committee. This Committee visited the Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology on 19.2.2001. Likewise it also visited Delhi College of Engineering. Based on these visits to two colleges the Expert Committee commented that the two colleges had excellent facilities to accommodate the increase intake capacity and based on this recommendation, the necessary approval was accorded by the AICTE. In view of this factual position on record, we find no problem in upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direction given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment to the effect that the two colleges could increase intake capacity of seats in the existing courses, namely, B.E. (Electronics and Communication Engineering), B.E. Computer Engineering, B.E. Instrumentation and Control and B.E. Manufacturing Process and Automation Engineering.
25. Approval of the AICTE with regard to start of new course in B.E. (Information Technology) is the real bone of contention. In fact the nature of challenge to this approval, and for that matter mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge, has already been recorded above. Put it simply, the submission of the appellants is that even if such an approval is given, the role of the Delhi University is not rendered nugatory. In the instant case, it was submitted, it is still the prerogative of the University to approve the syllabi of the new course and unless that is approved, the two colleges had no role to start the said course. It may be noted at this stage that the approval given by AICTE is for start of this course during the academic year 2001-2002. The Delhi University expressed its desire to start this course from the academic year 2002-2003. The Delhi University claims its right to do so on the ground that the syllabi of the course has not been approved till date and till that is done the two colleges could not start the course.
26. At this stage it may be pointed out that the appellants herein have sought the review of the judgment by filing CM.12110/2001 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a detailed order dated 18.12.2001. Vide this order certain factual errors are corrected by the learned Single Judge. In the impugned judgment at page-25 thereof the learned Single Judge had observed "it is not denied during the course of arguments that in terms of the University Calendar, the syllabus of all engineering courses during the 1st and IInd semesters is common". The learned Single Judge accepted the submission of the University that no such statement was made by the counsel for the University and that in fact the University Calendar shows that syllabi for the 1st and IInd semester of all courses of Engineering were not common. Another factual error pointed out in the review petition was at Page 18 of the Judgment reading "prospectus for admission in the University was issued only after approval of the University. Before a prospectus is issued, the same is approved by the faculty as well as by the Academic Council of the University". As per Delhi University, prospectus of the two colleges was never approved by the University and in fact during the course of the arguments it was pointed out that letter dated 8.6.2001 was written by the Dean, Faculty of Technology of Delhi University about the deviation made in the prospectus without the approval of the University and the colleges were asked to issue a corrigendum about the same. However, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the review petition observed that even if the aforesaid factual errors are corrected, it would not affect the ultimate outcome and the conclusion in the impugned judgment.
27. Before us the submission of learned counsel for the Delhi University was that it was a wrong presumption of the respondents, or for that matter learned Single Judge, that proposed syllabus would be approved. It was submitted that the various functionaries of the Delhi University do undertake effective exercise in this respect before approving the syllabus and in the process changes can be made in the proposed syllabus suggested by the two colleges. It was also submitted that for this reason Delhi University had taken the stand from very beginning showing its inability to approve the course w.e.f. Academic Year 2001-2002 and wanted the course to be started from the Academic Year 2002-2003. It was not practicable for rushing through such an important course and the stand of the two colleges taken before the learned Single Judge that they would be able to finish their syllabus before the start of examination was totally impracticable. It was also submitted that in any case even when the admission process for new course had not started the students who filed the writ petition had no locus standi to seek such a relief.
28. In view of the law laid down in State of Tamil Nadu & another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others, etc., (supra) and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Kerala and another (supra) it cannot be disputed that it is the AICTE which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technical institutions, laying down norms and standards for courses, curricula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new courses or programmes, to lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions, providing guidelines for admission of students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes, etc. It is the Council which is required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system. Again it is the Council which is required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to discontinue grant and to de-recognise the institution where norms and standard laid down by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed. Again it is within the domain of the Council to grant approval to a new course or to recognise a new institute for imparting technical education. At this stage the University or the State Government can send their comments to the Council which are to be taken into consideration by it while taking decision on the grant or non-grant of approval of such a course. However, the question that arises is as to whether such approval for new course is given and whether the University has no role to play thereafter. The learned Single Judge has answered this question in the negative observing that there is no scope for any further approval by the University. We do not fully subscribe to the aforesaid view. There cannot be a straight one line reply for such a question. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Dhaka Vikas Society & Anr. Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors. 89 (2001) DLT 337(DB) (supra) had occasion to consider the role of the University after the approval by the Council. That was a case concerning National Institute for Teacher Education Act,1993 (NCTE). This Act governs teachers education system throughout the country and a Council set up under this Act discharges almost same kind of functions as are discharged by AICTE under AICTE Act. The question which fell for consideration in this case was as to whether it was obligatory on the part of the University to grant affiliation to institution where recognition has been granted to such institution by the Council. The concerned University was Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University created by a Statute which is a State Act. In the matter of recognition, it is governing by its own statute, namely, Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act,1998. Giving harmonious interpretation to the provisions of the two Acts, this Court observed as under:
While giving harmonious interpretation to the provisions of Section 14 and other related provisions of the NCTE Act and that of the Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1998, we may state at this stage that the Council gives the recognition only when it is satisfied that an institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, laboratory, qualified staff and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by Regulations. Thus when an institution is given recognition it has to be presumed that such institution satisfies all the aforesaid requirements. The Council is an expert body in so far as matter relating to teacher education is concerned and it has to be treated as specialist in this particular field. In fact the NCTE Act is enacted by the Parliament for this very purpose. On the other hand, the University is established as an affiliating and teaching university in number of fields like engineering, technology, managements studies, medicine, pharmacy, nursing, education, law etc. Thus teacher education is one of many spheres/activities of the University. Of course the Board of Affiliation for educational institutions would include the experts in the field of teacher education. Still NCTE Act being a Central Act providing for the planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country, once recognition is given by the Council the same should be respected in so far as the standards to be maintained by such institution which has been given recognition, are concerned, by proceeding on the basis that such institution fulfills all the requisite requirements for proper functioning for a course or training in teacher education. Therefore when such institution approaches an University for affiliation, the University would not normally refuse affiliation on the ground that such institution does not have adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory or it lacks conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education. Therefore normally affiliation should not be refused on the grounds which are covered by Section 14(3) of NCTE Act and Council has already satisfied itself that the Institute meets these requirements. However, this would not be an absolute rule and the University shall still have the right to satisfy itself about the fulfillment of conditions for affiliation by the Institute in accordance with its Act, Statutes etc. But if the affiliation is refused on any of these grounds, it will be for the University to justify its decision that notwithstanding the recognition by the Council, the institution lacked any of the aforesaid facilities and the Council had not acted properly in granting the recognition. Moreover, apart from the considerations mentioned in Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act, there may be other valid considerations which may compel the University to still refuse affiliation.
After all it is the University which confers the degree. It is the credibility, reputation or the goodwill of the University which is at stake. While exercising the power of judicial review the aforesaid factors namely whether the grounds for refusing recognition were bonafide and valid or not, can be examined.
29. Similar sentiments as expressed in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment are stated in a much forceful manner by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra). It may be mentioned that this judgment has taken note of its earlier judgments including.
Commenting on the provisions of AICTE Act the Court held the view that "when the legislative intent finds specific mention and expression in the provisions of the Act itself, the same cannot be whittled down or curtailed and rendered nugatory by giving undue importance to the so-called object underlying the Act or the purpose of creation of a body to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Act, particularly when the AICTE Act does not contain any evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy the authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies, having their own assigned roles to perform. Merely activated by some assumed objects or desirabilities, the courts cannot adorn the mantle of the legislature".
30. Referring to the ratio of the decision of Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in the case of M.Sambasiva Rao Vs. Osmania University (1997) 1 An LT 629 (FB) the Court further observed that "the ultra-activist view articulated in M.Sambasiva Rao Case on the basis of supposed intention and imagined purpose of AICTE or the Act constituting it, is uncalled for and ought to have been avoided, all the more so when such an interpretation is not only bound to do violence to the language of the various provisions but also inevitably render other statutory authorities like UGC and universities irrelevant or even as non-entities by making AICTE a superpower with a devastating role undermining the status, authority and autonomous functioning of those institutions in areas and spheres assigned to them under the respective legislations constituting and governing them".
31. Keeping in view the aforesaid dicta of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid recent judgment, we are of the view that even after the approval of a new course by AICTE, the role of the University would not obliterate altogether. Of course, it would not be open for the Delhi University to transgress into the field occupied by AICTE Act and refuse the introduction of new course when specific approval thereof is given by AICTE after satisfying itself that the two colleges fulfill all the eligibility conditions for start of a new course. As in the instant case it is still the function of the University, as per its Ordinance, to approve the course of study/syllabus, it would be the right of the Delhi University to still discharge that statutory function. It would be apt to quote the following provisions of the relevant ordinance:
Appendix II to the University Calendar dealing with Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) Examination:
3. "The courses of study, the subjects for and the scheme of examinations, showing the duration of each paper, the marks allotted to each paper and the carry-over of marks from each year to the final year, for each of the Degrees shall be as laid down in clause 7 and the syllabi shall be those prescribed by the Academic Council from time to time".
ORDINANCE XIV-B
6. "Each Faculty shall recommend Courses of Studies in the various subjects comprised in the Faculty after considering the recommendations of the relevant Committee of Courses and Studies".
32. Having laid down the parameters and delineated the functions and powers of the two bodies, we would immediately add that once AICTE had given the approval for start of a new course, the University should not have taken unduly long time in approving the syllabus and in the process defeat a very essence of the approval of AICTE. In the instant case the AICTE had given the approval for starting of a new course w.e.f. academic year 2001-2002 on 14.6.2001. It was communicated to the Delhi University. Even the draft syllabus was handed over to the University in August,2000 when the University had come to know that the AICTE has given the approval for start of the course from the academic year 2001-2002. In these circumstances the Delhi University should have taken immediate and urgent steps to approve the syllabus without loss of time. However, learned Single Judge has noted in his order dated 18.12.2001 passed in Review Application that Delhi University took its own time and in fact no substantial progress is made for approving the syllabus. It appears that since Delhi University had taken the stand that the course should start from the academic year 2002-2003, the concerned authorities in Delhi University were not in a mood to speed up the things and approve the syllabus in time. It could also be worthwhile to point out at this stage that learned Single Judge in his order dated 18.12.2001 has also concluded that syllabus for B.E. (Information and Technology) is going to be the same as prevalent in Engineering courses conducted by other institutions in the country and the draft syllabus prepared by the two colleges was based on such a syllabus. This is what learned Single Judge observed in this respect:
"I am not impressed with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the University that syllabus of the first semester for Information Technology may be different from the syllabus which is common for the first semester of all other disciplines of the engineering course. The University is imparting education in 10 disciplines of engineering and syllabus of the first semester of all these disciplines is common. Learned counsel for the AICTE has brought to my notice the course curriculum of all the engineering courses and the course curriculum of all the courses including the Information Technology is common throughout the country. I am informed that even the draft syllabus of the first semester submitted by the institutes to the University for approval is the same as the syllabus of all other disciplines of engineering course in the University. The draft syllabus was handed over to the University in August, 2000 when application for approval of Information Technology course was given to the AICTE. A workshop was convened by the Dean, Faculty of Technology, Delhi University from July 4-6, 2001 to form syllabus for the new course in Information Technology to be started in the Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology and Delhi College of Engineering from 2001-02. In this workshop, besides the Dean other senior officials of the Government as well as the University and the Institutes were present. In this workshop specially attended by the Dean of the Faculty and other officials, the draft syllabus was approved; a perusal of which clearly shows that the syllabus for the first semester approved by the workshop is the same as the syllabus for other disciplines of engineering. I have, therefore, no reason to believe that the syllabus for the first semester course for the Information Technology course would be different from the syllabus of first semester in other engineering disciplines. The Institutes, therefore, could in any case start the newly approved Information Technology Course with the syllabus which is common in respect of first semester of all engineering courses and if at all approval was required, the University in the meantime would have taken steps for approval of the syllabus for the remaining semesters of the Information Technology".
33. It may be presumptuous to say that syllabus to be approved by the Delhi University would be the same as draft syllabus. However, it cannot be denied that the Delhi University, could have approved of the course much earlier had there been real and genuine intention to do so. That, however, has not happened. In the process of this litigation, valuable time is lost.
34. It is not possible to turn the clock back.
Even if the University had taken the steps immediately after the judgment dated 5.11.2001 was pronounced by the learned Single Judge, the situation could have been salvaged. The clash of egos has landed us in January,2002. What needs to be considered at this stage is as to whether it would be proper to start the course w.e.f. academic year 2001-2002 when most part of the academic session has been wasted and only 3-4 months are left before the start of examinations. This problem was posed before the learned Single Judge also at the time when Review Application was argued. Learned counsel for the Delhi University had emphasised before us as well that it was not possible to start the course now as students would not be able to complete the course by the time first semester examination is held and they would not be able to attend the minimum lectures required before the examinations start. However, learned Single Judge had accepted the plea of the two colleges to the effect that they would make endeavor to take extra classes to ensure that the students who are admitted in the first semester in the newly approved course are able to finish their syllabus before the examinations start. Nonetheless, keeping in view the importance of the nature of this course and the kind of teaching which is required to be imparted, we are of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to allow the colleges to start the course at this point of time. This conclusion of ours is influenced by the following circumstances, taken into consideration cumulatively and not in isolation from each other:
A. No admissions to this course have taken place so far. There are no affected persons. In the prospectus issued by the two colleges for the academic year 2001-2002, it was only mentioned that the proposal for introduction of the new course was under
consideration with the appropriate authorities and in the event of new course being introduced at the institutes, counselling/admissions to this new course would be made on the basis of merits of examination for the academic year 2001-2002.
B. The students who filed the writ petition possibly may not have any locus standi to insist that the course should start only from the academic year 2001-2002 only.
C. There is not a substantial period left before the start of first semester examination and even if the two colleges have stated that they would make endeavor to take extra classes to ensure that they are able to complete the syllabus for the newly approved course before start of examination such an assurance does not appear to be convincing having regard to the time left.
D. Even if an attempt is made to complete the course in short time which is left, it would be at the cost of quality and for an important course of this nature it is not in public interest nor in the interest of students that they are rushed through the contents of the course without any proper teaching. Thus if due to paucity of time the new course does not get started w.e.f. academic year 2001-2002 hardly any prejudice would cause to any person. On the other hand if the new course is allowed w.e.f. academic year 2001-2002 casualty will be the standard of teaching and the quality of education.
E. Delhi University has yet to approve the syllabus which is not only its prerogative but statutory obligation. It should be given a chance to discharge this statutory function. This possibility cannot be ruled out that it may set higher standards while approving the syllabus.
35. These are the considerations which compel us to take this particular course of action even if it has been occasioned due to the lapse on the part of Delhi University.
36. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with the following directions:
1. Judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld insofar as it gives a direction with regard to increased intake of students in the existing courses.
2. The direction in respect of new course, namely, B.E. (Information & Technology) is modified to the extent that the two colleges shall start this course w.e.f. academic year 2002-2003. The AICTE shall give necessary approval to the two colleges for this purpose. The Delhi University is also directed to approve the syllabus of this course most expeditiously and in any case by the end of the March,2002.