Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Joseph Sriharsgha And Mary Indraja ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March, 2022
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
W.A.No.345 of 2022
(Proceedings through physical mode)
Joseph Sriharsha & Mary Indraja Educational Society,
Plot No.102, High Court Colony,
Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad,
Represented by its Hon.Chairman & Correspondent
Dr. Rev. K.V.K.Rao and two others.
.. Appellants/Petitioners
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Amaravathi and two others.
.. Respondents/Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Sricharan Telaprolu
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Government Pleader for
Higher Education
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri I.Madhu Babu
Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar
JUDGMENT
Dt.21.03.2022 (Per M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J)
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 31.01.2022 passed in W.P.No.17429 of 2021 by the learned single Judge, the petitioners in the writ petition preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent raising several contentions.
CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 2
2. The parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred as arrayed before the learned single Judge for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.
3. The petitioners filed the writ petition before the learned single Judge seeking writ of Mandamus challenging the action of respondent No.2 in conducting/offering 4 year B.Tech courses in CSE (AI and ML), CSE (Data Science) etc., as new courses with 160 credits, instead of emerging area, courses in AI and ML., Data Science etc., as optional/elective specializations with additional 18 to 20 credits, to the core B.Tech-CSE Course, to enable the students to secure Degree in B.Tech (Hons) Computer Science and Engineering with specializations in AI and ML/Data Science, for the respective intake, contained in its communication to the petitioner dated 01.08.2021, contrary to the statutory prescription of respondent No.3, contained at Clause 3.2(b) of the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2020 as amended under All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) (1st Amendment) Regulations, 2021 dated 24.02.2021 r/w Clause 7.3.2 of the Approval Process Hand Book (APHB), 2021-22, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violative of Section 10(1)(i) and (k) of AICTE Act, 1987 and violative of Article 14 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2
(a) to conduct/offer the elective courses in emerging/multi disciplinary areas, only as specializations with 18 to 20 credits, in all branches of Engineering and Technology with 160 credits, strictly in accordance with the statutory prescriptions of the 3rd respondent contained at Clause CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 3 7.3.2 of APHB 2021-22, from the academic year 2021 onwards;
(b) to treat the admissions made by petitioner No.2 institution during the academic year 2020-21, as the admissions for B.Tech-CSE course with 160 credits, with an option to the students to choose the respective optional/elective specializations, with 18 to 20 credits, to enable to secure Degree in B.Tech (Hons) Computer Science and Engineering with specialization in AI and ML /Data Science as well as
(c) to consider for grant of affiliation to petitioner No.2 institution for the core B.Tech-CSE course with 160 credits, along with the emerging area courses as optional /elective specializations with additional 18 to 20 credits to enable to secure Degree in B.Tech (Hons) Computer Science and Engineering with specialization in AI and ML /Data Science, in terms of the approval granted by 3rd respondent through proceedings dated 02.07.2021, for the academic year 202122.
4. Petitioner No.1 is an educational Society which established petitioner No.2-Engineering College for Christian Minority people in particular and others in general. It has got approval of the AICTE, PCI and affiliated to JNTUH, Telangana and JNTUK in Andhra Pradesh. It offers courses in Diploma, UG and PG Engineering, Pharmacy, MBA, PGDBM etc.
5. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)/ respondent No.3 is a statutory body established under the AICTE Act, 1987 which has been authorised to grant approvals for CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 4 establishing and operating institutions to impart technical education. Whereas, respondent No.2 University is a statutory body established under the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 2008 which is a State Act and it exercises the functions of granting affiliation to colleges within its territorial jurisdiction.
6. While so, respondent No.3 issued AICTE Regulations, 2021. As per Regulation 3.2(b), respondent No.3 introduced Under Graduate degree courses with Minor degree/Hons. in Engineering/ Multidisciplinary areas, which courses shall be allowed as specified in the APHB from time-to-time. For the Academic Year 2020-21, respondent No.3 provided in the said APHB, certain elective courses in emerging areas with specializations in all branches of Engineering and Technology. Those elective courses in emerging areas offered in the same department are called as Honours degrees and offered in other departments are called as Minor degrees, for which the students shall secure additional 18 to 20 credits in addition to the 160 credits for the basic core engineering branch. While so, the petitioners secured NOC from respondent No.2 dated 12.03.2020 for closure of traditional engineering disciplines and to start B.Tech (Hons) CSE with specializations in AI & ML and Data Science in accordance with Clause 7.3.2 of the APHB 2020-21 and applied to respondent No.3 for grant of approval for new additional courses in B.Tech CSE (AI and ML) and B.Tech. CSE (Data Science) for the Academic Year 2020-21. Respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 15.06.2020 granted approval to petitioner No.2 institution for B.Tech CSE (AI and ML) and B.Tech CSE (Data Science) courses and PG courses in emerging technologies in CSE. The approval granted for UG CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 5 Honours course in CSE which is germane for deciding the issue, is as follows:
S.No. Name of the Course Intake
1 B.Tech-CSE (Artificial Intelligence & 180
Machine Learning)
2 B.Tech - CSE (Data Science) 120
7. The petitioners further contended that, pursuant to the approval granted by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 granted permission for the said courses vide G.O.Rt.No.184 dated 26.12.2020 and respondent No.2 granted affiliation for the said courses by communicating same to the counselling authorities. As per clause 7.3.2 of the APHB 2020-21, it is clear that the elective courses in the emerging areas shall be treated as specialization courses to be offered to those students admitted in the core Under Graduate courses and willing to gain additional credits for such specialization courses in the range of 18 to 20. However, respondent No.2 without notifying core CSE course with 160 credits and elective courses in emerging areas as specializations with 18 to 20 credits for conferring B.Tech (Hons) CSE with specializations AI & ML/Data Science, straightaway introduced Under Graduate B.Tech branches in CSE with specializations in emerging areas AI & ML/Data Science with 160 credits by stating that the above courses are branch specializations in CSE (AI and ML) or CSE (Data Science) and not B.Tech. (Hons) courses. Respondent No.2 further stated that the elective advanced subjects in emerging/Multidisciplinary areas with additional 18 to 20 credits shall be permitted only to the technical institutions having atleast two NBA accredited B.Tech/M.Tech programs. Such act on the part of respondent No.2 is contrary to regulation 3.2(b) r/w clause 7.3.2 of the APHB 2020-21 and 2021-22.
CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 6
8. In view of the communication of respondent No.2 referred above, petitioner No.2 submitted several representations to respondent No.2 and also respondent No.3, for which respondent No.3 gave clarification dated 11.03.2021 by e-mail stating that elective courses offered in the emerging/Multidisciplinary areas are only specializations which are additional and the students who intend to take specializations have to gain 18 to 20 credits additionally. Since respondent No.2 has not given any clarification, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13538 of2021 and pending the said writ petition, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings dated 01.08.2021, which is contrary to the regulations and APHB. Respondent No.2 being the University is bound by the regulations issued by respondent No.3 and it cannot take its own decision contrary to the regulations.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed on record written instructions received by him along with material papers, wherein it is submitted as follows:
(a) The petitioner college applied for closure of the Under Graduate course i.e., B.Tech (CSE) core course for the Academic Year 2020-21 and applied for Extension of Approval for the Academic Year 2020-21. Respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 12.03.2020 issued NOC for the petitioner to close the core B.Tech (CSE) and B.Tech (ECE) course among others. Respondent No.3 issued Extension of Approval (EOA) dated 15.06.2020. The extension of approval is for Under Graduate CSE (A.I & M.L) and CSE (Data Science) courses. Having sought permission to close the B.Tech (CSE) core course for the Year 2020-21, the petitioner institute is demanding to treat the admissions CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 7 made by it during the Academic Year 2020-21, as the admissions for B.Tech (CSE) core course, which is contrary to law and thus, the petitioners are misleading the respondents. Thus, the demand of petitioner No.2 institute to treat the admissions made by it during the Academic Year 2020-21 as the admissions for B.Tech (CSE) core course with 160 credits with an option to the students to choose the respective optional/elective specializations with 18 to 20 credits, to enable them to get degree in B.Tech (Hons) CSE with specialization in A.I and M.L./Data Science is violative of the norms given by respondent No.3.
(b) It is further stated that the petitioner college applied for Extension of Approval (EOA) for B.Tech courses in CSE (AI and M.L.) and CSE (Data Science) as new courses with 160 credits during the Academic Year 2020-21. Therefore, the students of the petitioner institute who got admission in B.Tech. courses in CSE (AI and ML) and CSE (Data Science) will study AI and ML and also the Data Science as their subjects in 2nd and 3rd year as per the course curriculum. Whereas, in B.Tech (CSE) core course, subjects AI and ML and Data Science are optional. Hence, the students who took purposefully the admission into B.Tech CSE (AI and ML) and B.tech CSE (Data Science) courses will be losing the prime purpose of choosing the specialized courses as they study those subjects well in advance in 2nd and 3rd years compared to B.Tech (CSE) core course. The petitioner institute may offer B.Tech CSE (AI & ML) and B.Tech CSE (Data Science) and all eligible students of the above courses may opt for the emerging subjects such as CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 8 Internet of Things (IOT), Blockchain, Robotics etc. as A.I & M.L and Data Science were already offered as part of their curriculum. Hence, there is no violation of clause 7.3.2(b). The reconsideration of the affiliation granted to the petitioner institution for the Academic Year 2020-21 can be done by respondent No.3 only. Respondent No.2 does not have the provision to change the admissions made under one course to another course which is not as per the EOA.
10. Respondent No.3 filed counter contending that Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987 prescribes the functions of the Council and mandates that it shall be the duty of the Council to take all necessary steps for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education. Whereas, Section 10(k) of the said Act empowers the AICTE to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses of programs in consultation with the agencies concerned and Section 10(g) empowers AICTE to withhold or discontinue grants to those technical institutions which failed to comply with the directions given by it. While so, the courses viz., CSE (A.I. & M.L), CSE (Data Science), CSE (Cyber Security), CSE (IOT) etc. were approved by respondent No.3 which requires 160 credits. It also introduced B.Tech CSE with Honours degree in AI and ML, Data Science, Cyber Security, IOT etc. which require additional 18 to 20 credits. As per clause 7.3.2 of the APHB 2021-22, the normal score of a B.Tech programme is 160 credits and for securing Honours degree the students are required an additional of 18 to 20 credits. It is further stated that as per clause 7.3.2, Undergraduate degree courses in emerging/multidisciplinary areas shall be allowed as specialization from the same department. The minimum CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 9 additional credits for such courses shall be in the range of 18 to 20 which shall be mentioned in the degree as specialization in that particular area. Minor specialization in emerging/multidisciplinary areas in Undergraduate degree courses will be allowed where a student of another department takes the minimum additional credits in the range of 18 to 20 and get a degree with minor from another department. The Universities are free to evolve their own syllabus for every Minor degree/Honours, requested to pass appropriate orders.
11. The petitioners filed reply affidavit against the written instructions filed by respondent No.2 and counter filed by respondent No.3 denying the contentions urged in the written instructions while reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition.
12. Upon hearing arguments of Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education representing respondent No.1, Sri I.Madhu Babu, Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition held as follows:
"It should be noted that the petitioner said to have sent a query e-mail to 3rd respondent seeking clarification on the question posed by one of their member institution as to (1) whether it is open for college to start B.Tech CSE without going for Minor / Honours degree (2) whether it is open for the students admitted in CSE (Data Science) to change the option of not doing Minor / Honours degree in Data Science and confine to CSE major disciplines with 160 credits. The answer said to have been given by 3rd respondent was that Minor and Honours degree are optional and the students who wish to have this facility are required to take additional 5 to 6 courses (minimum 18 credits). It appears the petitioners sent further query, for which the 2nd respondent has given reply that it was already clarified earlier. The petitioners sought to argue that from the above clarifications of 3 rd respondent, it is clear that A.I & M.L. and Data Science can be recorded only CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 10 as elective specialized subjects for securing Honours degree and they cannot be recorded as core subjects. This argument cannot be accepted for the reasons already given by 2nd respondent. Running the risk of pleonasm, the 2nd respondent submits B.Tech CSE (A.I & M.L) and B.Tech CSE (Data Science) students have to study the A.I & M.L and Data Science as core subjects for 160 credits and they can elect their specialized subjects for securing Honours. On the other hand, the students who only go for B.Tech CSE may or may not choose any specialized subjects for securing Honours. But if they want to go for Honours, they may elect one of the specialized subjects and get the Honours on securing 18 to 20 credits additionally."
13. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal is filed on various grounds. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Sricharan Telaprolu is that the action of respondent No.2 is contrary to the regulation of AICTE and that respondent No.2 cannot deny implementation of regulation issued by respondent No.3 and cannot disable the petitioners to run the core courses in CSE (AI and ML), CSE (Data Science) since the students who secured 160 credits are entitled to pursue their courses for Honours degree and also raised several other contentions with regard to illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge and those contentions will be discussed at appropriate stage while deciding the issues involved in the matter.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners while arguing the matter reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and pointed out the findings recorded by the learned single Judge. He further contended that the Court cannot deny such relief to the petitioners as the fate of the students who are studying in the particular branches is at stake. When once respondent No.3 granted permission to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to impart education in particular courses, respondent No.2 will have no option except to permit the petitioners to run those courses in Honours degree and CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 11 minor degree. But, for one reason or the other, respondent No.2 rejected the request of the petitioners on flimsy grounds, despite issue of clarification issued by respondent No.3 by E-mail, thereby committed serious illegality in following the regularisations issued by respondent No.3. Therefore, respondent No.2 violated the mandate issued by respondent No.3, requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition.
15. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the contentions urged before the learned single Judge.
16. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point need be answered by this Court is as follows:
"Whether by inclusion of B.Tech CSE (AI and ML) and B.Tech. CSE (Data Science) as core subjects, petitioner No.2 violated the regulations and guidelines issued by respondent No.3? If not, whether the petitioners are entitled to claim writ of Mandamus as claimed?"
P O I N T:
17. The scope of interference in intra-Court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act is limited, unless the findings recorded by the learned single Judge are perverse or arbitrary.
18. In "Seshaiah vs. South Central Railway1", it was held that in an intra-Court appeal interference in the order of the learned single Judge is not as a matter of course and substitute its opinion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily.
19. In view of the law declared in the said judgment, the jurisdiction of the Division Bench of this Court in intra-Court 1 (2019) 6 ALT 84 CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 12 appeal is limited and we would like to examine the issue regarding warranting interference of this Court.
20. Undoubtedly, respondent No.3 permitted the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to impart education in B.Tech. CSE (AI and ML) and B.Tech. CSE (Data Science) etc., but respondent No.2 did not recognize the courses referred above on the ground that the persons who secured 16 to 20 credits alone are entitled to prosecute the study in those courses. The same is now under challenge before this Court on various grounds referred above.
21. The Central Government with an avowed object of evolving proper planning and coordinated and qualitative development of the technical education system throughout the country, have established the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). For this purpose it has enacted the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short "AICTE Act, 1987").
22. Section 3 speaks about establishment of the AICTE. It consists of the Chairman and other academic persons. Section 10 deals with various functions of the Council, of which functions enumerated in (i) and (k) are relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy:
10 (i). lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations.
10. (k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned.
23. Section 23 of the AICTE Act, 1987 speaks about the power of the Council to make regulations. According Section 23, the Council may make regulations and rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of its powers conferred under Section CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 13 23(2)(c) read with Sections 10 and 11 of the AICTE Act, 1987, the Council issued the regulations known as the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) (1st Amendment) Regulations, 2021 (for short "the Regulations, 2021").
24. Clause 3.2 (b) of the amended regulation is necessary as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is based on Clause 3 (2) (b) of the amended regulation is as follows:
3. 2 (b). Under Graduate Degree Courses with Minor Degree / Hons. in Emerging / Multidisciplinary Areas shall be allowed as specified in the Approval Process Handbook from time to time.
25. Thus, the above clause 3.2 (b) lays down that Under Graduate degree courses with Minor degree/Honours in emerging/ multidisciplinary areas shall be allowed as specified in the Approval Process HandBook 2021-22 (for short "APHB").
26. This APHB contains several emerging / multidisciplinary subjects. Therefore, it is necessary to advert to the relevant clause 7.3.2 of APHB, which reads as follows:
(a) Clause 7.3.2 of the APHB ordains that all branches of Engineering and Technology to offer elective courses in the emerging / multidisciplinary areas as specified in the Appendix-2 of the said book. The clause 7.3.2 reads thus:
7.3.2. All branches of Engineering and Technology shall offer Elective Courses in the EMERGING / MULTIDISCIPLINARY AREAS viz., Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), Blockchain, Robotics, Quantum Computing, Data Sciences, Cyber Security, 3D Printing and Design, Augmented Reality / Virtual Reality (AR/VR) etc., as specified in Appendix 2 of the Approval Process Handbook.
a. Under Graduate Degree Courses in EMERGING / MULTIDISCIPLINARY AREAS shall be allowed as specialization from the same department. The minimum additional Credits for such Courses shall be in the range of 18-20 (including credit transferred from the SWAYAM platform) and the same shall be mentioned in the degree, as specialization in that particular area. For example, doing extra credits for Robotics in Mechanical Engineering shall earn CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 14 B.E./B.Tech. (Hons.) Mechanical Engineering with specialization in Robotics.
b. Minor specialization in EMERGING / MULTIDISCIPLINARY AREAS in Under Graduate Degree Courses may be allowed where a student of another Department shall take the minimum additional Credits in the range of 18-20 and get a degree with minor from another Department.
c. Universities are free to evolve their own Syllabus for any Minor Degree / Hons. for which Model Syllabus is not available on AICTE's Website.
d. If an Institution is having the required Infrastructure facilities, Faculty and other requirements as per the Approval Process Handbook, for conducting the Core (Under Graduate Degree) Courses, the specialization in EMERGING / MULTIDISCIPLINARY AREAS shall be permitted WITHIN THE APPROVED INTAKE WITHOUT HAMPERING THE GENERIC COURSE e. Clause e contains the list of subjects in Minor degree / Honours Sl.No Minor Degree / To be offered as Hons. Only for following Hons. Major Disciplines (For any other Major Disciplines which is not mentioned, it may be offered a Minor Degree) 1 Artificial Computer Science and Engineering; Electronics Intelligence and and Communication Engineering: Electronics Machine Learning Engineering 2 Blockchain Computer Science and Engineering; Electronics and Communication Engineering: Electronics Engineering 3 Cyber Security Computer Science and Engineering; Electronics and Communication Engineering: Electronics Engineering 4 Data Science Computer Science and Engineering; Electronics and Communication Engineering: Electronics Engineering 5 Internet of Things Computer Science and Engineering; Electronics (IoT) and Communication Engineering: Electronics Engineering 6 to 39 xxx xxx
27. Based on the above clause 7.3.2 of APHB, the core contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 illegally and arbitrarily refused the permission to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the A.I & M.L and Data Science can only be shown as elective specialized subjects and option should be granted to the students to pursue Honours in those specialized subjects, but those specialized subjects cannot be included in the core course, whereas learned counsel for respondent No.2 put forth his contention that the EoA obtained by the petitioner from respondent No.3 was only for B.Tech CSE (A.I & M.L) and B.Tech CSE (Data Science) and therefore, the University CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 15 prepared the course of studies in tune with the EoA obtained by the petitioner and prescribed A.I and M.L. and Data Science as core subjects to be studied by the students in 2nd and 3rd year and therefore, there is no violation of clause 7.3.2 of APHB.
28. In view of the rival contentions, it is necessary, at this stage, to look into the Extension of Approval (EoA) dated 15.06.2020 issued by respondent No.3 to petitioners' institution. The EoA dated 15.06.2020 would show that AICTE granted approval to the petitioner to conduct several Undergraduate and PG courses with fixed intake capacity for the Academic Year 2020-21.
29. The relevant approvals are as follows:
Program Level Course Affiliating Intake Intake NRI PIO Body Approved Approved Approval /FN/ (University / for for Status Gulf Body) 2019-20 2020-21 quota / OCI / Approval Status Engineering Under Computer Jawaharlal 0 NA NA and Graduate Science Nehru 180##$$ Technology and Technological Engineering University, (Artificial Kakinada Intelligence and Machine Learning) Engineering Under Computer Jawaharlal 0 NA NA and Graduate Science Nehru 120##$$ Technology and Technological Engineering University, (Data Kakinada Science) ## Approved New Course (s) $$ Course (s) should be offered in Emerging Area
30. Thus, the Extension of Approval granted by 3rd respondent would show that the petitioner was permitted to offer Undergraduate B.E. and B.Tech CSE with A.I & M.L & Undergraduate B.Tech CSE (Data Science).
31. Learned single Judge analysed the symbols that indicated the approved new course and the courses should be offered in emerging area.
CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 16
32. The symbol ## indicates that the said courses are the new courses which were approved to the petitioners college and $$ symbol indicates that this course should be offered in emerging area. The above EoA when studied in conjunction with clause 7.3.2, it would indicate that the courses granted to the petitioner college by 3rd respondent are the new courses which are the emerging/multidisciplinary areas mentioned in Appendix 2. These new courses no doubt shall be offered as elective courses as specialization from the same department. However, clause 7.3.2 does not put any specific embargo to treat one or more of the elective subjects as core subjects in the B.Tech CSE and giving option to the students of that particular course to choose other elective subjects for pursuing the Honours. It appears that respondent No.2 has done the same thing. As can be seen from Para 6 of the written instructions, respondent No.2 clarified that since the petitioner institute obtained EoA for B.Tech course in CSE (AI & ML) and CSE (Data Science) the students who have specifically obtained admission in those courses will study AI & ML and Data Science as core subjects in 2nd and 3rd year as per course curriculum and they may opt for emerging subjects such as Internet of Things (IoT), Blockchain, Robotics etc. for Honours. It has further clarified that those students who had taken B.Tech CSE core course, they may opt for A.I & M.L or Data Science for doing Honours. Thus, according to respondent No.2, having regard to the nature of EoA obtained by the petitioner, mentioning A.I & M.L and Data Science as core subjects for the students of B.Tech CSE (A.I & M.L) and B.Tech CSE (Data Science) does not amount to infringement of clause 7.3.2. Therefore, learned single CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 17 Judge having found substance in the contention of respondent No.2 arrived at conclusion noted above.
33. In any view of the matter, several new courses are offered by respondent No.3 to be taught by the colleges, but it is always subject to fixing curriculum in those subjects in the colleges. The object of introducing several new courses by the respondent No.3 is to provide familiarity to the engineering students with new subjects apart from the conventional subjects which they study in their respective branches. If they select any of the listed special subjects and get 18/20 credits, they will get Honours degree in those specialized subjects. However, in the entire process, respondent No.2 cannot be found fault for treating the specialized courses as core course as stated supra, as held by the learned single Judge after reappraisal of entire material on record.
34. As there was controversy with regard to the core subjects being taught by the petitioners colleges, the petitioners solicited clarification from respondent No.3 posing questions as to (1) whether it is open for college to start B.Tech CSE without going for Minor / Honours degree (2) whether it is open for the students admitted in CSE (Data Science) to change the option of not doing Minor / Honours degree in Data Science and confine to CSE major disciplines with 160 credits.
35. Respondent No.3 clarified that Minor and Honours degree are optional and the students who wish to have this facility are required to take additional 5 to 6 courses (minimum 18 credits).
36. The petitioners sent further query, for which respondent No.2 has given reply that it was already clarified earlier.
37. Based on the interpretation of various provisions referred above, learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 18 that the rights of the petitioners are not infringed or violated to issue writ of Mandamus.
38. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that interpretation of various clauses in the Regulations, 2021 and APHB is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments and that the fate of several students is at stake if permission is not granted as sought for by the petitioners and that the violation of regulations issued by the AICTE Act, 1987 would result in de-recognition of universities, and it will have serious consequences on educational system, requested to set aside the impugned order of respondent No.2 and issue writ of Mandamus.
39. In view of this contention, it is necessary to consider the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in seriatim.
40. The first and foremost contention of the petitioners is that the judgment of learned single Judge is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University vs. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology2". The issue before the Apex Court was that denial of affiliation for starting a new B. Tech course in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science. The same was challenged before the High Court and the learned single Judge disposed the said writ petition along with similar other writ petitions by order dated 06.08.2020. By the said order, the learned Judge held: (i) that in view of the requirements of Section 14 of the University Act read with Section 30(2)(xiv), the Syndicate cannot be said to be lacking in authority for fixing the norms for affiliation; (ii) that the norms fixed by the Syndicate in its resolution dated 04.02.2020 as 2 (2021)2SCC564 CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 19 communicated by the Order of the Registrar dated 10.06.2020 would be applicable to both programmes and courses; (iii) that in view of the resolution of the Syndicate dated 24.06.2020, NOC from the State Government and NBA accreditation are no longer necessary; (iv) that as a consequence, the State Government Order dated 22.06.2019 was liable to be set aside; and (v) that the University may have to reconsider one portion of its decision dated 24.06.2020, after taking note of the recommendation contained in Annexure 1 and Clause 7 of Annexure 14 of the Approval Process Handbook and a clarification issued by AICTE.
41. Not satisfied with the partial relief granted and the directions issued by the learned Judge, respondent No.1 filed a writ appeal in Writ Appeal No. 1073 of 2020 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The other Colleges who were writ Petitioners, also filed separate writ appeals.
42. By the common judgment dated 08.09.2020 impugned in the appeal, the Division Bench partially allowed the writ appeals, holding: (i) that the Syndicate did not have the power to take the decisions dated 04.02.2020 (as communicated on 10.06.2020) and 24.06.2020, as there was no University Statute in force on that date and that in the absence of the Statute, the Vice-Chancellor alone had the power Under Section 14(6) of the Act to make any recommendation to the Board of Governors in the matter of affiliation; and (ii) that the University cannot go beyond AICTE Regulations.
43. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, the University approached the Apex Court in appeal.
CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 20
44. The issue revolving in the appeal was the power of the Syndicate of the University. The High Court held that under Section 63(2) of the State University Act, an application for affiliation or recognition for additional courses of study made by a College which already holds affiliation, should be considered by the University following the procedure prescribed in the Statutes. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court held that on the date on which the applications for affiliation for additional courses of study were made by the Colleges and processed by the University, there was no Statute of the University. Hence the Division Bench concluded that the only option available in such circumstances where there was no Statute, was for the Vice Chancellor to take recourse to the power available Under Section 14(6) of the University Act. But this power, in the opinion of the High Court, has to be exercised by the Vice Chancellor with the approval of the Board of Governors. As this was not done, the Division Bench remanded the matter back to the Vice Chancellor to follow the course of action available Under Section 14(6) of the University Act.
45. However, the issue is limited to affiliation of additional courses in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science. Finally, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal filed by the University setting aside the orders of the High Court of Kerala, this decision is of no assistance to the petitioner. On the other hand, it runs contra to the contention of the appellants/petitioners. Even if, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgment is applied to the present facts, the petitioners-appellants will have no right to claim such affiliation or recognition of additional courses.
CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 21
46. The Apex Court in "the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar vs. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet3"
observed that definitely the State Government and the University, in the absence of any such norms/rules having been framed by the AICTE can always have their say as per applicable statutory provisions or policy. But, no guidelines in this regard have been framed by the AICTE, hence the power exercised by the University cannot be said to be an exercise of power against the norms fixed by AICTE. Consequently, no repugnancy arises. The Apex Court further observed that the mushroom growth of the institutions cannot be permitted, was rightly pointed out in the perspective plan. A large number of institutions have already been permitted to function in the State by the Central Bodies. It is painful to note that at several places mushroom growth of the institutions had been permitted by such bodies in an illegal manner. In case there is no check or balance and the power is exercised in an unbridled reckless manner, the sufferer is going to be the standard of education. At the same time, there is a necessity of good institutions with new technology, but at the same time mushroom growth of the substandard institutions cannot be permitted. The Court also observed that in the absence of guidelines or norms framed to check the mushroom growth of the institutions, the university cannot be deprived of considering the said aspect. The State Government had also sent a communication to AICTE regarding the alarming increase in the number of technical educational institutions in the area in question and imbalanced growth. The decision of State has been taken in an objective manner and the same is based on the consideration of data and 3 (2019)17 SCC 729 CJ and MSM,J wa_345_2022 22 could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever. The policy decision of the State Government cannot be said to be illegal and on that basis, the University has taken the decision in terms of Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982.
47. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment and the conclusions arrived therein, without any hesitation, we hold that the impugned order of the learned single Judge is in accordance with law, does not warrant interference of this Court in the appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent since we find no illegality, irregularity or perversity.
48. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings of the learned single Judge are erroneous, the said contention is without any basis. On the other hand, the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments (referred supra) is against the contention urged by the petitioners in the appeal and before the learned single Judge. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
49. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
50. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J Ksp