Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Divya College Education vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 May, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WP/2094/2023 WP/1820/2023 WP/1924/2023 WP/1954/2023 WP/1957/2023
WP/1963/2023 WP/1964/2023 WP/1965/2023 WP/1966/2023 WP/1974/2023
WP/2096/2023 WP/2097/2023 WP/2098/2023 WP/2101/2023 WP/2105/2023
WP/2108/2023 WP/2109/2023 WP/2110/2023 WP/2111/2023 WP/2112/2023
WP/2113/2023 WP/2114/2023 WP/2115/2023 WP/2116/2023 WP/2117/2023
WP/2120/2023 WP/2126/2023 WP/2130/2023 WP/2132/2023 WP/2133/2023
WP/2134/2023 WP/2279/2023 WP/2616/2023 WP/2640/2023 WP/2727/2023
WP/2728/2023 WP/2734/2023 WP/2752/2023 WP/3032/2023 WP/3034/2023
WP/3036/2023 WP/3053/2023 WP/3056/2023 WP/3093/2023 WP/3099/2023
WP/3100/2023 WP/3918/2023 WP/3919/2023 WP/3942/2023 WP/3944/2023
WP/4147/2023 WP/4157/2023 WP/4169/2023 WP/4178/2023 WP/4193/2023
WP/4199/2023 WP/4379/2023 WP/4398/2023 WP/4406/2023 WP/4408/2023
WP/4413/2023 WP/4437/2023 WP/4450/2023 WP/5595/2023 WP/5598/2023
WP/5599/2023 WP/5600/2023 WP/5601/2023 WP/5602/2023 WP/5603/2023
WP/5605/2023 WP/5606/2023 WP/5610/2023 WP/5872/2023 WP/6053/2023
WP/6057/2023 WP/6058/2023 WP/6218/2023 WP/6658/2023 WP/7559/2023
WP/35193/2022 WP/35195/2022 WP/35197/2022 WP/35198/2022
WP/35199/2022 WP/37939/2022 WP/42469/2022
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri Mathukumilli Sri Vijay, Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, Sri
G.Venkateswarlu, Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, Sri C.Subodh &
Ms.Y.Anupama Devi, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri Butta Vijaya
Bhaskar, Ld. Standing Counsel Office Note for Sree Venkateswara University,
Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.Y.Ratna
Prabha, Ld. Standing Counsel for Rayalaseema University, Sri Tenapalli
Niranjan, Ld. Standing Counsel for Yogi Vemana University, Ms.M.Manikya
Veena, Ld. Standing Counsel for Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidhyalam, Sri
B.V.Durga Prasad, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.S.Parineeta, Ld.
Standing Counsel for APSCME and Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, Ld. Standing
Counsel for NCTE in-part.
2
2. The present Writ Petitions are filed by various affiliated
Colleges/Institutions imparting B.Ed Courses. It is a matter of common
knowledge that Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) and Master of Education (M.Ed)
Courses are important for training the teachers who work in the Secondary
and Higher Secondary schools. The action of various Universities has been
challenged by the aggrieved affiliated Colleges/affiliated Institutions, wherein
and whereby, by the impugned actions, the Universities have issued
Proceedings with regard to the respective affiliated Colleges/affiliated
Institutions declaring the current academic year as „zero academic year‟ or
reduction of students strength on the basis that the affiliated Colleges/affiliated
Institutions did not cure the deficiencies pointed out by the various Inspection
Committees or on the ground that the admissions were made contrary to the
University Regulations or the National Council for Teacher Education (for
short the „NCTE‟) Regulations.
3. The NCTE has been formed as per the NCTE Act, 1993 (for short
„the Act, 1993‟). The NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2009 were issued by the NCTE. Under the Act, 1993, the Regional
Committees are also constituted by the NCTE. Section 14 of the Act, 1993
provides for the various standards and norms to be followed by the
Colleges/Institutions which are imparting the Courses of B.Ed and M.Ed.
4. The NCTE grants recognition for the College/Institution after
complying with the Statute and the Regulations, and basing on the
3
recommendations made by the respective Regional Committees of the NCTE.
The local University in the area in which the Institution is set up is required to
grant affiliation for the individual College/Institution. To enable an Institution to
admit the students for B.Ed or M.Ed Courses, an Institution is required to
possess Certificate of recognition from the NCTE and also an approval of
affiliation from the respective University.
5. While the Universities, which are by themselves autonomous bodies,
are required to follow their own procedures and schedules for conduct of
inspections, grant of affiliation and for conduct of examinations, the admission
process for the Courses of B.Ed and M.Ed is one and the same. Notification
is given to all the Institutions across the State and the counseling is also a
common counseling. Therefore, while the admission for all the Colleges/
Institutions is one and the same, the schedule followed for grant of affiliation is
in the hands of the individual universities. Since the universities are
autonomous by their very nature, they have the freedom to employ their own
schedules for inspections etc., and for curing of deficiencies by the respective
Colleges based on the Inspection Reports. Therefore, since the Universities
are not following a common time schedule, situations and circumstances have
arisen wherein in most of the cases in the present batch, the respective
Universities have communicated zero academic year or reduction in strength
either few days before the commencement of common counseling of
admission of students, or in some cases even after the commencement of the
common counseling for admission of students. This peculiar situation is not
4
only affecting the respective Colleges, but it also has a substantial adverse
impact on the career of the students who eventually aspire to become a
trained teacher after completing either the B.Ed Course or M.Ed Course.
Whatever may be the administrative exigency, this Court has noticed that the
adverse impact ultimately befalls upon the admission-seeker who intends to
seek admission in a B.Ed course or M.Ed course in a particular Institution.
While the Universities have resorted to withdrawal of affiliation or declaring a
particular academic year as a zero academic year or by reducing the strength,
the aspiring students are made to run from pillar to post in the last minute,
having come to know about the peril inflicted upon a respective Institution or
College in which the candidate had initially desired to seek an admission.
6. Whatever may be the dispute on the administrative side between the
University and the respective Institution, this Court has noticed in a flood of
litigations that has come before it that the ultimate sufferers are the admission-
seekers. A candidate aspiring to become a teacher in a Secondary School or
Higher Secondary School is required to mandatorily possess a qualification in
B.Ed/M.Ed as the case may be. For the purpose of recruitment in a
Government School in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Government
undertakes to conduct a common examination called the Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET). The persons who are qualified in the TET are also subject to a
process of competitive screening for recruitment in Government Schools
undertaken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh through the annual District
Selection Committees (DSCs). Whenever the Government issues Notification
5
either for conduct of TET or DSC, this Court has experienced a flood of
litigation from various candidates on the ground that the cut off date for
making an application may be extended on account of irregular time
schedules within which they have either acquired the B.Ed or M.Ed certificates
or are yet to acquire B.Ed or M.Ed certificates. In other words, since various
Universities have been conducting the examinations without following a single
procedure, the candidates are unable to complete the Courses commonly
within a particular time. One of the reasons for not completing the courses
within a particular time is due to delayed admissions. This Court has noticed
that the admission process is being delayed due to various factors, some of
which are delineated below:
i) The dates for grant of recognition and grant of affiliation
are not being followed by the Universities in accordance
with the directions given by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of
U.P : (2013) 2 SCC 617.
ii) When the Inspection Committee, which is constituted
and sent by the respective University, prepares a Report
pointing out certain deficiencies, the University is
obligated to ensure that the same Committee once
again visits the Institution within a reasonable time and
verify whether the defects which were earlier pointed out
are cured by the Institution or not. In most of the cases
before this Court, it has been noticed that the
Universities are not sending the same Committee
Members for verification, who had inspected and
6
pointed-out defects earlier, to see whether the defects
pointed-out by the earlier Committee have been cured
or not. Even when a new Committee has been sent, the
said Committee is expected to verify whether the
individual College/Institution has cured the defects
which were earlier notified or out. Without doing so, this
Court has noticed that the new Inpsection Committee is
pointing out new defects and directing the Institution to
cure those defects as a condition either for grant of
affiliation or for permitting the admissions for the current
academic year. In some of the cases, this Court has
noticed that the Universities are delaying in sending the
Inspection Teams or Verification Teams.
7. Under all these circumstances, the casualty is the time schedule with
regard to the grant of recognition by the NCTE or the affiliation by the
respective University and consequently on the process of admission.
8. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, has taken note of various circumstances in
Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and Another Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh : (2011) 4 SCC 527. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, held in Para Nos.19,
22 & 24 as under:
"19. The purpose of "recognition" and "affiliation" is different. In the context
of the NCTE Act, "affiliation" enables and permits an institution to send its
students to participate in the public examinations conducted by the
examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees,
diplomas, certificates. On the other hand, "recognition" is the licence to the
institution to offer a course or training in teacher education. Prior to the
NCTE Act, in the absence of an apex body to plan and coordinate
development of teacher education system, respective regulation and proper
maintenance of the norms and standards in the teacher education system,
including grant of "recognition" were largely exercised by the State
Government and universities/boards. After the enactment of the NCTE Act,
the functions of NCTE as "recognising authority" and the examining bodies
as "affiliating authorities" became crystallised, though their functions
7
overlap on several issues. The NCTE Act recognises the role of examining
bodies in their sphere of activity.
22. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 no doubt mandates every examining body
to grant affiliation to the institution on receipt of the order of NCTE granting
recognition to such institution. This only means that recognition is a
condition precedent for affiliation and that the examining body does not
have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors
which have been considered by NCTE while granting recognition. For
example, NCTE is required to satisfy itself about the adequate financial
resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, and laboratory required
for proper functioning of an institution for a course or training in teacher
education. Therefore, when recognition is granted by NCTE, it is
implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects. Consequently,
the examining body may not refuse affiliation on the ground that the
institution does not have adequate financial resources,
accommodation, library, qualified staff, or laboratory required for
proper functioning of the institution. But this does not mean that the
examining body cannot require compliance with its own requirements
in regard to eligibility of candidates for admissions to courses or
manner of admission of students or other areas falling within the
sphere of the State Government and/or the examining body. Even the
order of recognition dated 17-7-2000 issued by NCTE specifically
contemplates the need for the institution to comply with and fulfil the
requirement of the affiliating body and the State Government, in
addition to the conditions of NCTE.
24. The examining body can therefore impose its own requirements in
regard to eligibility of students for admission to a course in addition
to those prescribed by NCTE. The State Government and the
examining body may also regulate the manner of admissions. As a
consequence, if there is any irregularity in admissions or violation of
the eligibility criteria prescribed by the examining body or any
irregularity with reference to any of the matters regulated and
governed by the examining body, the examining body may cancel the
affiliation irrespective of the fact that the institution continues to enjoy
the recognition of NCTE. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 cannot be
interpreted in a manner so as to make the process of affiliation, an
automatic rubber-stamping consequent upon recognition, without any
kind of discretion in the examining body to examine whether the
institution deserves affiliation or not, independent of the recognition.
An institution requires the recognition of NCTE as well as affiliation
with the examining body, before it can offer a course or training in
teacher education or admit students to such course or training. Be
that as it may."
(emphasis supplied)
9. In Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society and Another Vs.
State of Gujarat and Another : (1974) 1 SCC 717, the Hon‟ble Apex Court
observed the importance of Educational Institutions. The Hon‟ble Apex Court,
8
held that "the Educational institutions are temples of learning. The virtues of
human intelligence are mastered and harmonized by education".
10. In Andhra Kesari Educational Society Vs. Director of School
Education and Others : (1989) 1 SCC 392, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, had the
occasion to highlight the importance of a teacher and the provisions of
teaching as such. The Hon‟ble Apex Court stated that: "Though teaching is
the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers is central to all processes
of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and
intellectual capabilities of students. He is the "engine" of the educational
system".
11. In State of Maharastra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and
Others : (1992) 4 SCC 435, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that: "The teacher
plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and
aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children."
12. In St. Jonh's Teachers Training Institute (for women), Madurai
and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others : (1993) 3 SCC 595, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court had dealt with the paramountcy of having Teacher
Education Programme, and held that "the Teacher Education Programme has
to be redesigned to bring in a system of education which can prepare the
student-teacher to shoulder the responsibility of imparting education with a
living dynamism".
9
13. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and others Vs. Subhash
Rahangdale and others; (2012) 2 SCC 425, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had
given seminal directions in Para 87 of the Judgment with regard to the
conduct of inspections and grant of recognition by the NCTE.
14. In National Council for Teacher Education and Another Vs.
Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management : (2012) 5 SCC 139,
the Hon‟ble Apex Court had the occasion to deal with the ill-effects of
withdrawal of recognition. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in Para-28 has held as
under:
"28. Derecognition or withdrawal of recognition of a recognised institution is
a drastic measure. It results in dislocating the students, teachers and
the staff. That is why, the Council has been empowered under Section
13 to have a constant vigil on the functioning of a recognised
institution. On the recommendation of the Council after inspection, if a
recognised institution does not rectify the deficiencies and continues to
function in contravention of the provisions of the 1993 Act or the Rules or
the Regulations, the Regional Committee under Section 17 has full power
to proceed for withdrawal of recognition in accordance with the procedure
prescribed therein.
15. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, having recognised the fact that all the
affiliated Colleges/affiliated Institutions should have common schedule for
obtaining recognition from the NCTE and obtaining affiliation from the
concerned University, had the occasion to fix the time schedule in the case of
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P : (2013) 2 SCC
617. Relevant paras of the Judgment are usefully extracted hereunder:
"87. Compelled by these circumstances and to ensure that there exists no
ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion, we direct and prescribe the following
Schedule upon a cumulative reading of the Regulations and judgments of this
Court in relation to recognition and affiliation:
87.1.Schedule for Recognition and Affiliation
10
87.1.1. Submission of applications 1st
for recognition in terms of Septem
Regulation 5(4) ber to
1st
October
of the
year
immedia
tely
precedin
g the
relevant
academi
c year
87.1.2. Communication of Within
deficiencies, shortcomings 45 days
or any other discrepancy in from the
the application submitted by date of
the applicant to the applicant receipt
in terms of Regulation 7(1) of the
applicati
ons
87.1.3. Removal of such Within
deficiencies by the applicant 60 days
from the
date of
receipt
of
commun
ication
87.1.4. Forwarding of copy of the Within
application to the State 90 days
Government/UT from the
Administration for its date of
recommendations/comments receipt
in terms of Regulation 7(2) of the
applicati
on
87.1.5. Recommendations/comment Within
s of the State 30 days
Government/UT from the
Administration to be date of
submitted to the Regional issue of
Committee under Regulation letter to
7(3) it
87.1.6. If Within
recommendations/comments seven
are not received within 30 days
days, the Regional from the
Committee shall send to the date of
State Government/UT expiry of
Administration a reminder the
letter for submission of the period of
11
recommendations/comments 30 days
87.1.7. State Government/UT Within
Administration shall furnish 15 days
the from the
recommendations/comments date of
receipt
of such
reminde
r letter
87.1.8. Intimation regarding Within
inspection by the Regional 10 days
Committee to the applicant from
under Regulation 7(4) final
scrutiny
of the
applicati
on
87.1.9. Report by the Inspection 20 days
Committee under Regulation thereaft
7(5) er
87.1.10. Letter of intent to the 10th of
institution with respect to Februar
grant or refusal of y of the
recognition in terms of succeed
Regulation 7(9) ing
year/rele
vant
year
87.1.11. Time to comply with certain 20 days
specified conditions, in terms from the
of Regulations 7(10) and date of
7(11) issuanc
e of
letter of
intent
87.1.12. Issuance of formal order of By 3rd
recognition March of
each
year
87.1.13. Last date for submitting By 10th
proposal for affiliation March of
each
year
87.1.14. Forwarding of proposal by By 10th
the University to the State March of
Government/UT each
Administration after year
inspection by expert team
87.1.15. Comments to be submitted By 10th
by the State Government/UT March of
Administration, if any each
year
87.1.16. Final date for issuance/grant By 10th
of affiliation for the relevant March of
12
academic year each
year
87.2. All notices/orders/requirements/letters in terms of the above schedule or
under the provisions of the Act or terms and conditions of already granted
recognition/affiliation shall be sent by the authority concerned by speed post/e-
mail on the address given in the application for correspondence, etc. and shall
be posted on the website of the Authority/Committee/Council/Government
concerned.
87.3. The recognition and affiliation granted as per the above Schedule shall be
applicable for the current academic year. For example, recognition granted up
to 3-3-2013 and affiliation granted up to 10-5-2013 shall be effective for the
academic year 2013-2014 i.e. the courses starting from 1-4-2013. For the
academic year 2013-2014, no recognition shall be issued after 3-3-2013 and
no affiliation shall be granted after 10-5-2013. Any affiliation or recognition
granted after the above cut-off dates shall only be valid for the academic year
2014-2015.
87.4. We make it clear that no Authority/person/Council/Committee shall
be entitled to vary the Schedule for any reason whatsoever. Any non-
compliance shall amount to violating the orders of the Court.
88. In all the appeals and petitions before us, the basic issue is whether the
university and the State Government were justified in rejecting the application
or not granting application for affiliation on the ground that there was a cut-off
date and/or the conditions of recommendation/affiliation had not been satisfied.
In some cases, serious disputes have been raised with regard to the fulfilment
of the conditions of recognition and/or affiliation. As far as the reason in relation
to cut-off date is concerned, we cannot find any fault with the view taken by the
authorities concerned. 10th of May has been provided as the cut-off date, after
which no affiliation for the current academic year would be granted. This, being
the law stated by this Court, is binding on all concerned, including any
authority. The authorities have rightly acted in declining to entertain and/or
refusing affiliation to the institutions being beyond the cut-off date. Adherence
to the Schedule was the obligation of the authorities and the institutions cannot
raise any grievance in that regard. The said time schedule must become
operative in all respects and nobody should be permitted to carve out
exceptions to this mandatory direction."
16. Despite the strong mandate rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it
appears that the concerned Universities have not been following this
schedule. It also appears that the NCTE has given a complete go-by to the
schedule which is handed down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Needless to state
that as per Para-87 (extracted supra), any deviation from the time schedule
would tantamount to the violating the Orders of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. In
13
Paras 81 and 88 of the said Judgment, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had also
stated that the adherence to the schedule was the obligation of the authorities
and the Institutions cannot raise any grievance in that regard. The Hon‟ble
Apex Court has also stated that the said time schedule must become
operative in all respects and nobody should be permitted to carve out
exceptions to this mandatory direction. Despite this mandatory injunction, it is
unfortunate that the NCTE as well as the respective Universities have not
been adhering to the Schedule.
17. The Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education conducts
the common entrance test and oversees the various phases of common
counseling which is an integral part of common admissions undertaken for the
purpose of admissions into various Courses. The Andhra Pradesh State
Council of Higher Education would be required to oversee to ensure that all
the Universities would follow the schedule handed down by the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya's case. Insofar as the
cases of the individual Institutions are concerned, since there are lapses on
the part of the respective Universities in constituting and sending the
Inspection Committees and also in view of the fact that the Verification
Committees, instead of verifying whether the earlier deficiencies have been
complied or not, have been pointing out the new defects and also making it
mandatory to cure the new defects as a condition precedent for granting of
affiliation, such conditions are unsustainable.
14
18. In the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State
of U.P.,; (2013) 2 SCC 617, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had dealt with situations
relating to the establishment of new colleges which impart B.Ed and M.Ed
courses. In the current batch of cases, majority of the institutions have
already been earlier granted recognition by the NCTE and affiliation by the
concerned University and they were being run. Several issues have arisen
only in respect of the Academic year 2022-2023 is concerned. This Court has
noticed that the Executive Councils of various Universities and also the
Registrars of various Universities have issued proceeding placing the B.Ed
colleges under „Zero Admission‟ category for the Academic Year 2022-2023.
As an illustration, this Court is relying on the facts relating to the W.P.No.2105
of 2023, wherein, the Executive Counsel of Adikavi Nannayya University
(Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.2105 of 2023) has issued proceedings on
24.01.2023 listing out as many as 31 B.Ed Colleges and by stating that instead of de-affiliation, the Executive Council of Respondent No.5 University has placed these colleges (31 in number) under the „Zero Admission‟ category. The Writ Petitioner‟s college (in W.P.No.2105 of 2023) is at Serial No.17 of the Proceedings issued by the Executive Council of Respondent No.5 University dated 24.01.2023 (Ex.P.1). A perusal of the entire Proceedings of the Executive Counsel dated 24.01.2023 would clearly indicate that the Inspection Committees have raised several objections on subjects that essentially fall for consideration only by the NCTE. It is noticed that the impugned Proceeding (in W.P.No.2105 of 2023) (Ex.P.1) is directly in 15 conflict with the dictum of the Hon‟ble Apex court judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P: (2013) 2 SCC 617. The NCTE, Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE), all the Respondent Universities and the Colleges/Institutions imparting B.Ed and M.Ed courses are directed to minutely read and understand the import from Paragraphs 56 to 91 of the said Judgment in order to make the further hearing of these cases more meaningful.
19. Prima facie it appears to the Court that the Respondent No.5 University in this case has in fact transgressed into the domain that is reserved for NCTE under the Act, 1993 and the Rules and Regulations of the NCTE. Despite the fact that the Hon‟ble Apex Court has drawn clear distinction as regards the Powers and functions with an intent to avoid overlapping of functions and in order to avoid the exercise of powers in the same area by two different bodies, it has been given a complete go bye by the respective Universities in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Apart from blatant violation and non-adherence to the dictum of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya's case, this Court has noticed that each of the University is acting as an island by itself in a misguided manner while the supervision by APSCHE is completely absent.
20. In the circumstances where, the conduct of annual Counseling after the completion of Education Common Entrance Test - 2022, there is a necessity for having a supervisory Authority on all the Universities limited to the smooth conduct of „EdCET‟ as well as the consequential counseling. In 16 the state of Andhra Pradesh a supervisory body called the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) has been established under the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988, under which said APSCHE empowered to perform certain ancillary and incidental functions for conduct of Common Entrance Test and the consequential counseling for admission into the courses, and would embrace within itself the power to supervise all the Universities under its jurisdiction to ensure that all the Universities would follow with one single schedule for effecting the admissions. The process of affiliations and process of conduct of Common Entrance Test and the consequential admission cannot be viewed as activities which have no connection with each other. Rather the process of grant of recognition by NCTE, grant of affiliation by an University and the conduct of the common Entrance Test and the consequent admission process are interrelated and interdependent. Therefore, a comprehensive schedule has to be formulated and fixed by the APSCHE to ensure that the entire process commencing from grant of affiliation up to the completion of admission process shall go on smoothly.
21. Conduct of the admission process is again dependent on the fact whether a particular college has been granted affiliation and thereby allowed to participate in the admission process. If the various Universities adopt a policy of notifying the defects without fixing a deadline in an endless manner, the colleges can never be able to participate in the admission process. Therefore, pointing out the defects cannot be an exercise that goes on in an 17 endless manner. The first inspection Committee that visits a college and identify certain defects and directs the respective college to cure such deficiencies can be looked into by the subsequent committee. If the defects are not cured, the subsequent committee can only report to the University about the possible action that can be initiated against the college for non- compliance of the defects/short comings which were notified earlier. During the verification, if the Verification Committee has pointed out new defects which were not pointed out by the earlier committee, the University cannot then impose a condition on the colleges that the admission will be allowed for the respective college only after curing of the fresh defects. If pointing out of defects go on endlessly, the private colleges can never be able to participate in the admission process.
22. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the subsequent Verification Committees can only ensure compliance of the earlier defects. This does not mean that the subsequent Verification Committees do not have the power to point out new defects, which may have missed the attention of the earlier Inspection Committee. The subsequent Verification Committee can certainly point out the defects but the University cannot impose a condition that the private Colleges will be allowed to participate in the admission process only if the new defects are cured.
23. This Court is constrained to make the above mentioned observations after having noticed in the impugned Proceeding (in W.P.No.2105 of 2023) that the deficiencies that were identified afresh were 18 also directed to be cured which is made as a condition precedent for permitting admissions. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya's case had dealt with the powers of NCTE, the powers of the State Government and the University as the case may be concerning the grant of Recognition and grant of Affiliation at the time of commencement of an institution. The Hon‟ble Apex Court had clearly stated that the actions and activities of the State Government or the University shall not touch upon the areas which are reserved for the NCTE. In this view of the matter, this Court is inclined to issue certain directions in respect of the inspections because the period within which the Inspections are to be concluded has a direct bearing on the admission process.
24. This Court is, therefore, inclined to tentatively issue the following general directions insofar as the Inspection Committees are concerned:
(i) The Universities shall appoint an Inspection Committee within two weeks from the date of which the concerned college had communicated to the University that it has remitted the necessary fee for inspection.
(ii) If the University does not appoint the Inspection Committee within two weeks from the date of receipt of information about the remittance of inspection fee, the University shall refund the inspection fee, but shall appoint the inspection committee within a week thereafter and bear the expenses for inspection. In other words, if the University causes delay in appointing the Inspection Committee, the remitted Inspection Fee of the College shall be refunded to the respective 19 college and the University shall bear such expenses for the visit of the Inspection team.
(iii) The Inspection Committees, after inspecting the respective colleges, shall submit a report within one week to the University forthwith by marking a copy simultaneously to the respective college for curing of defects, if any. The concerned University shall also fix a reasonable time to the colleges for curing of defects and inform to the colleges.
(iv) After granting reasonable time to the college to cure
defects, the respective college shall inform the
University about the compliance or curing of defects as pointed out by the Inspection Committee within the time granted for curing the defects.
(v) Within one week from the date of the communication of receipt from the college, the University shall appoint an Inspection Committee, preferably with the same members who had inspected earlier. Only if the same constitution is unavailable, for the reasons so recorded in writing, the University may appoint „new members‟ within one week in place of the earlier members of the Committee who are now unavailable.
(vi) The Inspection Committee, appointed as aforesaid, shall verify whether the deficiencies pointed out earlier are cured or not by the respective colleges and prepare the Reports within one week thereafter.
(vii) The said Committee is at liberty to point out new defects but non-compliance of such defects within the 20 scheduled time shall not be the reason for disallowing the admission process for the particular college.
(viii) If the new defects are pointed out by the Inspection Committee, the respective Colleges shall be granted time to cure such defects before the commencement of next academic session. In other words, the curing of defects pointed out for the second time cannot be put as a condition for allowing admission process for the current academic year. This entire process shall be completed and be informed to the respective University at least six weeks prior to the commencement of EdCET for the current year.
25. The NCTE, Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE), and all the Respondent Universities are directed to consider the above mentioned tentative directions for further consideration and modification as the case may be.
26. List this batch of matters on 03.07.2025. On the said date, all the above mentioned Universities, Institutions/Colleges shall clearly come out with written suggestions or modifications to the draft directions which are set out in Para No.24 of this common Order.
______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 09.05.2025 JKS/MNR