Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) The provisions contained in All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 ("AICTE Act" in short) and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 are comprehensive and cover the area of establishment of colleges as well. Similarly the Supreme Court, in Adhiyaman College of Engineering case, relating to AICTE Act and Thirumuruga Kripananda Variar's case relating to establishment of medical colleges, found that those Acts occupy the whole field. However, Sections 14 and 15 of NCTE Act deals only with recognition of the course or the institution and does not deal with the establishment of a college. In such a circumstance, the findings of the learned Single Judge that the provisions of the AICTE Act or the Indian Medical Council Act are in pari materia with the NCTE Act and that therefore, the directions of the Supreme Court in the above cases would apply to NCTE Act also, may not be correct and requires to be set aside.

13. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, , the appellant is a Trust which wanted to establish a self-financing engineering college and submitted an application during 1994-95 to University of Kerala as well as to AICTE. Ultimately, the Government refused to give permission by their letter dated 16.8.1996. Thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court for quashing the said Order of the Government and for a direction to sanction and establish an engineering college. The learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, by his judgment dated 14,1.1997, allowed the writ petition and directed Mahatma Gandhi University to consider the appellant's application for permanent affiliation without reference to the letter of the Government. Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Government filed a writ appeal. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. As against the judgment of the Division Bench, the Jaya Gokul Educational Trust has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. After considering the decision in Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute case, and the provisions of AICTE Act, particularly Section 10(k), Their Lordships have held: (para 17, 23, 28) "Para 17, We shall now refer to the relevant paras of the above judgment dealing with the question of "approval" for establishing technical institutions under Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act. The Tamil Nadu Rules of 1976 made under the 1976 Act had no doubt excluded technical institutions from the purview of the Rules but this Court pointed out that the Rules were capable of being amended so as to extend to such technical institutions and that if they were so extended, the State Act of 1976 and the Rules would require "approval" by the State Government and that would be void. It was stated (in SCC p. 124, para 27) that inasmuch as the State Act "will overlap and will be in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act in various areas...., granting approval for starting new technical institutions..., inspection of technical institutions... which matters are covered by the Central Act".

"Para 23. Thus we hold, in the present case that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and even if there was one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. The University Statute 9(7) merely required that the "views" of the State Government be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not amount to obtaining "approval". If the University statute required "approval", it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act...."

"Para 28..... Procedure and conditions for affiliation could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act, in particular Section 10(k) of the Regulation, and the University could not seek approval of the Government. The University was also one of the agencies consulted by the council of AICTE under Regulation 8. Once that was over, and approval was granted by AICTE, if there was any default on the part of the College in compliance with the conditions of approval, the only remedy for the University was to bring those facts to the notice of AICTE so that the latter could take appropriate action."

24. To sum up the sum and substance of the contentions raised by the Writ Appellants i.e., State of Tamil Nadu and Universities is that the insistence of prior permission from the State Government for granting affiliation is justified in terms of Section 2(b) read with Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and the Statutes framed under concerned University Act inasmuch as the same has not been covered under the Central Act, namely, NCTE Act. The said claim is liable to be dismissed in view of the settled position of law as declared by the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman College case , Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar's case, , and Jaya Gokul's case, inasmuch as the very same issue of power to stipulate condition for affiliation, disaffiliation were the subject matter of those decisions. In para 28 of Jaya Gokul's case (cited supra), it has been specifically held that procedure and conditions for affiliation could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act, in particular Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act and the University could not seek approval of the Government. A combined reading of Sections 14(4), 14(6) read with Section 16 of the NCTE Act obligated the affiliating body to grant affiliation on receiving information as to recognition of an institution from the NCTE and thus leave no discretion to affiliating body to stipulate any more condition especially condition of imposing prior permission of the State Government which would render the order of recognition as ineffective. The scheme of the NCTE Act and the Regulations made thereunder as has been interpreted the various provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations made thereunder as held by the Supreme Court in St. John's Case, wherein it was held that the Regional Committee of NCTE is empowered to consider the claim for recognition independently notwithstanding the refusal of NOC by the State Government. Once the recognising body held that the refusal of NOC by the State Government would not stand in the way of granting recognition, it would be ex-fade illegal to insist very same rigor condition for granting of affiliation by one of the agencies, namely, Universities under the NCTE Act. We are satisfied that the NCTE Act contained enough provisions pertaining to granting of affiliation and that the action of the Writ Appellant University in imposing a pre-condition of prior permission from the State Government as indicated in the impugned order constitutes error of law, arbitrary and opposed to the object and scheme of the NCTE Act besides being opposed to the law declared by the Supreme Court. As explained earlier, the provisions contained in Sections 14(4); 14(6) and 16 of the NCTE Act is wider in scope than Section 10(k) of AICTE Act and Section 10A of Indian Medical Council Act inasmuch as the NCTE Act takes in its fold the matter of granting affiliation. Further, the NCTE Act contains adequate provisions as regards granting of affiliation as automatic one in respect of institutions which have been granted with recognition by the NCTE. Hence, the contention of the writ appellants that the provisions of the State Enactment is only a supplemental and not supplant to the Central Act cannot be accepted. The contention that NCTE Act deals with recognition only and not establishment of institution etc., have no substance for the reasons stated supra as also on the ground that the word, 'recognition' as employed in NCTE Act and 'approval' as mentioned in Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act and 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act would give the same meaning in legal parlance having regard to the object of those provisions contained in the respective enactment. The argument that Rule 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act includes teacher training colleges and hence, the impugned condition is justified is liable to be rejected on the grounds that Rule cannot over-ride the provisions of the Act and that the State cannot enact law repugnant to the provisions contained in the Central Act as has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of India. As rightly pointed out, the University is one of the agencies Under the NCTE Act and is obligated to grant affiliation on receipt of Order of recognition in respect of any technical institution in terms of Section 14(4) read with Section 14(6) of the NCTE Act. Though it is stated that the function of granting affiliation is legislative in nature and the same cannot be abdicated to outside agency. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned Order discloses that the same came to be passed on the basis of the resolution of the Syndicate which in turn rely on the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act ignoring the express provisions viz., Sections 14(4), 14(6) of the NCTE Act.