Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The present petition has been filed by Delhi Institute of Technology and Management. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was granted approval by the AICTE and is affiliated to DCR University of Science & Technology, Sonepat. On March 02, 2015 the petitioner applied to respondent No.1 University for affiliation for academic session 2015-16, which was responded to by the respondent No.1 University, stating that NOC from the State of Haryana was required. It is also stated that the National Commissioner for Minority Educational Institution issued the certificate dated September 27, 2016 certifying that the petitioner institute has been declared as minority institution on the ground that the petitioner was established and being administered by the Members of the Sikh Community. Vide letter dated January 18, 2017, the Commission granted NOC to the petitioner Institution. The petitioner refers to the letter dated February 2, 2017, a reference of which has already been made above.

9. Delhi Global Institute of Management, 2016 Faridabad, Haryana
10. Bhagwan Mahveer School of Architecture, 2015 Sonepat, Haryana
11. Mahavir Swami Institute of Technology, 2014 Sonepat, Haryana
12. BM Institute of Engineering & Technology, 2016 Sonepat, Haryana
13. Bhagwan Mahavir College of Engineering 2016 & Management, Sonepat, Haryana

39. He would state, the above provision duly takes care of the interest of the respondents and the students by debarring the non-performing institutes from getting NOC after 2/3 years of failure/ non-performance. This can thus not be a valid ground for denial of affiliation to the petitioner. He would state, to the contrary, the decision to debar the new institutes from getting affiliation appears to be in collusion with the existing institutes in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) whichare guilty of non- performance in the past. The petitioner is entitled to give a competition to the existing institutes in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) and to prove itself once affiliation is granted. The impugned decision is thus both are arbitrary and unjust and stinks of malafide. He states, 85% seats of the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) are reserved for the Delhi residents, who cannot be denied the opportunity of getting admission in good institutes even if located in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi). The impugned decision is thus contrary to the interest of the Delhi residents. He states, the reliance placed by the respondents on the RUSA is also misplaced inasmuch as the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) 2013, as a condition for grant of funds to the State, has recommended affiliation reforms, to the effect that the number of colleges to be affiliated to any University be restricted to 100. The said provision has no relevance inasmuch as the number of affiliated colleges to GGSIP University has already crossed 100(126). The RUSA guidelines came in the year 2013. The respondents have no explanation as to why they allowed the crossing of the prescribed strength of 100 in the past and added more colleges beyond the figure of 100 even after coming into force of RUSA Guidelines, in the academic years 2014-15 and 2015-16 and are ready to do so even during this academic year i.e. 2017-18, as long as the new institutions/ colleges applying for affiliation are situated with the limits of NCT of Delhi. In any case the guidelines themselves provide that if the number is restricted to 100, then new universities shall be established. The respondent state was thus obliged to establish a new University to cater to the needs of the Delhi/ NCR residents. He would submit, the petitioner institute though affiliated to small time university in Sonepat having students of more than 70% from Delhi and wants to affiliate to university which has name and there is no impediment / bar for having affiliation to a university of its choice. No statute or law debars the petitioner to choose a university. He states, the present petitioner university has state of the art infrastructure and faculty and more than 1300 students are enrolled with the petitioner out which more than 70% are domiciled in Delhi and as such petitioner has legitimate expectations that they can choose the respondent university. He would rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:-