Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

35. Primacy of AICTE on the question of giving approval to a technical institution and subsequent monitoring thereof have been discussed in the cases of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (supra) and Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Others (supra). But in these two cases, the question of inter-se primacy between the rival regulatory bodies covering the same subject did not arise. (1995) 4 SCC 104 (2018) 1 SCC 468 (2013) 3 SCC 385 (2014) 16 SCC 330 In the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra), the dispute was on the question as to whether shifting of location of college running courses on technical education could be effected without obtaining a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the AICTE. The Handbook of Approval Process, 2008 provides for obtaining NOCs from the State Government, UT administration and affiliating bodies concerned with the AICTE as per laid down procedure subject to the fulfilment of norms and standards of AICTE. The college concerned had changed location without adhering to the aforesaid procedure and it was held by this Court in that decision that withdrawal of approval by the AICTE was valid, there being no compliance with the legal requirements and binding conditions of recognition, inter-alia, by the AICTE. The lis in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (supra) arose out of a dispute pertaining to service conditions of engineers including junior engineers of the said Corporation. In that case, a diploma holder in electrical engineering had joined the Corporation as junior engineer (electrical) and while in service he acquired B.Tech. (Civil) degree from a deemed university. The said deemed university did not have approval of the AICTE. That University had started its distance education programme without taking approval from any of the regulatory authorities including University Grants Commission (UGC) and AICTE. In this decision also, judgment in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra) was taken note of. It was however held that deemed universities, whose courses were subject of dispute in the aforesaid cases were required to abide by the provisions of the AICTE Regulations and could not introduce courses leading to award of degrees in engineering without the approval of AICTE.

“52. The italicised portions from the said (2013) 8 SCC 271 decision in Parshvanath Charitable Trust case [Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2013) 3 SCC 385] referred to supra would make it clear that the AICTE Act does not contain any evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy the authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies which they are assigned to perform. Further, the AICTE Act does not intend to be an authority either superior or to supervise or control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon the said universities merely for the reason that it is laying down certain teaching standards in technical education or programmes formulated in any of the department or units. 
In      that    background,      this     Court
in Bharathidasan                     University

case [Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8 SCC 676] made it very clear by making the observation that it has examined the scope of the enactment as to whether the AICTE Act prevails over the UGC Act or the fact of competent entries fall in List I Entry 66 vis- à-vis List III Entry 25 of Schedule VII of the Constitution.

53. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of Bharathidasan University case [Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8 SCC 676] which are extracted above makes it very clear that this Court has exempted universities, its colleges, constituent institutions and units from seeking prior approval from AICTE. Also, from the reading of paras 19 and 20 of Parshvanath Charitable Trust case [Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2013) 3 SCC 385] it is made clear after careful scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing guidance and has no authority empowering it to issue or enforce any sanctions by itself.

54. It is rightly pointed out from the affidavit filed by UGC as directed by this Court in these cases on the question of affiliated col- leges to the university, that the affidavit is very mechanical and it has simply and gra- tuitously without foundation, added as tech- nical institutions including affiliated colleges without any legal foundation. Paras 13, 14, 15 and 19 of the affidavit filed by UGC and the assertion made in Para 23 is without any factual foundation, which reads as under:

“That it is further submitted that affiliated colleges are distinct and different than the constituent colleges. Thus, it cannot be said that constituent colleges also include affiliated colleges.” Further, the assertion of UGC as rightly pointed out by Dr Dhavan in the written submission filed on behalf of the appellant in CA No. 1145 of 2004 that the claim that UGC does not have any provision to grant approval of technical institution, is facile as it has already been laid down by this Court that the AICTE norms can be applied to the affiliated colleges through UGC. It can only advise UGC for formulating the standards of education and other aspects to UGC. In view of the law laid down in Bharathidasan University [Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8 SCC 676] and Parshvanath Charitable Trust [Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2013) 3 SCC 385] cases, the learned Senior Counsel Dr Dhavan has rightly submitted for rejection of the affidavit of UGC, which we have to accept as the same is without any factual foundation and also contrary to the intent and object of the Act.”