Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

III. The petitioner's grounds of challenge

3. Responding to the specific areas of deficiencies, the learned Senior Counsel would point out that there had been adequate number of teachers and affidavits of the teachers and students have been furnished. The alleged deficiency noted that no classes were being held was on a wrong understanding that on the particular day of inspection, the students of the 4th years had not been present when they were actually on an education tour and documentary proof had also been furnished. The mistake that was pointed out that the list of teachers furnished was not true by the observation that some of the students had not even identified the teachers was on account of the fact that just about the time of inspection, some teachers had been kept under suspension following a complaint of sexual assault on a student by one teacher and disciplinary action taken against him. The new appointments that had been made had not taken charge yet and that was the reason why the students were not familiar with the new appointees. It was also pointed out that even a complaint that the faculty was not fully qualified, was not correct since both as regards the number and qualification they were better off and in any event not worse than the teachers who had been appointed and the qualifications that were held by persons employed as teachers in the colleges run by at least three of the members of the Council. The attempt was to show that the Council was showing unfair discrimination and the action discrediting the quality of faculty was motivated and brought out on mala fide actions of members of the Council. On a legal aspect, even apart from the factual matters for which the petitioner was entering a contest, the contention was that an inspection carried out in the year 2012 that yielded to a report that the institute had all the necessary infrastructure and there was a recommendation for an increased intake only as late as on 07.06.2012, there was no scope for an inspection immediately even within a year and withdrawing the recognition. The Council had no power to withdraw any recognition and it was contrary to terms of the Architects Act of 1972. For any defect or deficiencies noted by the Council, it could only make its recommendation to the Government and the Union Government alone has a power to withdraw the recognition granted to the institute. The institute is affiliated with the Kurukshetra University and the University had carried out its inspection and had allowed for the continuation of affiliation and the Council had no jurisdiction to withdraw the approval granted to the institute.

IV. The Union of India fully supports petitioner's prayer

4. The Union's stand has literally supported the petitioner's case in toto and has also stated that the writ petition could be allowed. The Central Government had made an issue about the impermissibility of the Council to act through the order and has made pointed reference to Section 14(1) of the Architects Act and the procedure prescribed under Section 19(2) to state that a Bachelor's degree of Architecture awarded by Indian Universities established under the Act only are the recognized qualifications and when the petitioner's college is affiliated with the Kurukshetra University and grants a B. Arch degree, the qualification obtained through the college is to be treated as recognized qualification for the purpose of the Act. The inspection by the Council under the Act could be only for the purpose of determining the adequacy of standards and the Executive Committee on obtaining a report from the inspector could only send the report to the Central Government but no report had been received by the Central Government in respect of the petitioner college. The question of reducing or forbidding admission by an institute or college which grants architectural qualifications as per entry 1 under the Schedule as laid down under Section 14 of the Act simply does not arise and the Executive Committee had actually overstepped its powers in stopping of admission or closing down the college.

8. It would be seen that Section 19 deals with the power of inspection and Section 20 deals with report of the Executive Committee after such inspection. Section 20 also contains provisions for an inspection which could be done to test the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination and adequacy of staff, equipment, accommodation etc. If the college or institution does not conform to the standards, the Council would be competent to make a representation to the appropriate Government. It would seem that the recommendations will be taken at different hierarchical tiers, such as when the appropriate Government receives the recommendations, it should consider the same and forward the same with its remarks to the college with intimation of the period within which the college may offer an explanation and the State will not itself take any decision thereon but it will make its own recommendations to the Central Government. It will then be the Central Government which will consider the enquiry, recommendations and the explanations and may take a decision regarding an entry that shall be made in the institute against the architectural education imparted by such college. Since the Schedule to the Act contains the list of Universities from various countries that can qualify the Architects, an entry in the schedule against an institute would have an immediate effect of withdrawal of recognition of the institute itself. It must be noticed that the Schedule read with Section 14 does not talk about the recognition or approval of the Council but it refers to the qualifications included in the schedule or notified under Section 15 shall be recognised qualifications for the purpose of the Act and the first entry is the Bachelor Degree of Architecture awarded by Indian Universities established by an Act of the Central or the State Legislature. The affiliation of an institute to University secures to itself its legitimacy and the Council's power would, therefore, be seen as recommendatory in the sense that it would draw up the entire scheme of the standards of education. This is done through regulations. The power to make such regulations is brought under Section 45 of the Architects Act. Section 45 reads thus:-

15. The respondent himself refers to a decision in Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House College of Architecture and others Vs. Union of India and others in CWP No.5942 of 2004 decided on 08.09.2004 that examined the question whether All India Council of Technical Education Act overrides the provisions of Architects Act of 1972 in manner of regulating the norms and standards of architectural education. The Court held that role of AICTE shall be advisory in its character and the provisions of the Architects Act must prevail over the AICTE Act. As regards the matter of prohibition and regulating the norms and standards of architectural institutions, we do not have literally a tussle between AICTE and the Council and if this judgment has any relevance, it is only to the effect that the Council has pre-eminent power to prescribe the norms and standards of education and it would secure enforcement of its norms. I have no difficulty in assigning to the Council a pre-eminent role in prescribing norms and ensuring that the norms are duly complied with. The issue is only whether a Council that finds that norms are not duly complied could itself escalate the issue for de-recognition or withdrawal of approval for admissions.