Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. CWP 11923 OF 2001.

Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is running amongst others a self-financed Engineering College at Jagadhri known as the Haryana Engineering College. This college is running since the year 1998-99. Petitioner applied for approval to AICTE for establishing a new technical institution under the name and style of Haryana Institute of Information Technology and Management, Jagadhri for starting a new course called the Masters in Computer Application (MCA) with effect from the academic year 2001-2002. By letter dated 28.6.01, AICTE conveyed its approval to the petitioner for the establishment of the new college for the MCA course with an intake capacity of 40 students. This course is a three years full time day programme at the degree level. The approval was granted subject to the condition that admissions would be made only through centra! counseling by the Government of Haryana and in accordance with the regulations notified by AICTE as laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishana J.P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. JT 1993 (1) SC 474 and that the Management will not admit students directly in an circumstances. The approval was only for one academic session 2001-02 and it was stipulated in the letter of approval that before the end of the academic session an expert committee would visit the institution to assess if the norms and standards as stipulated by AICTE were being fulfilled and it will be only then that the continuation or otherwise would be intimated. It was further stipulated that in the event of any infringement/contravention or non-compliane of the provisions of the regulations, guidelines or norms and standards as prescribed by AICTE, the approval would be withdrawn. A copy of the letter of approval was endorsed to the Director, Technical Education, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh for information and necessary action. A copy had also been endorsed to the Registrar, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra '(for short the University) with a request that it should complete the process of affiliation in order to facilitate the admissions. It may be mentioned that before issuing the letter of approval, AICTE had issued on A'pril 20, 2001 a letter of viability to the petitioner informing the latter that its proposal for the establishment of a new technical institution had been found to be acceptable based on the details furnished in the application from and on the basis of the recommendations made by the concerned authorities. The petitioner was required to comply with certain procedural formalities which it did. Immediately on receipt of the letter of viability the petitioner addressed a tetter dated April 27, 2001 to the Director, Technical Education, Haryana, requesting him to issue the necessary 'no objection certificate' of the State Government so that the institution could start functioning with effect from the academic session 2001-02. Similarly, a letter was addressed to the Dean of Colleges of the University with a request that affiliation be granted to the new college set up by the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not get any response, it made a representation to the University on 6.8.2001 stating therein that it had got approval from AICTE to start a new MCA course under the name and style of Haryana Institute of Information Technology and Management with an intake capacity of 40 students and that a copy of the letter of approval had been sent to the state government and to the University to complete the process of affiliation. It was also pointed out that counseling for admissions to the course for the academic session 2001-02 was to start from 16.8.2001 and, therefore, a request was made that students be selected fro admission to the new college as well set up by the petitioner. It would be pertinent to mention here that admissions to the MCA course for the academic session 2001-02 for all the institutions in the State of Haryana were made by the University which undertook counseling of students on the basis of a common entrance test as ordered to be held by the State of Haryana. In spite of the representation made by the petitioner, the University did not include the name of Haryana Institute for Information Technology and Management (the new college set up by the petitioner) for counselling and it was then that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed challenging the action of the University and the State Government in not granting the affiliation and the 'no objection certificate', respectively. A prayer was made to direct the University to include the name of the petitioner institution as well for counselling so that students could be selected for admission to the course to be run by it (petitioner) for the academic session 2001-02.

6. We have heard counsel for the parties.

7. When this petition came up for hearing on 4.9.01, the learned Deputy Advocate General strenuously urged before us that the State Government and the University which is the attiliating University in the present case, were not consulted by AICTE before granting approval to petitioner for establishing a new college for the MCA course. He also contended that the petitioner's institution does not possess the requisite infrastructure and, therefore, AICTE was not justified in granting approval. It was argued that had the State Government or the affiliating University been consulted they would have pointed out the lack of facilities in the petitioner's institution. Sh. M.L.Sarin, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently refuted the contentions advanced by the State counsel and the learned counsel appearing for AICTE also supported Sh. Sarin in this regard. They contended that the petitioner has the necessary infrastructure and the AICTE had sent its inspection team of experts on 1.6.2001 which found that the petitioner possessed the requisite infrastructure facilities on the basis of which the approval was granted. Since there was a serious dispute between the parties as to whether the petitioner possessed the requisite infrastructure or not, we directed AICTE by our order dated 7.9.2001 to constitute an Expert Committee associating with it the representatives of the State Government and those of the University. We further directed that Committee to make a joint inspection of the petitioner's institution to find out whether it has the necessary infrastructure to start the first year of the three years MCA course for which approval had been granted by AICTE. The committee was directed to submit its report at the earliest. We have received the report and the members of the Expert Committee have unanimously approved the starting of the MCA course with effect from the academic session 2001-02 for 40 seats subject to the fulfilment of the following two conditions:-

(i) Principal must be appointed as per the AICTE/University norms at the earliest.

(ii) At least two journals and few more magazines must be added. After the receipt of this report, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit stating that these conditions have also been complied with. A perusal of the report would show that the petitioner does possess the requisite infrastructure for running the MCA course.

8. Shri Sarin, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the power to grant permission to start a new technical institute vests exclusively with AICTE and that the State Government has no power to refuse a 'no objection certificate' when AICTE has granted approval for starting a new course. He argued that there is no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and, therefore, the University should be directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner's institution for starting the new MCA course. He also impugned the action of the University in not granting affiliation for the new course for which the approval had been granted by AfCTE. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Ors. JT 1995 (3) SC 136 and in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram and Anr. JT 2000 (5) SC 118 and also on a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in RN.Gupta Technical Education Society, Gurgaon v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2000(4) RSJ 322. We have carefully gone through these judgments and are of the view that they fully support the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. In Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute's case (supra), the State Government in the year 1984 permitted private managements to start new engineering colleges under the self-financing scheme in pursuance to which the respondent therein was granted permission by order dated 9.6.1987 to start a new engineering college beginning with the academic year 1987-88. On the basis of this permission the respondent therein applied to the concerned University for granting affiliation to the college. Temporary affiliation was granted for the academic year 1987-88 and the college started functioning from July, 1987. The affiliation was extended for the academic year 1988-89. A high power committee set up by the State Government visited the private engineering colleges in the State and found that the respondent therein had not fulfilled the conditions imposed by the Government at the time of grant of permission. On receipt of this report, the Director of Technical Education issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why the permission granted be not withdrawn. The University also accepted the report and resolved to reject the request of the respondent for provisional affiliation for the academic year 1989-90 and issued a notice to show cause why the affiliation granted for the earlier two years be not cancelled. It was then that the management filed two writ petitions in the High Court one for restraining the Director of Technical Education from proceeding further with his show cause notice and the other to quash the resolution of the University Syndicate cancelling the affiliation and for a direction to grant the same. By the time the impugned orders therein were passed the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short the Central Act) had come into force. A leaned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Court allowed the writ petition against the State Government holding that after the passing of the Central Act the State Government had no power to cancel the permission granted to the Trust which power was exclusively with AICTE. The other writ petition directed against the University was dismissed holding that the latter could take action under its Statutes framed under the Madras University Act, 1923. All the parties preferred appeals against the judgment of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench allowed that writ appeal of the respondent and quashed the resolution of the University Syndicate holding that even the University could not refuse extension of affiliation. The other findings of the learned single Judge were affirmed. The matter was then taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and their Lordships affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench holding that AICTE was the only authority which could cancel the permission granted to a college after the coming into force of the Central Act and the provisions of the State Act which were repugnant to the Central Act were void to that extent, it was also held that Madras University Act which gave power to the University to disaffiliate institutions imparting technical education was in conflict with the Central Act and was void to that extent.

13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the University directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner's institution. The students who were selected for admission have already been admitted under the orders of this Court and the course has commenced. The university will now grant affiliation to the new MCA college so that the students admitted can take the examination according to the rules governing the same.

CWPs 11924 & 11925 of 2001.

14. In these cases also the petitioners were granted approval by AICTE for establishing new MCA colleges for the academic year 2001-02 and the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (MDU) declined affiliation to those colleges because the State Government had not issued a 'no objection certificate'.