Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.77 seconds)Section 8 in The All India Council For Technical Education Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The All India Council For Technical Education Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Etc. Etc vs Adhiyaman Educational & Research ... on 24 March, 1995
There is no power
vested in the State under any State Law to grant approval and even if it
was so vested, it would have been void in view of Tamil Nadu case. This
ground of repugnancy alone would be sufficient to quash the State
Government's letter dated 16.8.1996 refusing to give their approval. Even
on merits, the reasons given by the State Government in its counter are not
tenable in law. The Director of Technical Education of the State was a
member of the State Level Committee as per regulation 9(4) of the AICTE
Regulations. The Secretary, Technical Education of the State of Kerala was
also a member of that Committee. The AICTE's approval dated 30.4.95 showed
that the approval had been given by the State Level Com-mittee of which
they were obviously members. It is, therefore, not under-standable how the
Director had given a contrary opinion to the State Government. Regulation
8(4) of AICTE only required calling for the "com-ments/recommendations" of
the State Government and of the University. In case, there was difference
between the State Government, University or the Regional Committee the
Central Task Force was to make a final recommen-dation under Regulation
8(4). Here the letter of approval of the AICTE dated 30.4.95 showed that
the Central Task Force had given its approval. The said approval was based
also on the inspection by the Expert Committee of the AICTE. Hence the
State Government in its counter, could not have relied upon any contrary
opinion of the Director of Technical Education. If the State Government had
any other valid objections, its only remedy was to place its objections
before the AICTE Council under the AICTE Act or before the Committees, e.g.
State Level Committee etc.
The so called 'policy' of the State as mentioned in the counter affidavit
filed in the High Court was not a ground for refusing approval.