Supreme Court of India
ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE COLLEGES,versusALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 278
- Decided
- 25 April 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
AICTE's jurisdiction over universities and their affiliated colleges is limited to an advisory role; the definition of technical institution excludes universities and their affiliates, MCA is technical education but does not require AICTE approval, MBA is not technical education, and the 2000 amended regulations are void for non‑compliance with Section 24.
Summary
The Association of Management of Private Colleges, whose members are colleges affiliated to Bharathidasan University and Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, filed writ petitions seeking to bar the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) from exercising jurisdiction over their MBA and MCA programmes. The High Court held that AICTE approval was required for the MCA course and that the colleges, though affiliated, fell within the definition of "technical institution". On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the AICTE Act, the UGC Act, and the definition of technical institution, concluding that universities and their affiliated colleges are excluded from AICTE's direct control and that AICTE's role is merely advisory. The Court held that MCA qualifies as technical education but AICTE approval is not mandatory, while MBA does not fall within technical education. It also ruled that AICTE's amended regulations inserting MBA and MCA were void for not being laid before Parliament as required by Section 24. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeals, granting relief that the colleges need not obtain AICTE approval for MBA and MCA courses.
Issues considered
- Whether colleges affiliated to universities are covered by the definition of "technical institution" under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and whether AICTE has supervisory control over them.
- Whether the MCA (Master of Computer Applications) course constitutes "technical education" under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act.
- Whether the MBA (Master of Business Administration) course constitutes "technical education" under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act.
- Whether AICTE's amended Regulations of 2000 inserting MBA and MCA before Architecture and Hotel Management courses are valid despite not being placed before Parliament as mandated by Section 24 of the AICTE Act.
- Whether AICTE can enforce its regulations on affiliated colleges of universities.
- Whether the precedents set in Bharathidasan University v. AICTE, Parashavananth Charitable Trust v. AICTE, and related cases apply to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987s. 10(k), s. 23, s. 24, s. 2(g), s. 2(h)
- Constitution of Indias. Article 254, s. Entry 25 List III, s. Entry 66 List I
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 12, s. 12A, s. 13, s. 14, s. 25, s. 26, s. 2(f)
Subjects
AICTEUGCtechnical educationaffiliated collegesMCAMBAstatutory interpretationuniversity autonomyregulatory authority
Judgment
(2013] 6 S.C.R. 1054
A ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE
COLLEGES
v.
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION &
ORS.
s (Civil Appeal No. 1145 of 2004)
APRIL 25, 2013
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]
C All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
ss.2(h), 10, 11, 12 and 13- Technical education imparted by
Universities and their affiliated colleges - Status of the
affiliated colleges - Purview of definition of "technical
institution" - Role of A/GTE - Held: The role of the inspection
D conferred upon the A/GTE vis-a-vis Universities is limited to
the purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms and
standards in the technical education system so as to conform
to the standard laid down by it with no further or direct control
over such Universities or scope for any direct action except
E bringing it to the notice of UGC - Role of A/GTE vis-a-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 - Colleges affiliated
to University/Universities are part of them and the exclusion
F of University in the definition of technical institution as defined
in s.2(h) of the A/GTE Act must be extended to the affiliated
colleges also - Provisions of AICTE Act are to be
implemented through UGC as Universities and its affiliated
colleges are all governed by provisions of the said Act u/s.12A
of the UGC Act read with Rules Regulations framed by the
G UGC in exercise of its power ulss.25 and 26 of the said Act -
Autonomy of the University is recognized and the object and
intendment of the Parliament in excluding the Universities
from the definition of technical institution as defined uls.2(h)
H 1054
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1055
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU.
of the A/GTE Act makes this explicitly clear- The powers and A
functions conferred for controlling and regulating the
universities and its affiliated colleges has been explicitly
conferred upon the UGC - University Grants Commission Act,
1956- s.12A rlw ss.25 and 26.
B
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
s.2(g) - Technical education - Course in Computer
Applications at post graduation level (MCA) - Contention
raised on behalf of the A/GTE that technical education
includes MCA - Held: Stands to its reasoning and logic in C
view of the nature of MCA course imparted to the students at
post graduation level by the institutions, constituent colleges
--t
and affiliated colleges to the Universities - Meanings of the
words 'technology' and 'engineering' as per the dictionaries
clearly show that MCA also comes within the definition of
technology - The same is technical education and therefore, D
comes within the definition of technical education but for its
proper conduct of courses and regulation, the role of A/GTE
must be advisory and for the same, a note shall be given to
the UGC for its implementation by it but not the A/GTE
E
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
s.2(g) - Course in Management at post-graduate level (MBA)
- If 'technical education' uls.2(g) of the A/GTE Act - Non-
production of any material by the A/GTE to show that MBA
course is technical education - Held: MBA course is not a F
technical course within definition of the A/GTE Act - Reasons
assigned for MCA course being 'technical education' does not
hold for MBA course - Approval from the A/GTE not required
for obtaining permission and running MBA course by the
appellant colleges.
G
A/I India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987- s.24
- A/GTE Regulations - Amended regulation introduced by
A/GTE in exercise of its power u/s. 10(k) of the A/GTE Act -
However, amended Regulation not placed before the
Parliament as mandatorily required as per s.24 of the A/GTE H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Act - Effect - Held: If the Statute prescribes a particular
procedure to do an act in a particular way, that act must be
done in that manner, otherwise it is not at all done - Non-
placing of the amended Regulations on the floor of the
Houses of the Parliament as required u/s.24 of the A/GTE Act
B vitiated the amended Regulations in law - Administrative Law.
Writ petition was filed by the appellant association of
colleges seeking relief to prohibit the All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE) from exercising its
jurisdiction over its' member colleges (affiliated to
C Bharathidasan University or Manonmaniam Sundaranar
University) with reference to the Master of Business
Administration (MBA) and Master of Computer
Applications (MCA) courses conducted by them. The writ
petition was dismissed by the single Judge of the High
D Court holding that the All India Council for Technical
Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act) and the AICTE
Regulations were enforceable against the member
colleges of the appellant Association. Writ appeal filed
thereagainst was also dismissed.
E
Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court
interpreted the provisions of the AICTE Act and held that
even though the University concerned was not required
to take permission from the AICTE, its affiliated colleges
F were required to do so; and further that the appellant
colleges should get its course of Master of Computer
Applications (MCA) ratified by AICTE as per the
prescribed format.
In the instant appeals, therefore, the following
G questions of law arose for consideration:-
(1) Whether the colleges affiliated to the University
concerned comes within the purview of
exclusion of the definition of "Technical
H Institution" as defined under Section 2(h) of
ASSON. OF MAGMT OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1057
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU.
the AICTE Act, 1987; and whether the AICTE A
has got the control and supervision upon the
affiliated colleges of the respective universities
of the member colleges of the appellant in
C.A.No.1145/2004 and the appellants in
connected appeals? B
(2) Whether the MCA course be construed as
technical education in terms of definition
under section 2(g) of the AICTE Act?
(3) Whether the Regulation B(c) and B(iv) of the C
AICTE Regulations by way of amendment in
the year 2000 inserting the words 'MBA and
MCA' before Architecture and Hotel
Management courses is applicable to the
concerned colleges of the appellants; and D
whether non placement of the amended
Regulations before Houses of the Parliament
as required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act
is vitiated in law?
E
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. 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 F
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 G
formulated in any of the department or units. While
enacting the AICTE Act, the Parliament was fully alive to
the existence of the provisions of UGC Act, 1956. Special
care has consciously and deliberately been taken to
make specific mention of university, wherever and H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A whenever the AICTE alone was expected to interact with
university and its departments as well as constituent
institutions and units. The role of the inspection
conferred upon the AICTE vis-a-vis universities is limited
to the purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms
B and standards in the technical education system so as
to conform to the standard laid down by it with no further
or direct control over such universities or scope for any
direct action except bringing it to the notice of UGC. The
role of AICTE vis-a-vis universities is only advisory,
c recommendatory and one of providing guidance and has
no authority empowering it to issue or enforce any
sanctions by itself. It can only advise the UGC for
formulating the standard of education and other aspects
to the UGC. AICTE norms can be applied to the affiliated
colleges through UGC. [Para 38] [1108-E-H; 1109-A-C, F;
0
1110-C]
1.2. It is also relevant to refer to the exclusion of
university from the definition of 'technical institution' as
defined under section 2(h) of the AICTE Act. The
E Institution means an institution not being university, the
applicability of bringing the university as defined under
clause 2 (f) of UGC Act includes the institution deemed
to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act and
therefore the affiliated colleges are excluded from the
F purview of technical institution definition of the AICTE
Act. Section 12A of the UGC Act clearly speaks of
regulation of fees and provisions of donation in certain
cases which refers to the phrase affiliation together with
its grammatical variation included in relation to a college,
G recognition of such college by, association of such
college with, and admission of such college to the
privileges of universities. A careful reading of sub-
sections (2)(c), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 12A of the UGC
Act makes it abundantly clear about colleges which are
H required to be affiliated to run the courses for which
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1059
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU.
sanction/approval will be accorded by the university or A
under the control and supervision of such universities.
Therefore, affiliated colleges to the university/universities
are part of them and the exclusion of university in the
definition of technical institution as defined in Section 2(h)
of the AICTE Act must be extended to the affiliated B
colleges to the university also, otherwise, the object and
purpose of the UGC Act enacted by the Parliament will
be defeated. The enactment of UGC Act is also traceable
to Entry 66 of List I. The role of the AICTE Act is only
advisory in nature and is confined to submitting report c
or giving suggestions to the UGC for the purpose of
implementing its suggestions to maintain good standards
in technical education in terms of definition under
Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and to see that there shall
be uniform education standard throughout the country
D
to be maintained which is the laudable object of the
AICTE Act for which it is enacted by the Parliament. The
provisions of the AICTE Act shall be implemented through
the UGC as the universities and its affiliated colleges are
all governed by the provisions of the said Act under
Section 12A of the UGC Act read with Rules Regulations E
that will be framed by the UGC in exercise of its power
under Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act. The autonomy
of the university is recognized and the object and
intendment of the Parliament in excluding the universities
from the definition of technical institution as defined F
under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act makes this explicitly
clear, after scanning the definition of education institution
with reference to the exclusion of universities and
Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the AICTE Act. The powers
and functions conferred for controlling and regulating the G
universities and its affiliated colleges has been explicitly
conferred upon the UGC. Hence, it has been given the
power to regulate such universities and regulations in
relation to granting sanctions/approvals and also
maintaining educational standards and over-seeing the H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A prescription of the fee structure including the admission
of students in various courses and programmes that will
be conducted by the university and its institutions,
constituent colleges, units and the affiliated colleges.
[Paras 39, 40] (1110-E-H; 1111-A-G; 1116-G-H; 1117-A-D]
B Bharathidasan University & Anr. v. A/GTE & Ors. (2001)
8 SCC 676: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 253 - held applicable.
Unni Krishnan J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. 1993 (1) SCC 645: 1993 (1) SCR 594- held overruled.
C TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Kamataka (2002) 8 SCC
481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 - followed.
Parashavananth Charitable Trust & Ors. v. A/GTE 2013
(3) sec 385 - relied on.
D State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Education and
Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104: 1995 (2) SCR 1075
and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and
Secretary to Government High Education Department,
Thiruvananthapuram (2000) 5 SCC 231: 2000 (2) SCR 1234
E - distinguished.
2.1. The meanings of the words 'technology' and
'engineering' as per the dictionaries would clearly go to
show that MCA also comes within the definition of
technology. Therefore, the contention that technical
F education includes MCA as raised on behalf of the AICTE
stand to its reasoning and logic in view of the nature of MCA
course which is being imparted to the students at post
graduation level which is being conducted by the
institutions, constituent colleges and affiliated colleges to
G the universities. The same is a technical education and
therefore, it comes within the definition of technical
education but for its proper conduct of courses and
regulation the role of AICTE must be advisory and for the
same, a note shall be given to the UGC for its
H implementation by it but not the AICTE. [Para 42] [1120-E-G]
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1061
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU.
2.2. As per definition of 'technical education' under A
Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act and non production of any
material by the AICTE to show that MBA course is a
technical education, it is held that MBA course is not a
technical course within the definition of the AICTE Act
and insofar as reasons assigned for MCA course being B
'technical education', the same does not hold for MBA
course. Therefore, approval from the AICTE is not
required for obtaining permission and running MBA
course by the appellant colleges. [Para 43] [1120-H; 1121-
A-B] C
Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary; Wharton's Law
Lexicon; Encyclopedia Law Lexicon; The New Shorter Oxford
English dictionary and Advanced Law Lexicon - referred to.
3. The amended Regulation Nos. S(c) and S(iv) of D
2000 were introduced by the AICTE in exercise of its
power under section 1O(k) of AICTE Act by adding the
MBA and MCA courses within the purview of the
provisions of AICTE as it is included in the Regulation as
a technical education. However, the amended Regulation E
has not been placed before the Parliament which is
mandatory as per the provisions of Section 24 of the
AICTE Act. The position of law is well settled· that if the
Statute prescribes a particular procedure to do an act in
a particular way, that act must be done in that manner, F
otherwise it is not at all done. Not placing .the amended
Regulations on the floor of the Houses of 'Parliament as
required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act vitiates the
amended Regulations in law. [Para 44] [1121-C-E; 1122-
A-B, F] G
Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kera/a 1999 (3) SCC
422: 1999 (1) SCR 1121 - relied on.
4. The relief sought for is granted insofar as not to
seek approval from the AICTE for MBA and MCA courses H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A are concerned. [Para 46] [1123-C]
Case Law Reference:
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 253 held applicable Para 1
2013 (3) sec 385 relied on Para 17
B
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 followed Para 18
1995 (2) SCR 1075 distinguished Para 20
2000 (2) SCR 1234 distinguished Para 20
c 1993 (1) SCR 594 held overruled Para 39
1999 (1) SCR 1121 relied on Para 44
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1145 of 2004.
D
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.11.2003 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 2652 of 2001.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 5736-5745 of 2004
E
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Rakesh Dwivedi, V. Balachandran,
Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Sumeet Sharma,
Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant, C.S. Singh, Gopal Singh, V.G.
Pragasam, S. Thananjayan, Navin Prakash for the appearing
F parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. The appellants filed these civil
appeals questioning the correctness of the common judgment
G and order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the High Court of
judicature at Madras in W.A. 2652 of 2001, W.A. No. 3090 of
2001, WA 2835 of 2001, WA 3087 of 2001, WA 2836 of 2001,
WA 3091 of 2001, WA 3092 of 2001, WA 2837 of 2001, WA
3088 of 2001, WA 2838 of 2001 and WA 3089 of 2001,
H dismissing the writ appeals thereby affirming the dismissal of
ASSON. OF MAGMT OF PVT COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1063
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
writ petitions by wrongly interpreting the provisions of All India A
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short AICTE Act)
and held that even though the University is not required to take
permission from the All India Council for Technical Education
(for short AICTE), its affiliated colleges are required to do so.
Further, the High Court has held, while dismissing the writ B
appeals, that the appellant colleges should get its course of
MCA ratified by AICTE as per the prescribed format which
according to the appellants herein is in contravention of settled
principles of interpretation of Statutes and also runs contrary
to the law laid down by this Court in case of Bharathidasan c
University & Anr. Vs. A/GTE & Ors'.
2. Certain relevant facts in relation to the appeals are
stated hereunder:-
The appellant colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu are D
running Arts and Science courses. Most of them are affiliated
to Bharathidasan University and some of them are affiliated to
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The member colleges
of the appellant in C.A.No.1145 of 2004 and the appellants in
the connected appeals are running MCA course which have so E
far not obtained the approval of the AICTE. According to the
information placed before the Court by the AICTE, as of the
academic year 2001-2002, there were 865 institutions in the
country offering 40,792 seats for the MCA course which had
the approval of the AICTE. Within the State of Tamil Nadu the F
number of institutions which have received such approval are
208. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated
that apart from the member colleges of the first appellant and
colleges of the second appellant, all other institutions offering
MCA have obtained the approval of the AICTE.
G
3. Regulations 1994 have been prescribed in Form II which
is in terms of Regulation 5(2)(b) and were framed pursuant to
Section 1O(k) of the AICTE Act for grant of approval to the
1. (2001) a sec 675. H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A colleges who have started new technical institutions,
introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake
capacity of seats for the courses or programmes. Form II is
titled "Application for Existing lnstitution(s) seeking AICTE
approval without additional course(s) and/or additional intake(s)
B in engineering/technology, architecture, pharmacy, applied arts,
etc."
4. In the 1997, Regulation 2(2) framed by the AICTE was
added by way of an amendment to the 1994 Regulations,
providing that the regulations are not applicable inter alia, to
C the proposals relating to post graduate courses for MBA, MCA
or equivalent.
5. On 16.8.2000, the aforesaid sub-regulation (2) was
deleted and the said courses were added in Regulation 8(c)
D enabling the AICTE to prescribe the land and deposit
requirements even in respect of Arts and Science Colleges
having MBA or MCA courses.
6. On 3.3.2001, a communication was sent by the AICTE
E to the member colleges of the appellant in C.A. No.1145 of
2004 in respect of its proposal to commence MCA course
requiring the colleges to furnish information regarding the
proposed land and building. On 14.3.2001, a writ petition was
filed by the appellant's association seeking relief to prohibit the
AICTE from in any way exercising its jurisdiction over its
F member colleges with reference to the MBA and MCA courses
conducted by them. The said writ petition was dismissed by
the learned single Judge holding that the AICTE Act and
Regulations are enforceable against the said member colleges
of the appellant, against which the Association had filed writ
G appeal. The same came to be dismissed by affirming the
judgment of the learned single Judge by passing impugned
common judgment which is under challenge in CA No.1145 of
2004.
H 6(a) So far as the facts in the connected appeals are
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1065
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
concerned, they are stated in brief as under: A
The colleges run by the appellants in the connected
appeals are affiliated to Bharathidasan University and it has
approved the courses and programmes which are being
conducted by the said colleges including MCA and MBA. The B
AICTE Regulation is applicable to professional colleges only
that to from academic year 1994. There is no provision for
existing arts and science colleges which are running MCA
courses. The letter dated 31.5.2000 from the AICTE was
received by Bharathidasan University wherein it was mentioned C
that no admission should be made by the competent
authorities in unapproved or unrecognized professional colleges
from the academic year 1994. Some of the colleges filed writ
petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging
the letter dated 31.5.2000 being ultravires of the AICTE Act
itself. The High Court passed an interim order dated 20.7.2000 D
staying the direction of the AICTE as contained in its letter
dated 31.5.2000. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
AICTE amended regulations vide notification dated 16.8.2000.
By the said amendment it deleted the earlier amendment of
1997 in which MCA course was not within the purview of the E
AICTE Act. Through the said amendment MCA course was
conspicuously added in Rule 8(c) of the Regulations. By virtue
of the said amendment, the AICTE claimed that it has got
powers to check and regulate the MCA course. The High Court
of Madras after hearing some of the appellant colleges quashed F
the letter dated 31.5.2000 of the AICTE. However, the High
Court left it open to the appellant colleges to challenge the vires
of the amended AICTE Regulation vide order dated
22.11.2000.
G
The appellant colleges preferred writ petitions in the High
Court of Madras challenging the amended Regulation dated
16.8.2000 mainly on the ground that it is ultra vires to the AICTE
Act as the MCA course which are being run by the appellants
colleges do not fall under the definition of technical education
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A as contained in Section 2(g) of the Act and it was also
challenged on the ground that since the amended Regulation
has not been placed before the Houses of Parliament for
approval they cannot be enforced.
The aforesaid appeals are filed framing certain questions
8
of law which are mentioned hereunder:-
(a) Whether the colleges affiliated to University are
obliged to take separate permission/approval from
the AICTE to run classes in Technical Courses in
c which the affiliated university of the colleges is not
required to obtain any permission/approval under
the AICTE Act itself?
(b) Whether the course leading to a degree of Master
D of Computer Applications is a technical course
within the purview of the definition of 'technical
education' as contained in Section 2(g) of the
AICTE Act as it stands today?
(c) Whether the Courts can read something in a
E Statute, which is not expressly provided in the
language of the Act, and/or insert words and/or
punctuations, which are not there?
(d) Whether the impugned amendment dated
F 16.8.2000 of the 1994 Regulations would not take
effect without the same being placed before the
Parliament?
(e) Whether the Rules or Regulations made under an
Act can override or enlarge the provisions of the
G Act?
7. In support of the aforesaid questions of law, the learned
senior counsel and other counsel on behalf of the appellants
have urged the following legal contentions:-
H
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1067
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.)
The High Court has erred in holding that even though the A
University is not required to take permission of the AICTE to
start or run a course of technical nature, the colleges affiliated
to the University/Universities cannot claim such a right. This
interpretation is not the correct legal position for the reason that
when the Universities are exempted from taking permission/ B
approval from the AICTE, the High Court in view of the law laid
down in Bharathidasan University's case (supra) could not have
held that the colleges affiliated to their respective universities
which are imparting tuition to the students under them by
conducting courses are required to take permission or approval c
from the AICTE.
8. It is further contended that the colleges who have opened
the courses in question are affiliated to the universities. They
are the controlling authorities with regard to their intake capacity
for each course, the standards to be followed for each course, D
the syllabus of the course, the examination process etc. It is
urged that the High Court has failed to consider the relevant
aspects of the case namely that it is the university/universities
only which awards/confers degree on the students studying the
course in question in their affiliated colleges. Thus, for all intents E
and purposes the courses are being run by the Universities.
9. It is further urged that if the interpretation given by the
High Court with regard to the provisions of the AICTE Act and
Regulations is accepted by this Court, it will run contrary to the F
law laid down by this Court in the Bharathidasan University
case (supra). In this decision, this Court clearly dealt with the
scope and purpose of the University for which it has been
established, the relevant para of which reads as under:-
"2. The Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 created the G
University in question to provide, among other things, for
instruction and training in such branches of learning as it
may determine; to provide for research and for the
advancement and dissemination of knowledge; to institute
degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions; H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A to hold examinations and to confer degrees, titles,
diplomas and other academic distinctions on persons who
have pursued an approved course of study in a university
college or laboratory or in an affiliated or approved college
and have passed the prescribed examinations of the
B University; to confer honorary degrees or other academic
distinction under conditions prescribed; and to institute,
maintain and manage institutes of research, university
colleges and laboratories, libraries, museums and other
institutions necessary to carry out the objects of the
c University etc. In other words, it is a full-fledged University
recognized by the University Grants Commission also."
10. The High Court has noticed that the University was
created under the statute "to provide, among other things, for
rendering instruction and training to their students of the
D affiliated colleges in such branches of learning as it may
determine; to provide for research and for the dissemination
of knowledge; to institute degrees, titles, diplomas and other
academic distinctions on persons who have pursued an
approved course of study in a university college or laboratory
E and have passed the prescribed examination of the university"
in the light of the afore-mentioned judgment pronounced by this
Court.
11. It is clear from the Bharathidasan University Act that
F the colleges affiliated to University impart education in different
courses run by University in which the students have to pass
the prescribed examination of the University for making
themselves eligible for degrees. Therefore, the interpretation
given by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the
colleges affiliated to the University which are imparting
G education to their students on behalf of the University will have
to seek AICTE's approval for technical courses, though such
approval is not required to be obtained by the affiliated collegl:!s
as the same will be contrary to the judgment of this Court
referred to supra.
H
ASSON. OF MAGMT OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1069
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
12. Further, it is contended that the High Court has erred A
in not appreciating that the colleges are affiliated to a
University, which is their controlling authority and has been
established by an Act of State legislature which has given it
suitable powers to regulate the procedure of the affiliated
colleges regarding their education standards, infrastructure, B
examinations etc. This can be noticed by perusing various
provisions of Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 and especially
Section 8, 33 (xvii) and (xviii), 39 and 63, which read as under:-
"8. Visitation- The Chancellor shall have the right to cause C
an inspection or inquiry to be made, by such person or
persons as he may direct, of the University, its buildings,
laboratories, library, museums, workshops and equipment,
and of any institutions maintained, recognized or approved
by, or affiliated to, the University, and also of the
examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done D
by the university and to cause an inquiry to be made in
respect of any matter connected with the University, The
chancellor shall in every case give notice to the University
of his intention to cause such inspection or inquiry to be
made and the university shall be entitled to be represented E
thereat.
33. Statutes- Subject to the provisions of this Act the
statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:- F
(xvii) the conditions of recognition of approved colleges
and of affiliation to the University of affiliated colleges;
G
(xviii) the manner in which, and the conditions subject to
which a college may be designated as an autonomous
college or the designation of such college may be
cancelled and the matters incidental the administration of
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R.
A autonomous colleges including the constitution and
reconstitution, powers and duties of Standing Committee
on Academic Affairs, Staff Council, Boards of Studies and
Boards of Examiners;
B 39. Admission to University examinations.- No
candidate shall be admitted to any University examination
unless he is enrolled as a member of a University college
or a laboratory or of an affiliated or approved college and
has satisfied the requirements as to the attendance
required under the regulations for the same or unless he
c is exempted from such requirements of enrolment or
attendance or both by an order of the Syndicate passed
on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on
Academic Affairs made under the regulations prescribed.
Exemptions granted under this section shall be subject to
D such condition, as the syndicate may think fit.
63. Report on affiliated colleges- The syndicate shall,
at the end of every three years from the notified date,
submit a report to the Government on the condition of
E affiliated and approved colleges within the University area.
The Government shall take such action on it as they deem
fit."
Therefore, the control upon the affiliated colleges of the
F University is vested with the University itself and it cannot be
said that for certain type of courses the control will be with the
AICTE. Further, the High Court has failed to notice the fact that
the University to which the member colleges of the appellants
belong is controlled by the University Grants Commission, which
is a Central Governing Body formed under the Act of
G Parliament known as University Grants Commission Act of
1956, for controlling the affairs of the University recognized by
it. The Bharathidasan University is recognized by the UGC. The
relevant provisions of this Act which cover the said University
and its colleges are Sections 12, 12A, 13 and 14, which will
H be extracted in the relevant paragraphs of this judgment. It is
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1071
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
further urged that the aforesaid provisions would show that the A
UGC provisions for controlling the University are applicable and
analogous to its affiliated colleges also and therefore to carve
out a distinction between the University and its affiliated
colleges and not treating the affiliated colleges as an integral
part of the University in the impugned judgment by the High B
Court is not only erroneous in law but also suffers from error in
law.
13. The High Court has failed to take into consideration
the relevant legal aspect of the cases viz. that the AICTE has C
been given adequate power to inspect the colleges and
University running technical courses, to check the syllabus,
standard of education being imparted in them and their
examination process under Section 10 of the AICTE Act.
14. Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing D
on behalf of the appellant in CA No.1145 of 2004 submits that
the AICTE Act and its Regulations do not apply to University/
Universities or constituent colleges and its institutions but
according to the AICTE the provisions of AICTE Act would
apply to the affiliated colleges of the Universities. He further E
submits that the issues in questions in this case are-
notification of 6th February, 2001 about the governing body of
the member colleges of the appellant Association, notification
of 3rd March, 2001 regarding land area and also pointed out
the other notifications issued by the AICTE covering a wide F
canvas namely notifications issued on 9.9.2002 in relation to
the governing body, staff etc. of the member colleges of the
appellant, notification dated 22.10.2003 regarding the unaided
institutions, notification dated 30.10.2003 regarding salary and
notification dated 28.10.2003 regarding guidelines for common G
entrance test(s) for admission to MCA Programmes in the
country. In contrast, UGC guidelines are issued on 20th
December, 2003 and 29th December, 2003 whereby
instructions were given not to issue the advertisement for
admission and not to conduct any entrance test for admission
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R.
A to professional programmes until they receive the policy
guidelines of the UGC. He submits that the notifications issued
by the AICTE amount to AICTE having control over the colleges
affiliated by the Universities by displacing UGC norms.
15. Further, the learned senior counsel places strong
8
reliance on Bharathidasan University's case (supra) and
contends that the affidavit filed by the UGC does not raise any
issue which has been dealt with by this Court in the
Bharathidasan University's case. He has placed reliance upon
paragraph 8 of the Bharathidasan University's judgment in
C support of his submissions, that though legislative intent finds
specific mention in the provisions of the Act itself, the same
cannot be curtailed by conferring undue importance to the
object underlying the Act particularly, when the AICTE Act does
not contain any evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy
D the authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies, having their
own assigned roles to perform. Further strong emphasis is
placed by him at Paragraph 1O of the Bharathidasan
University's case (supra) wherein this Court, with reference
to the provisions of AICTE Act held that the Act is not intended
E to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control
the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such
universities merely for the reason that it is imparting technical
education or programmes in any of its departments or units.
Further, observations are made after careful scanning of the
F provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act
in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-a-vis the
Universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding
factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining
appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an
G authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by
itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action.
Further, he had placed reliance on Paragraph 12 of the
abovementioned case and contended that the intention of the
Parliament was very clear while enacting the AICTE Act as it
H was fully alive of the existence of the provisions of the UGC Act
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1073
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
which was in full force and its effect and which specifically dealt A
with coordination and determination of standards at university
level of institutions as well as institutions for higher studies.
Further, with reference to definition of "technical institution" as
defined in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, the Parliament has
taken special care to make conspicuous and deliberate mention B
of the universities to highlight wherever and whenever the
AICTE alone was expected to interact with the university, its
departments as well as its constituent institutions. In this regard,
he also placed strong reliance upon Section 12A of the UGC
Act under Chapter Ill which deals with the powers and functions c
of the University Grants Commission. Clause (a) of Section
12A speaks of affiliation with its grammatical variations and
includes in relation to a college, recognition of such college,
Association of such college with admission of such college to
the privileges of a university. Clause (d) speaks of qualification D
which means a degree or any other qualification awarded by
a University. Also strong reliance is placed upon sub-section
(4) 6't Section 12A which authorizes UGC to conduct an inquiry
in the manner provided under the Regulations, if the
Commission is satisfied after providing reasonable opportunity
to such colleges that such college contravenes the provisions E
of sub-section (3) of the above Section of the Act. In such case,
the Commission may, with the previous approval of the Central
Government pass an order prohibiting such college from
presenting any students then undergoing such course of study
therein to any university for the award of the Degree for the F
qualification concerned. Sub-section (5) of Section 12A further
provides for the Commission to forward a copy of the order
made by it under sub-section (4) to the University concerned,
and on and from the date of receipt by the University of a copy
of such order, the affiliation of such college to such University G
shall, in so far as it relates to the course of study specified in
such order, stand terminated and on and from the date of
termination of such affiliation for a period of three years
thereafter affiliation shall not be granted to such college in
relation to such similar course of study by that or any othe
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A University. Sub-Section (6) speaks that in case of termination
of affiliation of any college under sub-section (5), the
Commission shall take all such steps as it may consider
appropriate for safeguarding the interests of the students
concerned. Sub-section (7) further states that regulations made
B for the purpose of the aforesaid provisions of Section 12A of
the UGC Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time
being in force.
C 16. Further, reliance has been placed by him upon Section
128 of the UGC Act which confers power on the Commission
to pass an order of prohibition regarding giving any grant to a
University declared by the Commission not fit to receive such
grant. This provision was inserted in the UGC Act through an
Amendment Act, 1972 (33 of 1972) which came into force on
D 17.6.1972. Further, reliance was also placed upon Section 13
regarding the power of inspection upon the UGC for the
purpose of ascertaining the financial needs of the university or
its standards of teaching, examination and research.
E 17. Dr. Dhavan, learned senior counsel for the appellant
placing reliance upon the aforesaid provisions of the UGC Act,
submits that the provisions of the UGC Act will regulate and
control the functions of the university as defined in terms of
Section 2(f) of the UGC Act and also its affiliated colleges. He
F has placed reliance upon the observations made by this Court
in Para 19 of Parashavananth Charitable Trust & Ors. v.
AICTE2. In the written submission submitted by the appellant's
counsel with reference to UGC affidavit filed in this Court he
has placed reliance upon Para 20 of the case referred to supra
G wherein it is observed by this Court in the said decision that
the AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an
authority either superior to or to supervise and control the
universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such
universities merely for the reason that they are imparting the
H 2. 2013 (3) sec 385.
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1075
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
technical education or programmes in any of their departments A
or units. He further submitted that a careful scanning of the
provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of UGC Act,
1956 in juxtaposition it is observed that the said provision will
show that the role of AICTE with regard,to the university/
universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of 8
providing guidance, to subserve the cause of maintaining
appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an
authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by
itself.·
18. Further, it is stated with reference to the UGC's affidavit C
on the question of affiliated colleges that it is very mechanical;
and is simply gratuitous and without foundation, it adds affiliated
colleges of a university to the definition of technical institution.
Paragraph 23 of its affidavit is without any foundation and it has
stated that the affiliated colleges are distinct and different than D
the constituent colleges of the University, therefore, it cannot be
said that constituent colleges also include affiliated colleges.
The learned senior counsel further submitted that the assertion
made by the UGC that the UGC Act does not have any
provision to grant approval to technical institution, is facile. It is E
stated in its written submission that the AICTE norms will apply
through UGC as observed by this Court in Bharathidasan
University and Parshvanath Charitable Trust cases (supra).
A reading of the notifications referred to supra issued by the
AICTE shows that regulation of governing council, infrastructure F
such as land and in matters of salary and employment of staff
in the affiliated colleges are totally without jurisdiction and
contrary to the decisions of this Court. Further, strong reliance
is placed by learned senior counsel Dr. Dhavan that issues
which are raised in this case are answered in the TMA Pai G
Foundation v. State of Kamataka 3 .
19. The learned senior counsel submitted that Section 14
of the UGC Act provides for consequences of failure by
3. (2002) s sec 481. H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Universities to comply with recommendations of the
Commission which provides that if any University grants
affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college
referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 12A in contravention
of the provision of that sub-section or fails within a reasonable
8 time to comply with any recommendation made by the
Commission under Section 12 or Section 13 or contravenes
the provisions of any rule made under sub-section 2(f) or 2(g)
of Section 25, or of any regulation made under clauses (e), (t:
or (g) of Section 26, the Commission after taking into
C consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University or such
failure or contravention, may withhold from the University the
grants proposed to be made out of the fund of the Commission.
This clearly goes to show that there is control of the functions
of the university by the UGC under the provisions of UGC Act,
Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the learned senior counsel
D Dr. Dhavan submits that the role of AICTE under the provisions
of the Act is only advisory and recommendatory in nature and
it cannot have any administrative or any other control upon the
colleges which are affiliated to the universities which fall within
the definition of Section 2 (f) of the UGC Act including the grant
E of approval for opening of a new course in relation to technical
education including MCA.
20. Further, after referring to the earlier decisions of this
Court, namely, State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Education
F and Research Institute•, Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v.
Commissioner and Secretary to Government High Education
Department, Thiruvananthapuram 5 and Parshvanath
Charitable Trust (supra), wherein this Court has referred to the
provisions of UGC Act and made certain observations that if
G there is conflict between two legislations namely the State
Legislation and the Central Legislation, under clause (2) of
Article 254 of the Constitution, the State Legislation being
4. (1995) 4 sec 104.
H 5. c2000) 5 sec 231.
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1077
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
repugnant to the Central legislation would be inoperative as the A
State Law encroaches upon Entry 66 of Union List under which
AICTE Act of 1987 is enacted by the Parliament and the
Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 enacted by the State
Legislature under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. The
observations and conclusions arrived at in those cases that the B
provisions of AICTE Act must prevail over the State enactments
is totally untenable in law. Learned senior counsel submits that
the legislation can be derived from a single Entry from the List
mentioned in Vllth Schedule of the Constitution. For a single
Legislation that is AICTE Act, the Parliament cannot operate c
under both, List I as well as List Ill. He further submits that the
phrase "subject to' used in Entry 25 of List Ill of Vllth Schedule
limits the power of both the Union as well as the State.
Therefore, reference to Article 254 in those judgments by this
Court in the cases referred to supra are wholly inapplicable to
0
the fact situation in this case on the question of repugnancy
under Article 254 (2) of the Constitution as it does not arise
for the reason that the law in relation to establishment of
Bharathidasan University and other University in respect of
which member colleges of the appellant Association are
E
affiliated to, is legislated by the State legislature and the AICTE
Act is enacted by the Parliament under Entry 66 of List I.
Therefore, the question of repugnancy between the two
enactments referred to supra do not arise at all since
repugnancy under Article 254(2) of the Constitution would
accrue only in relation to the law legislated by the Parliament F
and the State legislature from the entries of the concurrent list
of VII schedule.
21. Learned senior counsel Dr. Dhavan has also placed
strong reliance upon the report of Kothari Commission (1964- G
1966) which shows that the AICTE Act should be held to cover
only non-university education and the said report emphasizes
upon the importance of education and universities and further
emphasizes the importance of autonomy of the university and
finances of the universities and the role of UGC. Further, he H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A placed reliance upon the National Policy of Education which
envisages vesting of statutory authority for planning, formulation
and the maintenance of norms and standards in the education.
Therefore, he submits that the AICTE cannot have any kind of
control or regulation for the functioning of the colleges affiliated
B to the universities which are governed by the provisions of the
respective Universities Act and the UGC Rules and
Regulations.
22. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the learned counsel for the
C appellants in the connected appeals contended that in the
impugned judgment, the High Court has erred in holding that
the Master of Computer Applications is a technical education
course and is therefore covered by the definition of 'technical
education' as defined in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, which
is extracted in the relevant portion of the judgment. It is further
D contended by learned counsel that the definition of 'technical
education' in the Act as it stands today is an exclusive definition
and does not cover the courses of Master of Computer
Applications imparted by the colleges run by the appellant
colleges. The Central Government has been given power to
E include any other area or course/courses in its purview by
issuing an official notification to be published in the Official
Gazette to this effect. Such notification has not been issued so·
far by the Central Government. Therefore, he submits that when
the MCA course is not covered within the definition of 'technical
F education' it does not come under the purview of the AICTE
Act at all and the question of the AICTE exercising its power
on the institutions/colleges running MCA course does not arise.
23. Further, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the learned counsel has
G vehemently urged that the High Court has committed serious
error in reading a comma in between the words 'engineering'
and 'technology' when it is one word in the statute and is
mentioned as "engineering technology" in the definition of
'technical education' as contained in Section 2(g) of the AICTE
H Act. The High Court has committed serious error in giving such
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1079
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
an erroneous reading of the aforesaid provision of Section 2(g) A
and enlarging the scope of the Act and extending its sphere to
the colleges involved in these proceeding which was not
intended by the Parliament. Therefore, the learned counsel
submits that the interpretation made by the High Court on the
phrase 'engineering technology' by reading the words B
'engineering' and 'technology' to bring within the definition of
the "technical education" as defined in Section 2(g) of the
AICTE Act, is not only in contravention of the settled principles
of interpretation of statutes but also in contravention to the
settled position of law as laid down by this Court in catena of c
cases.
24. It is further contended by the learned counsel that this
Court has held in number of cases that the courts cannot add
or delete words or punctuations in a statute. It is also well
settled proposition of law that the court shall gather the meaning D
of the statute by its simple and plain reading specially where
there is no ambiguity in the language used in the definition
provision and it should be construed in its literal sense.
25. It is further urged by him that the High Court has failed E
to take into consideration that the amendment dated
16.8.2000, i.e. deletion of Regulation No. 2(2) and addition of
8(c) and 8(iv) of Regulations of 1994. could not take effect
unless the same was placed before the Parliament as required
under Section 24 of the AICTE Act, wherein the amended F
Regulations have been framed. The amendments must be laid
before both the Houses of the Parliament which is mandatory
as provided under the aforesaid provision of the Act. The
authority which frames Regulations as provided under Section
23 could not be validly exercised unless such Regulations are G
laid before both the Houses of the Parliament at the earliest
opportunity. The very amendment dated 16.8.2000 of
Regulations 2(2), 8(c) and 8(iv) has been kept ignoring the
mandatory provision of Section 24 and therefore the impugned
amendment to the aforesaid Regulations has been rendered
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A invalid and void ab initio in law. This aspect of the matter has
not been considered by the High Court while interpreting the
said provisions in holding that as a result of the amendment of
the aforesaid Regulations, the provisions of AICTE Act will be
applicable to the courses which are being conducted by the
B colleges affiliated to the University/Universities. This approach
of the High Court is erroneous and therefore the same cannot
be allowed to sustain in law.
Further, it is contended by the learned counsel that the
High Court has failed to examine the above said legal aspect
C of the amendment to the Regulations of AICTE in the year 2000
enlarging the scope of the Act to areas for which it is not meant.
Such amendment in Regulations will be ultra vires to the Act
itself and cannot be sustained on this count alone. This Court
in several cases has laid down the legal principle that the Rules
D and Regulations made under the Act cannot override or enlarge
the object or purpose of the Act.
26. The learned counsel further contended that 7 out of 1O
colleges of the appellants herein in the connected appeals were
E granted approval by the Bharathidasan University under the
Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 before the amended AICTE
Regulations, 1994 came into force and undoubtedly all the
colleges of the appellants herein got approval from the above
said University and started running MCA course much before
F the amended Regulations of 2000 came into force. Therefore,
the said regulations cannot be applied to the appellants'
colleges. Further, the provision of Section 1O (k) of the AICTE
Act, which deals with power and functions of the Council, clearly
states that the council may "grant approval for starting new
technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or
G
programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned".
27. The learned counsel further contends that the
Bharathidasan University is regulated and controlled by the
UGC constituted under the provisions of the UGC Act, Rules
H and Regulations. The relevant provisions of the UGC Act cover
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1081
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
the institutions and its constituents colleges as well as its A
affiliated colleges which are being run by the appellants herein
and similarly placed colleges under Section 12, 12A, 13 and
14 of the UGC Act.
The aforesaid provisions of UGC Act would show that
B
those provisions would speak of Regulations of the university
that is applicable and analogous to its affiliated colleges also.
28. Further, the learned counsel placing strong reliance
upon the law laid down in the judgment of this Court in
Bharathidasan University case (supra) wherein this Court has C
specifically held after referring to certain provisions of the
AICTE Act and earlier judgments of this Court in Adhiyaman
Education and Research Institute (supra) and Jaya Gokul
Educational Trust (supra) that the AICTE is not intended to be
controlling or supervising authority over the University merely D
because the University is also imparting courses of "Technical
Education". Further, it was held that Regulation No.4 insofar as
. it compels the university to seek for and obtain prior approval
and not start any new department or course or programme in
Technical Education and empower itself to withdraw such E
approval, in a given case of contravention of the Regulation
No.12, is directly opposed to and inconsistent with the
provisions of Section 10 (k) of the AICTE Act and consequently
void and unenforceable in law.
F
Placing strong reliance on the observations made in para
14 of said judgment and after referring to the Regulations, this
Court held that the AICTE could not have been made to bind
universitieslUGC within the confines of the powers conferred
upon it. It cannot be enforced against or to bind a university as
a matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence G
a new department or course and programme in technical
education in any university or any of its departments and
constituent institutions. The said observation also applies in the
present case that the Regulations have no application to the
H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A MCA course which is being run by the colleges of the appellants
herein.
29. It is further contended by the learned counsel that
Bharathidasan University which was incorporated under the
provisions of UGC Act, 1956 is a controlling authority of its
8
affiliated colleges for all its courses including MCA course. The
University confers degrees on the students studying in its
affiliated colleges. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the
courses are run by the University. In fact in Bharathidasan
C University's case (supra) at paragraph 2, this Court has dealt
with the scope and purpose of the University. It says that the
University has been created "to provide among other things,
instruction and training in such branches of learning as it may
determine; to provide for research and for the dissemination
of knowledge; to confer degrees, titles, diplomas and other
D academic distinctions on persons who have pursued an
approved course of study in a university college or laboratory
or in an affiliated or approved college and have passed the
prescribed examination of the University". Thus, it is clear that
the colleges are affiliated to the university to impart education
E in different courses run by the university in which the students
have to pass the prescribed examination of the University for
making themselves eligible to obtain degrees. Therefore, any
provision or direction requiring the colleges affiliated to
university or imparting education to the students on behalf of
F the university to seek AICTE's approval for conducting MCA
course when no such approval is required for the university for
the aforesaid purpose will be contrary to the judgment rendered
in Bharathidasan University's case (supra).
G 30. Learned counsel placed strong reliance upon the
counter affidavit filed by the AICTE on 16.1.2013 in Civil Appeal
No.1145 of 2004. Subsequent to the filing of the present appeal
in 2004, the AICTE framed new Regulations in 2005 and 2006
which provide that "technical institution" means institution
H conducting the course, inter alia, in the field of technical
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1083
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
education, training and research in engineering, technology A
including MCA. The Regulations of 2005 and 2006 further
provide that not only new technical institutions but even existing
technical institution cannot conduct any technical course without
prior approval of the AICTE. The learned counsel submitted that
it is more than apparent that the said Regulations have been B
specifically framed to counter the challenges posed by the
appellant institutions to their authorities and power to regulate
the course of MCA. Also after taking clues from the impugned
judgment in Bharathidasan University's case they had taken
care that there is comma in between 'engineering' and c
'technology' in the definition of "technical institution". Therefore,
it is submitted that the said Regulation which has not only come
into force much after the introduction of MCA course in the
appellant colleges but also after the impugned judgment in this
appeal and after filing of the appeals, cannot be made
D
applicable to the colleges of the appellant herein who are
running MCA course since this will result in giving the amended
Regulations retrospective effect as the Regulations do not
provide for it.
31. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior E
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent AICTE, sought to
justify the impugned judgment in these appeals by placing
strong reliance upon the dictionary meaning of the expression
"engineering" and "technology" from the following dictionaries,
namely Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, Wharton's Law F
Lexicon, Encyclopedic Law Lexicon, The New Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary, Advanced Law Lexicon, P Ramanatha
Aiyar's the Law Lexicon and Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of
Words and Phrases. After a careful reading of the meanings
of 'technical engineering' which speaks of the art or source of G
making practical applications of the knowledge of pure science
as physics, chemistry, etc. as in the construction of engines,
bridges, buildings, mines, chemical plants and the like, he
submits that the expression 'technology' by itself is very wide
and also comprehends 'engineering'. The Institutes of H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Technology Act, 1961 envisages imparting of education in
technology and Section 6(1) of the Act empowers it to provide
instruction and research in such branches of engineering and
technology, science and arts as the institute may think fit.
Further, the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 envisages
B certain institutions of national importance to provide for
instructions and research in branches of engineering,
technology, management, education, sciences and arts. He
further contends that though one does not find a comma,
between 'engineering' and 'technology' in Section 2(g) of the
c AICTE Act, the composition of the council envisaged by Section
3(4)(f)(iii) and (iv) and Section 13(1)(iii) and (iv) in relation to
establishment of Board of Studies would clearly go to show that
engineering and technology are two separate branches of
study. Even if, 'engineering technology' is considered to be a
single expression that will not reduce the width and scope of
0
the subject, it will nevertheless indicate both the branches of
study of engineering and technology and will cover both the
subjects. Therefore, the existence or absence of comma
between the two words is of no significance and the crucial
issue is delineation of the scope of 'engineering technology'.
E Existence and absence of comma and its scope should be
determined with reference to the entire object and purpose of
the Act that is, the proper planning and coordinated
development of the "technical education" system throughout the
country. Therefore, the regulation and proper maintenance of
F norms and standards in the "technical education" system in the
Preamble of AICTE Act is very important.
32. Further, strong reliance was placed by the learned
senior counsel for the respondent upon Parshvanath Charitable
G Trust case (supra) wherein the course content of the three
years MCA course with six semesters would clearly go to show
that the course undertaken by the colleges affiliated to the
Universities in the cases is very wide and covers the
fundamentals of computer engineering including software
H
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1085
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
engineering as well as the technology of computer system. A
Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act reads as under:-
"Technical Education" means programmes of education,
research and training in engineering technology,
architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and B
applied arts and crafts and such other programme or
areas as the Central Government may, in consultation with
the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare;"
The expression "Engineering Technology" in Section 2(g)
of AICTE Act would clearly comprehend within its scope, the C
MCA course offered by the appellant colleges. The contention
on behalf of the appellants herein is that the colleges affiliated
to the universities are outside the scope and purview of the
AICTE Act in relation to obtaining approval from the AICTE for
establishing technical institution or introducing new course or D
programme as required under Section 1O(k) read with Section
2(h) of the Act. Since the definition of "technical institution"
makes no mention of colleges providing technical education
which are affiliated to the universities thereby expressly
excluding such colleges from the definition of "technical E
· ~nstitution" under the AICTE Act as they are covered under the
affiliated colleges of the universities, the contention made
above is not tenable in law. Also, the said definition, based on
the judgment of this Court in Bharathidasan University's case._
referred to supra and reliance placed upon Kothari F
Commission Report by the learned senior counsel on behalf
of the appellant member colleges, is wholly untenable in law for
the reasons mentioned in the said case. In the earlier judgments
of this Court, namely, Adhiyaman Education and Research
Institute (supra) and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra) G
referred to in Paragraph 11 of the Bharathidasan University
case, the powers of AICTE under the AICTE Act and
Regulations framed thereunder, are lucidly explained and it is
held that the provisions of the UGC Act enacted by the
Parliament are also applicable to the university under State
H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A enactments in so far as technical education is concerned.
Learned senior counsel submits that in Bharathidasan
University's case the earlier judgments in Adhiyaman
Education and Research Institute and Jaya Gokul Educational
Trust were noted but their correctness was not considered.
s Also, the Bharathidasan University case did not make any
observation about their actual accuracy and in the said case
this Court did not go into the question as to whether the AICTE
Act would prevail over the UGC Act or the effect of competing
entries in the three lists of VII Schedule of the Constitution. On
c the other hand, a bare perusal of Adhiyaman Education and
Research Institute and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust cases
would clearly .show that this Court was considering the
applicability of AICTE Act to the engineering colleges affiliated
to universities and whose courses included programmes of
Engineering and Computer Sciences. Also, in both the cases,
0
the two Judge Bench examined the competing entries in the
List 1 and List Ill in the VI Ith Schedule of the Constitution and
held that the State enactment-UGC Act would not prevail over
the AICTE Act and rather to the extent of repugnancy the
enactment of the UGC Act would be impliedly repealed. It was
E held in those cases that power of universities to affiliate such
colleges would depend on compliance of norms and standards
fixed by the AICTE and the approval granted by the AICTE'and
also that if AICTE grants approval to such colleges then they
need not obtain the approval of the State Government and the
F universities should not insist upon obtaining the approvals from
the State Government. Heavy reliance has been placed on the
two judgments of this Court in Adhiyaman Education and
Research Institute case (supra) and Jaya Gokul Education
Trust case (supra).
G
The relevant portions of the Adhiyaman Education and
Research Institute case are extracted hereunder:
"12. The subject "coordination and determination of
standards in institutions for higher education or research
H
ASSON. OF MAGMT OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1087
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
and scientific and technical institutions" has always A
remained the special preserve of Parliament. This was so
even before the Forty-second Amendment, since Entry 11
of List II even then was subject, among others, to Entry 66
of List I. After the said Amendment, the constitutional
position on that score has not undergone any change. All B
that has happened is that Entry 11 was taken out from List
II and amalgamated with Entry 25 of List Ill. However, even
the new Entry 25 of List 111 is also subject to the provisions,
among others, of Entry 66 of List I. It cannot, therefore, be
doubted nor is it contended before us, that the legislation c
with regard to coordination and determination of standards
in institutions for higher education or research and
scientific and technical institutions has always been the
preserve of Parliament. What was contended before us on
behalf of the State was that Entry 66 enables Parliament
0
to lay down the minimum standards but does not deprive
the State legislature from laying down standards above the
said minimum standards. We will deal with this argument
at its proper place.
27. The provisions of the State Act enumerated above E
show that if it is made applicable to the technical
institutions, it will overlap and will be in conflict with the
provisions of the Central Act in various areas and, in
particular, in the matter of allocation and disbursal of grants,
formulation of schemes for initial and in-service training of F
teachers and continuing education of teachers, laying down
norms and standards for courses, physical and institutional
facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instruction
assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines
for charging tuition and other fees, granting approval for G
starting new technical institutions and for introduction of
new courses or programmes, taking steps to prevent
commercialisation of technical education, inspection of
technical institutions, withholding or discontinuing grants in
respect of courses and taking such other steps as may be H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the
Council, declaring technical institutions at various levels
and types fit to receive grants, the constitution of the
Council and its Executive Committee and the Regional
Committees to carry out the functions under the Central
B Act, the compliance by the Council of the directions issued
by the Central Government on questions of policy etc. which
matters are covered by the Central Act. What is further, the
primary object of the Central Act, as discussed earlier, is
to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for
c Technical Education with a view, among others, to plan and
coordinate the development of technical education system
throughout the country and to promote the qualitative
improvement of such education and to regulate and
properly maintain the norms and standards in the technical
education system which is a subject within the exclusive
D
legislative field of the Central Government as is clear from
Entry 66 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule. All the
other provisions of the Act have been made in furtherance
of the said objectives. They can also be deemed to have
been enacted under Entry 25 of List Ill. This being so, the
E provisions of the State Act which impinge upon the
provisions of the Central Act are void and, therefore,
unenforceable. It is for these reasons that the appointment
of the High Power Committee by the State Government. to
inspect the respondent-Trust was void as has been rightly
F held by the High Court.
41. What emerges from the above discussion is as follows:
(1) The expression 'coordination' used in Entry 66 of the
Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
G does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation
with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted
action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of
development. It, therefore, includes action not only for
removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing
H
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1089
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GO!;'ALA GOWDA, J.]
the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also A
include power to do all things which are necessary to
prevent what would make 'coordination' either impossible
or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and
in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be
given its full effect according to its plain and express B
intention.
(i1) To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with
the Central legislation though the former is purported to
have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but C
in effect encroaches upon legislation including subordinate
legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the
Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union
List, it would be void and inoperative.
(iii) If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless D
the State legislation is saved by the provisions of the main
part of clause (2) of Article 254, the State legislation being
repugnant to the Central legislation, the same would be
inoperative.
E
(iv)Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the
Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre
under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be
determined by the examination of the two laws and will
depend upon the facts of each case.
F
(v) When there are more applicants than the available
situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from
laying down higher standards or qualifications than those
laid down by the Centre or the Central authority to short-
list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it G
does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make
a law which is repugnant to the Central law.
(v1) However, when the situations/seats are available and
the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the
H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its
standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although
the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid
down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also
when the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an
B institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement
laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and
requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State
authorities act illegally."
C Also, the relevant paragraphs of the Jaya Gokul Education
Trust case are extracted hereunder:
"16 ....... It was held that the AICTE Act was referable to
Entry 66 List I of the Constitution of India, relating to
"coordination and determination of standards in institutions
D for higher education or research and scientific and
technical institutions". After the constitutional amendment
(Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976) Entry 25 of List Ill
in the Concurrent List read:
"Education, included technical education, medical
E education and universities, subject to the provisions of
Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical
training of labour."
Thus, the State law under Entry 23 of List Ill would be
F repugnant to any law made by Parliament under Entry 66
of List I, to the extent of inconsistency. The Tamil Nadu Act
was of 1976 and the University Act was of 1923 and were
laws referable to List II I. Whether they were pre-
constitutional or post-constitutional laws, they would be
repugnant to the AICTE Act passed by Parliament under
G
Entry 66 of List I. In the above case this Court referred to
the various provisions of the AICTE Act and on the
question of repugnancy held (see sec p. 120) as follows:
(SCC para 22)
H "Hence, on the subjects covered by this statute, the State
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1091
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
could not make a law under Entry 11 of List II prior to Forty- A
second Amendment nor can it make a law under Entry 25
of List Ill after the Forty-second Amendment. If there was
any such existing law immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution within the meaning of
Article 372 of the Constitution, as the Madras University B
Act, 1923, on the enactment of the present Central Act, the
provisions of the said law if repugnant to the provisions of
the Central Act would stand impliedly repealed to the extent
of repugnancy. Such repugnancy would have to be
adjudged on the basis of the tests which are applied for c
adjudging repugnancy under Article 254 of the
Constitution."
17..•.... .It was held (see SCC p. 126) that Section 10 of
the Central Act dealt with various matters (including
granting approval for starling new technical institutions), D
and that so far as these matters were concerned
"it is not the University Act and the University but it is the
Central Act and the Council created under it which will
have the jurisdiction. To that extent, after the coming into E
operation of the Central Act, the provisions of the
University Act will be deemed to have become
unenforceable". (SCC pp. 126-27, para 30)
Thus, in the two passages set out above, this Court clearly
held that because of Section 1O(k) of the Central Act which F
vested the powers of granting approval in the CounCil, the
T.N. Act of 1976 and the University Act, 1923 could not
deal with any questions of "approval" for establishment of
technical institutions. All that was necessary was that under
the Regulations, the AICTE Council had to consult them. G
19......• In our opinion, even if there was a State law in
the State of Kerala which required the approval of the State
Government for establishing technical institutions, such a
law would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act and void H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A to that extent, as held in T.N. case.
22 ...... If, indeed, the University statute could be so
interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the
State Government would be repugnant to the provisions
of Section 1O(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would again
B
be void. As pointed out in T.N. case there were enough
provisions in the Central Act for consultation by the Council
of AICTE with various agencies, including the State
Governments and the universities concerned. The State-
Level Committee and the Central Regional Committees
c contained various experts and State representatives. In
case of difference of opinion as between the various
consultees, AICTE would have to go by the views of the
Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for
ascertaining the views of the State Governments and the
D universities. No doubt the question of affiliation was a
different matter and was not covered by the Central Act
but in T.N. case it was held that the University could not
impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or
its Regulation or the conditions imposed by AICTE.
E Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and
any conditions which could be imposed by the University,
could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central
Act. The University could not, therefore, in any event have
sought for "approval" of the State Government.
I
F
30. Thus, the University ought to have considered the grant
of final or further affiliation without waiting for any approval
from the State Government and should have acted on the
basis of the permission granted by AICTE and other
relevant factors in the University Act or statutes, which are
G
not inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulations."
33. The learned senior counsel further submits that the
question of law which was being considered was whether the
universities created in the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981
H should seek prior approval of the AICTE to start a department
ASSON. OF MAGMT OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1093
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
or imparting a course or a programme in technical education A
or technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself to
conduct technical courses of its choice. In that case, this Court
was not concerned with the question of starting of a college/
technical institution by private persons which were merely
affiliated to the university for the purposes of pursuing courses B
of study and participating in examinations for degree/diploma.
34. By perusal of the observations made in Bharathidasan
University's case supra upon which strong reliance was placed
by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, would show that C
this Court referred to Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act where the
definition of 'technical institution' excludes university from its
scope. In the said judgment, this court has observed that the
AICTE Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a
'University' and a 'Technical Institution'. It was further submitted
that the expression 'constituent institutions' as used in D
paragraphs 12 and 15 of the Bharathidasan University's
judgment refers to technical institutions which are started by the
university itself or as an adjunct to the university or affiliated
colleges or are not started, managed and governed by the
university itself, whereas constituent institutions are started, E
managed and governed by the university itself under powers
given by the university enactment. In view of the aforesaid
factual position he submits that issues in relation to coverage
of affiliated colleges imparting technical education under
Section 1O(k) of AICTE Act stand decided and concluded by F
the judgments in Adhiyaman Education and Research
Institute and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust cases whereas
the Bharathidasan University's case deals with the
department and constituent institutions and units of the
university itself. It was further submitted that the contention of F
the appellant colleges that they do not require prior approval
from the AICTE since they are not covered by Section 10(k)
read with Section 2(g) & (h) of the Act, is not tenable in law.
This Court took care to make observations that universities have
to maintain the norms and standards fixed by the AICTE, even H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A though they do not need prior approval for starting a department
or constituent institutions and units. Further, strong reliance was
placed by the learned senior counsel upon the provisions of
Sections 10, 11 and 22 of the AICTE Act. A careful analysis of
the said provision would go to show the role of inspection
B conferred upon the AICTE vis-a-vis Universities which is limited
to the purpose of ensuring the proper maintenance of norms
and standards in the technical education system in the country
so as to conform to the standards laid down by it. Therefore,
learned senior counsel for the respondent AICTE submits that
c the contention urged by Dr. Dhavan, with respect to the member
colleges of the appellant and learned counsel Mr.Prashant
Bhushan in connected appeals that the AICTE, except bringing
to the notice of UGC regarding standards to be maintained by
the colleges affiliated to the universities in relation to technical
education, has no role to play or it has no power to regulate or
0
control such colleges, is wholly untenable in law and therefore
the submissions made in this regard cannot be accepted.
35. On the basis of the factual and rival legal contentions
urged on behalf of the parties the following points would arise
E for consideration of this Court in these civil appeals:-
(1) Whether the colleges affiliated to a university
comes within the purview of exclusion of the
definition of "Technical Institution" as defined under
F Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987?
(2) Whether the AICTE has got the control and
supervision upon the affiliated colleges of the
respective universities of the member colleges of
the appellant in C.A.No.1145/2004 and the
G appellants in connected appeals?
(3) Whether the MCA course be construed as technical
education in terms of definition under section 2(g)
of the AICTE Act?
H
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1095
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
(4) Whether the Regulation 8(c) and S(iv) by way of A
amendment in the year 2000 inserting the words
'MBA and MCA' before Architecture and Hotel
Management courses is applicable to the
concerned colleges of the appellants?
B
(5) Whether non placement of the amended
Regulations before Houses of the Parliament as
required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act is
vitiated in law?
(6) Whether the law laid down by this Court in C
Bharathidasan University's case, Adhiyaman
Education and Research Institute case and Jaya
Gokul Educational Trust case is applicable to the
fact situation of the concerned colleges of the
appellants? D
Answer to the points framed above
36. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the
appellants by assigning the following reasons:-
E
For this purpose, it would be very much necessary to
extract the definition of 'technical institution', 'university' and
'technical education' in Sections 2(h), 2(i) and 2(g) respectively
read with Section 1O(k) of the AICTE Act and also the definition
of 2(f) of the UGC Act read with Sections 12, 12A, 128, 12(2) F
(c) of the UGC Act.
Section 2 (f), (g), (h) and (i) of the AICTE Act read as:
"2. Definitions.
G
(f) "Regulations" means regulations made under this Act.
(g) "Technical education" means programmes of
H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A education, research and training in engineering
technology, architecture, town planning, management,
pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other
programme or areas as the Central Government may, in
consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official
B Gazette, declare;
(h) "Technical institution" means an institution, not being
a university which offers courses or programmes of
technical education, and shall include such other institutions
as the Central Government may, in consultation with the
c Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as
technical institutions:
(i) "University" means a University defined under clause
(f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act,
D 1956 (3 of 1956) and includes an institution deemed to be
a University under section 3 of that Act.
10. Functions of the Council.- II shall be the duty of the
Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
coordinated and integrated development of technical
E
education and management and maintenance of standards
and for the purposes of performing its functions under this
Act, the Council may-
F
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and
for introduction of new courses or programmes in
consultation with the agencies concerned:"
Further, the relevant sections of University Grants
G Commission Act, 1956 read as under:
"2.Definitions.
H
ASSON. OF MAG MT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1097
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
(f) "University'' means a University established or A
incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act
or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may,
in consultation with the University concerned, be
recognized by the Commission in accordance with the
regulations made in this behalf under this Act. B
12. Functions of the Commission- It shall be the general
duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the
Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as
it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of C
University education and for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and
research in Universities, and for the purpose of performing
its functions under this Act, the Commission may-
(a) inquire into the financial needs of Universities; D
(b) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the
Commission, grants to Universities ·established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act for the maintenance
and development of such Universities or for any other
E
general or specified purpose:
(c) allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the
Commission, such grants to other Universities as it may
deem 1[necessary or appropriate for the development of
such Universities or for the maintenance, or development, F
or both, of any specified activities of such Universities] or
for any other general or specified purpose: Provided that
in making any grant to any such University, the
Commission shall give due consideration to the
development of the University concerned, its financial G
needs, the standard attained by it and the national
purposes which it may serve, 2[(cc) allocate and disburse
out of the Fund of the Commission, such grants to
institution deemed to be Universities in pursuance of a
declaration made by the Central Government under section H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 3, as it may deem necessary, for one or more of the
following purposes, namely:-
(i) for maintenance in special cases,
(ii) for development,
B
(iii) for any other general or specified purpose;]
1["(ccc) establish, in accordance with the regulations made
under this Act, institutions for providing common facilities,
services and programmes for a group of universities or for
c the universities in general and maintain such institutions
or provide
for their maintenance by allocating and, disbursing out of
the Fund of the Commission such grants as the
D Commission may deem necessary".]
(d) recommend to any University the measures necessary
for the improvement of University education and advise the
University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of
E implementing such recommendation;
(e) advise the Central Government or any State
Government on the allocation of any grants to Universities
for any general or specified purpose out of the
Consolidated Fund of India or the
F
Consolidated Fund of the State, as the case may be;
(f) advise any authority, if such advice is asked for, on the
establishment of a new University or on proposals
connected with the expansion of the activities of any
G
University;
(g) advise the Central Government or any State
Government or University on any question which may be
referred to the Commission by the Central Government or
H
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1099
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
the State Government or the University, as the case may A
be;
{h) collect information on all such matters relating to
University education in India and other countries as it thinks
fit and make the same available to any University;
B
{i) require a University to furnish it with such information
as may be needed relating to the financial position of the
University or the studies in the various branches of learning
undertaken in that University, together with all the rules and
regulations relating to the standards of teaching and C
examination in that University respecting each of such
branches of learning;
0) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or
as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for 0
advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may
be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above
functions.
12A. Regulation of fees and prohibition of donations
in certain cases- E
(1) In this section-
(a) "affiliation", together with its grammatical variation,
includes, in relation to a college, recognition of such
F
college by, association of such college with, and
admission of such college to the privileges of, a
university;
(b) "college" means any institution, whether known as
such or by any other name which provides for a G
course of study for obtaining any qualification from
a university and which, in accordance with the rules
and regulations of such university, is recognized as
competent to provide for such course of study and
present students undergoing such course of study H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A for the examination for the award of such
qualification.
(c) "prosecution" in relation to a course of study,
includes promotion from one part or stage of the
course of study to another part or stage of the
B
course of study.
(d) "qualification" means a degree or any other
qualification awarded by a university.
c (e) "regulations" means regulations made under this
Act.
(f) "specified course of study" means a course of study
in respect of which regulation of the nature
mentioned in sub-section (2) have been made.
D
(g) "student" includes a person seeking admission as
a student;
(h) "university'' means a university or institution referred
E to in sub-section (1) of Section 22.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions
of section 12 if, having regard to-
F
(c) the minimum standards which a person possessing
such qualification should be able to maintain in his work
relating to such activities and the consequent need for
ensuring, so far as may be, that no candidate secures
admission to such course of study by reason of economic
G
power and thereby prevents a more meritorious candidate
from securing admission to such course of study; and
(d) all other relevant factors, the commission is satisfied
that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, it may,
H after consultation with the university or universities
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1101
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
concerned, specify by regulations the matters in respect A
of which fees may be charged and the scale of fees in
accordance with which fees shall be charged in respect
of those matters on and from such date as may be
specified in the regulation in this behalf, by any college
providing for such course of study from, or in relation to, B
any student in connection with his admission to, and
prosecution of, such course of study; ....... .
13. Inspection.- (1) For the purpose of ascertaining the
financial needs of a University or its standards of teaching, C
examination and research, the Commission may, after
consultation with the University, cause an inspection of any
department or departments thereof to be made in such
manner as may be prescribed and by such person or
persons as it may direct.
D
(2) The Commission shall communicate to the University
the date on which any inspection under sub-section (1) is
to be made and the University shall be entitled to be
associated with the inspection in such manner as may be
prescribed. E
(3) The Commission shall communicate to the University
its views in regard to the results of any such inspection and
may, after ascertaining the opinion of the University,
recommend to the University the action to be taken as a
F
result of such inspection.
(4) All communications to a University under this section
shall be made to the executive authority thereof and the
executive authority of the University shall report to the
Commission the action, if any, which is proposed to be G
taken for the purpose of implementing any such
recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3).
14. Consequences of failure of Universities to comply
with recommendations of the Commission- If a_ny
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A University [grants affiliation in respect of any course of
study to any college referred to in sub-section (5) of
section 12-A in contravention of the provisions of that sub-
section or] fails within a reasonable time to comply with
any recommendation made by the Commission under
B section 12 or section 13 [or contravenes the provisions of
any rule made under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section
(2) of section 25, or of any regulation made under clause
(e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26,] the
Commission, after taking into consideration the cause, if
c any, shown by the university [for Such failure or
contraventions] may withhold from the University the grants
proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission."
37. In Bharathidasan University's case, the question which
fell for consideration is referred to in the first paragraph of the
D judgment upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned
senior counsel for the respondent Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi to
substantiate his submission that the ratio laid down in
Bharathidasan University's case (supra) is in relation to the
question raised regarding the university created under the
E Bharathidasan Universities Act to start a department for
imparting a course or programme in technical education or a
technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself for
conducting technical courses of its choice and selection.
Therefore, the ratio laid down in the said case has no
F application to the fact situation of these education institutions/
colleges which are run by the appellants herein though they are
affiliated to their respective universities. Therefore, he placed
strong reliance upon the ratio laid down by this Court in
Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute and Jaya Gokul
G Educational Trust's cases wherein this Court has clearly
enunciated the law after elaborately adverting to the legislative
entries in List I Entry 66 and List Ill Entry 25 regarding the
respective legislative competence of the Parliament and the
State Legislature. To substantiate his contention, he claimed
H that the AICTE Act is enacted by the Parliame:it under Entry
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1103
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
66 of List I and the Universities are established under the A
provisions of Bharathidasan University Act which was enacted
by the State Legislature from Entry 25 of List Ill. The
Bharathidasan University Act, fell for consideration of this Court
in the above said judgments. Therefore, in those cases this
Court had clearly held that the AICTE Act is relatable to Entry B
66 and must prevail over the State Enactments covered in those
cases. Therefore, the said decisions are applicable to the fact
situation of this case. This contention is rightly rebutted by the
learned senior counsel Dr. Rajiv Dhavan and Mr. Prashant
Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the c
appellants in both set of appeals inviting our attention to the
various provisions of the AICTE Act and UGC Act with
reference to the principles laid down in Bharathidasan
University's case. Also, the relevant paragraphs from the
decision rendered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) will be D
referred to in this judgment. With reference to the above said
rival legal contentions, it will be worthwhile to refer to the
principle laid down in Bharathidasan University and
Parashavananth Charitable Trust cases (supra). The relevant
paragraphs of Bharathidasan University case (supra) read as
under: E
"8. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made on either side. When the legislative
intent finds specific mention and expression in the
provisions of the Act itself, the same cannot be whittled F
down or curtailed and rendered nugatory by giving undue
importance to the so-called object underlying the Act or the
purpose of creation of a body to supervise the
implementation of the provisions of the Act, particularly
when the AICTE Act does not contain any evidence of an G
intention to belittle and destroy the authority or autonomy
of other statutory bodies, having their own assigned roles
to perform. Merely activated by some assumed objects or
desirabilities, the courts cannot adorn the mantle of the
legislature. II is hard to ignore the legislative intent to give H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A definite meaning to words employed in the Act and adopt
an interpretation which would tend to do violence to the
express language as well as the plain meaning and patent
aim and object underlying the various other provisions of
the Act. Even in endeavouring to maintain the object and
B spirit of the law to achieve the goal fixed by the legislature,
the courts must go by the guidance of the words used and
not on certain preconceived notions of ideological structure
and scheme underlying the law. In the Statement of Objects
and Reasons for the AICTE Act, it is specifically stated that
c AICTE was originally set up by a government resolution as
a national expert body to advise the Central and State
Governments for ensuring the coordinated development of
technical education in accordance with approved
standards was playing an effective role, but, "(h]owever, in
recent years, a large number of private engineering
D
colleges and polytechnics have come up in complete
disregard of the guidelines, laid down by the AICTE" and
taking into account the serious deficiencies of even
rudimentary infrastructure necessary for imparting proper
education and training and the need to maintain
E educational standards and curtail the growing erosion of
standards statutory authority was meant to be conferred
upon AICTE to play its role more effectively by enacting
the AICTE Act.
F 9. Section 2(h) defines "technical institution" for the
purposes of the Act, as follows:
"2. (h) 'technical institution' means an institution, not being
a university, which offers courses or programmes of
technical education, and shall include such other institutions
G
as the Central Government may, in consultation with the
Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as
technical institutions;"
10. Since it is intended to be other than a university, the
H Act defines in Section 2(1) "university" to mean a university
,,
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1105
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V GOPALA GOWDA, J]
defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University A
Grants Commission Act, 1956 and also to be inclusive of
an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3
of the said Act. Section 10 of the Act enumerates the
various powers and functions of AICTE as also its duties
and obligations to take steps towards fulfilment of the B
same. One such as envisaged in Section 10(1)(k) is to
"grant approval for starting new technical institutions and
for introduction of new courses or programmes in
consultation with the agencies concerned". Section 23,
which empowers the Council to make regulations in the c
manner ordained therein emphatically and specifically,
mandates the making of such Regulations only "not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the Rules".
The Act, for all purposes and throughout maintains the
distinct identity and existence of "technical institutions" and D
"universities" and it is in keeping tune with the said
dichotomy that wherever the university or the activities of
the university are also to be supervised or regulated and
guided by AICTE, specific mention has been made of the
university alongside the technical institutions and wherever
E
the university is to be left out and not to be roped in merely
refers to the technical institution only in Sections 10, 11 and
22(2)(b). It is necessary and would be useful to advert to
Sections 10(1)(c), (g), (o) which would go to show that
universities are mentioned alongside the "technical
institutions" and clauses (k), (m), (p), (q), (s) and (u) F
wherein there is conspicuous omission of reference to
universities, reference being made to technical institutions
alone. It is equally important to see that when AICTE is
empowered to inspect or cause to inspect any technical
institution in clause (p) of sub-section (1) of Section 1O G
without any reservation whatsoever, when it comes to the
question of universities it is confined and limited to
ascertaining the financial needs or its standards of
teaching, examination and research. The inspection may
be made or cause to be made of any department or H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A departments only and that too, in such manner as may be
prescribed as envisaged in Section 11 of the Act. Clause
(t) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 envisages AICTE to only
advise UGC for declaring any institution imparting technical
education as a deemed university and not do any such
B thing by itself. Likewise, clause (u) of the same provision
which envisages the setting up of a National Board of
Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of technical
institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines,
norms and standards specified by it to make
c recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the
Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or
derecognition of the institution or the programme. All these
vitally important aspects go to show that AICTE created
under the Act is not intended to be an authority either
superior to or supervise and control the universities and
D
thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely
for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical
education or programmes in any of its departments or
units. A careful scanning-through of the provisions of the
AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in
E juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-a-vis the
universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a
guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of
maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms
and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce
F any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC
for appropriate action. The conscious and deliberate
omission to enact any such provision in the AICTE Act in
respect of universities is not only a positive indicator but
should be also one of the determining factors in adjudging
G the status, role and activities of AICTE vis-a-vis universities
and the activities and functioning of its departments and
units. All these vitally important facets with so much glaring
significance of the scheme underlying the Act and the
language of the various provisions seem to have escaped
H the notice of the learned Judges, their otherwise well-
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1107
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
merited attention and con~ideration in their proper and A
correct perspective. The ultra-activist view articulated in M.
Sambasiva Rao case on the basis of supposed intention
and imagined purpose of AICTE or the Act constituting it,
is uncalled for and ought to have been avoided, all the
more so when such an interpretation is not only bound to B
do violence to the language of the various provisions but
also inevitably render other statutory authorities like. UGC
and universities irrelevant or even as non-entities by
making AICTE a superpower with a devastating role
undermining the status, authority and autonomous c
functioning of those institutions in areas and spheres
assigned to them under the respective legislations
constituting and governing them."
38. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of Parashavananth Charitable
Trust's case {supra) read as hereunder: D
"19. Section 10 of the AICTE Act enumerates various
powers and functions of AICTE as also its duties and
obligations to take steps towards fulfillment of the same.
One such power as envisaged in Section 10{1){k) is to E
"grant approval for starting new technical institutions and
for introduction of new courses or programmes in
consultation with the agencies concerned". It is important
to see that the AICTE is empowered to inspect or cause
to inspect any technical institution in clause {p) of sub- F
section (1) of Section 10 without any reservation
whatsoever. However. when it comes to the question of
universities. it is confined and limited to ascertaining the
financial needs or its standards of teaching. examination
and research. The inspection may be made or caused to G
be made of any department or departments only and that
too. in such a manner as may be prescribed. as envisaged
in Section 11 of the AICTE Act.
20. All these vitally important aspects go to show that the
Council {AICTE) created under the AICTE Act is not H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A intended to be an authority either superior to or to
supervise and control the universities and thereby
superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the
reason that they are imparting teaching in technical
education or programmes in any of their departments or
B units. A careful scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act
and the provisions of the University Grants Commission
Act, 1956 in juxtaposition will show that the role of AICTE
vis-a-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory
and one of providing guidance, thereby subserving the
c cause of maintaining appropriate standards and
qualitative norms and not as authority empowered to issue
and enforce any sanction by itself. Reference can be made
to the judgments of this Court in the case of Adarsh
Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale ((2012)
2 SCC 425]. State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman
D
Educational & Research Institute ((1995) 4 SCC 104] and
Bharathidasan Univesity v. All India Council for Technical
Education ((2001) 8 SCC 676]"
(emphasis supplied)
E
The underlined portions from the said decision 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
F 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. It is evident that
G while enacting the AICTE Act, the Parliament was fully alive to
the existence of the provisions of UGC Act, 1956 particularly,
the said provisions extracted above. Therefore, the definition
in Section 2(h) technical institution in AICTE Act which
authorizes the AICTE to do certain things, special care has
H
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1109
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
consciously and deliberately been taken to make specific A
mention of university, wherever and whenever the AICTE alone
was expected to interact with university and its departments as
well as constituent institutions and units. It was held after
analyzing the provision of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the AICTE
Act that the role of the inspection conferred upon the AICTE B
vis-a-vis universities is limited to the purpose of ensuring proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education
system so as to conform to the standard laid down by it with
no further or direct control over such universities or scope for
any direct action except bringing it to the notice of UGC. In that c
background, this Court in Bharathidasan University case 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 Entry
66 List I vis-a-vis Entry 25 of List Ill of the VII Schedule of the 0
Constitution. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid paragraphs
of Bharathidasan University's case 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 the AICTE. Also, from the reading of paragraphs
E
19 and 20 of Parashvanath Chartitable Trust case 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-a-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. It is F
rightly pointed out from the affidavit filed by UGC as directed
by this Court in these cases on the question of affiliated
colleges to the university, that the affidavit is very mechanical
and it has simply and gratuitously without foundation, added as
technical institutions including affiliated colleges without any G
legal foundation. In paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 19 of the
Affidavit filed by the UGC and the assertion made in paragraph
23 is without any factual foundation, which reads as under:
"That it is further submitted that affiliated colleges are H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 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
8
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 the UGC for formulating the standard of
C education and other aspects to the UGC. In view of the law laid
down in Bharathidasan University and Parashvanath
Charitable Trust cases (supra), the learned senior counsel Dr.
Dhavan has rightly submitted for rejection of the affidavit of the
UGC, which we have to accept as the same is without any
D factual foundation and also contrary to the intent and object of
the Act
39. It is also relevant to refer to the exclusion of university
from the definition of 'technical institution' as defined under
E section 2(h) of the AICTE Act. The Institution means an
institution not being university, the applicability of bringing the
university as defined under clause 2 (f) of UGC Act includes the
institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said
Act and therefore the affiliated colleges are excluded from the
F purview of technical institution definition of the AICTE Act. The
submission made on behalf of the colleges which are affiliated
to the respective universities which are being run by the
appellants in the connected appeals will also come within the
purview of the university referred to in the above definition of
G technical institution. The above interpretation sought to be
made by the learned senior counsel and another counsel is
supported by the provisions of the UGC Act. Section 12A of
the UGC Act clearly speaks of regulation of fees and provisions
of donation in certain cases which refers to the phrase affiliation
H together with its grammatical variation included in relation to a
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1111
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
college, recognition of such college by, association of such A
college with, and admission of such college to the privileges
of universities. A careful reading of sub-sections (2)(c), (3), (4)
and (5) of Section 12A of the UGC Act makes it abundantly
clear about colleges which are required to be affiliated to run
the courses for which sanction/approval will be accorded by the B
university or under the control and supervision of such
universities. Therefore, affiliated colleges to the university/
universities are part of them and the exclusion of university in
the definition of technical institution as defined in Section 2(h)
of the AICTE Act must be extended to the affiliated colleges to c
the university also, otherwise, the object and purpose of the
UGC Act enacted by the Parliament will be defeated. The
enactment of UGC Act is also traceable to Entry 66 of List I.
The aforesaid provisions of the UGC Act have been examined
by this Court with reference to the provisions of AICTE Act in
D
Bharathidasan University's case. Therefore, it has clearly laid
down the principle that the role of the AICTE Act is only advisory
in nature and is confined to submitting report or giving
suggestions to the UGC for the purpose of implementing its
suggestions to maintain good standards in technical education
in terms of definition under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and
E
to see that there shall be uniform education standard throughout
the country to be maintained which is the laudable object of the
AICTE Act for which it is enacted by the Parliament. The
provisions of the AICTE Act shall be implemented through the
UGC as the universities and its affiliated colleges are all F
governed by the provisions of the said Act under Section 12A
of the UGC Act read with Rules Regulations that will be framed
by the UGC in exercise of its power under Sections 25 and 26
of the said Act. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at in
Bharathidasan University case is supported by the eleven G
Judge Constitution Bench decision in T.M.A. Pai case (supra)
wherein this Court has overruled the directions given in Unni
Krishnan J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors6. to
6. 1993 (1) sec 645 . H
•
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A the Central Government and others regarding the reservations
and schemes. The relevant paragraphs of TM.A. Pai case
read as under:-
"37. Unni Krishnan judgment has created certain
problems, and raised thorny issues. In its anxiety to check
B
the commercialization of education, a scheme of "free" and
"payment" seats was evolved on the assumption that the
economic capacity of the first 50% of admitted students
would be greater than the remaining 50%, whereas the
converse has proved to be the reality. In this scheme, the
c "payment seat" student would not only pay for his own seat,
but also finance the cost of a "free seat" classmate. When
one considers the Constitution Bench's earlier statement
that higher education is not a fundamental right, it seems
unreasonable to compel a citizen to pay for the education
D of another, more so in the unrealistic world of competitive
examinations which assess the merit for the purpose of
admission solely on the basis of the marks obtained,
where the urban students always have an edge over the
rural students. In practice, it has been the case of the
E marginally less merited rural or poor student bearing the
burden of a rich and we/I-exposed urban student.
38. The scheme in Unni Krishnan case has the effect of
nationalizing education in respect of important features viz.
F the right of a private unaided institution to give admission
and to fix the fee. By framing this scheme, which has led
to the State Governments legislating in conformity with the
scheme, the private institutions are indistinguishable from
the government institutions; curtailing all the essential
features of the right of administration of a private unaided
G educational institution can neither be called fair nor
reasonable. Even in the decision in Unni Krishnan case
it has been observed by Jeevan Reddy, J., at p. 749, para
194, as follows:
H "194. The hard reality that emerges is that private
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1113
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
educational institutions are a necessity in the present-day A
context. It is not possible to do without them because the
governments are in no position to meet the demand -
particularly in the sector of medical and technical
education which call for substantial outlays. While
education is one of the most important functions of the B
Indian State it has no monopoly therein. Private
educational institutions - including minority educational
institutions - too have a role to play."
It has been clearly held that the decision in Unni Krishnan's C
case in so far as it framed the scheme relating to the grant of
admission and the existing of fee, is not correct and the
consequent directions given to UGC, AICTE and Medical
Council of India, Central Government and the State Government
etc. are overruled. It is worthwhile to mention paragraphs 29
and 31 of the UGC Report of the University Education D
Commission headed by late Dr. S. Radhakrishnan as its
Chairman and nine other renowned educationists as its
members. The report which is extracted at paragraph 51 in the
said T.M.A. Pai case reads thus:
E
"51. A University Education Commission was appointed
on 4-11-1948, having Dr S. Radhakrishnan as its
Chairman and nine other renowned educationists as its
members. The terms of reference, inter alia, included
matters relating to means and objects of university F
education and research in India and maintenance of higher
standards of teaching and examination in universities and
colleges under their control. In the report submitted by this
Commission, in paras 29 and 31, it referred to autonomy
in education which reads as follows:
G
"University autonomy.-Freedom of individual
development is the basis of democracy. Exclusive control
of education by the State has been an important factor in
facilitating the maintenance of totalitarian tyrannies. In such
States institutions of higher learning controlled and H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A managed by governmental agencies act like mercenaries,
promote the political purposes of the State, make them
acceptable to an increasing number of their population and
supply them with the weapons they need. We must resist,
in the interests of our own democracy, the trend towards
B the governmental domination of the educational process.
Higher education is, undoubtedly, an obligation of the State
but State aid is not to be confused with State control over
academic policies and practices. Intellectual progress
demands the maintenance of the spirit of free inquiry. The
c pursuit and practice of truth regardless of consequences
has been the ambition of universities. Their prayer is that
of the dying Goethe: 'More light', or that of Ajax in the mist
'Light, though I perish in the light.'
D • • •
The respect in which the universities of Great Britain are
held is due to the freedom from governmental interference
which they enjoy constitutionally and actually. Our
universities should be released from the control of politics.
E
Liberal education.-All education is expected to be
liberal. It should free us from the shackles of ignorance,
prejudice and unfounded belief. If we are incapable of
achieving the good life, it is due to faults in our inward
F being, to the darkness in us. The process of education is
the slow conquering of this darkness. To lead us from
darkness to light, to free us from every kind of domination
except that of reason, is the aim of education."
G Para 71 of the said decision, which deals with the rights
of the private aided non-minority professional institutions, is
extracted hereunder:
"Private aided professional institutions (non-minority)
H 71. While giving aid to professional institutions, it would
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1115
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J )
be permissible for the authority giving aid to prescribe by A
rules or regulations, the conditions on the basis of which
admission will be granted to different aided colleges by
virtue of merit, coupled with the reservation policy of the
State. The merit may be determined either through a
common entrance test conducted by the university or the B
Government followed by counselling, or on the basis of an
entrance test conducted by individual institutions - the
method to be followed is for the university or the
Government to decide. The authority may also devise other
means to ensure that admission is granted to an aided c
professional institution on the basis of merit. In the case
of such institutions, it will be permissible for the
Government or the university to provide that consideration
should be shown to the weaker sections of the society."
At paragraph 72 in the said judgment, it has been held that D
once aid is granted to a private professional educational
institution, the Government or the State agency, as a condition
of the grant of aid, can put fetters on the freedom in the matter
of administration and management of the institution. It is stated
as under: E
"72 .............. The State, which gives aid to an educational
institution, can impose such conditions as are necessary
for the proper maintenance of the high standards of
education as the financial burden is shared by the State. F
The State would also be under an obligation to protect the
interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff. In many
States, there are various statutory provisions to regulate
the functioning of such educational institutions where the
States give, as a grant or aid, a substantial proportion of G
the revenue expenditure including salary, pay and
allowances of teaching and non-teaching staff. It would be
its responsibility to ensure that the teachers working in
those institutions are governed by proper service
conditions. The State, in the case of such aided
H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A institutions, has ample power to regulate the method of
selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing
requisite qualifications for the same. Ever since In Re,
Kera/a Education Bill, 1957 this Court has upheld, in the
case of aided institutions, those regulations that served the
B interests of students and teachers. Checks on the
administration may be necessary in order to ensure that
the administration is efficient and sound and will serve the
academic needs of the institutions. In other words, rules
and regulations that promote good administration and
c prevent maladministration can be formulated so as to
promote the efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness
in administration and to preserve harmony among affiliated
institutions. At the same time it has to be ensured that even
an aided institution does not become a government-owned
and controlled institution. Normally, the aid that is granted
D
is relatable to the pay and allowances of the teaching staff.
In addition, the management of the private aided
institutions has to incur revenue and capital expenses.
Such aided institutions cannot obtain that extent of
autonomy in relation to management and administration as
E would be available to a private unaided institution, but at
the same time, it cannot also be treated as an educational
institution departmentally run by Government or as a wholly
owned and controlled government institution and interfere
with constitution of the governing bodies or thrusting the
F staff without reference to management."
40. A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs extracted from
TMA Pai's case makes it very clear that in view of decision of
the eleven Judges Constitution Bench of this Court, the scheme
G framed under the Unni Krishnan's case has been overruled.
Therefore, the autonomy of the university is recognized in the
said case and the object and intendment of the Parliament in
excluding the universities from the definition of technical
institution as defined under Section 2{h) of the AICTE Act
H makes is explicitly clear, after scanning the definition of
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1117
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
education institution with reference to the exclusion of A
universities and Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the AICTE Act.
The object of the statutory enactment made by the Parliament
has been succinctly examined by this Court in Bharathidasan
University and Parshvanath Charitable Trust cases referred
to supra therefore they have rightly made observations that the B
role of the AICTE Act in view of the UGC Act and the powers
and functions conferred by the UGC for controlling and regulating
the universities and its affiliated colleges has been explicitly
conferred upon the UGC. Hence, they have been given the
power to regulate such universities and regulations in relation c
to granting sanctions/approvals and also maintaining
educational standards and over-seeing the prescription of the
fee structure including the admission of students in various
courses and programmes that will be conducted by the
university and its institutions, constituent colleges, units and the D
affiliated colleges. Therefore, we have to hold that the
Bharathidasan University case (supra) on all fours be
applicable to the fact situation of these appeals and we have
to apply the said principle in the cases in hand whereas in the
decisions of Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute
E
case and Jaya Gokul Education Trusfs case (supra) this Court
has not examined the cases from the aforesaid perspective.
Therefore, the same cannot be applied to the fact situation. The
reliance placed upon those judgments by the learned senior
counsel on behalf of the AICTE is misplaced.
F
Accordingly, point nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of
the appellants.
Answer to Point No.3
41. Learned senior counsel for AICTE, Mr. Rakesh G
Dwivedi, with reference to the definition of technical education
under the provisions of the AICTE Act, urged that the definition
of engineering and technology has to be construed and
interpreted to bring MCA course under its fold in view of the
H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A meaning assigned to those words occurred in the definition
clause by placing reliance on the different dictionaries, which
are extracted as hereunder:
As per the Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary,
'Technology' means:
8
"(1) Theoretical knowledge of industry and the industrial
arts.
(2) The application of science to the arts.
c (3) That branch of ethnology which treats of the
development of the arts''.
Wharton's Law Lexicon defines 'Technology' as:
D "any information (including information embodied in
software) other than information in the public domain, that
is capable of being used in- (i) the development,
production or use of any goods or software; (ii) the
development of, or the carrying out of, an industrial or
E commercial activity or the provision of a service of any
kind. Explanation, when technology is described wholly or
partly by reference to the uses to which it (or the goods to
which it relates) may be put, it shall include services which
are provided or used, or which are capable of being used,
in the development, production or use of such technology
F
or goods. [Weapons of Mass Destruction and their delivery
system ... ]. Means a branch of knowledge; the knowledge
and means used to produce the material necessities of a
society .... "
G Further, Encyclopedia Law Lexicon presents 'Technology' as:
"any information (including information embodied in
software) other than information in the public domain, that
is capable of being used in- (i) the development production
H or use of any goods or software; (ii) the development of,
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1119
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
or the carrying out of, an industrial or commercial activity A
or the provision of a service of any kind. [Section 4(1), The
Weapons of Mass Destruction and their delivery system
(Prohibition of Unlawful Activities Act, 2005)."
The New Shorter Oxford English dictionary defines 'Technology'
B
as:
"1 (a) The branch of knowledge that deals with the
mechanical arts of applied sciences; a discourse or
treaties on (one of) these subjects, orig. on an art or arts.
(b). The terminology of a particular subject; technical C
nomenclature. 2(a). The mechanical arts or applied
sciences collectively; the application of (any of) these. (b).
A particular mechanical art or applied science."
Further, 'Technology', in Advanced Law Lexicon is defined as D
"any special or technical knowledge or any special service
required for any purpose whosoever by an industrial
concern under any foreign collaboration, and includes
designs, drawings, publication and technical personnel."
E
and 'knowledge' is defined in the same dictionary as
"the means and methods of producing goods and services,
or the application of science to production or distribution,
resulting in the creation of new products, new
F
manufacturing processes, or more efficient methods of
distribution. (WTO)."
The meaning of Engineering as given in Dictionaries are
read as under:
G
Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary - Engineering -
Enginering in the broader sense, is that branch of human
endeavour by which the forces of nature are brought under
human control and the properties of matter made useful in
structures and machines" H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Advanced Law Lexicon - The activity or the functions of
an Engineer; the science by which the properties of matter
and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to man
in structures, machines and products; relating to
engineering.
B
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary - The work
done by or the occupation of, an engineer, the application
of the science for directly useful purposes as, construction,
propulsion, communication or manufacture. The action of
working artfully to bring something about. A field of study
c or activity concerned with deliberate alteration or
modification in some particular area.
Law Lexicon - The activity or the functions of an engineer;
the science by which the properties of matter and the
D sources of energy in nature are made useful to man in
structures, machines and products."
42. The above meanings of the words 'technology' and
'engineering' as per the dictionaries referred to supra would
E clearly go to show that MCA also comes within the definition
of technology. Therefore, the contention that technical education
includes MCA as raised by the learned senior counsel on
behalf of the AICTE stand to its reasoning and logic in view of
the nature of MCA course which is being imparted to the
students at post graduation level which is being conducted by
F the institutions, constituent colleges and affiliated colleges to
the universities. The same is a technical education and
therefore, it comes within the definition of technical education
but for its proper conduct of courses and regulation the role of
AICTE must be advisory and for the same, a note shall be given
G to the UGC for its implementation by it but not the AICTE.
Accordingly, point no.3 is answered in favour of respondent
AICTE.
43. As per definition of 'technical education' under Section
H 2(g) of the AICTE Act and non production of a: 1y material by
. ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1121
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
the AICTE to show that MBA course is a technical education, A
we hold that MBA course is not a technical course within the
definition of the AICTE Act and in so far as reasons assigned
for MCA course being 'technical education', the same does not
hold for MBA course. Therefore, for the reasons assignkd while
answering the points which are framed in so far as the MCA B
course is concerned, the approval from the AICTE is not
required for obtaining permission and running MBA course by
the appellant colleges.
44. So far as point nos.4 and 5 are concerned, the C
amended Regulation Nos. 8(c) and 8(iv) of 2000 were
introduced by the AICTE in exercise of its power under section
10(k) of AICTE Act by adding the MBA and MCA courses within
the purview of the provisions of AICTE as it is included in the
Regulation as a technical education. It is the case made out
by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Prashant Bhushan that D
the amended Regulation has not been placed before the
Parliament which is mandatory as per the provisions of Section
24 of the AICTE Act, the said contention has not been disputed
by the AICTE in these cases. The provision of Section 24 reads
fu• E
"24. Rules and regulations to be laid before
Parliament:- Every rule and every regulation made under
this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made,
before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, F
for a total period of thirly days which may be comprised
in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and
it before the expiry of the session immediately following
the session or the successive sessions, aforesaid, both
Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not be G
made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only
in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may
be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment
shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under that rule or regulation."
H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A The position of law is well settled by this Court that if the Statute
prescribes a particular procedure to do an act in a particular
way, that act must be done in that manner, otherwise it is not
at all done. In the case of Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of
Kera/a 7 , after referring to this Court's earlier decisions and
B Privy Council and Chancellors Court, it was held as under:
"31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the
manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any
statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.
The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor
c v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir
Ahmad v. King Emperor-who stated as under:
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao
Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again in Deep
D Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were
considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State
of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir
Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been
applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has
E also been recognised as a salutary principle of
administrative law."
In view of the above said decision, not placing the amended
Regulations on the floor of the Houses of Parliament as
required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act vitiates the
F amended Regulations in law and hence the submissions· made
on behalf of the appellants in this regard deserve to be
accepted. Accordingly, point Nos. 4 and 5 are answered in
favour of the appellants.
G 45. In so far as point no.6 is concerned, the law laid down
in Bharathidasan University case, for the reasons recorded by
us while answering point nos.1 and 2 in favour of the appellants,
the said decision on all fours be applicable. We have
H 7. 1999 (3) sec 422.
ASSON. OF MAGMT OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1123
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
distinguished Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute A
and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust cases from Bharathidasan
University case in the reasoning portion while answering point
nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the said two cases need not be applied
to the present case.
B
46. For the foregoing reasons, the common impugned .
judgment and order passed in W.A. 2652 of 2001, W.A. No.
3090 of 2001, WA 2835 of 2001, WA 3087 of 2001, WA 2836
of 2001, WA 3091 of 2001, WA 3092 of 2001, WA 2837 of
2001, WA 3088 of 2001, WA 2838 of 2001 and WA 3089 of
2001 is hereby set aside. The civil appeals are allowed. The C
relief sought for in the Writ Petitions is granted in so far as not
to seek approval from the AICTE for MBA and MCA courses
are concerned.
There will be no order as to costs. D
B.B.B. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "AICTE"Sign in to search