Supreme Court of India
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICALversusCRESCENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 757
- Decided
- 18 November 2021
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court held that JNTU must obtain the State Government’s NOC as mandated by its regulations before granting affiliation, and the High Court’s interim orders were improper.
Summary
The case concerned Jawaharlich Nehru Technological University (JNTU) seeking a State Government No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) before granting affiliation to new courses in institutions that already had All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) approval. The Telangana High Court, relying on the view that AICTE approval made a State NOC unnecessary, issued interim orders allowing the institutions to participate in the second round of counselling. JNTU challenged these orders, contending that its own regulations (5.5, 5.6, 6.1) expressly require a State NOC and that the High Court’s direction was premature. The Supreme Court examined the regulations, Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982, and earlier Supreme Court decisions, and held that the university must obtain the State NOC before affiliation and that the High Court’s interim orders were untenable. Accordingly, the Court directed the State to grant its NOC (which had already been done), ordered JNTU to complete the affiliation process within ten days, and stayed the High Court’s interim orders pending the outcome. The appeals were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a university may condition the grant of affiliation on the issuance of a State Government No‑Objection Certificate after AICTE approval.
- Whether the High Court could issue interim orders allowing student counselling before the State NOC and affiliation were obtained.
- Interpretation of JNTU Regulations 5.5, 5.6 and 6.1 in relation to Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982.
Legislation cited
Subjects
affiliationAICTE approvalState NOCuniversity regulationsinterim ordershigher educationTelangana Education Actstudent admissionsjudicial intervention
Judgment
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1123 1123
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY A
v.
CRESCENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No 6931 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 18, 2021 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Education / Educational Institution – Grant of affiliation –
Whether once AICTE had granted its approval, it was not open to
C
the affiliating University to predicate the grant of its affiliation on
the issuance of an NOC by the State Government – On facts,
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) had sought
approval of the State Government before granting affiliation to new
courses in existing institutions, which were already approved by All
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) – High Court D
however issued interim orders allowing the institutions concerned
to participate in the second round of counselling – Challenge to –
Held: At the point of time when the High Court passed the interim
orders, neither had the State granted its NOC nor had JNTU granted
affiliation – During pendency of these proceedings, the State
E
Government granted its NOC – The process of affiliation is yet to
be completed by JNTU – In this backdrop, the High Court ought
not to have issued the impugned interim direction – Issuing such a
judicial fiat even before the process contemplated by the Regulations
is complete is likely to prejudice the students, often, in an irretrievable
manner, in the event that the affiliation is eventually denied – F
Creation of equities in favour of students lead to serious issues
subsequently, when such interim orders lead to admission of students
to an institution which may eventually be denied affiliation – Now
that the State Government has granted its NOC, JNTU indicated
willingness to conduct the process of affiliation – Once the process
G
of affiliation is complete, the High Court can be duly apprised of
the result, in relation to each institution which has applied for
permission – Meantime, the interim orders would remain stayed, to
abide by the final result of the affiliation process – Regulations
governing JNTU – Regulations 5.5, 5.6 and 6.1.
H
1123
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A Jaya Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner &
Secretary to Govt Higher Education Department,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and Another (2000)
5 SCC 231 : [2000] 2 SCR 1234; Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological University Registrar v. Sangam Laxmi Bai
Vidyapeet and Others (2019) 17 SCC 729 : [2018] 14
B
SCR 103; and A P J Abdul Kalam Technological
University and Another v. Jai Bharath College of
Management and Engineering Technology and Others
(2021) 2 SCC 564 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
C
[2000] 2 SCR 1234 referred to Para 2
[2018] 14 SCR 103 referred to Para 12
(2021) 2 SCC 564 referred to Para 13
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6931 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2021 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 26590 of 2021.
With
E Civil Appeal Nos. 6932-6942, 6948-6952 of 2021.
C. S. Vaidyanathan Sr. Adv., P. Venkat Reddy, Ramachander Goud,
Dharmesh, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy for M/S. Venkat Palwai
Law Associates, Advs. for the Appellant.
F S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv., D. Abhinav Rao, Tarun Reddy, Raavi
Venkata Yogesh, G. Tarun Reddy, Abhishek Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
G
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Telangana, by its interim orders dated
5 October 2021, 25 October 2021 and 26 October 2021, has held that
the action of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University1 in seeking the
1
H “JNTU”
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1125
CRESCENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
approval of the State Government before granting affiliation to new A
courses in existing institutions, which have already been approved by All
India Council for Technical Education2, is contrary to the decision of this
Court in Jaya Gokul Education Trust v Commissioner & Secretary
to Govt Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala State and Another3. Consequently, the High Court has, directed
B
JNTU to notify the institutions in the course of the second phase of
counselling thereby allowing students to be admitted to the courses.
Several institutions sought the permission of AICTE, inter alia, for
enhancing the intake capacity in “emerging areas” of engineering or, as
the case may be, for new courses. The approval of AICTE was granted.
3. JNTU addressed a communication on 8 September 2021 to the C
Commissioner for Technical Education seeking the approval of the State
Government for granting affiliation to new courses/increase in intake in
the Under Graduate4 courses for 2021-22. The communication noted,
however, that the final affiliation for the new seats/increase in seats
would be subject to fulfillment of infrastructure and qualified faculty D
verified by the JNTU Fact Finding Committee.
4. On 11 September 2021, the Commissioner of Technical
Education addressed a communication to the Secretary, Higher Education
(TE) Department requesting the Government to examine the request of
the institutions for the proposed introduction of new courses/variation in E
the intake of the existing engineering colleges which had offered UG
level courses from 2021-22.
5. A batch of petitions was instituted before the High Court in
which the principal ground of challenge was that once AICTE had granted
its approval, it was not open to the affiliating University to predicate the F
grant of its affiliation on the issuance of an NOC by the State Government.
This submission weighed with the High Court while passing the interim
orders. The High Court was of the view that the decision of this Court in
Jaya Gokul Education Trust (supra) would support the contention of
the institutions. Hence, it issued the interim directions which have been
noted earlier. The interim orders of the High Court have been called into G
question by JNTU.
2
“AICTE”
3
(2000) 5 SCC 231
4
“UG” H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A 6. Mr C S Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel has appeared on behalf
of JNTU, while Mr S Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel, has appeared on
behalf of the institutions.
7. The submission which has been urged on behalf of JNTU is
that the regulations of JNTU expressly contemplate a role for the State
B Government and the purpose of seeking an NOC of the State is to ensure
that it can duly consider the needs of the area concerned and whether
the proposed course or, as the case may be, additional intake, would be
consistent with the overall policy of the State. Moreover, it was urged
that the decision of this Court in Jaya Gokul Education Trust (supra)
has been subsequently considered in several decisions and has been
C distinguished. The importance of the role of the State, it has been
emphasized, has been underscored in subsequent decisions of this Court,
including in the case of JNTU itself. In this backdrop, it is urged that it
was not appropriate for the High Court to issue an interim direction for
counselling of students, particularly when neither the NOC of the State
D Government had been granted nor the process of affiliation was
completed. The decisions on which reliance has been placed by Mr C S
Vaidyanathan would be considered in the course of the discussion.
8. On the other hand, Mr S Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel
urged that the challenge which was addressed before the High Court
E was predicated on the insistence of JNTU that it must receive the NOC
of the State Government before it proceeds with the process of affiliation.
The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the institutions do not dispute
the statutory authority of JNTU to conduct the affiliation process, but
once approval was granted by AICTE, JNTU’s further recourse to the
State Government for its NOC would be contrary to the Central legislation
F by which AICTE is governed.
9. At the outset, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of the
Regulations governing JNTU. Regulations 5.5, 5.6 and 6.1 have a crucial
bearing on the controversy and are, hence, extracted below:
G “5.5 The existing College / Institute after obtaining approval/
awaiting approval from AICTE, has to obtain the requisite
permission from the State Government. Later, the College/
Institute can apply for affiliation to the University on or
before the cut-off date prescribed by the University through
H
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1127
CRESCENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
online application for the academic year annually. No A
application for grant of affiliation will be considered after
the cut-off date. However, the Grant of Affiliation by the
University is subjected to approval from AICTE/PCI/State
Government as the case may be.
5.6 The permission for establishing Colleges and starting of new B
programs in the existing Colleges shall be considered by
the University as per the priority/policy of the State
Government if any. Hence, the College /Institute shall obtain
prior permission from the State Government to start a new
Program/College.
C
6.1 The applications for issue of NOC for Increase in Intake/
Closure of Course or College/Institution / Change of Name/
Change of Site/Location or any other matter where
University NOC is required shall be accompanied by the
resolution from Society/Management. Further, for starting
a new Course/Increase in intake/Change of Site/Location D
of the existing College/Institute, prior permission from the
State Government is mandatory.”
10. Regulation 5.5 expressly embodies the requirement of the
permission of the State Government after an existing college or institution
has obtained the approval or, as the case may be, is awaiting the approval E
of the AICTE. Later, the institution can apply for affiliation by JNTU on
or before the cut-off date. Regulation 5.6 stipulates that the permission
for establishing colleges and starting of new programmes in existing
colleges would be considered by JNTU in accordance with the priority/
policy of the State Government and, hence, the prior permission of the F
State Government is required. Likewise, Regulation 6.1 makes it
mandatory to obtain the prior permission of the State Government either
to start a new course or, for that matter, to increase the intake capacity
of an existing course.
11. The role of the State Government has been reiterated in G
several decisions of this Court. At the present stage, it is material to cite
two of those decisions. Significantly, as we shall note, the earlier decision
in Jaya Gokul Education Trust (supra), upon which reliance was placed
by the High Court has also been considered in that context.
H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A 12. In Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar
v Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet and Others5, a two-Judge Bench of
this Court considered the provisions of Section 20 of the Telangana
Education Act 1982 under which permission is required, inter alia, for
opening new courses. In that context, the Court observed:
B “14. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of section 20(1)
makes it clear that the survey is conducted so as to identify
the educational needs of the locality would definitely include
within its ken how many institutions are operating in the
area and whether there is any further requirement of
opening educational institutions/new courses in existing
C colleges, and it is also imperative under section 20(3)(a)(i)
that educational agency has to satisfy the authority that
there is a need for providing educational facilities to the
people in the locality. In case there are already a large
number of institutions imparting education in the area the
D competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC,
for permitting an institution to come up in the area.
15. The provisions contained in section 20 are wholesome and
intend not only to cater to the educational needs of the area
but also prevent the mushroom growth of the institutions/
E courses. In case institutions are permitted to run each and
every course that may affect the very standard of education
and may ultimately result in substandard education. There
is already a paucity of well qualified teachers in a large
number of institutions and the available seats in Pharmacy
course in the Hyderabad city are remaining vacant every
F year in spite of the reduction in a number of seats. It had
not been 10 possible to fill up the available vacancies due to
nonavailability of students. Thus, it is apparent that when
30 institutions in Hyderabad city are already running
Pharmacy course, the refusal to grant NOC by the
G University was wholly justified.
16. Apart from the provisions contained in section 20, when
we consider Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 which clearly provide
that a new college proposing to offer technical education
5
H (2019) 17 SCC 729
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1129
CRESCENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
with the University affiliation shall first seek a NOC from A
the University before applying to AICTE/PCI/any other
statutory body. Regulation 5.3 provides that the permission
for starting of new programmes in the existing colleges shall
be considered by the University as per the priority/policy of
the State Government if any.”
B
On the basis of the above analysis, the Court held that it was
erroneous for the High Court to hold that it was not permissible for the
State Government to frame a policy and that JNTU was bound to issue
its NOC.
13. A more recent decision is a judgment of a three-Judge Bench C
of this Court in A P J Abdul Kalam Technological University and
Another v Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering
Technology and Others6. In that decision, the importance of the role
which is played by the State and by the affiliating University has again
been emphasized and it has been noted that it would be open to the State
Government to even prescribe standards higher than those recognized D
by AICTE. Adverting to the decision in Jaya Gokul Education Trust
(supra), it has been noted that it has been distinguished subsequently.
The Court noted that after the advent of the AICTE Regulations,
applications for extension of approval are processed online on the basis
of self-disclosure. Hence, it is all the more necessary for the Universities E
to conduct the process of affiliation with scrupulous care in order to
ensure that the interest of students is not imperilled.
14. In this backdrop, at the point of time when the High Court
passed its interim orders, neither had the State granted its NOC nor had
JNTU granted affiliation. During the pendency of the proceedings, the F
Higher Education (TE) Department of the Government of Telangana
has granted its NOC on 1 November 2021. The process of affiliation is
yet to be completed by JNTU. In this backdrop, the High Court ought
not to have issued an interim direction so as to allow the institutions
concerned to participate in the second round of counselling. Issuing such
a judicial fiat even before the process contemplated by the Regulations G
is complete is likely to prejudice the students, often, in an irretrievable
manner, in the event that the affiliation is eventually denied. Experience
indicates that the creation of equities in favour of students leads to serious
6
(2021) 2 SCC 564 H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A issues subsequently, when the interim orders of the High Court lead to
the admission of the students to an institution which may eventually be
denied affiliation. The interim direction cannot be sustained.
15. Since the State Government has granted its NOC, JNTU has
indicated in its submissions, a willingness to conduct the process of
B affiliation. Mr C S Vaidynathan stated that JNTU will conduct the
process of affiliation within a period of ten days.
16. Once the process of affiliation is complete, the High Court
can be duly apprised of the result, in relation to each institution which
has applied for permission. Meantime, the interim order would remain
C stayed, to abide by the final result of the affiliation process.
17. We accordingly dispose of the appeals in terms of the following
directions:
(i) Since the State of Telangana has granted its NOC on 1
November 2021, JNTU shall complete the process of
D affiliation strictly in accordance with its Regulations within
a period of ten days;
(ii) After JNTU completes the process of affiliation, after due
verification and inspection of the infrastructure and other
facilities available at the institutions concerned, an affidavit
E shall be filed before the High Court of Telangana indicating
the outcome of the process;
(iii) Until the steps indicated in (ii) above are complete, the interim
direction of the High Court shall continue to remain stayed;
and
F
(iv) Depending upon the outcome of the process of affiliation,
the High Court would be at liberty to take up the matter
and issue such further directions as may be deemed
necessary.
18. We clarify that this court has not issued any mandate or
G direction for breaching the time lines which have been prescribed by
AICTE for completion of the process of approval, affiliation and
admissions. All the requirements of AICTE in regard to the last date for
the completion of admissions shall be duly complied with.
H
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1131
CRESCENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
19. We leave it open to the High Court to pass appropriate orders A
in the case of each institution based on the decision of the affiliating
University. After the decision of the University is communicated, the
High Court may take an appropriate decision in regard to the compliant
institutions.
20. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. B
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals disposed of.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "affiliation"Sign in to search