Supreme Court of India
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS.versusALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU & ORS.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 591
- Decided
- 13 December 2012
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A K PATNAIK
Holding
The Court held that the college’s shift without AICTE and statutory approvals violated Clause 9.22, rendering the AICTE’s withdrawal of approval valid and non‑interferable, and affirmed the High Court’s dismissal of the petition.
Summary
The Parshavanath Charitable Trust ran an engineering college that shifted to a new site in May 2008 without obtaining the No‑Objection Certificate or prior approval required under Clause 9.22 of the AICTE Handbook. Although AICTE later granted approval for the 2008‑09 and 2009‑10 academic years, the approvals expressly required operation only from the originally approved location. The AICTE subsequently withdrew the approval, and the Bombay High Court dismissed the Trust’s petition to be included in the Centralised Admission Process. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, holding that the college’s relocation violated statutory procedures, making the AICTE’s withdrawal lawful; it also affirmed the mandatory nature of the AICTE’s approval and admission schedules and imposed a modest cost on AICTE for procedural lapses.
Issues considered
- The validity of AICTE's withdrawal of approval despite earlier approvals for 2008‑09 and 2009‑10.
- Whether the college complied with the procedural requirements of Clause 9.22 of the AICTE Handbook for change of location.
- Whether the High Court erred in directing the inclusion of the college in the Centralised Admission Process.
- Whether AICTE's earlier approvals can be deemed compliance with location requirements.
- Whether AICTE's alleged procedural lapses warrant judicial interference and imposition of costs.
- The mandatory nature of the AICTE approval and admission schedules under the 1994 Regulations.
Legislation cited
Subjects
AICTEtechnical educationapprovalchange of locationNo Objection Certificateadmission schedulestatutory complianceregulatory lapsecost of litigationeducational institutioncentral vs state law
Judgment
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 1057
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS. A
v.
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9048 of 2012 etc.)
DECEMBER 13, 2012
B
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987:
s.10(1)(k) of the Act and clause 9.22 of the Handbook of c
Approval Process - Shifting of Engineering College -
Requirements to be complied with - Held: Clause 9.22 of the
Handbook of Approval Process issued by AICTE provides a
complete procedure for change of location and the same is
permissible subject to compliance with the procedure - In the D
instant case, appellant-college had shifted to the new
premises without approval of AICTE and without 'No Objection
Certificate' from the State Government and Directorate of
Technical Education - Undisputedly, the appellant-college
had no title to the property and, in fact, it did not even have a E
registered lease deed in its favour to create some
recognizable interest in the property in question - High Court
in its judgment had specifically noticed the defects pointed
out by the Expert Committee - View of High Court that the
College had failed to comply with requirements for grant of F
approval and had shifted to the new site without approval of
the AICTE and other authorities concerned cannot be faulted
with and does not call for any interference - In the
circumstances, withdrawal of approval by AICTE can also not
be interfered with.
G
ss. 10 and 23 of the Act and Regulation 8(15) of 1994
Regulations - Application for grant of approval to shifting of
Engineering College - AICTE granting approval for academic
1057 H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, albeit to operate the
College only from the approved location - Subsequently,
approval withdrawn on 7.1.2011 - Held: It is the requirement
of law that there should be strict adherence to the time
schedule for grant of approval as well as for admissions without
B exception - The Schedule to the Regulations has statutory
backing - Its adherence is mandatory and not directory - In
the instant case, there has been apparent error in exercise
of power and discretion by the A/GTE - Admittedly, the
appellant-college had been carrying on its education courses
c since the year 1994 - It had submitted its application for
transfer to the new site on 24.5.2008 - There is nothing on
record to show that this application was dealt with either by the
Regional Office or by the main office of the A/GTE - Granting
of approval for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10
particularly when the Expert Committee is stated to have
0
visited the premises on 26.6.2008 and found inadequacies
in the report, is certainly a lapse on the part of the A/GTE
which cannot be ignored by the Court as it had far-reaching
consequences including placing the career of the students
E admitted during these two years in jeopardy - Thus, cost of
Rs.50,0001- is imposed upon the A/GTE for such
irresponsible working - The costs would be recovered from
the salary of the erring officials/officers involved in the
erroneous approach - Admission schedule and Schedule for
granting/refusal of approval modified and directions issued
F accordingly - All India Council for Technical Education (Grant
of Approvals for Staffing New Technical Institution,
Introduction of Course and Programmes and Approval of
Intake Capacity) Regulations, 1994.
G The appellant Trust started an Engineering College
at the premises bearing Survey No. 27, from the academic
year 1994-95 after obtaining approval from the authorities
concerned. On 24.5.2008, the Trust moved an application
to the Regional Office of the All India Council for
H Technical Education (AICTE) seeking its permission to
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1059
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU
shift the College to new premises; it also applied for A
Issuance of a "No Objection Certificate". However, in May
2008, the Trust shifted the College to the new site. On
30.6.2008, the AICTE granted extension of approval to the
College for academic years 2008-2011 with an intake
capacity of 280 students and with a specific assertion that B
the institution would operate only from the approved
location. By letter dated 20.8.2009 AICTE granted
approval to the College with increased intake from 280
to 360 students for the academic year 2009. On 18.5.2010
the AICTE issued a notice to the College that it had shifted c
to another location without obtaining prior approval. The
College was also not included in the Centralised
Admission Process by the State Government. The
appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which
directed that the College be allowed to participate in CAP D
in the second round. On 7.1.2011, the AICTE passed an
order withdrawing the approval granted to the College for
the academic year 2008-2009. The writ petition filed by
the appellant having been dismissed by the High Court,
it filed the appeals. Two students also filed another
appeal by seeking leave of the Court. E·
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The AICTE is a specialized body
constituted for the purpose of bringing uniformity in F
technical education all over the country and to ensure
that the institutions which are recognised by it are
possessed of complete infrastructure, staff and other
facilities and are capable of maintaining education
standards for imparting technical education. [para 25] G
[1080-B-C]
Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner &
Secretary to Government Higher Education Department,
Thiruvanathapuram, Kera/a State and Anr. 2000 (2)
SCR 1234 = (2000) 5 SCC 231 - referred to. H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R.
A 1.2. Section 10(1 )(k) of the All India Council for
Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act) empowers the
AICTE to "grant approval for starting new technical
institutions and for introduction of new courses or
programmes in consultation with the agencies
B concerned". It is important to see that the AICTE is
empowered to inspect or cause to inspect any technical
institution under clause (p) of sub-s. (1) of s. 10 without
any reservation whatsoever. However, when it comes to
the question of universities, it is confined and limited to
c ascertaining the financial needs or its standards of
teaching, examination and research. The inspection may
be made or caused to be made of any department or
departments only and that too, in such manner as may
be prescribed, as envisaged in s. 11 of the AICTE Act
D [para 23] [1079-B-E]
Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale
(2012) 2 SCC 425; State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman
=
Educational & Research Institute 1995 (2) SCR 1075 (1995)
4 SCC 104; and Bharathidasan University v. All India
E Council for Technical Education (2001) 8 SCC 676 - referred
to.
1.3. The consistent view of this Court has been that
where both Parliament and State Legislature have the
F power to legislate, the Central Act shall take precedence
in the matters which are covered by such legislations and
the State enactments shall pave way for such legislations
to the extent they are in conflict or repugnant As per the
established canons of law, primacy of the Central Act is
G undisputable which necessarily implies primacy of AICTE
in the field of technical education. The AICTE is the
authority constituted under the Central Act with the
responsibility of maintaining operational standards and
judging the infrastructure and facilities available for
imparting professional education. It shall take
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1061
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU
precedence over the opinion of the State as well as that A
of the University. It needs to be clarified that grant of
approval by the State and affiliation by the University for
increased intake of seats or commencement of new
college should not be repugnant to the conditions of
approval/recommendation granted by the AICTE. [para B
27) [1083-E·H; 1084-A-B-C]
1.4. It is also a settled principle that the regulations
framed by the central authorities such as the AICTE have
the force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once
approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the C
courts would normally not substitute their view in this
regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted
by the court unless the powers vested in such expert
body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner
impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act. D
[para 28) [1084-D-F]
A/GTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan 2009 (3) SCR 859 =
(2009) 11 SCC 726; Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Others etc. etc.
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others etc. etc. (1993) 1 SCC E
645 - referred to. ·
2.1. Right to establish an educational institution does
not carry with it the right to recognition or the right to
affiliation. Grant of recognition or affiliation is neither a F
matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission to the
privileges of a University is a power to be exercised with
great care keeping in view the interest of the public at
large and the nation. Recognition has to be as per
statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict
adherence by all concerned. These conditions of G
recognition and the duly notified directions controlling
the admission process are to be construed and applied
stricto sensu. They cannot be varied from case to case.
[para 29) [1086-C-E]
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Ranjan Purohit and Ors. v. Rajasthan University of
Health Science and Ors. (2012) 8 SCALE 71; Medical
Council of India v. Madhu Singh 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228=
(2002) 7 sec 258 - referred to.
B 2.2. Compliance with the conditions for approval as
well as regulations and provisions of the AICTE Act is an
unexceptionable condition. Clause 9.22 of the Handbook
of Approval Process issued by the AICTE provides a
complete procedure for change of location, station and
C the same is permissible subject to compliance with the
procedure. It contemplates obtaining of 'No Objection
Certificate' from the concerned State Government or UT
Administration and affiliating body. The same clause also
requires submission of the land documents in original
and clearly provides that the same may be a registered
D sale deed, irrevocable government lease for a minimum
period of 30 years, etc. by the concerned authority of the
Government. [para 31] [1087-D-F]
2.3. There is no dispute as to the fact that the
E appellant-college had shifted to the new premises
without approval of the AICTE and without 'No Objection
Certificate' from the State Government and Directorate of
Technical Education. Undisputedly, the appellant-college
had no title to the property and, in fact, it did not even
F have a registered lease deed in its favour to create some
recognizable interest in the property in question. The
High Court in its judgment had specifically noticed the
defects pointed out by the Expert Committee. [para 30]
[1086-F-G; 1087-A-B]
G 2.4. Even the approvals granted for the academic
years 2008-09 and 2009-10 had c1early stated that the
institution shall operate only from the approved location
arid it shall not open any campus/executive centres
directly or in collaboration with any other institution/
H university for the purpose of imparting technical
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1063
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU
education without obtaining prior approval from the A
AICTE. The approval for these academic years was
granted to the College being run at Survey Nos.27 and
not at any other place. There is no occasion to take it as
a deemed and/or implied approval for the new site of the
appellant-college. Approval can hardly be inferred. It is a B
matter of fact and the authorities are expected· to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law and upon due
diligence and in compliance with the procedure
prescribed under law. [para 32-33] [1088-B-D]
2.5. Thus, the view of the High Court that the College C
had failed to comply with the requirements for grant of
approval and had shifted to the new site without approval
of the AICTE and other authorities concerned cannot be
faulted with and does not call for any interference. There
being no compliance to the legal requirements and D
· binding conditions of recognition, the withdrawal of
approval by the AICTE can also be not interfered with.
[para 34] [1088-E-F]
2.6. In the circumstances, the appellant college could E
not have been included in the counselling for the current
year. Even otherwise, the last date for admission was
30.8.2012, which is since over and there is no reason
whatsoever to extend this date. Further, the Court is
required to strictly construe and comply with the F
schedule for admission. [para 35] [1088-G-H; 1089-A]
3.1. It is the requirement of law that there should be
strict adherence to the time schedule for grant of
approval as well as for admissions without exception. In
exercise of the powers vested in the AICTE, under sub- G
s. (1) of s.23 of the AICTE Act, it had made regulations
namely the All India Council for Technical Education
(Grant of Approvals for Staffing New Technical Institution,
Introduction of Course and Programmes and Approval of
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Intake Capacity) Regulations, 1994. Schedule to these
regulations has statutory backing. Thus, its adherence is
mandatory and not directory. The authorities concerned,
particularly the AICTE, should ensure proper and timely
action upon the applications submitted to it. For better
B administration, the AICTE should also state the time
within which the deficiencies/ defects should be removed
by the applicant. [para 38-40) [1089-F-G; 1091-C-D, F]
3.2. Admission schedule should be declared once
C and for all rather than making it a yearly declaration.
Consistency and smoothness in admission process
would demand and require that there is a fixed and
unaltered time schedule provided for admission to the
colleges so that the students know with certainty and well
in advance the admission schedule that is to be followed
D and on the basis of which they are to have their choice
of college or course exercised. It cannot be appreciated
that once the academic session begins on 1st August,
then as to why should admission be granted upto 30th
August of the year, particularly when, as per the terms of
E the Schedule, beyond or after 30th April, AICTE will not
issue any approval for commencement of new course for
additional intakes. The Schedule, thus, introduces an
element of arbitrariness and may cause prejudice to the
students who might miss their classes for a period of one
F month without any justification. Thus, it is required that
the Schedule be modified to bring it in line with the
Schedule for approval as well as to prevent inequalities,
arbitrariness and prejudice from affecting the students in
relation to their academic courses. The order granting or
G refusing approval, thus, should positively be passed by
10th April of the relevant year. The appeal should be filed
within one week and the Appellate Committee should hear
the appeal and decide the same by 30th April of the
relevant year. The University should grant/decline
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1065
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU
approval/affiliation by 15th May of the relevant year. A
Advertisement should be issued and entrance
examination conducted positively by the end of the
month of May. The appropriate Schedule has been given
In the judgment. The admission to academic courses
should start, as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant B
year. The seats ·remaining vacant should again be duly
notified and advertised. All seats should be filled
positively by 15th August after which there shall be no
admission, whatever be the reason or ground. [para 42-
44] [1092-F-H; 1093-A; 1094-D-H; 1096-D] C
3.3. The admission Schedule as proposed is in
conformity with the affiliation/ recognition schedule. They
both can co-exist. Thus, these admission dates are
approved and It is declared to be the law which shall be
strictly adhered to by all concerned and none of the D
authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary
these dates of admission. Certainty in this field is bound
to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious
method of grant of admission and commencement of the
technical courses. Any variation is bound to adversely E
affect the maintenance of higher standards of education
and systemic· and proper completion of courses. [para
45] [1096-E-G]
3.4. There has been apparent error in exercise of F
power and discretion by the AICTE. Admittedly, the
appellant-college had been carrying on its education
courses since the year 1994. It had submitted its
application for transfer to the new site on 24.5.2008. There
Is nothing on record to show that this application was G
dealt with either by the Regional Office or by the main
office of the AICTE. Having known the fact that the
college had shifted to a new site, the AICTE accorded
approval for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 for
which again there is no justification placed on record. It H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A is the case of the appellant that on 26.6.2008, the Expert
Committee visited the new site of the appellant-college
where the college was being run. Thereafter approval for
the two academic years was granted. Strangely, on the
bas.is of the same report, on 18.5.2010 the show cause
B notice was issued and again the Expert Committee is
stated to have visited the college premises on 16.7.2010
leading to the issuance firstly of the rejection of the seats
and, secondly, of withdrawal/cancellation of approval on
7.1.2011. [para 46] [1096-G-H; 1097-A-D]
•
c 3.5. Granting of approval for the academic years 2008-
09 and 2009-10 particularly when the Expert Committee
is stated to have visited the premises on 26.6.2008 and
found inadequacies in the report, is certainly a lapse on
the part of the AICTE which cannot be ignored by the
D Court as it had far-reaching consequences including
placing the career of the students admitted during these
two years in jeopardy. Shifting of students is a
consequential order and is in the interest of the students.
Even though the High Court has directed allocation of
E these students in other colleges, their academic course
certainly stands adversely affected and disturbed, for
which the AICTE is responsible. In this regard, the Court
cannot overlook such apparent erroneous approach and
default which can be for anything but bona fide reasons.
F Thus, cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed upon the AICTE for
such irresponsible working. The costs would be payable
to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and
would be recovered from the salary of the erring officials/
officers involved in this erroneous approach. [para 34 and
G 47] [1088-F-G; 1097-0-G]
4.2. It is directed that:
(i) Both granUrefusal of approval and admission
schedule shall be strictly adhered to by all the
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1067
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU
authorities concerned including the AICTE, A
University, State Government and any other authority
directly or indirectly connected with the grant of
approval and admission;
(ii) No person or authority shall have the power or
8
jurisdiction to vary the Schedule;
(iii) While dealing with the application for grant of
approval to new colleges or additional seats, the
AICTE shall inform the applicant within three weeks
from the date of receipt of its application or date of C
inspection, as the case may be, the shortcomings/
defects, who, in turn, shall remove such
shortcomings/defects within 15 days from the date
of such communication or within such period as the
AICTE may grant and re-submit its papers without D
default. The process of grant of approval has to be
transparent and fair. The AICTE or the University
concerned or State· Government shall take
disciplinary action against the person who commits
default in adherence to the Schedule and · E
performance of his duties in accordance therewith;
(iv) The reports submitted by the Expert Committee
visiting the college should be unambiguous and
clear, and should bear the date and time of
inspection and should be sufficiently comprehensive F
and inspection be conducted in the presence of a
representative of the institute;
(v) The students of the appellant-college shall be re-
allocated to the recognized and affiliated colleges in G
terms of the judgment of the High Court; and the
AICTE and the University concerned shall ensure
that the academic courses of these students are
completed within the balance period of the academic
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A year in all respects. For this purpose, if extra classes
are required to be held, the concerned institute, the
University and the AICTE are directed to ensure
holding of such extra classes; and
(vi) If the appellate authority decides the matter prior
B
to 30th April of the concerned year and grants
approval to a college, then alone such institution will
be permitted to be included in the list of colleges to
which admissions are to be made and not otherwise.
Thus, even if the appellate authority grants approval
c after 30th April, it will not be operative for the current
academic year. All colleges which have been granted
approval/affiliation by 10th or 30th April, as the case
may be, shall alone be included in the brochure/
advertisement/website for the purpose of admission
D and none thereafter. [para 48] [1098-A-H; 1099-A-E]
Case Law Reference:
(2012) 2 sec 425 referred to Para 24
E 1995 (2) SCR 1075 referred to Para 24
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 253 referred to Para 24
2000 (2) SCR 1234 referred to Para 26
2009 (3) SCR 859 referred to Para 28
F
(1993) 1 sec 645 referred to para 29
(2012) 8 SCALE 71 referred to para 29
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 referred to para 29
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9048 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.8.2012 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 460 of 2011.i
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1069
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU
WITH A
C.A. No. 9047 of 2012.
C.A. Sundaram, Sunil Gupta, Hemant Mehta, Jatin Zaveri,
Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Neel Kamal Mishra for the Appellants.
B
Rakesh Dwivedi, Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant, Gopal Singh,
Navin Prakash, Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Asha
Gopalan Nair for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
SWATANTER KUMAR, J~ 1. IA Nos.1-2 of 2012 are
applications filed by the two students of Parshavanath College
of Engineering run by Parshavanath Charitable Trust for
permission to file special leave petition SLP (C) No. 27021 of
2012 (CC No.15485 of 2012) against the judgment dated 22nd D
August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Writ Petition No.460 of 2011. The applications are
allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. SLP (C) No.26086 of 2012 has been preferred by the E
appellant-Trust against the same judgment.
3 Leave granted in both the SLPs .
. 4. As the challenge in both these appeals is to one and
the same judgment of the Bombay High Court, it will, thus, be F
appropriate for us to dispose of both these appeals by this
common judgment.
FACTS:
5. The appellant, Parshvanath Charitable Trust, was G
formed as a minority community trust in the year 1993. One of
its objects was to establish educational institutions.
Consequently, it established the Parshavanath College, after
obtaining approval of all the concerned authorities on 11th June,
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120121 11 s.c.R:
A
1994 with the intake capacity of 140 students for academic year
1994-95. This college was running at the premises being Survey
No.27 (part) at Kasarvadavali, Ghodbunder Road in the district
of Thane. The annual approvals by the All India Council for
B Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') continued till the
year 2008. On 29th April, 2008, the appellant sought a 'No
Objection Certificate' from the University of Mumbai. It also
applied for an 'occupation certificate' from the Municipal
Corporation of Bombay for shifting the college to new premises
located at a distance of barely 300 meters from the old site
C being Survey No. 12/1, 2, 4, 13/8, 9, 10A and 13/10B. In
furtherance to this, the appellant had made an application dated
24th May, 2008 to the Regional Office of the AICTE seeking
its permission to shift the college to the new premises and also
submitted all the requisite documents. The appellant had also
D written to the Directorate of Technical Education for issuance
of a No Objection Certificate for the said purpose.
6. It is not in dispute that in May, 2008, the college shifted
its location to the new site. This exercise was undertaken by
E the college and the Trust without taking prior approval of the
AICTE and without receiving "No Objection Certificate" from the
University of Mumbai as well as the State Government. It is also
evident from the record that no Occupation Certificate was
received from the Municipal Corporation of Thane before
F shifting.
7. On or about 24th June, 2008, the AICTE appointed an
Expert Committee to verify the infrastructure available at the .
new site and the Expert Committee visited the college on 28th
June, 2008. It noted that No Objection Certificate of the affiliating
G University for change in the location had not been produced
though they were informed that the same was in process. It also
made certain observations with regard to the title of the.land
and the same, according to them, stood in the name of some
other Trust which in turn had leased out the land to the appellant
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1071
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Trust. The Committee also noticed that all the laboratories and A
other infrastructure had been shifted to the new site. On 30th
June, 2008, the AICTE granted an extension of approval to the
Engineering College for the academic years 2008-2011 with
an intake capacity of 280 students. Clause 3 of this approval
letter reads as under :- B
"3. That the institution shall operate only from the approved
location, and that the institution shall not open any off
campus study centres/extensive centres directly or in
collaboration with any other institution/university C
organization for the purpose of imparting technical
education without obtaining prior approval from the
AICTE."
8. As is obvious from a bare reading of the letter, the
appellant-college was to run its courses from the campus which D
was approved. Thereafter vide letter dated 20th August, 2009,
AICTE granted approval to the appellant-college with increased
intake from 280 to 360 students for the academic year 2009.
9. The appellant college was running its courses when the E
show cause notice dated 18th May, 2010 was issued by the
AICTE to the Trust on the ground that the college had shifted
to another location without obtaining prior approval of the
AICTE. It was stated therein that an institution has to run courses
only from an approved site and if it desires to shift to another F
site, it has to follow the complete procedure as per the norms
of AICTE. The show cause notice reads as under:-
"Your institutions i.e. PARSHWANATH COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING and VEER MATA HIRABEN P. SHAH
COLLEGE OF PHARMACY are approved by AICTE for G
running engineering and pharmacy course at
GODBHUNDER ROAD, KASAR VADAVALI 400601
DIST. THANE as per our records as a permanent site.
· As per AICTE norms, the institute has to run the courses H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A in the approved site only. In any case, if the institute wants
to shift the institute to another location, due process has
to be followed as per AICTE norms to get AICTE approval
for shifting.
However, it was found that you have shifted your
B
Engineering And Pharmacy institutions to another location
without obtaining approval from AICTE, which is gross
violation of AICTE norms.
In the above circumstances, you are requested to show-
c cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated
including withdrawal of approval or reducing your intake/
stop admission. Your reply should reach AICTE
headquarters and Regional Office within three working
days."
D
10. To this, the appellant Trust submitted its reply dated
21st May, 2010 relevant extract of which reads as under:-
"We have reason to state that after filing proposal for
shifting the aforesaid colleges to the new premises, we
E have applied for permission for shifting the aforesaid
colleges in the new premises in the year 2008 only and
accordingly we are conducting engineering and pharmacy
colleges in the new premises."
F 11. The matter remained in controversy, but as a result of
issuance of show cause notice, the college of the appellant
Trust was not included in the Centralised Admission Process
(CAP) by the State Government. The appellant, thus, challenged
the non- inclusion of the college in the CAP and action of the
G State Government by filing a Writ Petition before the Bombay
High Court being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1776 of 2010. This
Writ Petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court
vide its order dated 11th August, 2010 wherein it directed as
under:-
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL !NOIA 1073
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
"17. We, therefore, allow this petition and quash and set A
aside the impugned communication of the Director of
Technical Education and direct the respondents to permit
the appellant-college to participate in the Central
Admission Process when the second round has
commenced. B
18. In view of the submission already made by the
petitioners in their reply dated 21st May, 2010 i.e. the
Joint Charity Commissioner has passed the restraint
against their Managing Trustee restraining him from
interfering in the administration of the college and the C
educational institution run by the trust, we also direct that
the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Thane should
consider the petitioner's application for grant of occupation
certificate for the building in which the engineering college
and the pharmacy college are being run without being D
influenced by any objection taken by Mr. Tekchand Shah
against whom the order is passed by the Charity
Commissioner.
19. It is clarified that it is open to the AICTE to proceed E
with the show-cause notice but if any order adverse to the
petitioner-college is passed, the same shall not be
implemented for a period of two weeks from today.
20. This order is passed in presence of the learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Director F
of Technical Education and Mr. S.V. Kalla, officer,
Admission Section from the office of Director of Technical
Education who shall immediately instruct the concerned
persons to place the name of the petitioner-engineering
college on the website of the centralised online admission G
process today itself."
12. It needs to be noticed at this stage that during the
proceedings before the Division Bench, the Municipal
Corporation of Thane had stated that Occupancy Certificate H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A had not been granted to the appellant-college; however, reason
thereof could not be brought to the notice of the Court at that
stage because of shortage of time. In the meanwhile, certain
disputes also arose among the management of the appellant-
Trust.
B
13. Subsequent to the above order of the High Court, on
7th January, 2011, the AICTE passed an order withdrawing the
approval granted to the appellant-college in terms of Clause
2.11 of the Approval Process Handbook and the Guidelines for
the academic year 2008-2009 and the terms and conditions
C mentioned in the Letter of Approval. The basis for withdrawing
the approval was shifting of the college to the new location
without Occupancy Certificate, without informing the State
Government and without obtaining the requisite permission
from the AICTE as per regulations. The Expert Committee had
D also noticed in its inspection dated 28th June, 2008 that the
construction was not suitable.
14. This cancellation of approval was challenged by the
appellant-Trust before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
E No.460 of 2011. Inter alia, the principal contention before the
High Court was that an application dated 24th May, 2008 was
made to the AICTE for change in location. Contemporaneously,
applications were also made to the University of Mumbai and
the Directorate of Technical Education for the issuance of No
F Objection Certificate and extension of approval by the AICTE
itself showed that the site in question met the requisite
standards and there was no justification for reducing the intake
capacity and withdrawing the approval. The High Court noticed
that there was no challenge to the Regulations or any other
G clause of the Handbook. Clause 9.22 of the Hand Book for
Approval Process 2008 required a registered sale or gift deed
in favour of the institution and only a Government lease of 30
years was acceptable as per that clause. The relevant para of_
Clause 9.22 reads as follows:-
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1075
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
"9.22. Procedure for .Change of Site and Norms A
Concerning Land and Building on New Site.
Changing of location/Station may be permitted after getting
"No Objection Certificate" (NOC) from the concerned State
Govt./UT Administration and Affiliating Body, by the B
Competent Authority in AICTE as per laid down procedure
subject to the fulfilment of Norms and Standards of AICTE.
No request/representation/Proposal for change of site will
be considered after submission of application/proposal for
establishment of a new Technical Institution, till the
completion of at least two years after a new institution is C
started with the approval of AICTE. No partial shifting of
institution to a different site shall be permitted.
I
The following procedure shall be followed:
D·
The applicant shall have to submit a Proposal along with
the following documents in original in one lot to the concerned
Regional Office of AICTE.
Registration document of the Trust/Society
indicating members of Society/Trust and its E
Objectives.
Land document(s) in original for the new site
showing ownership in the name of Trust/
Society in the form of Registration Sale Deed/ F
Irrevocable Gift Deed (Registered)/lrrevocable
Government Lease (for a minimum of 30 years)
by concerned authority of Government. In
case, the land documents are in vernacular
language, Notarized English translation of the G
document must to be produced.
Land use Certificate/Land Conversion Certificate
for the new site allowing the land to be used for
educational purpose, from the Competent Authority
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A along with Topo-sketchNillage Map indicating land
Survey Nos. and a copy of city map showing
location of proposal site of the institution.
Site Plan, Building Plan for the new site
prepared by a registered Architect and duly
B approved by the Competent Plan Sanctioning
Authority designated by the concerned State.
Proof of completion of the building structure at the
new site as per approved Engineering &
c Architectural Building Plan, in the form of Color
photographs giving External and Internal views.
An undertaking by the Institution stating that the
changes shall not affect the admission procedure
and the fee that a student has to pay."
D
.(emphasis supplied)
15. While noticing the above Clauses, the High Court
proceeded on the admitted position that the appellant-college
E had shifted to the new site without the necessary permission
and further it had no ownership to the land in question at the
relevant time. The Court also noticed that an inspection was
carried out by the Municipal Corporation on 9th August, 2012
and they had still not issued the Occupancy Certificate to the
F appellant-college.
16. In view of the above factual matrix of the case, the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition
vide order dated 22nd August, 2012 and also passed a
direction with regard to adjustment of students in other colleges
G keeping their welfare in mind. The operative part of the order
reads as under:-
"20. In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India it would not be permissible for ~is
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1077
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Co.urt to direct AICTE to grant its approval for conducting A
the engineering college at the new location particularly in
view of the fact that no Occupation Certificate has been
granted; the Petitioners have not established a clear title
to or ownership of land and they have not obtained the
NOCs of the State government or of the University of B
Mumbai.
21. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of AICTE has
stated before the Court that AICTE will take all necessary
steps to ensure that the welfare of the students who have C
been allotted to the Petitioners would be duly taken care
of by making alternative allotments to other institutions in
consultation with the Directorate of Technical Education of
the State government.
22. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to D
interfere with the decision which has been taken by the
AICTE. The Petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
23. In view of the dismissal of the Petition, the Notices of E
Motion do not survive which shall accordingly stand
disposed of."
17. Aggrieved from the dismissal of the writ petition by the
High Court, the appellants have filed the present appeals.
F
18. As already noted, two students of Parshvanath College
of Engineering have filed a separate application for leave to
prefer Special Leave Petition against the same judgment of the
High Court dated 22nd August, 2012. According to the
appellant-students in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. G
27021 of2012 (CC No.15485/2012), the judgment of the High
Court has adversely affected their interests. It is their contention
that revocation of approval has resulted in closure of the
Engineering College and it has jeopardised the future and
career of the students studying in the college including those H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
II. studying in pursuance of the interim orders passed by the same
High Court.
19. We allow this application and, in fact, the affected
appellant-students have been heard along with parties in the
B main appeal. Thus, as already noticed, we would dispose of
both these appeals by this common judgment.
20. Before we dwell upon the merit or otherwise of the
contentions raised, it is necessary for us to notice certain
,... settled legal principles which would help in judicious disposal
..., of these appeals.
21. The provisions of the All India Council for Technical
Education Act, 1987 (for short 'the AICTE Act') are intended
to improve the technical education system throughout the
D country. The various authorities under the AICTE Act have been
given exclusive responsibility to coordinate and determine the
standards of higher education. It is a general power given to
evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any
project of national importance. Such coordinated action in
E higher education with proper standard is of paramount
importance to national progress.
22. The provisions of .the AICTE Act, including its
preamble, make it abundantly clear that the AICTE has been
established under the Act for coordinated and integrated
F development of the technical education system at all .levels
throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualitative
improvement of such education in relation to planned
quantitative growth. The AICTE is required to regulate and
ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in technii:al
G education system. The AICTE is to further evolve suitable
performance appraisal system for technical institutions and
universities incorporating norms and mechanisms in enforcing
their accountability. It is required to provide guidelines for
·admission of students and has the power to withhold or
H discontinue grants to such technical institutions where norms
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1079
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
and standards laid down by it and directions given by it from A
time to time are not followed. The duty and responsibility cast
on the AICTE implies that the norms and standards to be set
should be such as would prevent isolated development of
education in the country.
B
23. Section 10 of the AICTE Act enumerates various
powers and functions of AICTE as also its duties and
obligations to take steps towards fulfilment of the same. One
such power 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 C
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-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 D
the financial needs or its standards of teaching, examination
and research. The inspection may be made or caused to be
made of any department or departments only and that too, in
such manner as may be prescribed, as envisaged in Section
11 of the AICTE Act. E
24. All these vitally important aspects go to show that the
Council (AICTE) created under the AICTE Act is not intended
to be an authority either superior to or to supervise and control
the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such F
universities merely for the reason that they are imparting
teaching in technical education or programmes in any of their
departments or 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 G
of AICTE vis-a-vis the universities is only advisory,
recommendatory and one of providing guidance, thereby
subserving the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and
qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue
and enforce any sanctions by itself. Reference can be inade H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A to the judgments of this Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha
Mahavidya/aya v. Subhash Rahangda/e [(2012) 2 SCC 425],
State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research
Institute ((1995) 4 SCC 104] and Bharathidasan University v.
All India Council for Technical Education ((2001) 8 SCC 676].
B
25. From the above principles, it is clear that the AICTE
has varied functions and powers under the AICTE Act. It is a
specialized body constituted for the purpose of bringing
uniformity in technical education all over the country and to
C ensure that the institutions which are recognised by the AICTE
are possessed of complete infrastructure, staff and other
facilities and are capable of maintaining education standards
for imparting technical education.
26. It is not necessary for us to refer to various provisions
D of the AICTE Act in any greater detail as no controversy in
relation to application or interpretation of any of its provisions
is ralsed for consideration in the present case. The facts are
primarily admitted and it is only the exercise of discretion vested
in the AICTE which is the subject matter of challenge in the
E present appeals. In the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust
v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher
Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kera/a State and
Anr. ((2000) 5 SCC 231], this Court after discussing all the
relevant provisions of the AICTE Act and provisions of the
F Madras University Act, 1923 (for short "the Madras Act") which
required the Institute to obtain approval of the State Government
before it started the academic courses, found that the
provisions of the latter Act overlapped and were in conflict with
the provisions of the AICTE Act in various areas and granting
G of approval for starting new technical institutions, inspection of
. technical institutions, etc. The Court held as under:- ·
"17 .... Thus, in the two passages set out above, this Court
clearly held that because of Section 19(K) of the Central
Act which vested the powers of granting approval in the
H Council, the T.N. Act of 1976 and the University Act, 1923
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1081
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
could not deal with any questions of 'approval' for A
establishment of technical institutions. All that was
necessary was that under the Regulations, the AICTE
Council had to consult them.
xxx xxx xxx B
22. As held in T.N. case the Central Act of 1987 and in
particular, Section 1O(k) occupied the field relating to "grant
of approvals" for establishing technical institutions and the
provisions of the Central Act alone were to be complied
with. So far as the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi C
University Act or its statutes were concerned and in
particular Statute 9(7), they merely required the University
to obtain the "views" of the State Government. That could
not be characterised as requiring the "approvaf' of the
State Government. If, indeed, the University statute could D
be so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of
the State Government would be repugnant to the
provisions of Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and
would again be void. As pointed out in T.N. case there
were enough provisions in the Central Act for consultation E
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 contained various experts and State
representatives. In case of difference of opinion as F
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 universities. No doubt the question
of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered G
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. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining
the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A 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.
23. Thus we hold, in the present case that there was no
B
statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State
Government and even if there was one, it would have been
repugnant to the AICTE Act. The University Statute 9(7)
merely required that the "views" of the State Government
be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not
c amount to obtaining "approval". If the University statute
required "approval", it would have been repugnant to the
AICTE Act. Point 1 is decided accordingly.
xxx xxx xxx
D
27. The so-called "policy" of the State as mentioned in the
counter-affidavit filed in the High Court was not a ground
for refusing approval. In Thirumuruga Kirupananda &
Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical
Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of T.N. which was
E a case relating to medical education and which also
related to the effect of a Central law upon a law made by
the State under Entry 25 List Ill, it was held (at SCC p. 35,
para 34) that the
F "essentiality certificate cannot be withheld by the
State Government on any policy consideration
because the policy in the matter of establishment
of a new medical college now rests with the Central
Government alone".
(emphasis supplied)
Therefore, the State could not have any "policy" outside the
AICTE Act and indeed if it had a policy, it should have
placed the same before AICTE and that too before the
latter granted permission. Once that procedure laid down
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1083
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
in the AICTE Act and Regulations had been followed A
under Regulation 8(4), and the Central Task Force had also
given its favourable recommendations, there was no
scope for any further objection or approval by the State.
We may however add that if thereafter, any fresh facts
came to light after an approval was granted by AICTE or B
if the State felt that some conditions attached to the
permission and required by AICTE to be complied with,
were not complied with, then the State Government could
always write to AICTE, to enable the latter to take
appropriate action. c
Decision of University in not granting further or final
affiliation wrong on merits.
xxx xxx xxx
D
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 E
not inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulations."
27. The consistent view of this Court has been that where
both Parliament and State Legislature have the power to
legislate, the Central Act shall take precedence in the matters
which are covered by such legislation and the State enactments F
shall pave way for such legislations to the extent they are in
conflict or repugnant. As per the established canons of law,
primacy of the Central Act is undisputable which necessarily
implies primacy of AICTE in the field of technical education.
Statutes like the present one as well as the National Council G
for Teachers Education Act, 1993, the Medical Council of India
Act, 1956, etc. fall within the ambit of this canon of law. The
AICTE is the authority constituted under the Central Act with the
responsibility of maintaining operational standards and judging
the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A professional education. It shall take precedence over the
opinion of the State as well as that of the University. The
concerned department of the State and the affiliating university
have a role to play, but it is limited in its application. They cannot
lay down any guidelines or policies in conflict with the Central
B statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. The
State can frame its policies, but such policy again has to be in
conformity with the direction issued by the Central body. Though
there is no such apparent conflict in the present case, yet it
needs to be clarified that grant of approval by the State and
C affiliation by the University for increased intake of seats or
commencement of new college should not be repugnant to the
conditions of approval/recommendation granted by the AICTE.
These authorities have to work in tandem as all of them have
the common object to ensure maintenance of proper standards
of education, examination and proper infrastructure for
0
betterment of technical educational system.
28. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed
by the central authorities such as the AICTE have the force of
law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted
E or declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not
substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would
normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in
such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a
manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE
F Act. In the case of A/GTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan ((2009)
11 SCC 726], this Court, while stating the principles that the
courts may not substitute their opinion in place of opinion of the
Council, held as under:-
"The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role
G
of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question
of educational policy or an issue involving academic
matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of
law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or
enforced, with reference to or connected with education,
H courts will step in. In Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor,
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1085
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Allahabad University: (1980) llLJ 175 SC this Court A
observed:
Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear
to tread... While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of
prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge 8
decisions of academic bodies.
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth
: [1985] 1 SCR 29, this Court reiterated:
c
.. the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its
own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
relation to academi.c matters in preference to those
formulated by professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working o
of educational institutions and the departments controlling
them."
18. This is a classic case where an educational course has
been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court,
without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or E
assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new
course or programme requires examination of various
academic/technical facets which can only be done by an
expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be
taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for F
example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was
permitted for four year Advance Diploma holders who had
passed the entry level examination of 10+2 with PCM
subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another
case, what was a one time measure was extended for G
several years and was also extended to Post Diploma
holders. Again by another mandamus, it was. extended to
those who had passed only 10+1 examination. Each
direction was obviously intended to give relief to students
who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A ad hoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended
dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the
standards and quality of engineering degree courses.
Courts should guard against such forays in the field of
education."
B
29. Right from the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others
etc. etc. V. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others etc. etc.
[(1993) 1 SCC 645], this Court has unequivocally held that the
right to establish an educational institution does not carry within
C it the right lo recognition or the right to affiliation. Grant of
recognition or affiliation is neither a matter of course nor is it a
formality. Admission to the privileges of a University is a power
to be exercised with great care keeping in view the interest of
the public at large and the nation. Recognition has to be as per
statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict adherence by
D all concerned. These conditions of recognition and the duly
notified directions controlling the admission process are to be
construed and applied siricto sensu. They cannot be varied
from case to case. Time schedule is one such condition
specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges.
E Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which
requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception.
Reference in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and
Ors. v. Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors.
[(2012) 8 SCALE 71) at this stage, in addition to the case of
F Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 258].
30. In light of the above principles, let us now revert to the
facts of the case in hand. There is no dispute as to the fact that
the appellant-college had shifted to the new premises without
G approval of the AICTE and without 'No Objection Certificate'
from the State Government and Directorate of Technical
Education. Undisputedly, the college had no title to the property
in question inasmuch as the property had been sold in a Court
auction by the bank on 8th August, 2011 and had been
purchased by a firm in which the members of the Trust were
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1087
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
partners. This partnership firm had executed a Memorandum A
of Understanding with the appellant Trust and given property on
lease to the Trust. These undisputed facts clearly show that the
appellant-college had no title to the property and, in fact, it did
not even have a registered lease deed in its favour to create
some recognizable interest in the property in question. The B
High Court in its judgment had specifically noticed the defects
pointed out by the Expert Committee. They, inter a/ia, related
to some disputes within the management of the Trust, failure
to obtain NOC from the State Government, Occupancy
Certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Thane and NOC c
from the University of Mumbai, omission to seek/obtain the
approval of AICTE and finally shifting to the new premises
despite such non-compliance.
31. We have already noticed that the compliance with the
conditions for approval as well as regulations and provisions D
of the AICTE Act is an unexceptionable condition. Clause 9.22
of the Handbook of Approval Process issued by the AICTE
provides a complete procedure for change of location, station
and the same is permissible subject to compliance with the
procedure. It contemplates obtaining of 'No Objection E
Certificate' from the concerned State Government or UT
Administration and affiliating body. The same clause also
requires submission of the land documents in original and
clearly provides that the same may be a registered sale deed,
irrevocable government lease for a minimum period of 30 F
years, etc. by the concerned authority of the Government.
Further, it provides that site plan, building plan for new site
should be prepared by a registered architect and should be
approved by the Competent Plan Sanctioning Authority
designated by the State. G
32. One of the contentions raised before us is that the
AICTE itself had granted approval for the academic years
2008-09 and 2009-10 both vide letters dated 30th June, 2008
and 20th August, 2009, respectively. This itself should be taken H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A to be a deemed compliance of all the requirements. We shall
separately deal with the issue with regard to the effect of these
letters and whether withdrawal of approval was a step
appropriately taken by the AICTE or not as well as the effect
of the prescribed time schedule. As of now, suffice it to note
B that even these approvals for the relevant academic years had
clearly stated that the institution shall operate only from the
approved location and it shall not open any campus/executive
centres directly or in collaboration with any other institution/
university for the purpose of imparting technical education
c without obtaining prior approval from the AICTE. The approval
for these academic years was granted to the college being run
at Survey Nos.27 (part) at Lasandvali, Godbhunder Road,
Kasar Vadavali, Thane, and not at any other place.
33. Thus, there is no occasion to take it as a deemed and/
D or implied approval for the new site of the appellant-college.
Approval can hardly be inferred. It is a matter of fact and the
authorities are expected to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law and upon due diligence and in compliance
with the procedure prescribed under law. For these reasons,
E we find that the view taken by the High Court does not call for
any interference.
34. Thus, the view of the High Court that the college had
failed to comply with the requirements for grant of approval and
F had shifted to the new site without approval of the AICTE and
other concerned authorities cannot be faulted with. There being
no compliance to the legal requirements and binding conditions
of recognition, the withdrawal of approval by the AICTE can also
be not interfered with. Shifting of students is a consequential
G order and is in the interest of the students.
35. The sequel to the above finding is that the appellant
college could not have been included in the counselling for the
current year. Even otherwise, the last date for admission was
30th August, 2012, which is since over and we see no reason
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1089
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
whatsoever to extend this date. We have already noticed A
various judgments of this Court stating that the Court is required
to strictly construe and comply with the schedule for admission.
Even on that count, the appellant would not be entitled to any
other relief.
B
36. Another argument raised before us is that the
appellant-college had applied for shifting of the college to the
new premises on 24th May, 2008, but even after a lapse of two
years, the AICTE had not finally disposed of said request.
37. The college had shifted to the new premises without C
requisite permission/approval and still permission was granted
for the two years, i.e., 2008-09 and 2009-10 and the show
cause notice was issued only on 18th May, 2010. We have no
hesitation in observing that the AICTE is evidentiary at fault and
it ought not to have granted any approval for the academic . D
.·years 2008-09 and 2009-10. There has been definite
slackness and irresponsibility in functioning on the part of the
AICTE. The approval itself was issued by the Regional
Committee when the application for transfer was pending with
the AICTE itself. It is a matter of regret that as a result of such E
approval granted by the AICTE, the career of these students
has been jeopardised to some extent. Now, they are required
to shift colleges mid-term, even in excess of specified seats
of those colleges and hinder their academic courses. All this
is bound to prove disadvantageous to their academic career. F
38. It is the requirement of law that there should be strict
adherence to the time schedule for grant of approval as well
as for admissions without exception. In exercise of the powers
vested in the AICTE, under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of !tie
AICTE Act, it had made regulations namely the All India Council G
for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Staffing New
Technical Institution, Introduction of Course and Programmes
and Approval of Intake Capacity) Regulations, 1994. Schedule
to these regulations reads as under:-
H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A SI. Stage of processing Last date by
No application which the
processing should
be completed
B (1) (2) (3)
1. For receiving proposals by 31st December
Bureau RC.
For the Bureau RC to screen the
c 2. application and (a) to return the
incomplete applications to
applicants, and (b) to forward the
applications to (i) State
Government concerned (ii)
D University or State Board
concerned, for their comments (iii)
Regional Officer to arrange visits by
Export Committees, and (iv)
Bureaus MPCD, BOS and RA for
E their comments.
3. For receiving the comments is from 15th March
(i) the State Government (ii) the
University or State Board and (iii)
F the Regional Committee based on
the Expert Committee's report and
(iv) from the Bureaus MPCD, BOS
and RA
G 4. For consideration of the comments 31st March
from the State Governments,
Universities or State Boards,
Regional Committees, and
Bureaus of the Council by the State
H level Committee
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1091
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
5. For recommendations to be made 15th April A
by the Central Task Force
6. For communicating the final decision
to the State Government or the 30th April
University Grants Commission, B
under intimation to the Regional
office, Director of Technical
Education, applicant, University or
State Board
39. This Schedule has statutory backing. Thus, its
c
adherence is mandatory and not directory.
40. Non-adherence of this Schedule can result in serious
consequences and can jeopardize not only the interest of the
college students but also the maintenance of proper standards D
of technic;al education. The authorities concerned, particularly
the AICTE, should ensure proper and timely action upon the
applications submitted to it. It must respond to the applicant
within a reasonable time period and should not let the matter
drag till the final date giving rise to avoidable speculations by E
all stakeholders. Thus, it would be appropriate for these
authorities to bring to the knowledge of the parties concerned,
the deficiencies, if any, and the defects pointed out by the
Expert Committee during the inspection within three weeks
from the date of such inspection or pointing out of defects, as F
the case may be. For better administration, the AICTE should
also state the time within which such deficiencies/defects
should be removed by the applicant. This will help in building
of a coherent and disciplined method of working to ensure the
proper implementation of the entire formulated scheme of G
technical education. The AICTE will not have any jurisdiction or
authority to issue approval for commencement of a new course
or for additional intake of students beyond 30th April of the year
immediately preceding the commencen ent of an academic
year.
H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
.A 41. Apparently, there seems to be some variations in the
Schedule issued under Regulation 8(15), as aforenoticed, and
the dates reflected in the Handbook. Another Schedule has
been printed as per the website of the AICTE according to
which the letter of approval for starting new technical institutions
B could be issued by 10th October, if application was submitted
between January to June of the relevant year and 10th April, if
the application was submitted between July to December of
that year. Rejection of approval is an order which is appealable
to the Appellate Committee of the AICTE. If the applicant
c wishes to file an appeal against the order, he is expected to
f!le the appeal and, in any case, after directions of the Appellate
Committee are complied with, the order of approval after the
reconsideration/appeal has to be issued by 15th November in
the first case and 15th May in the other. If one reads these two
schedules collectively, it is clear that the letter of approval should
0
' be issued by 15th April or by 30th April at the maximum. It is
only the Appellate Committee's order which can be issued by
15th May. If such order grants recognition, then ii must specify
the academic year for which it is being granted. If it falls foul of
the admission schedule, then it ought not to be granted for the
E current academic year. It has been brought to our notice that
the last date for admission to the courses and the date on which
the courses should begin is 30th August of the academic year.
In that event, admissions to such courses, if permitted by the
appellate authority, could be made strictly in accordance with
F the academic Schedule and without violating the same in any
manner whatsoever. This brings us to the admission schedule
which again should be strictly obeyed by all concerned.
42. We must notice that admission schedule should be
G declared once and for all rather than making it a yearly
declaration. Consistency and smoothness in admission
process would demand and require that there is a fixed and
unaltered time schedule provided for admission to the colleges
so that the students know w~h certainty and well in advance the
.H admission schedule that is to be followed and on the basis of
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1093
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
which they are to have their choice of college or course A
exercised. The Schedule for admission for the coming
academic year, i.e., 2013-2014 has been submitted to the
Court after the matter was reserved for judgment. The said
Schedule reads as under :
8
Event Schedule
Conduct of Entrance Examination In the month of May
(AIEEE/State CET/ Mgt. quota
exams etc.)
c
Declaration of Result of Qualifying On or before 51h June
Examination (12th Exam or
similar) and Entrance Examination
1st round of counselling/ admission To be completed on or D
for allotment of seats before 30th June
2nd round counselling for allotment To be completed on or
of seats before 10th July
E
Last round of counselling for To be completed on or
allotment of seats before 20th July
Last date for admitting candidates 30th July.
in seats other than allotted above F
· However, any number of
rounds for counselling
could be conducted
depending on local
requirements, but all the
F
rounds shall be
completed before 30th
July
Commencement of academic 1st August
session H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Last date upto which students can 30th August
be admitted against vacancies
arising due to any reason (no
student should be admitted in any
institution after the last date under
B any quota)
Last date of granting or refusing 30th April
approval by AICTE
Last date of granting or refusing
c approval by University I State Govt. 31st May
43. The above Schedule though was finalized by the
Committee on 29th January, 2012 but the same appears to
have been notified only on 30th September, 2012. The reasons
D for the same are again unknown. We are unable to appreciate
that once the academic session begins on 1st August, then as
to why should admission be granted upto 30th August of the
year, particularly when, as per the terms of the Schedule,
beyond or after 30th April, AICTE will not issue any approval
E for commencement of new course for additional intakes. The
Schedule, thus, introduces an element of arbitrariness and may
cause prejudice to the students who might miss their classes
· for a period of one month without any justification. Thus, it is
required that the above-stated Schedule be modified to bring
F it in line with the Schedule for approval as well as to prevent
inequalities, arbitrariness and prejudice from affecting the
students in relation to their academic courses. The order
granting or refusing approval, thus, should positively be passed
by 10th April of the relevant year. The appeal should be filed
G within one week and the Appellate Committee should hear the
appeal and decide the same by 30th April of the relevant year.
The University should grant/decline approval/affiliation by 15th
May of the relevant year. Advertisement should be issued and
entrance examination conducted positively by the end of the
H month of May. The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as
follows:
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1095
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Event Schedule A
Conduct of Entrance Examination In the month of May
(AIEEE/State CET/Mgt. quota
exams etc.)
B
Declaration of Result of Qualifying On or before 5111 June
Examination (12th Exam or
similar) and Entrance Examination
c
1st round of counselling/ admission To be completed on or
for allotment of seats before 30th June
2nd round counselling for allotment To be completed on or D
of seats before 10th July
Last round of counselling for To be completed on or
allotment of seats. before 20th July
E
Last date for admitting candidates 30th July.
in seats other than allotted above
However, any number
of rounds for F
counselling could be
conducted depending
on local requirements,
but all the rounds shall
be completed before G
30th July
Commencement of academic 1st August
session
H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R.
A Last date upto which students can 15th August
be admitted against vacancies
arising due to any reason (no
student should be admitted in any
institution after the last date under
B any quota)
Last date of granting or refusing 10th April
approval by AICTE
c Last date of granting or refusing 15th May
approval by University I State Govt.
•·
44. The adm1ss1on to academic courses should start, as
proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The seats
D remaining vacant should again be duly notified and advertised.
All seats should be filled positively by 15th August after which
there shall be no admission, whatever be the reason or ground.
45. We find that the above Schedule is in conformity with
E the affiliation/recognition schedule afore-noticed. They both can
co-exist. Thus, we approve these admission dates and declare
it to be the law which shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned
and none of the authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction
to vary these dates of admission. Certainty in this field is bound
F to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious method of
grant of admission and commencement of the technical
courses. Any variation is bound to adversely affect the
maintenance of higher standards of education and systemic
and proper completion of courses.
G
46. Having declared the confirmed Schedule for grant of
approval and completion of admission process, now it is
necessary for us to revert to the apparent error in exercise of
power and discretion by the AICTE. Admittedly, the appellant-
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1097
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
college had been carrying on its education courses since the A
year 1994. It had submitted its application for transfer to the
new site on 24th May, 2008. There is no document placed
before us by any party including the AICTE to show that this
application was dealt with either by the Regional Office or by
the main office of the AICTE. Having known the fact that the B
college had shifted to a new site, the AICTE accorded approval
for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 for which again
there is no justification placed on record. It is the case of the
appellant that the Expert Committee visited the new site of the
appellant-college where the college was being run on 26th c
June, 2008. Thereafter approval for the two academic years
was granted. Strangely, on the basis of the same report, on 18th
May, 2010 the show cause notice was issued and again the
Expert Committee is stated to have visited the college
premises on 16th July, 2010 leading to the issuance firstly of 0
the rejection of the seats and, secondly, of withdrawal/
cancellation of approval on 7th January, 2011.
47. We fail to understand why the college was granted
approval for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10
particularly when the Expert Committee is stated to have visited E
the premises on 26th June, 2008 and found inadequacies in
the report. It is certainly a lapse on the part of the AICTE which
cannot be ignored by the Court as it had far-reaching
consequences including placing the career of the students
admitted during these two years in jeopardy. Even though the F
High Court has directed allocation of these students in other
colleges, their academic course certainly stands adversely
affected and disturbed, for which the AICTE is responsible. In
this regard, the Court cannot overlook such apparent erroneous
approach and default which can be for anything but bona fide G
reasons. Thus, we impose costs of Rs.50,000/- upon the AICTE
for such irresponsible working. The costs would be payable to
the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and would be
recovered from the salary of the erring officials/officers involved
in this erroneous approach. The recovery shall be effected in H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 11 S.C.R.
A accordance with law.
48. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit in
both the appeals afore-referred. While dismissing these
appeals, we issue the following directions :
B (i) Both grant/refusal of approval and admission
schedule, as aforestated, shall be strictly adhered
to by all the authorities concerned including the
AICTE, University, State Government and any other
authority directly or indirectly connected with the
c grant of approval and admission.
(ii) No person or authority shall have the power or
jurisdiction to vary the Schedule prescribed
hereinabove.
D. (iii) While dealing with the application for grant .of
approval to new colleges or additional seats, the
AICTE shall inform the applicant within three weeks
from the date of receipt of its application or date
of inspection, as the case may be, the
E shortcomings/defects, who, in turn, shall remove
such shortcomings/defects within 15 days from the
date of such communication or within such period
as the AICTE may grant and re-submit its papers
without default. The process of grant of approval
F has to be transparent and fair. The AICTE or the
concerned University or State Government shall
take disciplinary action against the person who
commits default in adherence to the Schedule and
performance of his duties in accordance therewith.
G
(iv) The reports submitted by the Expert Committee
visiting the college should be unambiguous and
clear, and should bear the date and time of ·
inspection and should be sufficiently
comprehensive and inspection be conducted in the
H
PARSHAVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA 1099
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
presence of a representative of the institute. A
(v) The students of the appellant-college shall be re-
allocated to the recognized and affiliated colleges
in terms of the judgment of the High Court; and the
AICTE and the concerned University shall ensure
8
that the academic courses of these students are
completed within the balance period of the
academic year in all respects. For this purpose, if
extra classes are required to be held, the
concerned institute, the University and the AICTE
are directed to ensure holding of such extra classes. c
(vi) If the appellate authority decides the matter prior to
30th April of the concerned year and grants
approval to a college, then alone such institution will
be permitted to be included in the list of colleges D
to which admissions are to be made and not
otherwise. In other words, even if the appellate
authority grants approval after 3oth April, it will not
be operative for the current academic year. All
colleges which have been granted approval/ E
affiliation by 10th or 30th April, as the case may be,
shall alone be included in the brochure/
advertisement/website for the purpose of
admission and none thereafter.
F
R.P. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "AICTE"Sign in to search