A RUNGTA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BHILAI & Anr. v. CHHATTISGARH SWAMI VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL

12 S.C.R 796 A RUNGTA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BHILAI & ANOTHER v. CHHATTISGARH SWAMI VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY & ANOTHER (Writ Petition (Civil) No.653 of 2014) B SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - c ss.2(h), 3 and 10(k) - Establishment and running of institutions imparting technfcal education - Regulation of - Held: Educational institutions imparting technical education are amenable to th'e control of AICTE:under the 1987 Act in certain aspects and the regulatory authority of the. State, and D Universities established by or under a legislation of the State, in certain other aspects. All India .Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - ss.2(h), 3 qnd 1 O(k) -Authority to grant/decline affiliation to institution imparting technical education - Objections of E respondent-University for declining affiliation to first petitioner college - Challenge to - Held: Each one of the objections squarely fell within the sweep of one or the other areas which only the A/GTE had the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with - None of them fell within the area legally falling within the F domain of the respon.dents - Only course of action available · for the respondents was to bring the shortcomings noticed by them to the notice of the A/GTE and seek appropriate aution against the petitioner college ~ Decision of respondent not to grant affiliation to the first petitioner college wholly G untenable - The Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Act, 2004. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court H 796 RUNGTA ENG COLLEGE, BHILAI v. CHHATIISGARH SWAMI VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSllY 797 HELD:

Educational institutions imparting technical education are amenable to the control of AICTE under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 in certain aspects and the regulatory authority of the State, and Universities established by or under a legislation of the State, in certain other aspects. [Para 32] [810-G-H]

In the instant case, each one of the objections which according to the respondent formed the basis for declining affiliation to the first petitioner institution, squarely fall within the sweep of one or the other areas which only the AICTE has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with. None of them are demonstrated to be matters falling within the area legally falling within the domain of the respondents. AICTE, on inspection of the 1st pe~itioner college reported that the 1st petitioner college fulfils all the conditions prescribed by the norms and standards laid down by AICTE. The respondents did not make any specific assertion that such a report of the AICTE is factually incorrect. Assuming for the sake of argument that, in the opinion of the respondents, the petitioner college has not in fact fulfilled any one of the conditions required under the norms specified by the AICTE, the only course of action available for the respondents is to bring the shortcomings noticed by them to the notice of the AICTE and seek appropriate action against the petitioner college. [Para 42] [815-A-D]

The decision of the respondent not to grant the affiliation to the first petitioner college is wholly untenable and is required to be set aside. [Para 43] [815-E] State of T.N. and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Otheri (1995) 4 SCC 104: 1995 (2) SCR 1075; Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, A 8 c D E F G H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R.