THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL v. SANGAM LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET & Ors.

1.3 Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of Jawaharlal Nehru Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, 2017 provide that a new college proposing to offer technical education with the University affiliation shall first seek a NOC from 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. The High Court erred in law in holding that it was not permissible for the State Government to frame such a policy and the University was bound to issue NOC. [Paras 14, 16][113-D-E; 115-G-H]

1.4 The Government of Telangana vide its communication to the All India Council of Technical Education Regulations (AICTE) had expressed serious concern at the proliferation and establishment of technical institutions and the unprecedented expansion in the intake in all the courses offered by all the technical institutions coming within the purview of AICTE. Data was given in the tabular form including that of the Pharmacy. It was pointed out that in the year 2015-16 sanctioned intake in Pharmacy was 11490, seats remained vacant were 4035, in academic session 2016-17 sanctioned intake was 9226, seats vacant were 1892. [Para 17][116-A-C]

#2. The AICTE Act, 1987 defines technical education in section 2(g) to mean programmes of education inter alia in Pharmacy also. There is no provision in the said Act to the contrary to curtail the power of the State as well as of University. The AICTE has framed the Regulations under the Act of 1987 in the exercise of the power conferred under section 23(1) read with sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 1987 called the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approvals for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016. Regulation 4.18 provides that the State Government/UT Administration and the Affiliating University/Board, as the case may be, shall forward their views along with the perspective plan of the State and then the application shall be processed for grant of approval. Regulation 4.18 cannot be said to be repugnant to Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of the University, and there is no repugnancy in AICTE Act and Section 20 of the Act of 1982. [Paras 18, 19][116-D-F; 117-C] A B C D E F G H 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

#3. The decision taken by the State Government as apparent from facts reflected in perspective plan is based on a survey and supported by the data. Considering the fact that seats are going abegging. Even in 2017-18 in the Pharmacy course, data has been given that among 56 colleges affiliated to the University, 30 were in the city of Hyderabad and out of total 1630 seats, 173 had remained vacant. Thus, it is apparent that a large number of seats remained vacant. Not more than 30 seats can be allotted to one institution. The mushroom growth of educational institutions cannot be permitted. Standard of education cannot be compromised and sacrificed by permitting institutions to come up in a reckless manner without there being any requirement for them at a particular place. The decision of State had been taken in an objective manner and the same is based on the consideration of data and could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever. The policy decision of the State Government cannot be said to be illegal and on that basis, the University has taken the decision in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 1982. In the instant case, the matter was about the proposed location and affiliation, out of 36 Pharmacy colleges in the State of Telangana and 30 are located in Hyderabad city alone which are more than adequate in number. Thus, rightly decision has been taken not to start another new course at the proposed location at Hyderabad city. [Paras 21, 27 and 30][119-D, H; 120-A; 127-B-C] Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society (2005) 3 SCC 212 : [2005] 2 SCR 302 – relied on. State of T.N v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104 : [1995] 2 SCR 1075 ; Jaya Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (2000) 5 SCC 231 : [2000] 2 SCR 1234 ; State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 638 ; Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Education & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil A B C D E F G H JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET 107