APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & Anr. v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY & Ors.

1.3 Section 14(6) says that in the absence of a Statute, it is the Vice Chancellor who has the power to regulate any matter which is required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations. It cannot be interpreted to mean that the Syndicate itself will be powerless in the absence of the Statutes and that the Vice Chancellor will have the power. In any case, the language of Section 14(6) is such that the Vice Chancellor may first regulate the matter by issuing directions and thereafter submit the same “as soon as may be” for the approval of the Board of Governors or other authority or body concerned. By virtue of Section 30(2)(iii), the Syndicate can be taken to be the “other authority” referred to in Section 14(6). If that is done, it can be seen that it was the Syndicate, chaired by the Vice Chancellor which took the impugned decisions in its meetings and hence the prescription of norms by the Syndicate, chaired by the Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be ultra vires the Act. [Para 36][753-A-D]

1.4 When the Statutes have not prescribed any conditions for affiliation but have left it to the Syndicate to take care of matters relating to affiliation, the function of the Syndicate to lay down norms and standards by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 30(2), is made free of any fetters. Therefore, the norms prescribed by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 24.06.2020 under the Chairmanship of the Vice Chancellor could not have been taken exception to. After all, the norms which the Colleges have objected to, merely seek to ensure that at least 50% of the outgoing students had passed their respective courses and that the Institution should have the most recent academic audit overall score of “Good”, apart from having an actual intake of more than 50% of the sanctioned intake in the preceding three years on an average. The High Court was in error in holding on the first issue that the resolutions passed by the Syndicate prescribing norms and standards for the grant of affiliation for additional courses, are ultra vires the Act. [Paras 38, 39, 40][754-B-C; C-D-; E-F]

#2. The law is now fairly well settled that while it is not open to the Universities to dilute the norms and standards prescribed by AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe enhanced norms. [Para 47][756-G-H] A B C D E F G H 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

3.1 After the advent of AICTE Regulations, 2012, the applications for extension of approvals are processed by AICTE only online, merely on the basis of the self-disclosure made by the colleges in their online applications. If all infrastructural facilities as prescribed by AICTE are found to be available on paper (whether available at site or not), the AICTE grants extension of approval. Chapter II of the Approval Process Handbook for 2020-21 makes it clear that the extension of approval will be based on self-disclosure. Paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit of the AICTE contains an extract of Clause 2.15.4(b) of APH 2020-21, which confirms that the assessment is based on self-disclosure on AICTE web portal. [Paras 56, 57] [760-D-E; G-H]

3.2 Though AICTE has reserved to itself the power to conduct inspections and take penal action against colleges for false declarations, such penal action does not mean anything and does not serve any purpose for the students who get admitted to colleges which have necessary infrastructure only on paper and not on site. The Regulations of the AICTE are silent as to how the students will get compensated, when penal action is taken against colleges which host false information online in their applications to AICTE. Ultimately, it is the universities which are obliged to issue degrees and whose reputation is inextricably intertwined with the fate and performance of the students, that may have to face the music and hence their role cannot be belittled. Today, even the universities are being ranked according to the quality of standards maintained by them. [Para 58][761-A-C] Modern Dental College & Research Centre and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. (2016) 7 SCC 353:[2016] 3 SCR 579 – followed Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8 SCC 676:[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253; Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (2013) 8 SCC A B C D E F G H APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MGMT. & ENGG. TECH. 737