Innotech Educational Society Sri Chandan Kumar v. The Union Of India & Ors.

Mr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of AICTE, has submitted that he has not received any instruction and as such he is not in a position to explain the ground of rejection or rejection of the case of recognition / approval of the petitioner’s Institution.

In the considered opinion of this Court such a 3 callous attitude of AICTE cannot be accepted by this Court. This writ application was filed on 17th April, 2013 and on 22.4.2013 Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of AICTE was granted time to file his counter affidavit. It has to be kept in mind that the time is the essence in decision of all the cases and in the present case the petitioner is running against time because such time schedule has been fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Ors. Vrs. All India Council of Technical Education and Others; reported in (2013) 3 S.C.C. 385 whereby and where under while approving the regulation framed by AICTE under Section 23 of the AICTE Act it had been held that :- “It is the requirement of law that there should be strict adherence to the time schedule for grant of approval as well as for admission without exception. In exercise of powers vested in AICTE, under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the AICTE Act, it had made regulations, namely, the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approval starting New Technical Institutions, Introduction of Courses or Programmes and Approval of Intake Capacity of Seats for the Courses or Programmes) Regulations, 1994. The Schedule to these Regulations reads as under: Sl . No. Stage application processing (1) (2) Last date by which the processing should be completed. (3) 4

31st December 15th March 31st March 15th April 30th April For receiving proposals by Bureau RC For Bureau RC to screen the application and (a) to return the incomplete applications to the applicants, and (b) forward the applications to (i) State Government concerned (ii) University or State Board concerned, Comments (iii) Regional Officer to arrange visits by Expert Committees and (iv) Bureaus MPCD, BOS and RA for their comments. For receiving the comments from (i) the State Government (ii) the University or the State Board, and (iii) the Regional Committee based on Expert Committee’s report, and (iv) from the Bureaus MPCD, BOS and RA. consideration of For the State comments Governments, Universities or State Regional Committees, and Bureaus of the Council by the State level Committee. For recommendations to be made by the Central Task Force. For communicating the final Decision State Government or the University Grants Commission, under intimation to the Regional Office, Director of Technical applicant, Education, University or State Board. Boards, This Schedule has statutory backing. Thus, its adherence is mandatory and not directory.” 5

6. In view of the above, specific time schedules set out by the Apex Court in the case of Parshvanath (Supra) this Court had expected that the AICTE would rise to occasion so that in the event the writ application was allowed the petitioner Institution could have got the matter decided by the appellate authority prior to 30th April, 2013 in order to its being included in the list of recognized Institution to which admissions could be made. It has to be noted that in the aforesaid case of Parshvanath (Supra) the Apex Court has also firmly laid down that the order granting or refusing approval thus should be positively by 10th April of the relevant year and the appellate Committee should hear the appeal and decide the same by 30th April of the relevant year where-under the University should grant / decline approval / affiliation by 15th May of the relevant year and the advertisement should be issued and entrance examination conducted positively by the end of month of May. In fact the Apex Court has also stepwise specified the schedule in paragraph no.41 which reads as follows: “ The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as follows: 6 Event Schedule entrance CET/ Conduct examination (AIEEE/State Management exams.etc.) Declaration of result of qualifying examination (12th exam or similar) and entrance examination 1sr round of counseling /admission for allotment of seats 2nd round of counseling for allotment of seats Last round of counseling for allotment of seats In the month of May On of before 5th June To be completed on or before 30th June To be completed on or before 10th July 30th July However, any number of rounds for counseling could be conducted depending on local requirements, but all completed before 30th July rounds should Commencement academic session Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason (no student admitted in any institution after the last date under any quota Last date of granting or refusing AICTE Last date of granting or refusing State University Government approval / approval 1sr August 15th August 10th April 15th May 7

As a matter of fact, having regard to the afore mentioned time schedule the Apex Court had also issued following concluding directions in the case of Parshvanath (Supra) :- “46.1. Both grant/refusal of approval and admission schedule, as aforesaid, shall be strictly adhered to by all the authorities concerned including AICTE, the University, the State Government and any other authority directly or indirectly connected with the grant of approval and admission.

46.2. No person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary the schedule prescribed hereinabove.

46.3. While dealing with the application for grant of approval to new colleges or additional seats, 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 shortcomings / defects, who, in turn, shall remove such shortcomings / defects within 15 days from the date of such communication or within such period as AICTE may grant and re-submit its papers without default. The process of grant of approval has to be transparent and fair. AICTE or the University or the State Government concerned shall take disciplinary action against the person who commits default in adherence to the schedule and performance of his duties in accordance therewith.

46.4 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 8 sufficiently comprehensive and inspection be conducted in the presence of a representative of the institute.

46.5 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 AICTE and the university concerned shall ensure that the academic process of these students are completed within the balance period of the academic year in all respect. For this purpose, if extra classes are required to be held the institute concerned, the University and AICTE are directed to ensure holding of such extra classes.

46.6 If the appellate authority decides the matter prior to 30th April of the year concerned 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 other wise. In other words, even if the appellate authority grants approval 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 / Web site for the purpose of admission and none thereafter.”

Thus, in a given case if the AICTE or its appellate Committee refuses to grant recognition by way of grant of approval for starting new technical Institution its judicial review cannot be ruled out altogether though such judicial review will be within very limited parameters as again clarified in the same judgment of Parshvanath (Supra) wherein it was held as 9 follows: “It is also a settled principle that the regulation framed by the Central authorities such as AICTE have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted 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 Act. In All India Council for Technical Education V. Surinder Kumar Chawan, this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may not substitute their opinion in place of the opinion of the Council, held as under (SCC PP.732-33 & 736, paras 17-18 & 32) “25. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role 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 had to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshreshtha V. Allahabad University, (1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L & S) 436: (1980) 2 LLJ 175, this Court observed: (SCC PP 424,Paras 11-17) ’11. …… Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread …… * * * 17…. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.’ (emphasis supplied)

In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary 10 and Higher Secondary Education V. Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27: (1985) 1 SCR 29, this Court reiterated : (SCC pp.56-57, Para 29) ’29…. in preference the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational the departments controlling them.’ institutions * * * 32. This is a Classic case where an educational post has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the Court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new post 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 the Courts. In this case, for 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 several years and was also extended to post diploma holder. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10 + 1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10 + 2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their careers prospects, purely as an adhoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering decree course. Courts should guards against such forays in the field of education. (emphasis in original)

Right from Unnikrishnan, J.P. V. State of AP (1993) 1 SCC 645, This Court has unequivocally to establish an education the right 11 Institution does not carry within it the right to 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 all concerned. These conditions of recognition and the duly notified directions controlling the admission process are to be construed and applied stricto sensu. The cannot be varied from case to case. Time specifically Schedule prescribed for admission to the Colleges. 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 Rajan Purohit V. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences; (2012) 10 SCC 770. At this stage, in addition to Medical Council of India V. Madhi Singh; (2002) 7 SCC 258.” such condition is one

In the present case, this Court is also not going into the aspect as to whether the deficiencies as pointed out by the authorities of AICTE were removed or not by the petitioner inasmuch as that is a job of experts, with which this Court is not going to interfere but then if no reasons are forthcoming for such rejection, the AICTE will owe a duty to abide by the settled law that every order passed by a quasi judicial authority must be backed by reasons as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. V. Uuion of India; 1976 S.C. 1785 wherein it was held as follows: “It is now well settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function, 12 the arguments of it must record its reason in support of the order it makes. Every quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M. Desai V. Testeels Ltd., C.A. no.

In the present case the petitioner has 13 asserted in paragraphs 14 and 15 that after the scrutiny Committee had pointed out such deficiency and had advised the representative of the petitioner Society to rectify or remove the deficiency on or before re-scrutiny of the date fixed for the same. The compliance was reported by the representative of the petitioner on 06.03.2013. Paragraph 15 of the writ application is quoted herein below: “The representative of the petitioner attended the meeting of re-scrutiny on 06.03.2013 and the committee of re- scrutiny after considering reported following deficiencies / defects. the compliance (i) Documents showing possession of the land in the name of the Trust / Society not presented. (ii) Khesra Plan to show that the the Competent contiguous, Authority. issued by (iii) Where ever applicable PSI / PAR certificate obtained from the competent authority as concerned Municipal designated Corporation or approves Building Plans, or the State Government /UT to be verified. local authority (iv) Site Plan of proposed Technical Institute prepared by an Architect registered with Council of Architecture (COA) and duly approved by the Competent Plan Sanctioning Authority of the concerned State / UT administration. Complete Building Plan of proposed Technical Institute prepared by an Architect Architecture (COA) and duly approved by the Competent Plan sanctioning Authority of the concerned State / UT administration. (v) Complete Building plan of proposal Technical Institute prepared by an Architect registered with Council for Architecture registered with Council 14 (COA) and duly approved by the Competent Plan Sanctioning Authority of the concerned State / UT administration.

It is the further case of the petitioner that the deficiencies no (iv) and (v) after being its removed were already accepted by the first scrutiny committee but the same was not accepted by re-scrutiny committee. This court is not going again into the aspect as to whether regulations permit the re-scrutiny Committee to over rule the decision of the first scrutiny committee rendered in favour of the Institution but then the petitioner has alleged that the re-scrutiny committee did not give any further opportunity to reconcile / revoke the defects and had rejected proposal for approval of the petitioner by an order dated

19.03.2013 and on receipt of the said letter of rejection on

21.03.2013 the petitioner was directed to appear before the Standing Appellate Committee on 24.03.2013 at 10.00 A.M. located at New Delhi with necessary documents / evidence in original in their support for removing the deficiency pointed out at re-scrutiny. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Standing Appellate Committee in course of its interview with the representatives of the petitioner on 24.3.2013 had taken a view that the land lease deed ought to have been registered in the name of Society whereas the same was in the name of Moti Babu 15 Institute of Technology and that the land use lease certificate, already accepted by the Scrutiny Committee on 06.03.2013, was not worth consideration.

The writ petitioner is, therefore, aggrieved by the ultimate communication made on 29.03.2013 whereby and where under the Standing Appellate Committee rejected the appeal of the petitioner in one word “ rejected” despite the claim of the petitioner that it had removed all the deficiency. It is the further case of the petitioner that when a review of the said decision was sought the same was declined by the Chairman of the AICTE on the ground that there was no provision of review after rejected of the application by Standing Appellate Committee.

A question would, therefore, arise that if an Institution seeking a approval for starting new technical education is given a raw deal by the AICTE, does it become remedy less or at least could get its case reconsidered as per the norms adopted by the AICTE.

It is clear that the courts will have to step in for exercising its limited power of judicial review to examine as to whether such rejection by the AICTE was made on their basis of valid grounds or it was wholly arbitrary and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The reasons being the 16 soul of the decision had the petitioner been communicated such reasons or at least the respondents could have filed their counter affidavit disclosing those reasons, this court could have finally decided the matter in one way or the other but as noted above, the respondents have failed to disclose any reasons given by the appellate Committee for rejecting the case of the petitioner.

In the back drop of aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court would quash the decision taken by the appellate authority and remit the matter back to the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of approval for starting new technical Institution. This exercise, however, must be completed within a period of four weeks from today. The appellate authority should also grant an opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner and pass its reasoned order on or before 14th June, 2013, and while doing so the AICTE and its appellate authority will also be under obligation to abide by the directions issues in the case of Parshvanath (Supra).