The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL)No. 3508 of 2013 Chandradeep Gandhi and ors. ........ Petitioners The State of Jharkhand and ors. ....... Respondents -Versus- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
13. AICTE cannot, in our view, make any regulation in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, notwithstanding sub- section (1), which though no doubt enables such regulations being made generally to carry out the purposes of the Act, when such power is circumscribed by the specific limitation engrafted therein 4. to ensure them to be “not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and the Rules …”. So far as the question of granting approval, leave alone prior or post, Section 10(1)(k) specifically confines the limits of such power of AICTE only to be exercised vis-à-vis technical institutions, as defined in the Act and not generally. When the language is specific, unambiguous and positive, the same cannot be overlooked to give an expansive meaning under the pretext of a purposive construction to perpetuate an ideological object and aim, which also, having regard to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act, are not warranted or justified. Therefore, the Regulation insofar as it compels the universities to seek for and obtain prior approval and not to start any new department or course or programme in technical education (Regulation 4) and empower itself to withdraw such approval, in a given case of contravention of the Regulations (Regulation 12) are directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 10(1)(k) of the Act and consequently void and unenforceable. xx xx xx 15. To put it in a nutshell, a reading of Section 10 of the AICTE Act will make it clear that whenever the Act omits to cover a “university”, the same has been specifically provided in the provisions of the Act. For example, while under clause (k) of Section 10 only “technical institutions” are referred to, clause (o) of Section 10 provides for the guidelines for admission of students to “technical institutions” and “universities” imparting technical education. If we look at the definition of a “technical institution” under Section 2(h) of the Act, it is clear that a “technical institution” cannot include a “university”. The clear intention of the legislature is not that all institutions whether university or otherwise ought to be treated as “technical institutions” covered by the Act. If that was the intention, there was no difficulty for the legislature to have merely provided a definition of “technical institution” by not excluding “university” from the definition thereof and thereby avoided the necessity to use alongside both the words “technical institutions” and university in several provisions in the Act. The definition of “technical institution” excludes from its purview a “university”. When by definition a “university” is excluded from a “technical institution”, to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression “technical institution” occurs will include a “university” will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein. The power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned is covered by Section 10(k) which would not cover a “university” but only a “technical institution”. If Section 10(k) does not cover a “university” but only a “technical institution”, a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of “technical institution” to apply to universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a “university” and a “technical institution”. Thus, we have to focus our attention mainly to the Act in question on the language adopted in that enactment. In that view of the matter, it is, therefore, not even necessary to examine the scope of other enactments or whether the Act prevails over the University Act or effect of competing entries falling under Entries 63 to 65 of List I vis-à-vis Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.” As per the decision of Bharathidasan University's case (supra), University does not require the approval or recognition of the AICTE for starting a Technical Course, department of faculty. In para-10 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “ the role of AICTE vis-a-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause 5. of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action. 7. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in Bharathidasan University's case(supra), no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 8. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (R.Banumathi, C.J.) ( Aparesh Kumar Singh,J.) G.Jha
Arguments
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH .... For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr.Mahesh Tewari,Advocate : Mr.Ajit Kumar, AAG & M/s I.S.Choudhary, Ananda Sen & M.Khan,Advs. By court- In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners, who are Dated 28 th November, 2013 students of Vinoba Bhave University, seek direction to the respondents, particularly respondent no.3- Vice Chancellor of Vinoba Bhave University, to send all records pertaining to the admissions of the students of the four years Degree Course in University College of Engineering and Technology,Hazaribagh and also for issuing further direction to the respondent no.1 not to recommend the names of any candidate qualifying in the Joint Entrance Examination of Engineering to this College, in view of the fact that 2nd respondent- Vinoba Bhave University does not have the necessary recognition/approval of the All India Council of Technical Education nor of the any certificate being granted by the said authority to the College. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the students of the University College of Engineering and Technology, Vinoba Bhave University and they have joined engineering courses in the year 2009. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent/University has never been recognized or approved by All India Council of Technical Education, which is required for conducting and running of an educational institution and when the University starts a technical course as per the regulation of University Grant Commission, recognition of All India Council of Technical Education is essential and since the 2nd respondent- University does not have such recognition of All India Council of Technical Education, appropriate direction as aforesaid has been sought for. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the 2nd respondent does not have the requisite recognition from All 2. India Council of Technical Education, the students who are Engineers coming out after graduation from the respondent-College will have no recognition in other Universities and that they would have difficulty in pursuing their future career and also for seeking appointment. 4. We have heard Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2,3 and 5; Mr.Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 as well as Mr.M.Khan, counsel for the Union of India, and also counsel for the State. 5. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the Public Interest Litigation filed by the students, who are pursuing their seventh Semester in the University College of Engineering and Technology under the 2nd respondent-Vinoba Bhave University and espousing their own cause cannot be entertained . Even on merit also, this Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2,34 and 5 has pointed out that it is not a pre-requisite for the University to obtain approval of the All India Council of Technical Education to start a technical education and only for maintaining the standard of education and as per the norms prescribed by All India Council of Technical Education, the University College is following the guidelines of the All India Council of Technical Education. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Bharathidasan University and another vs. All India Council of Technical Education and others, reported in (2001)8 S.C.C. 676. We may usefully refer to the judgment referred in paras-10,13 and 15, which reads as follows : “10. Since it is intended to be other than a university, the Act defines in Section 2(i) “university” to mean a university defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and also to be inclusive of an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act. Section 10 of the Act enumerates the various powers and functions of AICTE as also its duties and obligations to take steps towards fulfilment of the same. One such 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 the agencies concerned”. Section 23, which empowers the Council to make regulations in the manner ordained therein emphatically and specifically, mandates the making of such Regulations only “not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the Rules”. The Act, for all purposes and throughout maintains the distinct identity and 3. existence of “technical institutions” and “universities” and it is in keeping tune with the said dichotomy that wherever the university or the activities of the university are also to be supervised or regulated and guided by AICTE, specific mention has been made of the university alongside the technical institutions and wherever the university is to be left out and not to be roped in merely refers to the technical institution only in Sections 10, 11 and 22(2)(b). It is necessary and would be useful to advert to Sections 10(1)(c), (g), (o) which would go to show that universities are mentioned alongside the “technical institutions” and clauses (k), (m), (p), (q), (s) and (u) wherein there is conspicuous omission of reference to universities, reference being made to technical institutions alone. It is equally important to see that when 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, when it comes to the question of universities it is confined and limited to ascertaining the financial needs or its standards of teaching, examination and research. The inspection may be made or cause 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 Act. Clause (t) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 envisages AICTE to only advise UGC for declaring any institution imparting technical education as a deemed university and not do any such thing by itself. Likewise, clause (u) of the same provision which envisages the setting up of a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it to make recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or derecognition of the institution or the programme. All these vitally important aspects go to show that AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its departments or units. A careful scanning-through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action. The conscious and deliberate omission to enact any such provision in the AICTE Act in respect of universities is not only a positive indicator but should be also one of the determining factors in adjudging the status, role and activities of AICTE vis-à-vis universities and the activities and functioning of its departments and units. All these vitally important facets with so much glaring significance of the scheme underlying the Act and the language of the various provisions seem to have escaped the notice of the learned Judges, their otherwise well-merited attention and consideration in their proper and correct perspective. The ultra- activist view articulated in M. Sambasiva Rao case on the basis of supposed intention and imagined purpose of AICTE or the Act constituting it, is uncalled for and ought to have been avoided, all the more so when such an interpretation is not only bound to do violence to the language of the various provisions but also inevitably render other statutory authorities like UGC and universities irrelevant or even as non-entities by making AICTE a superpower with a devastating role undermining the status, authority and autonomous functioning of those institutions in areas and spheres assigned to them under the respective legislations constituting and governing them. xx xx xx