THE CHAIRMAN v. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.-------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.30305 OF 2009------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009JUDGMENT1.The petitioner, a Self-Financing Engineering College, seeks adirection to the first respondent University to grant affiliationfor additional intake of students to B.Tech in Electronics andCommunication and in Computer Science and Engineering andfor commencing B.Tech. in Mechanical Engineering in thelight of Ext.P1 approval given by the AICTE, so as to enablethe petitioner to commence classes this year itself. A furtherdirection is sought for to the second respondent ViceChancellor to invoke his emergency power under Section 10(13) of the Calicut University Act, 1975 in relation to theaforesaid matter. A declaration that the petitioner is entitledto fill up seats in the additional course and additional intakesanctioned by the AICTE, in the event of undue delay on thepart of the University in granting affiliation, is also sought for. WPC.30305/0922.Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. Theycontend that Ext.P1 relates to the academic year 2009-2010,which commenced in June, 2009 and what remains is only ashort span of six months in that academic year. It is pleadedthat B.Tech course is a semester programme having 8semesters of six months duration each. The classescommenced on 17.8.2009 and the first semester would be overby the second week of February, 2010. The second respondentfurther contends that Ext.P1 having been issued only on29.8.2009, the petitioner would be eligible to apply for grant ofaffiliation only thereafter and therefore, the petitioner's pleathat he had applied on 25.7.2009 is not to be accepted. It iscontended that the issue is not merely of sanctioning ofadditional intake but also of commencement of new courses.The enhancement of intake and sanctioning of additionalcourses in terms of Ext.P1 needs to be further processed interms of the University Act and Statutes before grantingaffiliation, it is contended. The petitioner's plea regardingdifferent representations, according to respondents 1 and 2, WPC.30305/093are of no avail since they were filed before obtaining Ext.P1order of AICTE. Respondents 1 and 2 would contend that theycould not be compelled to search for information over theInternet in relation to the petitioner. It makes specificreference to an inspection conducted in July, 2007, wherein, itwas concluded that the infrastructure facilities are notsufficient; the faculty is not sufficient and the approval of theapex body has not been obtained. Respondents 1 and 2 furtherpleaded that only applications which are recommended by theInspection Committee calls for further processing and that ithas to be done in terms of detailed procedure laid down. It ispointed out that in terms of the provisions, the applicationshave to reach the University before the 30th of June andtherefore, the question of acting on Ext.P1 and granting reliefdoes not arise.3.AICTE is established as a council in terms of Section 3 of AllIndia Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. In terms ofthe All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of WPC.30305/094Approval for Starting New Technical institutions, introductionof courses or programmes and approval of intake capacity ofseats for the courses or programmes) Regulations, 1994,hereinafter referred to as the 'AICTE Regulations', scrutiny ofapplications are to be done by the Council. The additionalintake has been granted in terms of Ext.P1 based on theprojections shown in the detailed project report regarding theadditional built up space, faculty and other facility for theproposed intake. All such facilities, including additional builtup area and appointment of faculty, going by Ext.P1, should bemade available before the commencement of the nextacademic session. Random surprise inspections will becarried out to evaluate facilities and if the institution is foundto be deficient in fulfillment of norms and standards of AICTE,appropriate action would be initiated by the council. Ext.P1has been issued by the AICTE in terms of its statutory powers.It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in VikramSarabhai E. Trust & B.Ed. College v. University of Calicut[2008(2) KLT 1027(FB)]; dealing with a case falling under WPC.30305/095National Council for Teacher Education, another statutorybody; that once recommendation is granted by a statutoryauthority like the NCTE, the University is normally bound togrant affiliation and that the same cannot be denied on thetechnical contention that the application was not made beforethe cut-off date. It was held by the Full Bench that when thecentral body grants recognition, the University has no poweror authority to decline affiliation. It was accordingly held thatthe University can insist compliance of such requirements ofthe University Statute which are not in conflict with theprovisions of the Central Act and the Regulations therein. Theprinciples laid down in relation to NCTE applies to the case ofAICTE also. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2, even asregards Ext.P1 issued by the AICTE, stands bound by the FullBench decision in Vikram Sarabhai E. Trust (supra). Theonly distinction that appears is that on facts, the infrastructurefacilities were available in that case, while in the case in hand,the infrastructure facilities and faculty position are directed tobe maintained by the commencement of the next academic WPC.30305/096year. To do so is within the powers of the AICTE, going by theAICTE Act and the AICTE Regulations. Therefore, Ext.P1cannot be faulted on that count. It is also apposite to refer tothe judgment of this Court in W.P(C).30965/09 dated20.12.2004, wherein, it was held that once the AICTE grantsapproval, further enquiry by the University to find out whetherthe required facilities are available is unnecessary andunwarranted. Clearance of AICTE having been granted as perExt.P1 on 15.7.2009, the same is to be acted upon by theUniversity, at any rate, if it reaches the University before theapplication for affiliation is rejected. 4.Section 23(i) of the Calicut University Act provides that subjectto the provisions of that Act and the Statutes, the executivepowers of the University shall be vested in the Syndicatewhich shall have the power to affiliate institutions inaccordance with the terms and conditions of such affiliationprescribed in that Act and the Statutes. Chapter 23 of theCalicut University First Statutes, 1977, hereinafter referred to WPC.30305/097as the 'First Statutes', provide the statutes regulatingaffiliation of colleges. The procedure for submittingapplications and the procedure to be adopted by the Syndicateon receipt of applications are provided therein. Therequirement to pay fee etc. are curable defects. Therequirement to put a date in the application form is also acurable defect though, in the case in hand, the University sealis available on the first sheet of the original of the application,disclosing the date of submission of the application (Ext.P5) as27.7.2009. With this, it also needs to be stated that in termsof the first proviso to Statute 1 in Chapter 23 of the Firststatutes, late applications can be received by the University upto 31st of December of the concerned year provided due fee interms of that proviso is paid. Therefore, there is no bar or banon the University receiving applications for affiliation after 30thof June in relation to the professional colleges.5.With this, the decision referred to by the learned counsel forthe University, reported as Rural Education & Social Trust WPC.30305/098v. University of Calicut [2007(2) KLT 609], stated to havebeen affirmed by the Apex Court, needs to be considered. ThisCourt had clearly stated that in terms of the provisions in theFirst Statutes, no student shall be admitted before gettingaffiliation to the University. The University is duty bound toensure standards. As laid down by the Division Bench in thatcase, provisions of the Central Legislation would definitelygovern if it is inconsistent with the provisions of the UniversityAct or Regulations or the University First Statutes. FollowingJaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner &Secretary to Government Higher Education Department[2000(2) KLT 26 (SC)], the University was to consider thegrant of final or further affiliation acting on the basis of thepermission granted by the central body, viz., AICTE. 6.A conjoint reading of the Full Bench decision in VikramSarabhai E. Trust (supra) and the Division Bench in RuralEducation & Social Trust (supra) would show that whenAICTE grants its approval, the University is bound to take up WPC.30305/099the case of affiliation and decide thereon without waiting anyfurther. But the question of affiliation can not be dragged onbecause, the institute cannot admit students without affiliationbeing granted. It having been laid down as law, in the givenfact situation, affiliation has to be necessarily granted on sameterms on which AICTE has granted the approval, in the case inhand, in terms of Ext.P1, the University is bound to do that. 7.The learned counsel for the University states that at thisdistance of time, classes have commenced and allotments havealready been concluded. This writ petition was on board on26.10.2009. The allotment continued even thereafter. Thequestion of undergoing the whole course in an academicsession in a semester or year is a matter that could and willgain the attention at the end of the first semester or year, todetermine whether a student is eligible to sit for any examhaving attained necessary attendance and having undergonethe necessary course of study to proceed to the next semesteror year or whether that student has to continue in the class to WPC.30305/0910make up the shortage. That is not a matter that has to betaken care of now. Each individual student will have to facethe situation as and when it arises.For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is ordereddirecting that respondents 1 and 2 will forthwith issue ordersgranting affiliation on the basis of Ext.P1 approval of AICTE,subject to all terms and conditions imposed by AICTE as perExt.P1 and subject to further clearance by the AICTE on thebasis of inspections. Therefore, it will also be open to theUniversity to bring to the notice of AICTE the short falls, ifany, as regards facilities and faculty as may be available beforethe commencement of the next academic session. Affiliationorder shall be issued by respondents 1 and 2 provisionally,within a period of one week from now, if necessary, by the ViceChancellor exercising the powers under Section 10(13) of theCalicut University Act. In anticipation of that, respondents 3and 4 will make allotment of students, however, that the WPC.30305/0911 petitioner would admit such students following the provisionalaffiliation order that would be issued by the University as aforedirected. The petitioner will pay necessary application fee,affiliation fee etc. and do all that is needful in terms of theUniversity Statutes in accordance with law. This writ petitionis ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/-THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,Judge.kkb.10/11.