Kollengode Educational and Charitable Trust vs All India Council For Technical Education

Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Trust mainly seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant extension of approval to the courses already conducted in Palakkad Institute of Science and Technology, during the academic year 2011-2012. Other incidental reliefs have also been sought for. Essential facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are the following:

The Trust was formed on 27.9.2008 with the object of establishing and running educational and vocational institutions and research centres and to render financial assistance for educational purposes. Ext.P1 is the letter of approval issued by the first respondent All India Council for Technical Education (''AICTE'' for short), to start an Engineering College with an intake of 240, viz. students of 60 each in four disciplines. The same is dated 30.6.2009. Ext.P2 is the order granting extension of approval for the academic year 2010-2011.

In the next year (2011-2012) the petitioner applied for an additional intake in Civil Engineering and also sought for extension of approval for the existing courses. Ext.P3 was later published by the AICTE which contains a list of institutions to which extension of approval can be granted during 2011-2012 wherein the petitioner''s College has been included. But Ext.P4 which are the relevant pages of web portal dated 14.7.2011, shows that for none of the courses extension has been granted, in respect of petitioner''s College.

Ext.P8 is the notice dated 21.7.2011 served on the petitioner pointing out certain deficiencies and directing the petitioner to rectify the same. It is averred in the writ petition that the Principal submitted a letter dated 1.8.2011 as per Ext.P9 as a reply, wherein it is reported that all the defects have been cured. Ext.P10 is the notification issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations allotting students to the various Engineering Colleges including that of the petitioner''s College. This is the background under which the petitioner approached this Court seeking for appropriate direction to grant extension of approval.

This Court while admitting the writ petition, passed an interim order on 1.9.2011 after hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, whereby the AICTE was directed to issue an order extending approval to the petitioner''s College provisionally and subject to the result of the writ petition and admissions have been made thereafter. In fact, the main reason stated by the respondents in their statement for not granting approval for the year 2011-2012 is that C.B.I. has charge-sheeted a case against the Chairman of the first respondent as the second accused. W.A. No. 1329/2011 was filed by the respondents against the said interim order and the Division Bench passed an interim order dated 7.9.2011 suspending the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal was finally disposed of by judgment dated 23.5.2012 and thus the writ petition has been posted for hearing.

Heard Smt. V.P. Seemanthini, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

In fact, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1559/2012 seeking for a direction to the AICTE to process the petitioner''s application for extension of approval for the academic year 2012-13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in exactly similar circumstances a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has considered the very same legal issue, whether the institution of prosecution can be a ground to deny the extension of approval. It is submitted that the writ petition was allowed and the matter is now pending before the Apex Court. Learned Senior Counsel also placed on record along with the paper book, the interim orders passed by the Apex Court in the matter. It is submitted that the operation of the judgment has not been stayed but certain directions have been issued. It is submitted that the judgment in W.A. No. 1329/2011 has considered the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the interim order passed by the Apex Court, in the SLP filed against the said judgment.

The respondents have filed a statement showing the reasons in support of the action. In para 4 it is stated that the C.B.I. has filed a charge sheet against the Chairman of the Institution and it was also strongly recommended that AICTE may also take necessary action against the institute for not fulfilling the requirement of AICTE as per the LOA for starting an Engineering College. The Council in its emergent meeting held on 10.6.2011 have taken a decision not to grant extension of approval to those cases where CBI has filed a charge sheet. As the charge sheet has been filed against the institution, EOA has not been granted to the institute. Therefore, substantially the contention is that the criminal prosecution initiated has resulted in the non grant of extension of approval for the year in question, viz. 2011-2012.

Since it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that exactly the same point was considered by the Bombay High Court in W.P.No.9039/2011, I shall refer to the findings rendered in the judgment therein. The AICTE had granted initial approval to the College involved therein which was being extended from time to time. The crucial year concerning the denial of approval is 2011-2012 itself. Even though initially extension of approval was granted, it was withdrawn by the AICTE within a few hours of its display on the website. Similar is the case of the petitioner herein. Therein, the President of the Trust has been charge sheeted by the CBI and a communication was sent to the institution relying upon the same, as a reason for non grant of approval.

The relevant findings are contained in paragraphs 18 onwards which are extracted below:

The question, therefore, to be considered is, whether the AICTE having granted the initial approval to the four management institutes run by the petitioner Trust from the academic year 2007- 2008 and having granted extension of approval from time to time for the academic years 2008-2009, 2009-10 and 2010-11 is justified in refusing to grant extension of approval for the academic year 2011-12 on the ground that the CBI has charge sheeted the President of the petitioner Trust on 30.11.2011?

As rightly contended by Mr. Iqbal Chagia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, there are no rules or regulations framed u/s 23 or 24 of the 1987 Act either by the Central Government or the AICTE to deny extension of approval to an institution if any of its member or trustee is charge sheeted by CBI. Even the ''Approval Process Handbook'' (''Handbook'') for short) published by the AICTE for the academic year 2011-2012 does not empower the AICTE to deny extension of approval on that ground. In fact, para 3.1(d) of Chapter II of the Handbook for the academic year 2011-12 reads thus:- "3.1(d) No increase shall be given to institutions where a CBI/CVC/any other investigation agency/Anti Ragging/Punitive action initiated by AICTE for any violation in the norms and standards/enquiries are pending.

It is relevant to note that para 3.1(d) in Chapter II of the ''Approval Process Handbook'' published by the AICTE for the academic year 2012-2013 reads thus:

3.1(d) Any Institution/Society/Trust/ Section 25 company or a member belonging to these if charge sheeted, shall not be considered for extension of approval unless they are acquitted." Thus, it is evident from the Handbook published by the AICTE for the academic year 2011-12 that where any enquiry by CBI/CVC/any other investigating agency is pending against an institution, the AICTE is not empowered to deny extension of approval, but in such a case, pending enquiry the institution cannot be given any increase in the intake of students. In the present case, no increase is sought by the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned decisions of the AICTE as also the decision of the Appellate Committee of the AICTE in refusing to grant extension of approval for 2011-2012 being contrary to the ''Approval Process Handbook'' for 2011-2012, the said decision cannot be said to be in accordance with law.

It is however contended by the counsel for the AICTE that once a policy decision is taken by the AICTE on 10/6/2011, not to grant extension of approval to those institutions against which CBI has filed a charge-sheet and in the present case, since charge-sheet has in fact been filed on 30.11.2010, the AICTE was justified in refusing to grant extension of approval to the petitioner''s four management institutions for the academic year 2011-2012.

We see no merit in the above contentions, because, firstly, the AICTE by its notice has permitted all the approved institutions to commence admission process for the academic year 2011-2012 after 31.3.2011 and accordingly, the four institutions of the petitioner Trust have commenced admission process after 31.3.2011 and in fact the academic session for the courses conducted by the four institutions has actually commenced on 1.6.2011. Therefore, the policy decision taken by the AICTE on 10.6.2011 could not be applied for the academic year 2011-12 as the students have been admitted to the respective courses prior to the policy decision and even the academic session has commenced prior to the policy decision dated 1.6.2011. Secondly, the policy decision dated 10.6.2011 does not seek to amend para 3.1(d) of the ''Approval Process Handbook'' for 2011-2012 which specifically provides that where the investigation by CBI/CVC, etc. is pending against an institute, then, such institute would not be entitled to increase in the intake of students. Since para 3.1(d) of the Handbook for the academic year 2011-12 has not been deleted or substituted, it would not be open to the AICTE to contend that the policy decision dated 10.6.2011 would apply to an institution where the academic session for the academic year 2011-12 has commenced on 1.6.2011 in accordance with the norms laid down by the AICTE. Thirdly, the AICTE has implemented the policy decision dated 10.6.2011 by substituting para 3.1(d) in Chapter II of the Handbook for the academic year 2012-13. Therefore, without amending or substituting para 3.1(d) in Chapter II of the Handbook for 2012-13, the AICTE is not justified in arguing that the policy decision dated 10.6.2011 is applicable to the academic year 2011-12.

The views taken mainly are that: (a) For the academic year 2011-12 where an enquiry by the CBI/CVC/any other investigation agency, is pending, the AICTE is not empowered to deny extension of approval, but in such a case pending enquiry the institution cannot be given any increase in the intake of students. Thus, the impugned decision cannot be said to be in accordance with law; and (b) The policy decision taken on 10.6.2011 will not help the AICTE without amending or substituting para 3.1(d) of Chapter II of the Handbook for the academic year 2011-12.

Learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE, Shri S. Krishnamoorthy submitted that against the said judgment, a SLP has been filed by the respondents herein and therefore the said judgment has not become final. In fact, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interim orders passed by the Apex Court which were produced along with the paper book, will show that the operation of the judgment has not been stayed.

The Apex Court''s interim orders dated 28.2.2012, 22.3.2012 and 12.4.2012 have been produced for perusal. In the interim order dated 22.3.2012, an inspection has been directed to be done by a competent team of AICTE accompanied by the First District Judge, Pune. In the interim order dated 12.4.2012 the prayer for grant of stay was considered and it is evident that no order of stay was granted and a direction was issued to the respondent to remove the deficiencies within four weeks and to file a compliance report. Further, it was directed that the approval as directed by the High Court shall be given by the AICTE within a week''s time, which will be subject to the final decision in the Special Leave Petition.

Evidently, therefore, nothing prevents this Court from considering the effect of the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court. A reading of the judgment will show that the legal points raised by the petitioners herein are covered by the same, especially since the action by the CB I was commonly adopted and implemented in various States in respect of various institutions and the situation is practically the same. I respectfully agree with the view taken in the said judgment. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to succeed in this writ petitio n.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that so far no further inspection has been done by the AICTE in respect of the defects pointed out by the CBI in their report also. A copy of the report of the CBI was placed for perusal in that context. With regard to these aspects, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the receipt of Ext.P8 show cause notice, all the defects pointed out in the show cause notice have been rectified and the Principal of the College personally went to Delhi and produced all the documentary evidence. These averments are made in paragraph 6.D of the writ petition. It is also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the minutes of the Council dated 26.2.2010 (produced as Annexure R1(f) - page 130 of the Paper Book) will show that after considering the shortage of teachers having M.Tech Degree in appropriate disciplines, the Council approved the proposal that B.Tech Degree holders with a first class in the appropriate discipline and such other qualifications as provided in the existing scheme, should be allowed to be appointed as ''Pro-term Lecturers''. Therefore, it is submitted that the same cannot be taken as a defect.

The basis on which the application was declined, is mainly due to the filing of the case by the CBI which is clear from the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, as already noticed. The decision dated 10.6.2011 was not to grant extension of approval to those cases where the CBI has filed a charge sheet. Therefore, it was not on the basis of any non compliance of the direction to cure any defect and the want of another inspection. Hence it need not deter the petitioner from getting the relief as sought for in the writ petition. The fact that the petitioner has admitted students numbering 84, has been recorded by the Division Bench in the judgment in W.A. No. 1329/2011.

In I.A. No. 1559/2012, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to process the application for extension of approval for the academic year 2012-2013 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the said relief is not sought for in the writ petition and therefore it is beyond the scope of the writ petition and that the same cannot be granted by this Court. It is further submitted that it is clear from the judgment of the Bombay High Court that there is an amendment of the re gulations for the said year. The writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to grant extension of approval for the institution to the courses already conducted which was sanctioned as per Exts.P1 and P2, for the academic year 2011-2012 and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This will be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to conduct an inspection as regards the alleged deficiencies, if any. It is also made clear that I have not considered any claim of the petitioner for grant of extension of approval for the academic year 2012-2013. No costs.