Universal Educational Society vs All India Council for Technical Education and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The applicants/respondents have filed this review application to review a part of the order dated 4.7.2013, wherein

it has been observed that ""since extension of approval has been recommended by the Standing Committee, respondent No. 1 is directed to give

formal approval on or before 09.07.2013"". Learned counsel for the applicants/respondents has submitted that in the case of Parshavanath

Charitable Trust and Others Vs. All India Council for Tech. Edu and Others, , the Apex Court has prepared a schedule for the purpose of

conducting entrance examination till the date of granting or refusing approval by the University/State Government and has directed that the

admission to academic course should start by 1st August of the relevant year and the seats remaining vacant should again be duly notified and

advertised. All seats should be filled positively by 15th August after which there shall be no admission, whatever be the reason or ground. It is also

observed that the schedule is in conformity with affiliation/recognition schedule noticed above and both can co-exist. The Supreme Court approved

these admission dates and declared to be the law or which shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned and none of the authorities would have the

power or jurisdiction to vary these dates of admission.

Learned counsel for the applicants/respondents has further submitted that in para 46.6 of the aforesaid judgement, it has been observed that

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/website for the

purpose of admission and none thereafter"". Though the applicants/respondents have been given approval but it would not be of any avail to the

applicants/respondents for this academic year 2013-14 as it would be available to the applicants/respondents for the academic year 2014-15. It is

also submitted that in another case i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) 415 of 2013, ""Jind Institute of Engineering and Technology v. All India Council for

Technical Education"" decided on 24.7.2013 (Annexure A-1), it has been reiterated by the Supreme Court that the High Court will not deviate

from the directions given by the Apex Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others (Supra).

In reply, learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner has submitted that the College had started in the year 2008. Approval was given for the

academic year 2012-13 on 12.4.2012. Thereafter some complaint was made against the college on the basis of which inspection was carried out

on 5.6.2012 and a show cause notice dated 24.7.2010 was served upon the non-applicants, who had filed their reply on 3.8.2012 and pursuant

thereto, final approval was granted on 29.10.2012 for the academic year 2012-13.

It is further argued by learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner that after the aforesaid proceedings, the College was neither inspected nor

any show cause notice for any kind of deficiency was served upon it. The College then applied for renewal of affiliation on 14.7.2013 for the

academic year 2013-14 but according to the non-applicant/petitioner, the college was never inspected and on 10.4.2013, the order of non-

approval was passed without indicating any particular reason as the said order was passed on a printed format in which it was mentioned that

reason for rejection could be any among the following as applicable to your institute; (i) application created but not submitted online on portal; (ii)

processing fees not paid or not received; (iii) incorrect data entered on the portal."" This order was communicated to the non-applicant/petitioner on

29.4.2013 and immediately thereafter on the next day i.e. on 30.4.2013, the statutory appeal was filed. After the appeal was filed, inspection was

done by the AICTE and an order was passed on 23.7.2013 as per which extension of approval and increase of intakes, as applied for the period

2013-14 was given.

It is further argued that when reply to the writ petition was filed by the applicants, document was attached giving reasons of rejection pertaining

to a college situated in Haryana whereas the college of the non-applicant is situated in Punjab. It is thus, submitted that there is a total non-

application of mind and there has never been any material with the applicants even for passing the order dated 10.4.2013.

Insofar as, the decision in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others (Supra) is concerned, learned counsel for the non-

applicant/petitioner has submitted that in the said judgment All India Council for Technical Education granted approval for starting a new technical

institution, introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes of existing

technical institutions. The All India Council for Technical Education Regulations, 1994 (for short ''the 1994 Regulations'') has not been pl(sic)d

before the Apex Court as Regulation 16 and pn(sic)so thereof says that ""the time schedule and consequences of processing applications for

approved proposals shall be as given in the schedule appended to these regulations, provided that the council may for good and sufficient reasons

to be recorded in writing, modify the time schedule in respect of any class or category of applications"". He has also drawn attention of this Court to

the note appended to the 1994 Regulations, which says that ""the Council on advice of Executive Committee may modify the prescribed dares as

mentioned in the schedule. The decision of the Council regarding the dates shall be final"". It is submitted that had this provision been brought to the

notice of the Apex Court while deciding the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others (Supra), the decision would have been all together

different. It is also submitted that a similar note is there in the Dental Colleges of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or

Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 [for short the DCI Regulations''],

which reads thus:--

The time schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Government, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class

or category of applications.

On the strength of the said provision in the 1994 Regulations which is pari materia to the DCI Regulations, the Supreme Court in the case of

Priya Darshni Dental College and Hospital Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, held that if the Central Government was of the view that the

applicant college had complied with the requirements and was not at fault, and it was not responsible in any manner for the delay in considering the

application, and there were other applicants of similar nature, it could have recorded those reasons in writing and extended the time schedule for

that category of applicants and then granted the renewal of permission, provided the last date for admissions had not expired.

He has also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No. 1099 of 2013 titled as ""The Regional Officer, All India Council for

Technical Education, Chandigarh v. Jind Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jind and other"" decided on 06.06.2013, in which almost similar

controversy had arisen and this Court has observed that ""the appellants now seek shelter behind the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in

Parshavanath Charitable Trust''s (Supra) and as extracted hereinabove where a time schedule has been prescribed and the authorities are bound to

such a schedule. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the Courts too would be restrained from giving any such directions which may

result in deviating from the above schedule. We are not in agreement with the contention raised before us as the power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is wide enough to enable the Court to pass orders in the given set of facts of the case and to ensure substantial justice"".

He has also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ""Raajdhaani Education Welfare Society through President and

another v. AICTE through Secretary and another"" in SLP (Civil) No. 19650 of 2013 decided on 24.7.2013, to contend that in case of any default

on the part of AICTE, the cut off dates fixed in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others (Supra) will not apply.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the resume of facts, one thing is clear that the non-applicants/petitioner hereby was granted approval on 29.10.2012 for the academic

year 2012-13 and thereafter there was no inspection of the college nor any show cause notice was issued on account of any deficiency.

Consequently, the non-applicant/petitioner applied for renewal of affiliation on 14.1.2013 for the academic year 2013-14. Learned counsel for the

AICTE has fairly submitted that no record is available with him, though the record was summoned by this Court, to show the material taken into

consideration before passing the order dated 10.4.2013. Apparently, the said order was illegal and after passing the said order, the order was

communicated to the non-applicant only a day before the cut off date as per the schedule prescribed in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust

and others (Supra). The petitioner, who allegedly reacted immediately, filed appeal on the next day i.e. on 30.4.2013 and thereafter filed the

present writ petition.

During the pendency of the writ petition, applicant/respondents inspected the college to find out any deficiency but ultimately passed the order

on 23.7.2013, granting the extension of approval and increasing the intake as applied for 2013-14. But now after the writ petition was disposed of

on 4.7.2013, the review application has been filed seeking modification in the order that the extension of approval which has been recommended

by the Standing Committee would be available to the non-applicant/petitioner for the academic year 2014-15 and not for 2013 -14 on the ground

that in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others (Supra), the schedule has been fixed by the Supreme Court from which no one can

deviate much less the AICTE as the Supreme Court has strongly observed that in case of any deviation, the authorities would be penalised. Insofar

as the judgment of Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others (Supra) is concerned, in that case, the time schedule has been provided without

taking into consideration the 1994 Regulations in which there is a proviso that the Council may for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in

writing, modify the time schedule, in respect of any class or category of applications and also there is a note below the Schedule that the Council

on advice of Executive Committee may modify the prescribed dates as mentioned in the schedule. The decision of the Council regarding the dates

shall be final.

In the recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Raajdhaani Education Welfare Society through President and another

(Supra), it has been observed that the cut off date even in the Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others (Supra) will not apply for the appellants

therein for the academic session 2013-14 because in that case the approval for session 2013-14 was withheld by the AICTE on the ground that a

charge-sheet has been filed by the CBI. Whereas while disposing of the said case, it was observed that we are also of the view that even where a

charge sheet is filed by the CBI, the AICTE should consider the grant of approval on its own merits"". Meaning thereby, the AICTE could not have

rejected the application for approval only on the ground that a charge-sheet of CBI is pending and it was required to take a decision about the

grant of approval on the merits of the case de hors the charge-sheet filed by the CBI. It was also held in that case that considering the limited time

that is available before the admission process for the academic session 2013-14 will be over in August 2013, the Supreme Court instead of

remanding the matter to the High Court for consideration of the interim prayer made by the petitioner therein directed the AICTE to reconsider the

grant of approval for the academic year 2013-14 on its own merits in accordance with the observations made by the Supreme Court within a

period of two weeks from the date of passing of the order.

Moreover, in the case of The Regional Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, Chandigarh (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court

noticed that the institute had submitted the application for grant of approval from the appellants for the academic session 2013-14, within the

stipulated time frame. The AICTE responded to the application by stating that the same had to be filed under Chapter I of the Approval Process

Handbook for the Session 2013-14 as also online. This view of the AICTE was prompted by the earlier withdrawal of the approval of the institute

for the Session 2011-12 and thus treating the attempt of the respondent as a fresh application. The matter was agitated in CWP No. 19509 of

2011 and during its subsistence, an order dated 3.9.2012 was passed calling upon the AICTE to reconsider the issue in the light of the reply that

had been submitted by the institute to the show cause notice served by the AICTE. Ultimately, the said writ petition was allowed on the strength of

the jurisdiction vested with the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India observing thus:--

We may notice that the conduct of the appellants and the stand taken can at best be termed to be ''audacious''. On the one hand, it is the principal

obstructionist but instead of bowing to the orders of this Court, they have taken a stand which is evident from filing of the instant appeal which

displays reluctance on their part to decide the application of the respondent-institute, the decision regarding which, for reasons best known to the

appellants, have been kept in abeyance. Even the Hon''ble Supreme Court had observed at this stage upon the conduct of the appellants. This

obviously has not chastened them.

The fault lies squarely on the doors of the appellants and it is they who are trying to subvert the whole process including the directions of the

Hon''ble Supreme Court.

We are under no disillusion about the justification of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the given set of circumstances and, therefore,

do not wish to interfere.

Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, much less the fact that in the reply which has been filed in the Court and the stand taken

that the inspection of the college namely Universal Institute of Technology, Hisar has been conducted, while referring to the inspection and

deficiencies pointed out by the non-applicant, the stand taken by the applicants is totally uncalled for and hence, the review application is hereby

dismissed.