IMPORTANT POINT
Appellant University constituted under Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 having its area of operation over the Districts of Tiruchirappalli, Thanjavur and Pudukkottai in the State of Tamil Nadu need not seek prior approval of the All India Council for Technical Education to start a department for importing a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the University itself to conduct technical education of its choice and selection.

Headnote:All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987-Section 2(h)-Definition of Technical Education-Section 2(i)-Difination of University-University Grants Commission Act, 1956-Section 2(f)-Definition of University-Appellant University created by Bharthidasan University Act, 1981-Recognised by University Grants Commission also-Whether appellant University should seek prior approval of the All India Council of Technical Education to start a Department of Technical Education? (No)-High Court in writ petition holding Yes relying on 1997(1) ALT 629 (FB)-Whether correct? (No)-Whether Section 10(1)(k) of AICTE Act, 1987 and its Regulations 4 and 12 u/s 23 of the Act compelling the University to seek prior approval of AICTE valid? (No)-Appeal allowed-Dismissing writ petition-Case law referred.
Held : The 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 to ensure them to be "not inconsistent with the provisions of the 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-a-vis technical institutions, as defined in the Act and not generally. When the language is specific, unambiguous and positive, the same cannot be over-looked 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. The fact that the regulations may have the force of law or when made have to be laid down before the legislature concerned do not confer any more sanctity or immunity as though they are statutory provisions themselves. Consequently, when the power to make regulations are confined to certain limits and made to flow in a well defined canal within stipulated banks, those actually made or shown and found to be not made within its confines but outside them, the courts are bound to ignore them when the question of their enforcement arise and the mere fact that there was no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires, particularly when the party in sufferance is a respondent to the lis or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack. It would, therefore, be a myth to state that regulations made under Section 23 of the Act have "Constitutional" and legal status, even unmindful of the fact that anyone or more of them are found to be not consistent with specific provisions of the Act itself. Thus, the regulations in question, which the AICTE could not have made so as to bind universities/UGC within the confines of the powers conferred upon it, cannot be enforced against or bind an University in the matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course and programme in technical education in any university or any of its departments and constituent institutions. To put it in a nutshell, a reading of Section 10 of 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 for 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-a-vis Entry 25 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The fact that initially the syndicate of the appellant-university passed a resolution to seek for approval from AICTE and did not pursue the matter on those lines thereafter or that the other similar entities were adopting such a course of obtaining the same and that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Sambasiva Rao s case (supra) taken a particular view of the matter are not reasons which can be countenanced in law to non-suit the appellant. Nor such reasons could be relevant or justifying factors to draw any adverse finding against and deny relief by rejecting the claims of the appellant-university. We also place on record the statement of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, which, in our view, even otherwise is the correct position of law, that the challenge of the appellant with reference to the Regulation in question and claim of the AICTE that the appellant-university should seek and obtain prior approval of the AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or programme in technical education does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by the AICTE for the purpose of ensuring co-ordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards. For all the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and consequently set aside the judgment under challenge by dismissing the writ petition filed in the High Court. Having regard to the position of law declared by us, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in M. Sambasiva Rao s case (supra) cannot also be considered to lay down the correct position of law. No costs. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17)

JUDGMENT

Raju, J.-The only and important question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant-University created under the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 [hereinafter referred to as the "University Act"] having its area of operation over the Districts of Tiruchirappalli, Thanjavur and Pudukkottai in the State of Tamil Nadu, should seek prior approval of the All India Council for the Technical Education [hereinafter referred to as "AICTE"] to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the University itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection.

2. The Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 created the University in question to provide, among other things, for instruction and training in such branches of learning as it may determine; to provide for research and for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge; to institute degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions; to hold examinations and to confer degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions on persons who have pursued an approved course of study in a University college or laboratory or in an affiliated or approved college and have passed the prescribed examinations of the University; to confer honorary degrees or other academic distinction under conditions prescribed; and to institute, maintain and manage institutes of research, University colleges and laboratories, libraries, museums and other institutions necessary to carry out the objects of the University, etc. In other words, it is a full-fledged University recognized by the University Grants Commission also.

3. When the appellant-University commenced courses in technology such as Information Technology & Management, Bio-Engineering & Technology, Petrochemical Engineering & Technology, Pharmaceutical Engineering and Technology, etc., the AICTE filed a Writ Petition No. 14558 of 1998 before the Madras High Court seeking for a writ of mandamus to forebear the University authorities from running/conducting any courses and programmes in those technical courses. The sum and substance of the grievance as well as the objection put forward was that the University did not apply for and secure the prior approval for those courses before their commencement by the University as envisaged under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as the "AICTE Act"] and the statutory regulations made thereunder by the AICTE, particularly Regulation No. 4, which obligated even an University to obtain such prior approval. The stand of the appellant-University was, as it is now before us, that the appellant-University will not fall under the definition of "Technical Institution" as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and consequently, the regulations made for seeking prior approval of the AICTE even by the Universities to commence a course or programme in technical education or a new department for the purpose, were in excess of the regulation-making powers of the AICTE and consequently, are null and void and cannot be enforced against the appellant-University to the extent it obligates even Universities to seek and secure such prior approval from the AICTE.

4. The learned Single Judge has chosen to accept the stand of the AICTE by applying and following the ratio of the decision of a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in M. Sambasiva Rao alias Sambaiah & Ors. v. Osmania University, Hyderabad rep. By its Registrar & Ors.1 and as a consequence thereof, ordered the cancellation of the admissions made by the University. When the matter was pursued before a Division Bench, the learned Judges in the Division Bench also felt convinced of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and rejected the appeal, necessitating the appellant-University to come to this C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1320

Cases Referred (7)