Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR & A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai & Another – Appellants
Versus
Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 653 of 2014
Decided On : 25-09-2014
(b) AICTE Act, 1987 – Referable to Entry 66 of List I of Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India – Shall prevail any other State law – Institutes imparting technical education – Jurisdiction – Not of University Act and the University but the Central (AICTE Act, 1987) Act and the Council (AICTE) created under it will have jurisdiction. (Para 33,
(1995) 4 SCC 104 – Relied upon
© Technical Education – Permission to start new institution – State Government cannot decline permission as a matter of policy – State cannot have a policy outside AICTE Act, 1987 – Any such policy should be placed before AICTE, that too before it grants permission to any institution. (Para 34)
(2000) 5 SCC 231 – Relied upon
(d) AICTE Act, 1987 – Section 10 – The Council and not the University is empowered to lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, staff pattern, staff qualification, assessment and examination, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fees etc. for technical institutions. (Para 38)
(2011) 4 SCC 527 – Relied upon
(e) Technical Education – Affiliation to Engineering College – University having objection, refusing affiliation – All objections squarely falling within jurisdiction of only the AICTE – None of them matters falling within domain of the University – AICTE, on inspection reporting fulfillment of all conditions prescribed by the norms and standards laid down by AICTE – Not controverted by University – Refusal to grant affiliation wholly untenable. (Para 42, 43)
Facts of the case:
AICTE granted approval for two years in favour of a society called the GDR Educational Society to conduct five different courses of engineering [1. Mechanical, 2. Civil, 3. Electrical & Electronics , 4. Electrical and 5. Computer Science & Engineering] indicated in the said proceedings for the academic year 2013-2014 in the “1st petitioner college” which has been established by the said society with a total intake capacity of 300 students.
An application was made to the said University to grant affiliation to the first petitioner college which was rejected.
Aggrieved by such decision, a Writ Petition © No.847 of 2013 came to be filed by the petitioners herein before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 28.6.2013 directing consideration of the representation to be made by the petitioners after giving them an opportunity of being heard in person.
Thereafter, on a representation being made, the University purportedly granted affiliation for the academic session 2013-14 for the various courses specified therein for total intake capacity of 300 students with a rider that such affiliation is subject to approval of the Executive Council of the University.
Proposal for ratification of earlier affiliation was finally turned down.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.423 of 2014 before this Court. On 12.5.2014, this Court issued notice on the said writ petition. On 19.5.2014, the said writ petition was disposed off.
Finally the affiliation was cancelled.
Finding of the Court:
Refusal of affiliation by the University is wholly untenable.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Judgment :-
Chelameswar, J.
1. A Society called GDR Educational Society claims to be running a number of colleges. It is claimed in the writ petition that the ‘first petitioner’ is one of such colleges and the second petitioner is a Secretary of the said Educational Society.
2. The All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as “AICTE”) is a body constituted under Section 3 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “1987 Act”). The AICTE was established for “proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith”.
3. One of the functions of the AICTE under Section 10(k) [Section 10. Functions of the Council. It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes for performing its functions under this Act, the Council may-
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses of programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned.] of the said Act is to grant approval for starting new ‘technical institutions’ and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with technical agencies.
4. “Technical Institution” is defined under Section 2(h) as follows:
“2(h) “technical institution” means an institution, not being a University which offers courses or programmes of technical education and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions.”
5. “Technical Education” is defined under Section 2(h) as follows:
“2(g) “technical education” means programmes of education, research, and training in engineering technology, architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other programme or areas as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare.”
6. AICTE granted approval by its proceedings dated 07.04.2013 in favour of a society called the GDR Educational Society [Unfortunately, the details of the Society – whether it is registered Society or not, if registered under what law it is registered –are not specified in the writ petition. (It is highly doubtful whether a legal proceeding in the name of a College is maintainable. Modern lawyers appearing on either side in such litigation do not trouble themselves with such questions and Judges who ask such questions are considered not sensitive to the “public interest”!)] to conduct five different courses of engineering [1. Mechanical, 2. Civil, 3. Electrical & Electronics , 4. Electrical and 5. Computer Science & Engineering] indicated in the said proceedings for the academic year 2013-2014 in the “1st petitioner college” [Unfortunately, the details of the Society – whether it is registered Society or not, if registered under what law it is registered –are not specified in the writ petition. (It is highly doubtful whether a legal proceeding in the name of a College is maintainable. Modern lawyers appearing on either side in such litigation do not trouble themselves with such questions and Judges who ask such questions are considered not sensitive to the “public interest”!)] which has been established by the said society with a total intake capacity of 300 students.
7. It is stated in the communication granting approval dated 07.4.2013 as follows:
“The approval is valid for two years from the date of issue of this letter for getting affiliation with respective University and fulfilling State Govt. requirements for admission. If inst
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
