SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 679

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Gupta, Surya Kant, JJ.
FOUNDATION FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FORE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR – PETITIONER(S)
Versus
THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION THROUGH THE MEMBER SECRETARY – RESPONDENT(S)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 581 of 2016
Decided on : 21-06-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR, Mr. Anil Soni, Adv., Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Adv., Ms. Amritha Sarayoo, Adv., Mr. Prawal Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR, Ms. Ginny J Rautray, Adv., Ms. Anushka Ashok, Adv., Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
In matter of imposing penalty, AICTE has no discretion.

Headnote:

(a) Higher education - Admission - AICTE not granting increase of seats - College admitting 42 students in excess - Held, without jurisdiction and illegal - However, admissions not interfered with keeping in view of future of students. (Para 8)

       (2013) 3 SCC 385 - Referred

       (b) Higher education - Admission - College admitting students in excess of permitted seats - AICTE imposing penalty of Rs. 23,10,00,000/- - Penalty imposed In terms of Clause 3.1 of Chapter IV of Approval Process Handbook - AICTE has no discretion in imposition of penalty - It has to follow the formula prescribed - No error. (Para 10)

       Facts of the case:

       The petitioner applied to the respondent, the All India Council for Technical Education for extension of approval of existing seats and for increase in seats in certain courses. On 25th April, 2016, the AICTE granted extension of approval to the petitioner for existing seats in the existing courses. However, in this communication nothing was written with regard to the prayer for increase in seats. Correspondence was exchanged between the parties but finally on 22nd June, 2016, the AICTE rejected the request of the petitioner.

       The petitioner, despite having no permission for increase in seats, admittedly granted permission to students in excess of the seats. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before Supreme Court for quashing of the letter dated 22nd June, 2016 and also prayed that the petitioner be permitted to continue with the session which had commenced on 6th July, 2016 for the current academic year without jeopardizing the career of the students who had already been admitted.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no error in action by AICTE.

       Result: Petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

The petitioner, Foundation for Organizational Research and Education For School of Management is a registered educational institution running courses in management. On 15th March, 2016, the petitioner applied to the respondent, the All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'the AICTE') for extension of approval of existing seats and for increase in seats in certain courses. On 25th April, 2016, the AICTE granted extension of approval to the petitioner for existing seats in the existing courses. However, in this communication nothing was written with regard to the prayer for increase in seats. Correspondence was exchanged between the parties but finally on 22nd June, 2016, the AICTE rejected the request of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, despite having no permission for increase in seats, admittedly granted permission to students in excess of the seats. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court for quashing of the letter dated 22nd June, 2016 and also prayed that the petitioner be permitted to continue with the session which had commenced on 6th July, 2016 for the current academic year without jeopardizing the career of the students who had already been admitted. When the matter was taken up by this Court on 25th July, 2016, the petitioner institution was directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) and it was noticed that the petitioner had admitted 51 students in the meantime. Thereafter, on 6th September, 2016 another order was passed in which it was recorded that a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) in terms of the order dated 25th July, 2016 had been deposited and it was also noticed that admission of 51 students who had been admitted beyond the sanctioned number of seats had been axed without giving any explanation. We may also note that in the order it has been recorded as follows:

"Mr. Khurshid, learned senior counsel, conceded that the sanction strength is 240, but 372 students were admitted; but the Institution had reasons to do so, for the A.I.C.T.E. did not proceed with the approval within the stipulated framework of time and further the Institution had been experiencing that the students after taking admission, leave the Institution."

Thereafter, the Court issued the following directions:

(a) "A.I.C.T.E. shall verify who are the students eligible under the norms regard being had to the concept of merit, to continue in the petitioner-Institution.

(b) The Inspection Team of A.I.C.T.E. shall carry out another inspection to find out as to whether the Institution has removed the deficiencies that were pointed out by the inspecting authority.

(c) The petitioner-Institution shall cooperate with the Inspection Team.

(d) The petitioner-Institution shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 2 crores before the Registry of this Court within four weeks hence."

3. The petitioner deposited another sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crore only) pursuant to the said direction. Therefore, Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crore only) stands deposited in this Court. The inspection report was received, according to which the deficiencies earlier pointed out by the AICTE had been removed but the inspection committee pointed out certain other deficiencies.

4. During the pendency of the petition, the AICTE issued notice to the petitioner as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon it. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the AICTE imposed a penalty of Rs. 23,10,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Crore Ten Lakhs only) towards the excess admission made of 42 number of students. The petitioner has not cared to amend the writ petition to challenge the order imposing penalty but has filed an application being I.A. No. 8 in this regard. Though this may not be technically correct, we are examining this issue also.

5. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the various communications exchanged between the parties an















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top