Back
2021 Supreme(SC) 1033
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University - Appellant
Versus
Crescent Educational Society & Ors - Respondents
Civil Appeal No 6931-6942, 6948-6952 of 2021(Arising out of SLP(C) No 18304, 18021-18031, 18808-18812 of 2021)
Decided on : 18-11-2021
Headnote:
Telangana Education Act 1982 – Section 20, 20(3)(a)(i) – Leave granted – High Court has, directed JNTU to notify the institutions in course of second phase of counselling thereby allowing students to be admitted to courses – Several institutions sought permission of AICTE, inter alia, for enhancing intake capacity in “emerging areas” of engineering or, as case may be, for new courses – Approval of AICTE was granted – Held, Court accordingly dispose of appeals in terms of following directions – Since State of Telangana has granted its NOC, JNTU shall complete process of affiliation strictly in accordance with its Regulations within a period – After JNTU completes process of affiliation, after due verification and inspection of infrastructure and other facilities available at institutions concerned, an affidavit shall be filed before High Court of Telangana indicating outcome of process – Court clarify that this court has not issued any mandate or direction for breaching time lines which have been prescribed by AICTE for completion of process of approval, affiliation and admissions – All requirements of AICTE in regard to last date for completion of admissions shall be duly complied with – Court leave it open to High Court to pass appropriate orders in case of each institution based on decision of affiliating University – After decision of University is communicated, High Court may take an appropriate decision in regard to compliant institutions – Appeal disposed of.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Telangana, by its interim orders dated 5 October 2021, 25 October 2021 and 26 October 2021, has held that the action of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University1[“JNTU”] in seeking the approval of the State Government before granting affiliation to new courses in existing institutions, which have already been approved by All India Council for Technical Education2[“AICTE”], is contrary to the decision of this Court in Jaya Gokul Education Trust v Commissioner & Secretary to Govt Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and Another, (2000) 5 SCC 231. Consequently, the High Court has, directed JNTU to notify the institutions in the course of the second phase of counselling thereby allowing students to be admitted to the courses. Several institutions sought the permission of AICTE, inter alia, for enhancing the intake capacity in “emerging areas” of engineering or, as the case may be, for new courses. The approval of AICTE was granted.
3. JNTU addressed a communication on 8 September 2021 to the Commissioner for Technical Education seeking the approval of the State Government for granting affiliation to new courses/increase in intake in the Under Graduate4[“UG”] courses for 2021-22. The communication noted, however, that the final affiliation for the new seats/increase in seats would be subject to fulfillment of infrastructure and qualified faculty verified by the JNTU Fact Finding Committee.
4. On 11 September 2021, the Commissioner of Technical Education addressed a communication to the Secretary, Higher Education (TE) Department requesting the Government to examine the request of the institutions for the proposed introduction of new courses/variation in the intake of the existing engineering colleges which had offered UG level courses from 2021-22.
5. A batch of petitions was instituted before the High Court in which the principal ground of challenge was that once AICTE had granted its approval, it was not open to the affiliating University to predicate the grant of its affiliation on the issuance of an NOC by the State Government. This submission weighed with the High Court while passing the interim orders. The High Court was of the view that the decision of this Court in Jaya Gokul Education Trust (supra) would support the contention of the institutions. Hence, it issued the interim directions which have been noted earlier. The interim orders of the High Court have been called into question by JNTU.
6. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel has appeared on behalf of JNTU, while Mr S Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel, has appeared on behalf of the institutions.
7. The submission which has been urged on behalf of JNTU is that the regulations of JNTU expressly contemplate a role for the State Government and the purpose of seeking an NOC of the State is to ensure that it can duly consider the needs of the area concerned and whether the proposed course or, as the case may be, additional intake, would be consistent with the overall policy of the State. Moreover, it was urged that the decision of this Court in Jaya Gokul Education Trust (supra) has been subsequently considered in several decisions and has been distinguished. The importance of the role of the State, it has been emphasized, has been underscored in subsequent decisions of this Court, including in the case of JNTU itself. In this backdrop, it is urged that it was not appropriate for the High Court to issue an interim direction for counselling of students, particularly when neither the NOC of the State Government had been granted nor the process of affiliation was completed. The decisions on which reliance has been placed by Mr C.S. Vaidyanathan would be considered in the course of the discussion.
8. On the other hand, Mr S Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel urged that the challenge which was addressed before the High Court was predicated on the insistence of JNTU that it must receive the NOC of the State Gover
