Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
Harshith Educational Society rep. by its Secretary, Chenna Krishna Reddy & Others – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21502 of 2016
Decided On : 19-07-2016
For the Petitioners:L. Ravichander, Senior Advocate for P. Pandu Ranga, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 & R5, G.P. for Higher Education (TG), R2 & R3, K. Ramakanth Reddy, SC for AICTE, R4, V. Ram Chandra Goud, SC for JNTU, R6 & R7, A. Abhishek Reddy, Standing Counsel.
Headnote:
Education and University – Admission – College/Institution – Proceedings issued by second respondent i.e. AICTE, whereby members of Committee recommended the petitioners’ institutions be placed under category of no admission for all courses for academic year – First petitioner society was found to impart educational training in polytechnic, engineering and post graduate course – Institutions were established after obtaining necessary permission from the All India Council for Technical Education-AICTE”) and got ‘affiliated to Jawaliarlal Nehru Technological University – During the academic year 2015-2016 AICTE granted approval vide proceedings and pursuant thereto the petitioners applied for affiliation to University – While granting affiliation to few courses University rejected affiliation in respect of B-Tech and M-Tech courses. Aggrieved by the same W.P. came to be filed. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition which was carried by way of an appeal vide Writ Appeal and Batch. By an order, a Division Bench of this Court directed the AICTE to constitute committees for inspection of colleges with two members from the AICTE and one member from the University, however, allowed the counselling to go on as directed by Single Judge – On a Joint Inspection was conducted and pursuant thereto the University rejected the affiliation vide proceedings show-cause notice was issued indicating the deficiencies along with evaluation report prepared by Joint Experts directing the petitioners to appear before the Standing Appellate Committee- SAC – The petitioners are said to have appeared before the SAC and after hearing the petitioner it has withdrawn the approval granted to the petitioner – Held, it is clear that on 25-4-2016 when EVC visited the premises they found five deficiencies and the five deficiencies which were asked to be answered do not form part of the reasons given in the order – The deficiencies pointed out by EVC and the reasons given for rejection arc different, which is clear from the above. Thereafter, a representation was said to have been given by the petitioners asking the competent authority for a visit of EVC to verify the claims made by the petitioners. As stated earlier, EVC visited the petitioners’ institution on 25.04.2016 in spite of an objection raised by the petitioners stating that it was holiday – A perusal of impugned order reveals that the petitioners were never given an opportunity of explaining the deficiencies noted by the authorities before passing the order – As observed earlier, the deficiencies which were pointed out in the proceedings are inconsistent with each other and the subsequent deficiencies noted in the impugned order add further. But on fact which is to be observed is that the petitioners were not put to notice about the deficiencies found during inspection or calling for their explanation to deficiencies noted before passing the impugned order. It is true that if the deficiencies as pointed out by the EVC on 14.06.2016 are correct and are in existence, definitely petitioners arc not entitled for any relief, but before doing so an opportunity ought to have been given to them to explain the deficiencies noted – Therefore, treating impugned order as notice, the petitioners shall submit their explanation forthwith explaining their stand on the deficiencies pointed out, in which event the AICTE shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably, within a week from today, after hearing the petitioners, so as to enable them for the benefits which they are entitled to if any order is passed in their favour by AICTE- writ petition is disposed of. (Paras 14 and 15)
The present writ petition is preferred questioning the proceedings in F. No. AICTE/AB/SCR/1-11554091/2016-17 dated 16.06.2016 issued by the second respondent i.e. AICTE, whereby the members of the Committee recommended the petitioners’ institutions be placed under the category of no admission for all courses for the academic year 2016-2017.”
2. The averments in the affidavit filed before this Court would show that the first petitioner society was found to impart educational training in polytechnic, engineering and post graduate course. The institutions were established after obtaining necessary permission from the All India Council for Technical Education (for short “AICTE”) and got ‘affiliated to Jawaliarlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (for short “the University”). During the academic year 2015-2016 AICTE granted approval vide proceedings dated 09.04.2015 and pursuant thereto the petitioners applied for affiliation to the University. While granting affiliation to few courses the University rejected the affiliation in respect of B-Tech and M-Tech courses. Aggrieved by the same W.P. No. 19976 of 2016 (sic. 2015) came to be filed. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition which was carried by way of an appeal vide Writ Appeal No.589 of 2015 and Batch. By an order dated 15.07.2015, a Division Bench of this Court directed the AICTE to constitute committees for inspection of colleges with two members from the AICTE and one member from the University, however, allowed the counselling to go on as directed by the learned Single Judge. On 30.07.2015 a Joint Inspection was conducted and pursuant thereto the University rejected the affiliation vide proceedings dated 25.08.2015 on 09.10.2015 a show-cause notice was issued indicating the deficiencies along with evaluation report prepared by Joint Experts directing the petitioners to appear before the Standing Appellate Committee (for shod “SAC) on 12.10.2015. The petitioners are said to have appeared before the SAC and after hearing the petitioner it has withdrawn the approval granted to the petitioner. The said order came to be passed on 29.10.2015. Thereafter, for the academic year 2016.2011 the petitioners herein again made an application seeking restoration of intake of students. On 25.04.2016 the petitioners received a telephonic communication informing them about the visit of Expert Committee on 26.04.2016. On the next day the Expert Visit Committee (for short “EVC”) inspected the facilities provided by the petitioners’ institution. On 27.04.2016 the petitioners received an e-mail communication as well as a telephonic call informing the deficiencies pointed out by the EVC and accordingly the petitioners were asked to attend before SAC on 29.04.2016. Though the petitioners attended and clarified the deficiencies pointed out, but on 30.04.2016 the AICTE rejected the approval informing “no admission status for the academic year 2016-2017.” Challenging the said rejection, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate committee on 02.05.2016. Repeated persuasions made by the petitioners led to the visit of EVC to their institution on 24.05.2016, in spite of requesting them not to do so on that day as 24.05.2016 was declared as holiday. It is said that the EVC visited the college on 24.05.2016 and noted the deficiencies. Since the appeal tiled by the petitioners was not considered, the petitioners were forced to approach this Court by way of W.P. No. 17673 of 2016 challenging the proceedings dated 30.04.2016. On 10.06.20 16 this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition permitting the petitioners to submit all their objections by personally appearing before the appellate committee on 14.06.2016 and further directed the appellate authority to pass orders in accordance with law within three days.
3. It is alleged that without considering the objections raised and without even asking for clarification and after filing of
