Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, N. BALAYOGI, JJ.
Dr. V.R.K. Educational Society, Regd. No.6383/1994, Rep. by its Treasurer, Mohd. Shah Alam Rasool Khan & Others - Appellant
Versus
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Rep. by its Registrar, Kukatpally & Others -Respondent
W.P. Nos.18954, 19819, 19983, 19986, 20126, 21201, 21865, 22231, 22240, 22831, 22851, 22984 & 23573 of 2017
Decided On : 11-12-2018
For the Petitioner:S. Sri Ram, Charan Telaprolu, Tarun G. Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents: A. Abhishek Reddy, S.C. for JNTU, K. Ramakanth Reddy, G.P. for Higher Education (TG).
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Challenging Regulations of Minority and Non-minority Educational Institutions – Eligibility criteria – Institutions not followed guidelines – Rejection of affiliation – Challenged – Held, Challenging regulations ventilated certain grievances, University is not adhering to time frame for processing applications for affiliations – This grievance is fairly justified – Schedule fixed by Supreme Court has to be respected and followed by Universities, as otherwise actions of University viewed with suspicion – Institutions who have fulfilled all requirements worried about surprise inspections – There can be no denial of fact that there is huge trust deficit – Colleges which comply with statutory requirements need not bother about surprise inspections and others have no right to come to Court – Rejection of affiliation based upon performance of students of institutions in previous academic years – Contention of University is that performance of students of colleges affiliated to University has a direct bearing upon reputation of University itself – Therefore it is contended by University that it should be one of parameters for deciding issue of affiliation – Technically and legally, regulations of University do not prescribe performance of students of an institution, as a factor to determine eligibility of institution for affiliation – But in practice number of students who come out of an institution with flying colors determines reputation of institution – Meritorious students always choose most reputed colleges and even if those colleges engage teachers of relatively lesser quality students, by their own efforts, compensate for lack of efficiency on part of teachers – Institutions do not provide sufficient infrastructure when students move over from 1st year to the 2nd year, students will be put into great jeopardy – Students get admitted on basis of approval granted by AICTE and affiliation granted by University – These two virtually hold out a promise to students that all infrastructure is available – Students do not take admissions based upon promises – Writ petitions disposed of (Para 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 100)
Facts of the Case:
Minority and Non-minority Educational Institutions offering Professional Graduate and Post Graduate Courses have come up with these writ petitions challenging some of Regulations notified by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) in December 2016, under title Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, for Academic Year 2017-2018.
Findings of the Case:
Challenging regulations ventilated certain grievances, University is not adhering to time frame for processing applications for affiliations – This grievance is fairly justified – Schedule fixed by Supreme Court has to be respected and followed by Universities, as otherwise actions of University viewed with suspicion – Institutions who have fulfilled all requirements worried about surprise inspections – There can be no denial of fact that there is huge trust deficit – Colleges which comply with statutory requirements need not bother about surprise inspections and others have no right to come to Court – Rejection of affiliation based upon performance of students of institutions in previous academic years – Contention of University is that performance of students of colleges affiliated to University has a direct bearing upon reputation of University itself – Therefore it is contended by University that it should be one of parameters for deciding issue of affiliation – Technically and legally, regulations of University do not prescribe performance of students of an institution, as a factor to determine eligibility of institution for affiliation – But in practice number of students who come out of an institution with flying colors determines reputation of institution – Meritorious students always choose most reputed colleges and even if those colleges engage teachers of relatively lesser quality students, by their own efforts, compensate for lack of efficiency on part of teachers – Institutions do not provide sufficient infrastructure when students move over from 1st year to the 2nd year, students will be put into great jeopardy – Students get admitted on basis of approval granted by AICTE and affiliation granted by University – These two virtually hold out a promise to students that all infrastructure is available – Students do not take admissions based upon promises.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of
V. Ramasubramanaian, J.
1. Minority and Non-minority Educational Institutions offering Professional Graduate and Post Graduate Courses have come up with these writ petitions challenging some of the Regulations notified by the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) in December 2016, under the title Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, for the Academic Year 2017-2018.
2. We have heard Mr. S. Sri Ram, Mr. Sri Charan Telaprolu, and Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Abhishek Reddy, learned standing counsel for the University.
3. The immediate provocation for the petitioners to challenge the Regulations issued by the University was that some of the Colleges were put by the University under “No Admission Category”, for some others, the University granted affiliation for an intake, lesser than the intake permitted by the AICTE and in respect of two colleges, the University rejected affiliation on the ground that the policy considerations of the State Government did not permit the creation of new courses or new colleges in respect of certain disciplines. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions challenging not only the Regulations but also the orders passed by the University (i) either putting them under No Admission Category, or (ii) rejecting affiliation for some of the courses or (iii) granting affiliation for a reduced intake. The reason why the petitioners challenge the Regulations, is that the orders directly affecting the petitioners were purportedly passed on the basis of some of the Regulations.
4. Before proceeding further, we must bring on record one more fact namely that the JNTU issues a set of Regulations, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 29 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 2008 (JNTU Act), year after year. Therefore, the impugned Regulations issued in December, 2016 in respect of the academic year 2017-2018, were replaced by another set of Regulations issued in December, 2017 in respect of academic year 2018-2019. These Regulations issued in respect of the academic year 2018-2019 have also become the subject matter of challenge in a fresh batch of writ petitions filed in the year 2018.
5. In fact, when the present batch of writ petitions came up at the commencement of the academic year 2017-2018, this Court passed limited interim directions directing the University to reconsider the cases of some of the petitioners at least in respect of some of the courses, without putting against the petitioners some of the norms, which were patently irrational. Pursuant to those interim orders, many of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions got orders of affiliation for the academic year 2017-18, for the courses for which they deserved affiliation.
6. Therefore, in the natural course of things, we thought that the present batch of writ petitions had become infructuous in view two things namely (i) that the impugned Regulations have now been replaced by a new set of Regulations, which have also come under challenge in a new batch of cases; and (ii) that by virtue of the interim orders passed in some of these writ petitions, many of the petitioners were also granted affiliation and nothing more remained for the petitioners in respect of the academic year 2017-18.
7. But it was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and rightly so, that when the very same set of Regulations are issued year after year with some cosmetic changes and when it is not possible for this Court to finally decide all the writ petitions year after year within the time schedule available for completion of admissions, it may not be wise to close the writ petitions as having become infructuous. At some point of time, in respect of some academic year, the validi
