Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
IRINJALAKUDA DIOCESAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST KODAKARA, THRISSUR – PETITIONER
Vs.
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION - RESPONDENT
W.P(C) No.13969 of 2015
Decided On : 11.6.2015.
Advocate Appeared:
FOR THE APPELLANT : SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
FOR THE RESPONDENT: STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.KRISHNAMURTHY
The rejection of approval by AICTE must adhere to the prescribed schedule and be based on valid reasons, avoiding 'pick and choose' methods and ensuring judicious consideration.
Headnote:
AICTE - Educational Institutions - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - [Parshavanath Charitable Trust and Others v. All India Council for Tech. Edu. and Others (2013 (3) SCC 385), Asha v. Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences (AIR 2012 SC 3396)]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Trust operating educational institutions, challenges the rejection of Letter of Approval by AICTE for the MCA course. The rejection was based on deficiencies in land documents and building permits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the rejection of approval by AICTE was not proper and unsustainable due to lack of judicious consideration and illegality. The rejection was based on vague reasons and irrelevant considerations.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the rejection of the Letter of Approval by AICTE for the MCA course, based on deficiencies in land documents and building permits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the rejection by AICTE was not in line with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and lacked judicious consideration. The rejection was based on irrelevant considerations and did not adhere to the prescribed schedule.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the rejection of approval by AICTE and directed the AICTE to constitute a Standing Appellate Committee to reconsider the Expert Visiting Committee report, keeping in mind the observations made by the Court.
The petitioner, a Trust carrying on educational institutions and at present carrying on courses inter alia in Engineering and also MBA; the later having been sanctioned by All India Council for Technical Education [for brevity "AICTE"] for the present academic year, assails the rejection of Letter of Approval [LoA] by the AICTE, to the MCA course.
2. Before noticing the facts, it is to be noticed that the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the AICTE would caution this Court that no consideration on merits would be required in this writ petition, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in Parshavanath Charitable Trust and Others v. All India Council for Tech. Edu. and Others [2013 (3) SCC 385], approved the schedule notified by the AICTE in matters of approval, affiliation, admission and so on and so forth and has specifically directed that none could extend the scheduled dates and no person or authority would have the power to interfere with such schedule as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, would contend that the said directions in the afore-cited decision would not apply to a Court, herein the High Court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Asha v. Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences [AIR 2012 SC 3396] is pressed into service to also contend that even the Supreme Court has permitted transgression of the cut-off-date in rare cases where overall merit demands it. The question of law has to be decided after examining the facts and only if facts commend such a course.
3. The petitioner had made an application for MCA course as also MBA course for the academic year 2015-16 by Exhibit P1 on 26.02.2015. The schedule of the AICTE requires an application to be made before 28.02.2015. The AICTE, as is the approved procedure, first scrutinises the documents and intimates the defects if any, to the applicant. There were very many scrutinies so conducted and defects notified, as is indicated in Exhibits P2 and P3, wherein the documents were examined and defects were noticed, which the petitioner rectified. Eventually, the scrutiny of the application and the documents being over, the Regional Committee is said to have rejected the approval on 20.03.2015 and an LoR issued on 07.04.2015. Both the petitioner and AICTE have not produced the same. But a reading of the statement filed on behalf of the AICTE would indicate that the rejection was for the following reasons:
S.No Sub: Advanced Studies (MCA) Management Studies (MBA)
1 Deficiencies YES
1. Documents showing possession of the land in the name of the Trust/Society not presented.
2. Master plan of land is contiguous, issued by competent authority not presented.
3. FSI/FAR certificate not presented.
4. Certificate of Collector/Tahsildar not submitted. YES
a. Master plan of land is contiguous, issued by competent authority not presented.
b. FSI/FAR certificate not presented.
c. Certificate of Collector/ Tahasildar not submitted.
Hence, both the applications for MBA and MCA courses stood rejected. The matter was then referred to the Standing Appellate Committee [for brevity "SAC"]. The SAC at its meeting held on 13.04.2015 recommended that an Expert Visiting Committee [for brevity "EVC"] be appointed. The EVC inspected the petitioner's College on 20.04.2015 and forwarded Exhibit P4 recommendation to the Regional Committee [for brevity "RC"], who, in turn, transmitted the same again to the SAC. Exhibit P4 did not notice any deficiencies and the report was forwarded to the Regional Committee clearly indicating that there are no deficiencies noticed. The SAC in spite of such recommendation in its meeting held on 23.04.2015. rejected the petitioner's application. A final Letter of Rejection [for brevity "LoR"] was issued by the AICTE on the basis of the order of the SAC by Exhibit P5, dated 30.04.2015.
4. The petitioner challenged the above order at Exhibit P5 on the ground that the ground on w
