Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth - Appellants
Vs.
All India Council For Technical Education and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10580 of 2019
Decided On : 16-09-2019
For the Appellant : Vikas Balia and S.S. Rathore
For the Respondents: P.R. Singh Jodha and Dinesh Ojha
The AICTE cannot issue a 'No Admission' order without giving the institution a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS - AICTE REGULATIONS, 2018 - SECTION 13(1) - EXTENSION OF APPROVAL - COURT QUASHED THE 'NO ADMISSION' ORDER AND DIRECTED THE AICTE TO CONSTITUTE A COMMITTEE TO VERIFY/SCRUTINISE THE PETITIONER'S DOCUMENTS AND DECIDE THE PETITIONER'S ENTITLEMENT WITHIN A WEEK.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private university, challenged the 'No Admission' order issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) on the ground that it was given a short notice to appear for document verification and that the AICTE had earlier issued an extension of approval, which was uploaded on the same day as the 'No Admission' order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the AICTE was responsible for giving a short notice to the petitioner and that the petitioner had been made to suffer for none of its fault. The court also found that the AICTE had issued two contradictory decisions on the same date, which was inexplicable.
Issues: Whether the 'No Admission' order issued by the AICTE was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 'No Admission' order was not valid because the AICTE had not given the petitioner sufficient time to appear for document verification and because the AICTE had issued two contradictory decisions on the same date. The court also held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra) was not applicable in the present case because the respondents themselves were lacking due promptitude and it was entirely their fault that petitioner could not get the desired approval.
Final Decision: The court quashed the 'No Admission' order and directed the AICTE to constitute a committee to verify/scrutinise the petitioner's documents and decide the petitioner's entitlement within a week.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Mehta, J.
1. Having narrated the ancillary facts requiring the petitioner to file the present writ petition, Mr. Balia, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in furtherance of the communication dated 17.09.2018, whereby certain deficiencies were pointed out, the petitioner had done the needful and cured/removed all the deficiencies.
2. The petitioner was firstly called upon to appear before the Committee constituted by respondent No. 2 on 08.03.2019; however the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee scheduled on 08.03.2019 was postponed.
3. The petitioner was waiting for intimation/notice of the meeting and it came to receive an email dated 25.04.2019 dispatched at 5.55 pm from the office of respondent No. 2, whereby petitioner was required to appear at 9.30 am on 27.04.2019 for the purpose of verification/scrutinisation of petitioner's documents.
4. As the email reached after the office hours, the petitioner could notice the said email only in the morning of 26.04.2019 and thus, was not in a position to reach Chandigarh at the scheduled time - 9.30 am on 27.04.2019, for which it sent an email requesting to fix another date for the scrutiny.
5. The petitioner obviously did/could not appear before the respondent No. 2 on the scheduled date. However, on 27.04.2019 an EOA (Expression of Approval) Report, 2019 was uploaded, along with a copy of extension of approval for academic year 2019-2020 dated 10.04.2019.
6. On receipt of the extension of approval aforesaid, the petitioner granted admission to the students and as many as 23 students had deposited the requisite fee, by 16.05.2019; when it was rather surprised to find a "No Admission" report sent/uploaded with respect to petitioner-Institution, along with a letter dated 10.04.2019 for no admission.
7. Inviting Court's attentions towards the report of Scrutiny Committee leading to issuance of letter of 'no admission' dated 10.04.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the same has been issued essentially because the petitioner could not appear before the respondent No. 2, on the date fixed i.e. 27.04.2019.
8. The petitioner's contention in the present writ petition is two fold - firstly, the petitioner was given practically no time by the respondent No. 2 to appear for document verification, inasmuch as by email dated 25.04.2019 (sent at 5.55 pm), petitioner was called upon to appear at 9.30 am on 27.04.2019 and secondly, the respondents have earlier sent extension of approval dated 10.04.2019, which was duly uploaded on 27.04.2019, where after for no reason or rhyme 'no admission' report was uploaded on 16.05.2019; that too without recalling or removing the Extension of Approval (EOA) report, which was uploaded on 27.04.2019.
9. Highlighting various other discrepancies, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been made to suffer on account of short notice and lapse(s) on the part of the respondent No. 2.
10. After arguing at length, Mr. Jodha fairly conceded that the petitioner-University was not given sufficient time by the respondent-AICTE, so as to reach Chandigarh on 27.04.2019.
11. In the present factual backdrop, when the respondent - AICTE itself is responsible for giving such a short notice to the petitioner and given the fact that respondents have issued an extension of approval dated 10.04.2019 and uploaded the same on 27.04.2019 (which according to the respondent-AICTE was sent/uploaded due to inadvertence), the submission of Mr. Balia appears to be correct that petitioner-Institution has been made to suffer, practically for none of its fault.
12. This Court fails to comprehend as to how two types of decisions squarely contrary to each other, of the same date, can be passed and that too under the signatures of different persons.
13. Mr. Jodha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents however submitted that no relief can be granted to petitioner, while relying upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
