Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 915
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN
The Association of Management of Private Colleges & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government & Others - Respondents
W.P.Nos.8921, 9635, 11319, 11687 and 15091 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.Nos.10435, 11264, 13263, 12773, 13749 and 17911 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.Nos.748, 915, 916 and 917, 2004
Decided On : 20 July 2004
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the AICTE guidelines for MCA and MBA courses are in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court and are applicable to non-professional unaided educational institutions. The judgment also establishes that AICTE has the power to issue guidelines for MCA and MBA courses under the AICTE Act, 1987.
Headnote:
Government Order - Legality of Common Entrance Examination for MCA and MBA Courses - AICTE Guidelines - Summary of Acts and Sections: T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case, Islamic Academy Case - AICTE Act, 1987 - G.O.Ms.NO.47 Higher Education (J2) Department dated 21.2.2004 - The judgment discusses the legality of the Government Order nominating the Anna University to conduct common entrance examination for MCA and MBA Courses and filling up Government quota sets by single window system. The court analyzes the AICTE guidelines and their conformity with the judgments of T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case and Islamic Academy Case. It concludes that the guidelines issued by the AICTE are in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court and are applicable to non-professional unaided educational institutions. The court also addresses the jurisdiction of AICTE to issue guidelines for MCA and MBA courses, concluding that AICTE has the power to issue guidelines for these courses under the AICTE Act, 1987. The judgment also considers the timing of the Government Order and its impact on admissions already made, ruling that the admissions made by following the norms and standards stipulated in the AICTE guidelines for the academic year 2004-2005 should not be interfered with.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment addresses the legality of the Government Order nominating the Anna University to conduct common entrance examination for MCA and MBA Courses and filling up Government quota sets by single window system. It discusses the AICTE guidelines and their conformity with the judgments of T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case and Islamic Academy Case. The court also considers the jurisdiction of AICTE to issue guidelines for MCA and MBA courses and the impact of the timing of the Government Order on admissions already made.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the AICTE guidelines are in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court and are applicable to non-professional unaided educational institutions. It also concludes that AICTE has the power to issue guidelines for MCA and MBA courses under the AICTE Act, 1987. The court rules that the admissions made by following the norms and standards stipulated in the AICTE guidelines for the academic year 2004-2005 should not be interfered with.
Issues: The issues addressed in the judgment include the legality of the Government Order nominating the Anna University to conduct common entrance examination for MCA and MBA Courses, the conformity of the AICTE guidelines with the judgments of T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case and Islamic Academy Case, the jurisdiction of AICTE to issue guidelines for MCA and MBA courses, and the impact of the timing of the Government Order on admissions already made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the finding that the AICTE guidelines are in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court and are applicable to non-professional unaided educational institutions. It also relies on the conclusion that AICTE has the power to issue guidelines for MCA and MBA courses under the AICTE Act, 1987. The court further rules that the admissions made by following the norms and standards stipulated in the AICTE guidelines for the academic year 2004-2005 should not be interfered with.
Final Decision: The judgment upholds the Government Order and rules that the admissions made by following the norms and standards stipulated in the AICTE guidelines for the academic year 2004-2005 should not be interfered with.
All these five writ petitions are filed questioning the legality or reasonableness of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.NO.47 Higher Education (J2) Department dated 21.2.2004 issued by the first respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu nominating the Anna University as the Agency of the State Government to conduct common entrance examination for admission in respect of MCA and MBA Courses and filling up Government quota sets by single window system entrusting to the Committee constituted for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance examination to fix the application fee, etc., for the common entrance test and utilisation of the fees and certain other directions with effect from the year 2004-2005, pursuant to the guidelines issued by the All India Council for Technical Education for common entrance test for admission to MCA/MBA programmes.
2. Mr.Haridoss, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.8921 of 2004, which is an Association of Management of Private Arts and Science Colleges assailed the Government Order by contending that the G.O.Ms.NO.47 in so far as it relates to Arts and Science Colleges is unsustainable in law. The G.O. issued by means of executive instructions based on guidelines issued by the All India council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE" for brevity) cannot be legally sustained as the field of administration of education so far as Arts and Science Colleges are concerned is governed by Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. The learned counsel by referring the question Nos.3 and 4 formulated by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 contended that all the directions given by the Supreme Court are only in respect to the professional colleges and not in respect of Arts and Science colleges and further contended that any guidelines issued by the AICTE misconstruing the Islamic Academy case are not only illegal, but not applicable to the petitioner Colleges, which are all non-professional colleges. To sustain the argument, Mr.Haridoss, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions:
(1) P.KASILINGAM VS. P.S.G.COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY reported in AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1395
(2)THE ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF PRIVATE COLLEGES VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 1997(3) CTC 76
(3) T.M.A.PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2002)8 SCC 481 and
(4) ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697
3. Mr.R.Krisnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.9635 of 2004 submitted that the petitioner College is a stand alone College, imparting only MCA and MBA Courses after obtaining due permission from the AICTE and has been adopting method of the selection of students through All India Entrance Test. When the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.108, Higher Education Department dated 9.4.2002 similar to the present one introducing single window system for admission of MBA and MCA courses during the academic year 2002-2003, this Court quashed the same in the case of KONGU ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS reported in 2002(3) LAW WEEKLY 151. The petitioner opted and selected students for 2004-2005 through Management Aptitude Test (MAT) conducted by All India Management Associations (AIMA), which is in accordance with the guidelines and Government Order. He contended that the guidelines issued by the AICTE does not confer any right upon the State Government to share admission of students in respect of MBA/MCA courses. Hence, the demarcation of fifty percent of admission of students through the entrance examination to be conducted by the State Government under single window system cannot be sustainable. He further contended that the State Government having failed to constitute a Committee as
