Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44283
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
LAW SOCIETY OF INDIA, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/30643/2018
SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V. TEKCHAND SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY SRI.JAYKAR K.S., SC, AICTE S ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR SHRI.SAJITH KUMAR V., SC, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION - AICTE
Educational institutions must obtain mandatory approval from regulatory bodies like AICTE for valid admissions; non-compliance may lead to legal challenges.
Headnote:
Regulation - Education - AICTE Regulations - Summary of legal provisions regarding mandatory approval for educational institutions, the court's interpretation of compliance requirements, and the implications on admissions processes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to declare the admissions to MBA courses conducted by certain respondents as illegal due to lack of mandatory approval from the AICTE, while also requesting inquiries and actions against the respondents for this non-compliance.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner, through the Law Society of India, sought to withdraw the writ petition, leading to its dismissal as not pressed, which implied no determination on the merits of the cases presented.
Issues: Whether the MBA admissions by respondents without AICTE approval can be considered illegal and what actions should be taken against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the significance of AICTE's approval in educational admissions but ultimately dismissed the case due to the withdrawal of the petitioner without addressing compliance violations.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2021 S.Manikumar, C.J.
The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“i) to call for the entire records leading to the issue of Ext.P2, P3 and P4 from the 3rd respondent.
ii) to call for the entire records leading to the issue of Ext.P6 from the 11th respondent.
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that admission to MBA course by respondents 4 to 10 without getting mandatory approval from AICTE, are highly illegal, arbitrary, malafide in nature, discriminatory in character, ab initio void, unjust, unfair and unsustainable.
iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 11 and 12 to conduct an enquiry in the matter and submit a report to this Hon’ble Court whether the respondents 4 to 10 are conducting MBA course without getting mandatory approval from AICTE or they are conducting the MBA course with the approval of respondents 11 and 12 and if they are conducting the MBA course without getting mandatory approval stringent penal action may be taken against the erring ofÏcials as per the Act and Regulations.
v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 11 and 12 to issue direction to the respondents 4 to 10 to stop all the admission process for the course of MBA for the year 2018-2020 in pursuance of Ext.P2, P3 and P4 and compensate the students who have passed the MBA course from respondent Nos.4 to 10 rendered jobless and to relocate the present batch to other approved institutions at the expenses of those respondent.
vi) to direct the respondents to act according to law and the rules and regulations of AICTE.”
2. Law Society of India, represented by its President, party in person, has filed a memo dated 6.10.2021, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition as not pressed.
Instant writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
S.Manikumar Chief Justice
