1. Dispute over State Government's power to withdraw permission and University's power to disaffiliate a technical institution after enactment of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 427
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER
Versus
ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND OTHERS
Civil Appeals Nos. 1634-35 of 1990, with Nos. 1636-37 of 1990 and SLPs (C) Nos. 7366 and 9324 of 1990
Decided on 24-3-1995
Advocates appeared:
M.K. Banerjee, Attorney General, C. Sitaramiah, A.K. Ganguli, P.P. Rao, M.N. Krishnamani, C.S. Vaidyanathan, K. Parasaran, S. Subramaniam and G. Vishwanatha lyer, Senior Advocates (K.R. Nagaraja, Gaurav Banerjee, A. Mariarputham, W.A. Qadri, Ms Aruna Mathur, Sudarsh Menon, K.V. Mohan, B.K. Prasad, Naveen Prakash, S. Wasim Qadri, Dr A. Francis Julian, V. Balachandran, N. Sudhakaran, W.C. Chopra, A.V. RanganY, S.R. Setia, R.P. Srivastava, V.K. Verma, Ms Sushma Suri and K.R. Chaudhary, Advocates, with them) for the appearing parties.
Important Points
The power to coordinate and determine standards for technical institutions falls exclusively under the Union's jurisdiction (Entry 66, List I). State laws repugnant to the AICTE Act are void; States cannot de-recognize institutions meeting Central standards, even if they fail higher State-prescribed standards, to ensure national uniformity.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Legislative Competence
Act Referred
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT: S.23, S.3(1), S.2, S.10, S.11, S.13, S.20, S.22, S.7, S.14
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.372, Art.254(2), Art.248, Art.246
MADRAS UNIVERSITY ACT: S.2, S.19, S.16(17), S.15
TAMIL NADU PRIVATE COLLEGES REGULATION ACT: S.17, S.3, S.1(3), S.25, S.2(3), S.53, S.24, S.10, S.14, S.15, S.52, S.28, S.11, S.34, S.5(1), S.35, S.37, S.38, S.4, S.41, S.30
TAMIL NADU PRIVATE COLLEGES REGULATION RULES: R.11(1)(d), R.2, R.11(1)(a), R.11(1)(b), R.11(1), R.11(1)(c)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.372, Art.254(2), Art.248, Art.246
MADRAS UNIVERSITY ACT: S.2, S.19, S.16(17), S.15
TAMIL NADU PRIVATE COLLEGES REGULATION ACT: S.17, S.3, S.1(3), S.25, S.2(3), S.53, S.24, S.10, S.14, S.15, S.52, S.28, S.11, S.34, S.5(1), S.35, S.37, S.38, S.4, S.41, S.30
TAMIL NADU PRIVATE COLLEGES REGULATION RULES: R.11(1)(d), R.2, R.11(1)(a), R.11(1)(b), R.11(1), R.11(1)(c)
Headnote
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - Section 3 - Subsection (4) of Section 3 - Section 10 - Section 7 - Section 11 - Section 13 - Section 12 - Section 14 - Sections 22 and 23 - Section 20 - Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Act, 1976 - Madras University Act, 1923 - Section 1(3) - Section 2(3) - Section 2(8) - Section 5(1) - Section 28 - Section 25 - Amendment Act, 1976 - University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Section 2 – Constitution Of India - Article 254(1) - Article 254 – Engineering Colleges - Fulfilment Of Government Conditions - State Government issued by Education, Science and Technology Department had permitted private managements to start new engineering colleges under self-financing scheme without any financial commitment to Government, but subject to fulfilment of certain conditions - College started functioning - University extended affiliation for first year of B.E. degree course for academic subject to implementation of recommendations of Inspecting Commission made in its report and subject to conditions of affiliation already intimated while granting initial temporary affiliation - Committee appointed by Director of Technical Education, inspected College and submitted its report which was forwarded to Trust with a direction to take necessary steps to create requisite infrastructural facilities - State Government appointed a High Power Committee to visit self-financing engineering colleges and make an assessment of their functioning. In its report, High Power Committee stated that Trust had not fulfilled conditions imposed by Government at time of grant – Held, When there are more applicants than available situations/seats, State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by Centre or Central authority to short-list applicants -When State authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of Union List or make a law which is repugnant to Central law - However, when situations/seats are available and State authorities deny an applicant same on ground that applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as case may be, although applicant satisfies standards or qualifications laid down by Central law, they act unconstitutionally - So also when State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied norms and requirements laid down by Central authority, State authorities act illegally - Provisions of Central statute on one hand and of State statutes on other, being inconsistent and, therefore, repugnant with each other, Central statute will prevail and de-recognition by State Government or disaffiliation by State University on grounds which are inconsistent with those enumerated in Central statute will be inoperative – Appeal Dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- education law
Table of Contents
2. Whether State legislatures can prescribe standards higher than the minimum standards determined by the Central authority under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. (Para 31 , 34 , 40 )
3. Analysis of Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III — determination of standards as Union preserve — repugnancy between Central and State laws. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
4. Central legislation on coordination and determination of standards in technical education prevails over repugnant State laws; State cannot impose inconsistent standards to deny recognition or affiliation. (Para 41 , 43 )
5. Appeals and special leave petitions dismissed — Central statute prevails — de-recognition or disaffiliation based on grounds inconsistent with Central statute held inoperative. (Para 42 , 43 )
6. What is the legal meaning of coordination under Entry 66 of the Union List?
Coordination means harmonisation to forge a uniform pattern for concerted action according to a development plan. It includes the power to remove and prevent disparities in standards to ensure integrated development of technical education nationwide. (Para 22 , 41 )
7. How is repugnancy resolved between Central and State laws regarding technical education standards?
Where State legislation conflicts with Central legislation enacted under Entry 66 List I or Entry 25 List III, the State law is void and inoperative to the extent of the repugnancy under Article 254. (Para 13 , 27 , 41 )
8. Can a State authority prescribe standards higher than the minimums set by the Central authority?
States may prescribe higher qualifications to short-list applicants when seats are limited. However, they cannot deny admission or recognition to applicants or institutions that satisfy Central standards based on higher State requirements. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 41 )
9. What is the effect of the Central Act on the power of Universities to affiliate technical colleges?
University powers to affiliate technical colleges remain operative, but the conditions prescribed for the grant and continuance of such affiliation must conform to the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Central Council. (Para 30 )
JUDGMENT
SAWANT, J.-
The short question involved in these matters is whether after the coming into force of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Act") the State Government has power to grant and withdraw permission to start a technical institution as defined in the Central Act. In the present case, the technical institutions with which we are concerned are the respondent Engineering Colleges which are being run in the State of Tamil Nadu.
2. To understand the issue, we will refer to the facts in CAs. Nos. 1634-35 of 1990. The State Government under GOM No. 429 dated 17-4-1984 issued by the Education, Science and Technology Department had permitted private managements to start new engineering colleges under the self-financing scheme without any financial commitment to the Government, but subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. The first respondent, viz., Adhiyaman Educational Research Institute (for short, "the Trust") applied to the Government of Tamil Nadu for permission to start a new self-financing private Engineering College in terms of the said policy. The Government granted the permission to the Trust to start a private engineering college under the name and style of Adhiyaman College of Engineering at Hosur in Dharmapuri District beginning with the academic year 1987-88 by its order of 9-6-1987. The permission was to offer three degree courses with the intake of 180 students per year, i.e., sixty students in each course in the subjects of (a) Mechanical Engineering, (b) Electronics and Communication Engineering and (c) Computer Science and Engineering. One of the conditions imposed by the Government was that the Trust could admit candidates of its choice up to 50 per cent of the approved intake under the management quota, and the remaining 50 per cent of the seats would be allotted by the Director of Technical Education from among the candidates of the approved list prepared for admission to Government and Government-aided Engineering Colleges. The Government had also stipulated that if any of the conditions imposed by them was not fulfilled, the permission granted to start the College would be withdrawn and the Government will have the right to take over the College with all its moveable and immovable properties including endowment and cash balance without paying compensation. Pursuant to this permission, the Trust applied to the University on 18-6-1987 for affiliation of the College. After inspection of the College, the Inspecting Commission of the University submitted its report on 5-11-1987 and the University on 21-11-1987 granted temporary affiliation to the College for the academic year 1987-88 subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. The University also made it clear to the Trust that the Trust should make an application for affiliation for the second year B.E. degree course for the academic year 1988-89 and that no admission should be made to the degree course until the permission was granted by the University.
3. The College started functioning from July 1987. On 17-9-1988, the University extended the affiliation for first year of B.E. degree course for the academic year 1988-89 subject to the implementation of the recommendations of the Inspecting Commission made in its report of 5-11-1987 and subject to the conditions of affiliation already intimated while granting the initial temporary affiliation. On 24-11-1988 the Trust applied for affiliation for third year B.E. degree course for the academic year 1989-90 and continuation of affiliation for first year and second year B.E. degree courses. In March 1989, the Committee appointed by the Director of Technical Education, inspected the College and submitted its report which was forwarded to the Trust with a direction to take necessary steps to create requisite infrastructural facilities. The Trust sent a reply to the Director informing him of the progress made by it with regard to the prov
