Association of Management of Private Colleges vs All India Council for Technical Education

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 406

Supreme Court of India
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Association of Management of Private Colleges – Appellant
Versus
All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1145 of 2004
Adaikalamath College Etc. Etc. – Appellant
Versus
All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5736-5745 of 2004
Decided On : 25-04-2013

Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 254 - Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 - Section 8, 33 (xvii) and (xviii), 39 and 63 - AICTE Act - Section 2(g) – quash - AICTE claimed - Appellant colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu are running Arts and Science courses. Most of them are affiliated to Bharathidasan University and some of them are affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The member colleges of the Appellant in C.A. No. 1145 of 2004 and the Appellants in the connected appeals are running MCA course which have so far not obtained the approval of the AICTE. According to the information placed before the Court by the AICTE, as of the academic year 2001-2002, there were 865 institutions in the country offering 40,792 seats for the MCA course which had the approval of the AICTE. Within the State of Tamil Nadu the number of institutions which have received such approval are 208. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that apart from the member colleges of the first Appellant and colleges of the second Appellant, all other institutions offering MCA have obtained the approval of the AICTE –Held, MCA also comes within the definition of technology. Therefore, the contention that technical education includes MCA as raised by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the AICTE stand to its reasoning and logic in view of the nature of MCA course which is being imparted to the students at post graduation level which is being conducted by the institutions, constituent colleges and affiliated colleges to the universities. The same is a technical education and therefore, it comes within the definition of technical education but for its proper conduct of courses and Regulation the role of AICTE must be advisory and for the same, a note shall be given to the UGC for its implementation by it but not the AICTE. Accordingly, point No. 3 is answered in favour of Respondent AICTE.
Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and it before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions, aforesaid, both Houses agree that the rule or Regulation should not be made, the rule or Regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or Regulation principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under:-
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law – appeal allowed

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Association of Management of Private Colleges vs. All India Council for Technical Education:

1. Status of Affiliated Colleges and University Autonomy * Colleges affiliated to a University are excluded from the definition of "Technical Institution" under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act because the definition explicitly states it applies to institutions "not being a university." * Since affiliated colleges operate under the control and supervision of the University (which is defined under the UGC Act), they are also excluded from the direct purview of the AICTE Act regarding prior approval. * The AICTE's role vis-à-vis Universities and their affiliated colleges is advisory, recommendatory, and guiding, rather than controlling or supervisory. The AICTE cannot enforce sanctions directly but must submit reports to the UGC for appropriate action. * The principle that a University's autonomy cannot be curtailed by the AICTE to belittle or destroy its authority applies to affiliated colleges as well, as they are integral parts of the University system. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

2. Classification of MCA as Technical Education * The Master of Computer Applications (MCA) course falls within the definition of "Technical Education" under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act. * This is because "Technology" encompasses the application of science to arts and includes computer systems and software engineering, which are fundamental components of the MCA curriculum. * Therefore, MCA is considered a technical course, and the contention that it is outside the purview of the Act is rejected. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

3. Classification of MBA as Non-Technical Education * Unlike MCA, the Master of Business Administration (MBA) course is not classified as "Technical Education" under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act. * The Act does not explicitly list MBA, and no material was produced by the AICTE to show that MBA falls under the definition of technical education. * Consequently, colleges do not require AICTE approval to run MBA courses. (!) (!) (!)

4. Validity of Amended Regulations (2000) * The amended Regulations of 2000 (specifically Regulation 8(c) and 8(iv)) which added MBA and MCA courses to the scope of AICTE approval were invalid. * Section 24 of the AICTE Act mandates that every rule and regulation made under the Act must be laid before each House of Parliament for a total period of thirty days. * The AICTE failed to place these amended Regulations before the Parliament as required by the statute. * Following the settled legal principle that if a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act, the act must be done in that manner or not at all, the failure to comply with Section 24 renders the amended Regulations void ab initio. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

5. Applicable Legal Precedents * The judgment relies heavily on the principles laid down in Bharathidasan University vs. AICTE (2001) regarding the distinction between Universities and Technical Institutions and the advisory role of AICTE. * The Court distinguished the Bharathidasan University case from Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust, noting that the latter cases dealt with constituent institutions or State laws conflicting with Central laws, whereas the present case involves affiliated colleges under the UGC Act framework. * The decision also references T.M.A. Pai Foundation regarding the autonomy of educational institutions and the limitations on State/Regulatory control. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Hon'ble GOWDA, J.—The appellants filed these civil appeals questioning the correctness of the common judgment and order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in W.A. 2652 of 2001, W.A. No. 3090 of 2001, WA 2835 of 2001, WA 3087 of 2001, WA 2836 of 2001, WA 3091 of 2001, WA 3092 of 2001, WA 2837 of 2001, WA 3088 of 2001, WA 2838 of 2001 and WA 3089 of 2001, dismissing the writ appeals thereby affirming the dismissal of writ petitions by wrongly interpreting the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short AICTE Act) and held that even though the University is not required to take permission from the All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE), its affiliated colleges are required to do so. Further, the High Court has held, while dismissing the writ appeals, that the appellant colleges should get its course of MCA ratified by AICTE as per the prescribed format which according to the appellants herein is in contravention of settled principles of interpretation of Statutes and also runs contrary to the law laid down by this Court in case of Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. AICTE & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 676.

2. Certain relevant facts in relation to the appeals are stated hereunder:--The appellant colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu are running Arts and Science courses. Most of them are affiliated to Bharathidasan University and some of them are affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The member colleges of the appellant in C.A.No.1145 of 2004 and the appellants in the connected appeals are running MCA course which have so far not obtained the approval of the AICTE. According to the information placed before the Court by the AICTE, as of the academic year 2001-2002, there were 865 institutions in the country offering 40,792 seats for the MCA course which had the approval of the AICTE. Within the State of Tamil Nadu the number of institutions which have received such approval are 208. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that apart from the member colleges of the first appellant and colleges of the second appellant, all other institutions offering MCA have obtained the approval of the AICTE.

3. Regulations 1994 have been prescribed in Form II which is in terms of Regulation 5(2)(b) and were framed pursuant to Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act for grant of approval to the colleges who have started new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes. Form II is titled “Application for Existing Institution(s) seeking AICTE approval without additional course(s) and/or additional intake(s) in engineering/technology, architecture, pharmacy, applied arts, etc.”

4. In the 1997, Regulation 2(2) framed by the AICTE was added by way of an amendment to the 1994 Regulations, providing that the regulations are not applicable inter alia, to the proposals relating to post graduate courses for MBA, MCA or equivalent.

5. On 16.8.2000, the aforesaid sub-regulation (2) was deleted and the said courses were added in Regulation 8(c) enabling the AICTE to prescribe the land and deposit requirements even in respect of Arts and Science Colleges having MBA or MCA courses.

6. On 3.3.2001, a communication was sent by the AICTE to the member colleges of the appellant in C.A. No.1145 of 2004 in respect of its proposal to commence MCA course requiring the colleges to furnish information regard-ing the proposed land and building. On 14.3.2001, a writ petition was filed by the appellant’s association seeking relief to prohibit the AICTE from in any way exercising its jurisdiction over its member colleges with reference to the MBA and MCA courses conducted by them. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the AICTE Act and Regulations are enforceable against the said member colleges of the appellant, against which the Association had filed writ a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document