WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 1 of 29

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 28th

July, 2016

Judgment delivered on: 02nd

August, 2016

+ WP(C) 3684/2016

GURU TEG BAHADUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. ....Petitioners

versus

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ANR. …. Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Dr. Sarbjit

Sharma, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Ms. Priamvada Surohi, Mr.

Dipender Chauhan and Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate for respondent No.1/AICTE.

Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for respondent No.3/GGS,

I.P. University.

Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra and Mr. Shiva Sharma, Advocates

for respondent No.4

Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA.

Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Varun Nagrath, Advocates.

Mr. Sachin Dutta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhilesh

Kumar for applicants in CM 18407/2016.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

CM No.15761/2016 in WP(C) 3684/2016

1. The Petitioners in this Writ Petition seek the following reliefs:-

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 2 of 29

“(i) quash/set aside the impugned letters dated

19.04.2016, issued to Petitioner No.1 & 3, by All India

Council for Technical Education, categorizing the

petitioner no.1 and 3 in NO ADMISSION category and;

(ii) further direct for entitling the Petitioner No.1 and 3

to be included in the process of admission for the

academic session 2016-17, by granting extension of

approval.”

2. The petitioner No.1 is Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of

Technology (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner Institute”) and the

petitioner No.3 is Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Petitioner Polytechnic’). The petitioner No.1/Petitioner

Institute operates from G-8 Area, Rajouri Garden, Opposite Swarg

Ashram Mandir, Delhi. The petitioner No.3/Polytechnic operates

from Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Both the petitioners 1 and 3 are

governed by the petitioner No.2 i.e. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara

Management DSGM Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘DSGM

Committee’). The petitioner No.1 undertakes undergraduate courses

and is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. The

petitioner No.3 is a Polytechnic Institute granting diplomas in

engineering.

3. By the two impugned letters dated 19.04.2016, issued by the

respondent No.1 – All India Council for Technical Education

(hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’), both the petitioner No.1 as well

as the petitioner No.3 have been placed under NO ADMISSION

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 3 of 29

category status for the academic year 2016-17 and the intake of

students has been set to “zero”.

4. By way of this application, the petitioners seek ad-interim stay

of the operation of the letters dated 19.04.2016 and a direction to

AICTE to grant extension of approval to the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 for

the academic session 2016-17 during pendency of the present petition.

5. As per the petitioners, both the petitioner No.1 and the

petitioner No.3 rank very high in terms of imparting education in

India.

6. It is contended that the Petitioner Institute was established in

the year 1995 and claims minority status and imparts higher education

to students after qualifying 10 + 2 examination. The Petitioner

Institute conducts under-graduate engineering courses and has a total

sanctioned intake capacity of 600 students. The Petitioner Institute

runs several engineering courses. It is contended that the Petitioner

Institute has produced over 7000 qualified Engineers and has

approximately 300 staff members including teaching and non-

teaching staff. The Petitioner Polytechnic has 420 seats and provides

diploma course in Computer Science, Automobile Engineering,

Electronics and Communication Engineering.

7. The Petitioner Polytechnic was conceived in the year 1993. For

setting of the Petitioner Polytechnic, DSGM Committee provided land

in the premises of Guru Harkishan Public School Building Vasant

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 4 of 29

Vihar, New Delhi. Recognition was granted by the respondent No.1 –

AICTE. The Petitioner Polytechnic was affiliated to Board of

Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

8. The DSGM Committee applied to DDA for allotment of land

for setting up of the Petitioner Polytechnic, which land was allotted to

the DSGM Committee for running the Polytechnic Institute at Rajouri

Garden.

9. The said land that was allotted for setting up a Polytechnic, has

been utilised by the DSGM Committee for setting up the petitioner

No.1 Institute. It is contended that since the Petitioner Polytechnic

was only providing diplomas and the DSGM Committee intended to

enlarge the scope of imparting higher education by imparting status of

engineering, the Petitioner Institute was setup on the said land.

10. It is contended that though, the DSGM Committee intended to

set up both the Polytechnic and the Institute on the said land, but, as

the AICTE norms were strict, both could not be accommodated. The

said land continues to be utilized by the Petitioner Institute and the

Petitioner Polytechnic continues to operate from the premises of Guru

Harkishan Public School at Vasant Vihar.

11. It is contended that AICTE has now relaxed its norms because

of which, it has become possible for the DSGM Committee to

accommodate both the Polytechnic as well as the Institute on the same

land.

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 5 of 29

12. The staff members of the Petitioner Polytechnic filed a writ

petition before this Court being WP(C) 3027/2016 titled Sardar

Harinder Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic

Institute & Ors. contending that since the land at Rajouri Garden was

allotted by lease deed dated 11.04.1997 for setting up of a

Polytechnic, the DSGM Committee be directed to shift the

Polytechnic to Rajouri Garden.

13. By order dated 19.04.2016, a single Judge of this Court, on

perusal of the paper book, found that for the session 2015-2016,

AICTE had given approval only after an undertaking is submitted on

29.04.2015 by DSGM Committee to the effect that the Petitioner

Polytechnic would be shifted to the land allotted to it within a period

of six months from the date of submission of the undertaking. The

learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioners were in breach of the

undertaking given to AICTE for shifting the Petitioner Polytechnic to

Rajouri Garden on or before October, 2015.

14. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the DSGM

Committee could not run the Petitioner Institute from Rajouri Garden

premises as it had been doing for the last 19 years, as the said land had

been specifically allotted by the DDA for running a Polytechnic. By

the order dated 19.04.2016 DDA was directed to take steps to dispose

of the application filed by the DSGM Committee for running both the

Petitioner Institute as well as the Petitioner Polytechnic from Rajouri

Garden.

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 6 of 29

15. It is contended that even though the Court on 19.04.2016 had

granted DDA seven days to decide the application of the DSGM

Committee for permission to run both the Institute and the Polytechnic

from the land at Rajouri Garden, DDA has failed to decide the same.

16. It is submitted that the petitioners had applied to AICTE for

extension of approval for the academic session 2016-17 contending

that both the Petitioner Institute as well as the Petitioner Polytechnic

be permitted to run from at Rajouri Garden. However, by the two

impugned letters dated 19.04.2016, the respondent No.1 – AICTE has

placed both the Petitioner Institute as well as the Petitioner

Polytechnic under NO ADMISSION status for the academic year

2016-17. It is contended that because of the categorization as NO

ADMISSION, grave prejudice and loss is being caused to the

Petitioners.

17. It is contended that both the allotment of land at Vasant Vihar

and Rajouri Garden are for institutional purposes and are being

utilized for the same. The DSGM Committee has been

communicating with DDA for issuance of ‘no objection’ to run both

the Institute and the Polytechnic from Rajouri Garden. However,

DDA has not been able to take a decision and issue the NOC.

18. It is submitted that because of zero intake of students, the staff

and teachers would become surplus and the infrastructure would be

underutilized. The effect of NO ADMISSION would continue for four

consecutive years. It is further contended that the Expert Visiting

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 7 of 29

Committee had reported nil deficiency for the Petitioner Institute and

despite that, the AICTE has placed the Petitioner Institute in NO

ADMISSION category. It is contended that the deficiencies pointed

out are not such which cannot be rectified and are minor in nature.

19. It is further submitted that as DDA failed to decide the

application of the petitioners within one week, as directed by order

dated 19.04.2016 in WP(C) 3027/2016, this Court in Contempt Case

(C) 685/016, by order dated 25.05.2016, noted the contention of the

counsel for DDA that order dated 19.04.2016 would be complied

within a period of four weeks. It is submitted, that despite taking

further time, DDA has still not taken a decision on the application.

20. On 17.05.2016, in the present petition, the petitioner filed an

affidavit stating that part of the administrative and teaching

department of the Petitioner Polytechnic had already been shifted to

Rajouri Garden and all administrative activities/classes/office for the

Petitioner Polytechnic shall start functioning from Rajouri Garden plot

on or before 30.05.2016. It was undertaken that change of

site/location for the Petitioner Polytechnic would be in accordance

with the AICTE norms. Noting the above submissions, this Court

gave opportunity to the petitioners to file an application with AICTE

for change of site/location. For the said purpose, AICTE was directed

to open the web portal between 30.05.2016 and 01.06.2016 so that the

petitioners could apply online.

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 8 of 29

21. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharishi

Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya v. State of MP & Ors.: (2013)

15 SCC 677, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that

the education is a constitutional right and is an essential part in every

one’s life.

22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that

though the Supreme Court of India in Parshavanath Charitable Trust

& Ors. v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.: (2013)

3 SCC 385, laid down a schedule for admission for academic courses

and declared it to be the law that is to be strictly adhered to by all

concerned and none of the authorities have the power or jurisdiction

to vary the dates of admission, it is not binding on a Court exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the

Court could, in the facts and circumstances of a case, vary the

schedule.

23. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the

decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

dated 06.06.2013 in LPA 1099/2013 (O & M) titled The Regional

Officer, All India Council of Technical Education v. Jind Institute

of Engineering & Technology:, wherein, the Division Bench, after

noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in Parshavanath

Charitable Trust (supra), held that power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India was wide enough to enable the Court to pass

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 9 of 29

orders under the given set of facts of the case and to ensure substantial

justice.

24. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court

dated 24.07.2013 in WP(C) 415/2013 Jind Institute of Engineering

& Technology vs. All India Council for Technical Education: to

contend that as late as 24.07.2013, the Supreme Court directed AICTE

to forthwith grant approval to the Petitioner Institute therein for

academic session 2013-2014 and further allowed the Institute to

participate in the admission for the academic year 2013-2014.

25. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the High Court of

Bombay dated 16.07.2013 in WP(C) 5106/2013: Bhartiya Gramin

Punarrachna Sansthan Hi-tech Institute of Technology & Hi-tech

Polytechnic v. All India Council of Technical Education whereby

AICTE was directed to grant approval to the petitioner therein for the

relevant academic session for degree and diploma level courses.

26. Attention is drawn to the interim order dated 06.06.2016 of the

High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. (ST) No.1488/2016:

Thadomal Shahani Engineering College v. AICTE where interim

relief was granted subject to the petitioners therein filing an

undertaking that they shall get the occupation certificate within a

period of four months. Further conditions were imposed directing that

the petitioners would admit students and make it clear to the students

that against the refusal to grant extension of approval, the writ petition

was pending. It was also to be made clear to every student that any

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 10 of 29

admission made by the petitioners would be subject to the outcome of

the petition and students shall not be entitled to claim any equity

based on the interim order.

27. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court

dated 16.02.2015 in WP(C) 134/2010: Mahatma Education Society’s

Pillai’s Institute of Information Technology Engineering, Media

Studies and Research v. All India Council for Technical Education

wherein the Supreme Court directed AICTE to grant letter of approval

to the concerned colleges managed by the petitioner therein for the

academic year 2014-15.

28. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, contends that the

above-referred decisions show that the variation of the schedule fixed

in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra) is permissible. He further

attempted to distinguish the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust

(supra) by contending that the present petition did not relate to grant

of approval for a new Institute but extension of approval for intake for

the current academic year for Institutes that have been running

successfully for several years.

29. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that

admissions may be permitted to be made provisionally and subject to

the outcome of the present petition and the concerned students would

be put to notice, prior to admission, that the subject petition is pending

and that the admission is subject to the outcome of the said petition.

He further submits that the petitioners are willing to undertake that if

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 11 of 29

the petitioners do not succeed in the present petition, they would have

the students accommodated/adjusted in other colleges.

30. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent AICTE contends

that the land at Rajouri Garden had been specifically allotted for

running a Polytechnic, but the DSGM Committee, instead of setting

up of a Polytechnic on the land set up the Petitioner Institute. The

Polytechnic was continued on the land which was allotted for running

a school and from which a school is also functioning. Repeated

opportunities had been granted by the respondents to shift the

Polytechnic to Rajouri Garden but till date, the Polytechnic has not

been shifted.

31. Reference is made to the inquiry reports of AICTE that pointed

out several deficiencies and to the several opportunities given to the

petitioners to rectify the deficiencies and to furnish documents. It is

contended that there are several deficiencies with regard to the land,

building, faculty and infrastructure. It is submitted that the report

points out that 50% of the faculty members are on contract basis

without proper selection process. The faulty members have not even

been paid salary as per AICTE norms and some of the faculty

members do not have the required qualification as per AICTE norms.

Reference is also made to the report of the Expert Visiting Committee

with regard to the inspection carried out on 28.03.2016, which has

pointed out several deficiencies. It is submitted that despite several

opportunities, the petitioners have failed to rectify the defects and as

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 12 of 29

such, AICTE was constrained to put the petitioners in the NO

ADMISSION category.

32. Learned counsel for the AICTE further contends that the

Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra) has laid

down the time schedule for inspection, grant of approvals and

admissions and specifically declared it to be the law and to be strictly

adhered to by all concerned. It is submitted that even if the petitioners

remove all the deficiencies today, to the satisfaction of AICTE,

AICTE can only grant an approval for the following academic

session. For the current academic session, in view of Parshavanath

Charitable Trust (supra), AICTE cannot grant any approval.

33. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of

this Court dated 07.01.2016 in LPA 540/2015: ACM College of

Pharmacy v. All India Council for Technical Education wherein the

Division Bench, noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in

Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra), has held that grant of

recognition is neither a matter of course nor a formality and the

conditions of recognition and the duly notified directions controlling

the admission process are to be construed and applied stricto sensu.

34. It is contented, by the learned counsel for the AICTE, that the

Petitioner Institute has been getting approvals in the past by filing

various petitions before this Court and by giving undertakings to

remove the deficiencies pointed out by AICTE and to comply with the

norms and regulations. However, till date, the deficiencies have not

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 13 of 29

been removed. Even salaries of teaching staff have not been paid. It is

submitted that about 5 years have already been given to the petitioners

to cure the deficiencies but to no avail. It is contended that there are

several deficiencies that have been pointed out with regard to lack of

infrastructure but the deficiencies have, admittedly, not been removed

and thus the Petitioner Institute and Petitioner Polytechnic were put in

NO ADMISSION category.

35. Learned counsel appearing for the University Grants

Commission submits that as per the schedule fixed in Parshavanath

Charitable Trust (supra), the last date for grant of approval is

15.05.2016. The first round of counseling/admission for allotment of

seats had to be completed by 30.06.2016, the second round of

counseling by 10.07.2016 and the last round of counseling by

20.07.2016. It is contended that since the petitioners did not have any

approval from AICTE, there could be no affiliation granted by the

University, the last date for which was 15.05.2016.

36. It is submitted that a common entrance test for B. Tech. was

conducted on 08.05.2016. 64,000 candidates appeared, out of which

47,991 candidates were declared eligible for admission as per their

rank in 17 different Institutes affiliated to UGC. 23,364 candidates

registered themselves for admission. 6,870 candidates were allotted

seats as per their rank and as per the rank of the Institutes and choice

of the candidates. The third round of counseling was concluded on

16.07.2016 and 6,870 seats were allotted from the total of 6,879 seats.

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 14 of 29

By 19.07.2016, the candidates were called to pay the fees and confirm

the offer of admission to the respective Institutes as per their rank and

choice. The sliding round i.e. where the candidates are given an

opportunity to shift from one Institute to the other as per merit and

choice was held on 21.07.2016. The remaining vacancies, if any, are

to be filled up in the spot round of counseling which is notified to be

held between 31.07.2016 to 06.08.2016. The academic session is to

commence from 01.08.2016.

37. It is contended that the entire exercise of allocation of

seats/counseling takes about two months and is to be completed

before the start of the academic session. It is contended that in case

the Petitioner Institute was even provisionally permitted to take

students, the entire exercise conducted by the UGC spanning over two

months would be set to naught. The inclusion of seats of the

Petitioner Institute in counseling, at this stage, would have a rippling

effect where the candidates who have already taken admission may

seek to take admission in the Petitioner Institute resulting in vacation

of the seats that have already been allotted in other Institutes and

further, the candidates in some other Institutes may then want to shift

to the seats which fall vacant on account of shifting of the candidates

to the Petitioner Institute. This, it is contended, would result in

upsetting the entire process of counseling. The fresh process of

counseling would then take a considerable period of time to be

completed. It is further contended, that it is also very difficult to

adjust students who are provisionally admitted, in other colleges at a

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 15 of 29

later point of time because limited number of seats are available in the

NCT region. Adjustment on a subsequent date leads to further

litigation and causes great inconvenience to the students.

38. Learned counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority

(DDA for short) contended that the land at Rajouri Garden had been

allotted for setting up of a Polytechnic. Instead of setting up of

Polytechnic, the DSGM Committee started running an engineering

Institute. It is contended that the DSGM Committee was also allotted

land admeasuring 10 acres for running an engineering college at

Narela, however, the DSGM Committee did not take up the land and

the allotment was cancelled. It is submitted that as far back as in the

year 2009, the DDA had issued a show cause notice to the DSGM

Committee for running a Polytechnic from the land allotted for

running a senior secondary school.

39. It is submitted that, as per the zonal development plan, the land

use of the land at Rajouri Garden was “Recreational (District Park)

and partly residential”. The designated land use has now been

changed to “Public and semi public (PSI) (College)” and a notification

to the said effect has been issued on 15.07.2016.

40. With regard to the proposal of the petitioners for running both a

Polytechnic and an Institute from the land at Rajouri Garden, it is

contended that, the issue is being deliberated in the DDA at the

highest level and the decision is likely to be taken shortly.

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 16 of 29

41. An application for intervention being CM 18407/2016 has also

been filed on behalf of the employees/staff members of the Petitioner

Polytechnic. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing

for the interveners that they were the petitioners in WP(C) 3027/2016,

wherein directions were issued to shift the Petitioner Polytechnic to

the land at Rajouri Garden. Learned senior counsel for the interveners

pointed out that a Committee had been constituted by the Petitioner

Polytechnic for inspection of the facilities at Rajouri Garden where it

is proposed to be shifted. The Committee inspected the said premises

on 06.05.2016 and pointed out several deficiencies in the building that

is being built for the Petitioner Institute and the area that is being

provided. Learned senior counsel further contended that there is an

apprehension that the DSGM Committee would shut down the

Polytechnic because the degree college is more beneficial.

42. In rebuttal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners

contended that in terms of the regulations of AICTE, the decision, in

the first instance, has to be taken by the Executive Committee. It is

contended, that the Executive Committee instead of taking a decision

referred the matter to the Standing Appellate Committee. It is on the

recommendations of the Standing Appellate Committee that the

impugned order dated 19.04.2016 has been passed. It is contended

that the petitioners have been deprived of one right to appeal as the

decisions of the Executive Committee are appealable before the

Standing Appellate Committee. It is further contended that no notice

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 17 of 29

for rectification of any of the deficiencies pertaining to the faculty

were ever given to the petitioners.

43. It is contended, that the petitioners are not to be blamed for not

shifting the Polytechnic as the DDA is sitting over the matter and is

not taking a decision and since DDA has not decided with regard to

the land use, New Delhi Municipal Council cannot be approached for

further approvals. It is further submitted, AICTE has raised the issue

of ownership of land in the case of the petitioners, however for the

current academic session, AICTE has given permission to several

Institutes that are running from school buildings/rented

buildings/agriculture land premises and even from non-conforming

areas (Lal Dora/extended Lal Dora). It is contended that AICTE has

clearly violated the principles of the equality enshrined in Article 14

of the Constitution of India.

44. It is contended that even as per schedule fixed by

Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra), AICTE had to take a

decision by 10.04.2016. However, the impugned orders were passed

on 19.04.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already

given an undertaking to AICTE on 06.06.2016 that the deficiencies in

respect of infrastructure, which were pointed out, have been rectified

and all facilities are already available in the Petitioner Polytechnic. It

is further contended that the DSGM Committee has no intention of

shutting down the Petitioner Polytechnic.

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 18 of 29

45. Keeping, the above factual position in mind, let us look at the

directions given by the Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable

Trust (supra). The Supreme Court held as under:

“25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations

framed by the Central authorities such as AICTE have the

force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once

approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the

courts would normally not substitute their view in this

regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by

the court unless the powers vested in such expert body

are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner

impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act.

In All India Council for Technical Education v.Surinder

Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726] , this Court, while

stating the principles that the courts may not substitute

their opinion in place of the opinion of the Council, held

as under: (SCC pp. 732-33 & 736, paras 17-18 & 32)

“17. The role of statutory expert bodies on

education and the role of courts are well defined

by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational

policy or an issue involving academic matter, the

courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law

or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied

or enforced, with reference to or connected with

education, the courts will step in. In J.P.

Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3

SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436 : (1980) 2 LLJ

175] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424-26, paras

11-17)

‘11. … Judges must not rush in where even

educationists fear to tread. …

***

17. … While there is no absolute ban, it is a

rule of prudence that courts should hesitate

to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.’

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 19 of 29

(emphasis supplied)

18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary

and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh

Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : (1985) 1

SCR 29] this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57,

para 29)

‘29. … the Court should be extremely

reluctant to substitute its own views as to

what is wise, prudent and proper in relation

to academic matters in preference to those

formulated by professional men possessing

technical expertise and rich experience of

actual day-to-day working of educational

institutions and the departments controlling

them.’

***

32. This is a classic case where an educational

course has been created and continued merely by

the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or

academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance.

Granting approval for a new course or programme

requires examination of various

academic/technical facets which can only be done

by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot

obviously be taken over or discharged by courts.

In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the

court, a bridge course was permitted for four-year

advance diploma-holders who had passed the

entry-level examination of 10+2 with PCM

subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in

another case, what was a one-time measure was

extended for several years and was also extended

to post diploma-holders. Again by another

mandamus, it was extended to those who had

passed only 10+1 examination instead of the

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 20 of 29

required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each

direction was obviously intended to give relief to

students who wanted to better their career

prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But

together they lead to an unintended dilution of

educational standards, adversely affecting the

standards and quality of engineering degree

courses. Courts should guard against such forays

in the field of education.”

(emphasis in original)

26. Right from Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of

A.P. [(1993) 1 SCC 645] this Court has unequivocally

held that the right to establish an educational institution

does not carry within it the right to recognition or the

right to affiliation. Grant of recognition or affiliation is

neither a matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission

to the privileges of a university is a power to be exercised

with great care keeping in view the interest of the public

at large and the nation. Recognition has to be as per

statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict

adherence by all concerned. These conditions of

recognition and the duly notified directions controlling

the admission process are to be construed and applied

stricto sensu. They cannot be varied from case to case.

Time schedule is one such condition specifically

prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to

admission schedule is again a subject which requires

strict conformity by all concerned, without exception.

Reference in this regard can be made to Rajan

Purohit v. Rajasthan University of Health

Sciences [(2012) 10 SCC 770] at this stage, in addition

to Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7

SCC 258] .”

46. The Supreme Court has held that the regulations framed by the

Central authorities such as AICTE have the force of law and are

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 21 of 29

binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by

such expert body, courts would normally not substitute their view in

this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the

court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised

arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the

Regulations and the AICTE Act. The Court should be extremely

reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and

proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those

formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and

rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational

institutions and the departments controlling them.

47. The Supreme Court has further held that the right to establish

an educational institution does not carry within it the right to

recognition or the right to affiliation. Grant of recognition or

affiliation neither is a matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission

to the privileges of a university is a power to be exercised with great

care keeping in view the interest of the public at large and the nation.

Recognition has to be as per statutorily prescribed conditions and their

strict adherence by all concerned. These conditions of recognition and

the duly notified directions controlling the admission process are to be

construed and applied stricto sensu. They cannot be varied from case

to case.

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 22 of 29

48. The Supreme Court further fixed a time schedule for approvals,

admissions and commencement of academic session. It was held as

under:

“41. The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as follows:

Event Schedule

Conduct of entrance examination

(AIEEE/State CET/Management quota exams,

etc.)

In the month of May

Declaration of result of qualifying

examination (12th exam or similar) and

entrance examination

On or before 5th June

1st round of counselling/admission for

allotment of seats

To be completed on or before 30th

June

2nd round of counselling for allotment of

seats

To be completed on or before 10th

July

Last round of counselling for allotment of

seats

To be completed on or before 20th

July

Last date for admitting candidates in seats

other than allotted above

30th July

However, any number of rounds

for counselling could be conducted

depending on local requirements,

but all the rounds shall be

completed before 30th July

Commencement of academic session 1st August

Last date up to which students can be

admitted against vacancies arising due to

any reason (no student should be admitted in

any institution after the last date under any

quota)

15th August

Last date of granting or refusing approval

by AICTE

10th April

Last date of granting or refusing approval by

University/State Government

15th May

42. The admission to academic courses should start,

as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The seats

remaining vacant should again be duly notified and

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 23 of 29

advertised. All seats should be filled positively by 15th

August after which there shall be no admission, whatever

be the reason or ground.

43. We find that the above schedule is in conformity

with the affiliation/recognition schedule aforenoticed.

They both can co-exist. Thus, we approve these

admission dates and declare it to be the law which shall

be strictly adhered to by all concerned and none of the

authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary

these dates of admission. Certainty in this field is bound

to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious

method of grant of admission and commencement of the

technical courses. Any variation is bound to adversely

affect the maintenance of higher standards of education

and systemic and proper completion of courses.”

49. The Supreme Court, finding that any variation in the above

academic schedule is bound to adversely affect the maintenance of

higher standards of education and systemic and proper completion of

courses, declared it to be the law to be strictly adhered to by all

concerned and further directed that and none of the authorities shall

have the power or jurisdiction to vary these dates of admission.

50. The Supreme Court thereafter issued the following directions:

“46. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit

in both the appeals afore-referred. While dismissing

these appeals, we issue the following directions:

46.1. Both grant/refusal of approval and

admission schedule, as aforestated, shall be

strictly adhered to by all the authorities concerned

including Aicte, the University, the State

Government and any other authority directly or

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 24 of 29

indirectly connected with the grant of approval

and admission.

46.2. No person or authority shall have the power

or jurisdiction to vary the schedule prescribed

hereinabove.

46.3. While dealing with the application for grant

of approval to new colleges or additional

seats, Aicte shall inform the applicant within three

weeks from the date of receipt of its application or

date of inspection, as the case may be, the

shortcomings/defects, who, in turn, shall remove

such shortcomings/defects within 15 days from the

date of such communication or within such period

as Aicte may grant and re-submit its papers

without default. The process of grant of approval

has to be transparent and fair. Aicte or the

University or the State Government concerned

shall take disciplinary action against the person

who commits default in adherence to the schedule

and performance of his duties in accordance

therewith.

46.4. The reports submitted by the Expert

Committee visiting the College should be

unambiguous and clear, and should bear the date

and time of inspection and should be sufficiently

comprehensive and inspection be conducted in the

presence of a representative of the institute.

46.5. The students of the appellant College shall

be re-allocated to the recognised and affiliated

colleges in terms of the judgment [WP (OS) No.

460 of 2011, decided on 22-8-2012 (Bom)] of the

High Court; and Aicte and the university

concerned shall ensure that the academic courses

of these students are completed within the balance

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 25 of 29

period of the academic year in all respects. For

this purpose, if extra classes are required to be

held, the institute concerned, the University

andAicte are directed to ensure holding of such

extra classes.

46.6. If the appellate authority decides the matter

prior to 30th April of the year concerned and

grants approval to a college, then alone such

institution will be permitted to be included in the

list of colleges to which admissions are to be made

and not otherwise. In other words, even if the

appellate authority grants approval after 30th

April, it will not be operative for the current

academic year. All colleges which have been

granted approval/affiliation by 10th or 30th April,

as the case may be, shall alone be included in the

brochure/advertisement/website for the purpose of

admission and none thereafter.”

51. The Supreme Court has thus laid down that, even if the

approval is granted after 30th April, it would not operate for the

current academic session.

52. Perusal of the orders/judgments relied upon by the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Jind Institute of

Engineering & Technology (Supra), Bhartiya Gramin Punarrachna

Sansthan Hi-tech Institute of Technology & Hi-tech Polytechnic

(Supra), Thadomal Shahani Engineering College (Supra) &

Mahatma Education Society’s Pillai’s Institute of Information

Technology Engineering, Media Studies and Research (Supra),

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 26 of 29

show that orders/judgments, permitting intake, have been passed in

the peculiar facts of each of the cases.

53. By this application, the petitioners seek ad-interim stay of the

impugned letters of AICTE dated 19.04.2016. The effect of such an

order would amount to stay of the direction of AICTE placing the

petitioners 1 and 3 in NO ADMISSION category. Which would

imply that the petitioners would be permitted to admit students

without there being any approval of AICTE or affiliation with the

University or Technical Board, as the case may be. It is not in dispute

that all institutes, existing and new, require approval of the AICTE

prior to any intake of students for any academic session. Without any

approval of AICTE, there cannot be any affiliation with any university

or technical board.

54. AICTE in the impugned letters dated 19.04.2016 has pointed

out to deficiencies in both the petitioner Institute and Polytechnic.

Both the Institute and Polytechnic have been refused approval for

intake of students for the academic session 2016 – 2017. Since there is

no approval by AICTE, the Petitioner Institute cannot seek any

affiliation from the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

(Respondent No. 3) and the Petitioner Polytechnic cannot seek

affiliation with the Directorate of Training and Technical Education

(Respondent No. 4).

55. In the present case, apart from the objection of AICTE, with

regard to the use of Rajouri Garden land by the Institute and the

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 27 of 29

shifting of the polytechnic from Vasant Vihar to Rajouri Garden,

various deficiencies have been pointed out with regard to

infrastructure, lack of sufficient number faculty members,

employment of faculty on contractual basis without proper selection,

nonpayment of salary, qualification of some of the faculty members

etc.

56. Even if assuming the issue of the use of land were to be ignored

for the time being, because of delay on the part of DDA, the

petitioners would have to remove the other deficiencies. After

removal of the deficiencies, the petitioners would have to approach

AICTE for approval which would then have to have the facilities

inspected once again. If approval is accorded, the Petitioner would

have to then approach the University or the Technical Board for

affiliation. Only once all this is done would the petitioners be able to

have intake of students. The entire process would take time.

57. One can also not lose sight of the facts submitted by the

Counsel for UGC that 6870 candidates have already been allotted

seats as per their rank and as per the rank of the Institutes and choice

of the candidates. The third round of counseling was concluded on

16.07.2016 The sliding round was held on 21.07.2016. The remaining

vacancies, are to be filled up in the spot round of counseling to be

held between 31.07.2016 to 06.08.2016. The academic session is to

commence from 01.08.2016.

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 28 of 29

58. In case, the Petitioner Institute is provisionally permitted to

admit students, the entire exercise of allocation of seats/counseling

undertaken over a period of two months in various institutes would be

set to naught. It would have a cascading effect of unsettling the entire

allocation of seats and would disrupt the academic schedule. Further,

in case the petitioner does not to succeed in the Writ Petition, the

students admitted by interim orders, would have to be adjusted in

different institutes in and around Delhi which may not be possible on

account of unavailability of seats at that point of time and may also

lead to litigation and harassment to students.

59. No doubt, a High Court while exercising jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India would have the power, in the

facts of a case, to direct AICTE to grant approval and also permit

intake of students after the scheduled date. However, exercise of such

a power would be the exception and not the rule. In my view, the facts

of the present case do not justify such an exceptional exercise of

power.

60. Orders permitting provisional admission of students imposing

conditions such as making it clear to the students that against the

refusal to grant extension of approval, the writ petition was pending

and any admission made would be subject to the outcome of the

petition and students shall not be entitled to claim any equity on the

basis of the interim order, in my view, create a lot of uncertainty. It

puts the career of students, who take provisional admission, at risk.

WP(C) 3684/2016 Page 29 of 29

The mere fact, that students are willing to take such a risk, does not

justify putting them at such a crossroad unless the peculiar facts of the

case warrant such an interim order. As noted above, the facts of the

present case, do not justify such an interim order.

61. In view of the above, I find no merit in the application. It is

accordingly dismissed.

WP(C) 3684/2016

List for directions on 17.08.2016.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

August 02, 2016

st/HJ