Telangana High Court
Swamy Vivekananda Educational Trust vs State Of Telangana on 14 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR
RAO
WRIT APPEAL Nos.968 and 969 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble SP, J):
Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Tarun G Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants in W.A.No.968 of 2024, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Tarun G Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.969 of 2024, Sri Rahul
Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appears on behalf
of learned Advocate General for the State, Sri Abdul Quddus
Mohammed, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU, Sri
M.Mehboob Ali, learned Standing Counsel for AICTE and Ms. C.
Vani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State
Higher Education.
2. Since these matters are arising out of two similar orders of
learned Single Judge passed in W.P.Nos.21333 and 21352 of
2024, with the consent of the parties, the matters are
analogously heard finally.
3. The facts are taken from W.A.No.968 of 2024.
2
SP, J & RRN, J
WA_968_&_969_2024
4. The case of the appellants in nut shell is that as per All
India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE') Regulations
(approval process hand book) 2024-25 to 2026-27, the
appellants' institutions are eligible to establish an off-campus
institute. Accordingly, both the appellants fulfilled the
necessary formalities and preferred applications before AICTE
for grant of approval for off-campus. It is common ground that
AICTE has examined whether appellants fulfilled the
requirements of establishing off-campus establishment.
Thereafter, AICTE by order dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure P-14),
granted approval to maintain existing institution as well as off-
campus institutes. Since, the State Government did not take
any decision on appellants' application for grant of approval,
W.P.No.19082 of 2024 was filed, which was disposed of at
admission stage on 18.07.2024, directing the respondents to
examine the representation of appellants' dated 27.06.2024 and take a decision within one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The appellant on 22.07.2024 preferred representation and informed the respondents about the Court order passed in W.P.No.19082 of 2024. Since the respondents did not take any decision, the present Writ Petitions were filed. 3
SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing in both the appeals appraised the Court that during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, order dated 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-30) was passed informing that the applications of the appellants' are deferred for the academic year 2024-25.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants urged that when the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge, the department provided the copies of minutes to the Court on the strength of which, the decision dated 27.07.2024 was taken. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order, mentioned about the reasons, on the strength of which, representation was rejected and came to hold that such decision taken by the department is in the realm of 'policy decision' taken by the experts and therefore no interference is warranted.
7. It is common ground that while holding so, the Writ Court itself held that the policy decision cannot be interfered with, unless it violates any statutory provisions or is unconstitutional in nature. It is submitted that in view of judgment of Supreme Court in the cases of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological 4 SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024 University v. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet 1 and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological, University v. Crescent Educational Society 2, it is prerogative of the State Government to take an independent decision in the light of Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982, (the Act) and mere grant of approval AICTE does not give any enforceable right to the appellants to establish off-campus institute. What is required to be examined is whether the so called 'policy decision' fulfills the requirement of Section 20 of the Act. Both the learned Senior counsel relied on the said judgments and submit that twin reasons assigned in the 'policy decision' are not inconsonance with Section 20 of the Act. The first reason assigned is that the admission schedule of the academic year has already been announced and the second reason is that in the neighbouring states new AICTE guidelines are yet to be implemented and their experiences are yet to be examined. Thereafter, certain 'suggestions' were given which are reduced in writing in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
1 (2019) 17 SCC 729 2 (2021) 16 SCC 165 5 SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024
8. It is submitted that the department by revised notification (Annexure P-29) rescheduled academic schedule and admissions are scheduled to be started with effect from 04.07.2024. This subsequent event itself shows that one main reason for not taking decision on appellants' representation on 11.06.2024 does not survive. Secondly, the neighbouring state also gave a permission to establish off-campus institute, which is evident from G.O.Rt.No.117 dated 11.07.2024 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh (Annexure P-27). In this view of the matter, the respondents may be directed to consider the representations of the appellants for grant of permission.
9. By placing heavy reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra), it is submitted that Section 20 of the Act was considered by the Supreme Court and its interpretation shows that the Government was required to take decision in the teeth of certain parameters. But, in the instant case, the representations of the appellants' were not examined in the light of parameters mentioned in Section 20 of the Act. Thus, the decision taken to defer the representation is not inconsonance with Section 20 of 6 SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024 the Act. Such a decision is arbitrary and hits Article 14 of the Constitution.
10. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department 3 to bolster his submission that the department was required to consider the provisions of AICTE ACT, approval granted by AICTE and by conjointly reading AICTE regulations, JNTU regulations and Section 20 of the Act, which were the determinative factor, should have taken the decision, whereas, in the instant case, the committee has not taken decision in the light of aforesaid statutory provisions.
11. Per contra, Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader supported the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. On a specific query from the Bench, he informed that the 'revised detailed notification' (Annexure P-29) was issued on 22.06.2024. It is submitted in W.A.No.989 of 2024, that the appellant has shown its off-campus institute in its website, despite the fact that no such permission was 3 (2005) 5 SCC 231 7 SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024 granted by the State Government. The counsel for appellants urged that it was shown as proposed.
12. Learned counsel for State submits that the impugned order is taken by the competent authorities. They are experts of the subject and the learned Single Judge has rightly declined interference in a policy order.
13. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. We have bestowed our anxious considerations on rival contentions and perused the record.
14. Admitted facts between the parties are that the AICTE has given recognition/permission to the appellants to establish off- campus institute. Thus, eligibility of the appellants under AICTE provisions cannot be doubted. The respondents were required to take decision in the light of Section 20 of the Act. The Apex Court in the case of Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet (supra) considered the ambit and scope of Section 20 of the Act, the relevant portion reads as under:
"13. Section 20 of the 1982 Act deals with permission for the establishment of educational institutions. Section 20(1) provides that a competent authority shall conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction. Section 20(3) provides that any educational agency applying for permission under Section 20(2) shall 8 SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024 before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned that there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality. Section 20 is extracted hereunder:
"20. Permission for establishment of educational institutions.--
(1) The competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local newspapers calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions.
(2) In pursuance of the notification under sub-
section (1), any educational agency including local authority or registered body of persons intending to--
(a) establish an institution imparting education;
(b) open higher classes in an institution imparting primary education;
(c) upgrade any such institution into a high school; or
(d) open new courses (certificate, diploma, degree, post-graduate degree courses, etc.), may make an application, within such period in such manner and to such authority as may be notified for the grant of permission therefor. (3) Any educational agency applying for permission under sub-section (2) shall--
(a) before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned--
(i) that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality;
(ii) that there is adequate financial provision for continued and efficient maintenance of the institution as prescribed by the competent authority;
(iii) that the institution is proposed to be located in sanitary and healthy surroundings;
(b) enclose to the application--
(i) title deeds relating to the site for building, playground and garden proposed to be provided; 9
SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024
(ii) plans approved by the local authority concerned which shall conform to the rules prescribed therefor; and
(iii) documents evidencing availability of the finances needed for constructing the proposed buildings; and
(c) within the period specified by the authority concerned in the order granting permission--
(i) appoint teaching staff qualified according to the rules made by the Government in this behalf;
(ii) satisfy the other requirements laid down by this Act and the rules and orders made thereunder failing which it shall be competent for the said authority to cancel the permission. (4) On and from the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Act, 1987, no educational institution shall be established except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any person who contravenes the provisions of this section or who after the permission granted to him under this section having been cancelled continues to run such institution shall be punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than three thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees:
Provided further that the court convicting a person under this section shall also order the closure of the institution with respect to which the offence is committed."
(emphasis supplied)
14. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 20(1) makes it clear that the survey is conducted so as to identify the educational needs of the locality would definitely include within its ken how many institutions are operating in the area and whether there is any further requirement of opening educational institutions/new courses in existing colleges, and it is also imperative under Section 20(3)(a)(i) that educational agency has to satisfy the authority that there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality. In case there are already a large 10 SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024 number of institutions imparting education in the area the competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC, for permitting an institution to come up in the area."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraphs leaves no room for any doubt that the litmus test prescribed under Section 20 of the Act makes it obligatory for the department to take into account the different factors. Such as (i) how many institutes are operating in the area; (ii) whether there is any further requirement of opening educational institutions/new courses of existing colleges; and (iii) whether educational agency has satisfied the department that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality etc.
16. If the impugned order is tested in the light of the aforesaid paragraphs of Supreme Court judgment wherein Section 20 of the Act has been interpreted, it will be clear like cloudless sky that twin reasons given in the minutes dated 11.06.2024 are not arising out of those reasons/factors.
17. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that 'policy decision' can be interfered on limited grounds. The learned Single Judge rightly opined that such grounds may be 11 SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024 unconstitutionality of the decision or if it violates statutory provision.
18. If the impugned policy decision dated 11.06.2024 extracted by learned Single Judge is examined it will be crystal clear that the relevant factors arising out of Section 20 of the Act has not been looked into by the competent authorities.
19. Apart from this, the subsequent event of extending the date of admission and grant of permission to establish off- campus course by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 11.07.2024 is also a reason which require the authorities to re- look into the matter.
20. So far, 'suggestions' part of the 'policy decision' dated 11.06.2024 is concerned, a careful reading of this portion nowhere shows that the appellants' representations were rejected on the ground that their off-campus institutions are not established in rural areas. The appellants' representations were simply deferred for aforesaid twin reasons and not based on the 'suggestions'.
21. As noticed above, both the reasons cannot sustain judicial scrutiny for the simple reason that the 'policy decision' is not 12 SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024 taken by taking into account the statutory mandate and test ingrained in Section 20 of the Act. Furthermore, the subsequent events show that the department itself modified the admission schedule and started it from 04.07.2024 and Government of Andhra Pradesh gave permission to establish off- campus establishment.
22. In this view of the matter, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of reasoning given by the learned Writ Court and further unable to treat the 'policy decision' dated 11.06.2024 as a sacrosanct policy decision which fulfils the requirement of law. As a result, the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2024 in W.P.Nos.21333 of 2024 and 21352 of 2024 are set aside. The policy decision dated 11.06.2024 and consequential communication dated 27.07.2024 are also set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the pending representations of the appellants and take a fresh decision in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within seven working days from today. In order to give a meaningful consideration to the representations, if necessary, the respondents may modify their counseling schedule. 13
SP, J & RRN, J WA_968_&_969_2024
23. With the above, the Writ Appeals are disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________ SUJOY PAUL, J _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 14.08.2024 Note:
Issue C.C. today.
B/o. SA/GVR/MYK.