Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College ... vs All India Council For Technical ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 133 Bom

    ssm                        1             judgment-wp-4620.15.sxw

            IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                       
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4620  OF 2015




                                               
    Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil
    College of Engineering,




                                              
    (Formerly known as
    "Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College of 
    Engineering & Polytechnic"
    Sadarbazar, Satara.




                                        
    Established by 
    Rayat Shikshan Sanstha
    Through its Principal
    Dr. Vikram Patil
    Registered office at
                         
    Sadarbazar, Near RTO office,
    Satara-415 001.                                     ....Petitioners

                Vs.
          


    1     All India Council for Technical
       



          Education, through its
          Western Regional Office and
          having its address at 2nd Floor,





          Industrial Assurance Building,
          Veer Nariman Road,
          Opp. Churchgate Rly. Station,
          Mumbai 400 020.





    2     Director of Technical Education,
          Maharashtra State,
          3, Mahapalika Marg,
          Dhobi Talao, 
          Mumbai 400 001.

    3     State of Maharashtra,
          The Department of Higher &

                                                                                1/8



                                               ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2015 23:55:52 :::
     ssm                           2                   judgment-wp-4620.15.sxw

          Technical Education
          Through the Government Pleader,
          PWD Building,




                                                                                 
          Fort, Mumbai-400 023.




                                                         
    4     Shivaji University,
          Kolhapur.                                      ....   Respondents

    Mr. S.C. Naidu a/w Mr. Rahul Tanwani & Mr. Aniketh Poojary i/by Mr. 




                                                        
    C.R. Naidu & Co. for the Petitioners. 
    Mr.   Mihir   Desai,   Senior   Advocate   with   Mr.   Sarnath   Sariputta,   and 
    Swaraj Jadhav for AICTE. 
    Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State. 




                                            
                              CORAM:   ANOOP V. MOHTA AND 
                              ig        V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

DATE : 14 AUGUST 2015.

JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.):-

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of parties.

2 The Petitioners is a college, run by public charitable trust

and imparting technical education on the basis of approval granted by

Respondent No.1.

3 By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the

decision dated 30 April 2015 of Respondent No.1 to put the Petitioner-

ssm 3 judgment-wp-4620.15.sxw

College into no admission category i.e. ("zero") intake capacity for the

academic year 2014-15 and/or related action arising out of the same

and further prayed for the related prayers including directions to

Respondent No.1 to issue revised EOA with full intake capacity for

2014-15 and/or 2015-16.

4 Petition was filed on 5 May 2015. This Court (Coram:-

Anoop V. Mohta & K.R. Shriram, JJ.), on 8 May 2015 has granted ad-

interim relief and permitted the Petitioners to participate in CAP

admission for the current academic year 2015-16.

5 Heard finally along with other group of connected matters.

We have recorded basic reasons in Saraswati Education Society's

Saraswati College of Engineering Vs. All India Council for Technical

Education (AICTE) (Writ Petition No. 4586 of 2015) dated 14 August

2015, both on issues of law and related aspects. The reasons and the

decision in said case, is fully applicable to the present facts and

circumstances of the case, as the Petitioner is similarly situated and

challenging the similar action/orders of the Respondents. Therefore,

in view of the reasons so recorded, we are disposing of the present

ssm 4 judgment-wp-4620.15.sxw

Writ Petition for the same reasons.

6 So far as the deficiencies in the present facts of the case

are concerned, after hearing both the counsel, we have noted that the

Petitioners have pointed out and placed on record material to justify

the compliances so made as to deficiencies raised by the Respondents

in letter/communication dated 27 March 2015. After going through

the relevant papers/documents, i.e. deficiencies noted by EVC dated

27 March 2015 and observations/recommendation of Standing

Complaint Committee dated 22 April 2015, we have noted that there

are no material deficiencies exist to justify passing of such drastic

order to put the Petitioner-institute in no admission category.

Deficiencies and compliance status report 2015-16 submitted by the

learned counsel for the Petitioners during the course of argument is

taken on record and marked as "X" for identification.

7 It is argued by learned counsel for Petitioners that the

faculty strength exist as per the norm and accepted by SCC. The

deficiencies noted by EVC in this regard is erroneous. According to

him, the faculty requirement for all the courses are duly complied

ssm 5 judgment-wp-4620.15.sxw

with. He has placed on record, the details of faculty members. It is

further explained by filing additional affidavit that the reservation

policy of the State Government is not yet clearly defined therefore,

roaster could not be finalized by the University. According to the

learned counsel, all the regular faculty members working in the

Petitioner-institute, are paid salary as per 6 th Pay Commission. The

Petitioners sought approval for recruiting regular candidates from the

University. The statement is also made that after getting roaster

approval and advertisement, post will be filled through the University

selection process. The Petitioners have also explained as to why the

regular appointment could not be made.

8 So far as the other deficiencies are concerned, the learned

counsel for the Petitioners submitted that campus is barrier free.

Toilet for physically challenged are also ready and new ramps are

already inaugurated. Photographs of existing facilities were presented

to the SCC during the hearing on 22 April 2015. Tutorial rooms are as

per the process handbook. The documents submitted by the

Petitioners were not considered by AICTE. Respondents also

submitted drawings in respect of halls. The photographs and

ssm 6 judgment-wp-4620.15.sxw

architects certificate were also enclosed in support of explanations.

Although the laboratory exists as per the process handbook, still same

was not considered. According to the Petitioners, one seminar hall for

two UG Courses and 1 seminar hall per PG Courses are also available.

Boys and Girls common room, cafeteria, computer center are as per

the requirement.

9 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, we are of the

view that deficiencies referred above are curable in nature. They have

already taken steps to remove such deficiencies as pointed out by

AICTE. The submissions so advanced is supported by documents. So

also deficiencies are not sufficient to take such drastic action against

the Petitioners. We are convinced from the documents placed on

record that such deficiencies including faculty and cadre ratio is

maintained to great extent and no major deficiencies substantial in

nature exist. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we

are of the view that the case is made out to grant relief subject to

conditions so recorded in Saraswati Education Society's Saraswati

College of Engineering Vs. All India Council for Technical Education

(AICTE), WP No. 4586 of 2015, dated 14 August 2015. Therefore, the

ssm 7 judgment-wp-4620.15.sxw

following order.

ORDER

a) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(a).

b) Interim order passed by this Court on 8 May 2015,

is confirmed.

c) The Respondents are directed to consider the

representation/case of the Petitioners, specifically

on the issue of cadre and faculty and other related

aspects by giving opportunity of hearing to

Petitioners and pass the reasoned order, at the

earliest.

d) The Respondent-University is directed that in order

to avoid the delay in appointments of teaching

faculty in the institution like the Petitioners, the

proposals received for approval of draft

advertisement, roaster, nomination of the subject

experts, nomination of nominee of the Vice

Chancellor and approval of the candidates selected

through duly constituted Selection Committee, such

ssm 8 judgment-wp-4620.15.sxw

proposals be decided in expeditious and time bound

manner so as to avoid deficiencies in respect of the

same being shown by AICTE in the proposals of

such institution for extension of approval.

e) The Petitioners to take steps to remove the

deficiencies, even if any, as early as possible.

          f)    Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.




                                           
          g)    Rule made absolute accordingly. 
                           
          h)    There shall be no order as to costs.
                          
           (V.L. ACHLIYA, J.)                    ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)