Bombay High Court
The Vice President Technical And ... vs The Secretary Technical And ... on 5 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 wp5442-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5442 OF 2016
The Vice President,
Technical and Medical Education
Society's J.T. Mahajan Polytechnic,
Nhavi Marg, Tq. Yawal, Faizpur,
District Jalgaon (M.S.) ..Petitioner
Vs.
1) The Secretary,
Technical and Higher Education
Department, Government of
Maharashtra, Annex Building,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
2) The Regional Officer,
All India Council for Technical
Education, (Western Regional
Office), Industrial Assurance
Building, Churchgate,
Mumbai 400 020 (M.S.)
3) All India Council for Technical
Education (A.I.C.T.E.),
(A Statutory Body under the
the Ministry of HRD), Govt. of
India, 7th floor,
Chandra Lok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi 110 001
4) The Director of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State, 3, Mahapalika Marg,
Dhobi Talav, Mumbai - 400 001
(P.B.No.1967, Mumbai)
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:19:14 :::
2 wp5442-16.odt
5) The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Technical and Higher Education Dept.,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mumbai - 400 001
--
Mr.V.T.Choudhary and Mr.S.D.Kulkarni, Advocates
for petitioner
Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for respondent nos.1, 4 and 5
Mr.S.V.Adwant, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3
--
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JUNE 30, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 05, 2016
JUDGMENT (Per Sangitrao S. Patil, J.) :
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with consent of the parties.
2. Respondent no.1 is the Secretary, Technical
and Higher Education Department, Government of
Maharashtra, respondent no.4 is the Director of
Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai,
respondent no.5 is the State of Maharashtra,
respondent no.3 is the All India Council for
3 wp5442-16.odt
Technical Education ("AICTE" for short), a
statutory body under the Ministry of Human
Resource Department, Government of India, New
Delhi), while respondent no.2 is the Regional
Officer of AICTE, for the Western Region, Mumbai.
AICTE has been given statutory powers by the AICTE
Act, 1987 with a view to ensure the proper
planning and coordinated development of Technical
Education System throughout the country.
Technical Education in this context includes
Engineering and Technology. AICTE is the Apex Body
under the provisions of AICTE (Grant of Approvals
for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2012,
which superseded the Regulations of 2010 and the
(1st Amendment) Regulations of 2011, empowered to
grant approval for starting new Technical
Institutions, introduction of courses or programs
and increase/variation of intake capacity of seats
for the courses or programs and extension of
approval for the existing Technical Institutions,
4 wp5442-16.odt
as per the norms and procedure laid down in the
Regulations. Broadly speaking, the Technical
Institution concerned has to send the application
for approval, as prescribed in the Approval
Process Handbook published by AICTE from time to
time, detailing the conditions of approval and the
procedure to process the applications of
Institutions and/or promoters of the Technical
Institutions.
3. Undisputedly, the petitioner-Institution was
granted approval by respondent no.3 for Second
Shift for the academic years from 2008-2009 to
2015-2016 to conduct Diploma Level Courses in
Engineering with an annual intake as given below:
Sr. Course(s) Annual Duration
No. intake (years)
1 CIVIL ENGINEERING 30 3 YRS.
2 COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY 60 3 YRS.
3 ELECTRONICS AND TELE- 60 3 YRS.
COMMUNICATION
5 wp5442-16.odt
4 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 60 3 YRS.
5 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 60 3 YRS.
TOTAL 270
4. The petitioner applied for extension of
approval for the academic year 2016-2017 for
conducting Second Shift Diploma Level Courses in
(i) Civil Engineering, (ii) Electrical Engineering
and (iii) Mechanical Engineering with annual
intake capacity of 30, 60 and 60 students,
respectively, and further sought approval for
closure of the Diploma courses in (i) Computer
Technology and (ii) Electronics and Communication
Engineering. As per the letter dated 25.04.2016,
the Vice-Chairman of AICTE granted the approvals
sought for by the petitioner. However, as per the
Corrigendum dated 01.05.2016, the Member-Secretary
of the AICTE, withdrew the approval granted to the
petitioner vide letter dated 25.04.2016 for
conducting Second Shift for Diploma Courses in (i)
6 wp5442-16.odt
Civil Engineering, (ii) Electrical Engineering and
(iii) Mechanical Engineering. It is this
Corrigendum and confirmation thereof by AICTE vide
order dated 11.05.2016 which have been assailed by
the petitioner in this Writ Petition filed under
the Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner based
on the contents of the petition and the rejoinder
submits that initially, as per the notice dated
13.04.2016 issued by respondent no.4, the
petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why
the Diploma Courses in Engineering conducted in
the Second Shift by the petitioner should not be
recommended to be stopped from the academic year
2016-2017, on the following three grounds :
1) Lab. Assistant, Instructors,
Supporting Staff and Administrative
Staff are not appointed separately as
per AICTE Norms.
7 wp5442-16.odt
2) First Shift and Second Shift
timings are overlapping by 5.25 hours
3) There are few students admitted in
CM and ET Second Shift. Therefore,
Theory lecture and Practical are
conducted with the students of First
Shift.
6.
The petitioner appeared before the Standing
Complaint Committee, at VJTI on 19.04.2016 and
submitted reply explaining the deficiencies. In
respect of deficiency no.2, the petitioner gave an
undertaking that it would correct the timetable of
1st shift and 2nd shift in conformity with the norms
of AICTE i.e. no overlapping exceeding 3 hours. So
far as the first deficiency was concerned, the
petitioner submitted the appointment orders of the
requisite Teaching as well as Non-teaching staff.
Since the petitioner had sought closure of Diploma
Courses in (i) Computer Technology and (ii)
8 wp5442-16.odt
Electronics and Communication Engineering, the
third discrepancy stood removed. The learned
Counsel further pointed out to the order dated
11.05.2016 passed by the AICTE closing the
Engineering Courses conducted by the petitioner in
the Second Shift on the sole ground that there was
overlapping of 5.25 hours in Second Shift. He
submits that the said order, which has been passed
after filing of this petition, does not speak of
other two grounds for withdrawing approval of the
petitioner for conducting the Engineering Courses
in the Second Shift. He submits that if the
approval is so withdrawn, even after the
petitioner undertook to bring down the overlapping
from 5.25 hours to 3.00 hours, it would cause
irreparable loss to the petitioner in as much as
the petitioner would have to retrench the present
staff, the newly appointed staff would be jobless,
which might create legal complications for the
petitioner and the students from the area nearby
9 wp5442-16.odt
the petitioner-Institution, would adversely suffer
in their academic career. He submits that the
impugned Corrigendum dated 01.05.2016 and the
impugned order dated 15.05.2016 are malafide,
arbitrary and unconstitutional. He, therefore,
prays that the same may be quashed and set aside
and the approval order dated 25.04.2016 may be
ordered to be restored.
7. On the strength of the reply filed on behalf
of respondent nos.2 and 3 through Mr.Ramesh
Unnikrishnan, Regional Officer (i.e. respondent
no.3), the learned Counsel for these respondents
submits that the petitioner did not remove the
deficiencies which were noticed during the
inspection and by submitting wrong information,
tried to obtain approval for conducting
Engineering Courses in the Second Shift. He
submits that the approval process is completed as
per the procedure laid down in the "Approval
10 wp5442-16.odt
Process Handbook 2016-2017" published by the
AICTE. There was overlapping of 5.25 hours in the
First Shift and the Second Shift. Therefore,
respondent nos.2 and 3 have rightly withdrew the
approval granted in favour of the petitioner for
conducting the Diploma Level Engineering Courses
in the Second Shift by issuing Corrigendum on
01.05.2016 and order dated 15.05.2016. He supports
the said Corrigendum and order. He prays that the
Writ Petition may be dismissed.
8. Mr.Anil Vasantrao Pawar, Assistant Director
(Technical) filed reply on behalf of respondent
nos.1, 4 and 5 and opposed the petition. Based on
the contents of his reply, the learned AGP submits
that the Inspection Committee sent by the Joint
Director of Technical Education, Regional Officer,
Nashik and Maharashtra State Board of Technical
Education, Mumbai, found the deficiencies as
mentioned in the report Exhibits 'R-1' and 'R-2'
11 wp5442-16.odt
which constrained the AICTE, the Apex Body having
final authority in the matter of grant of
approvals to the Technical Education Instructions,
to withdraw approval of the petitioner for
conducting the Engineering Courses in the Second
Shift for the academic year 2016-2017 by way of
punitive action. Relying on an unreported common
judgment of this Court delivered on 21.10.2013 in
Writ Petition No. 8646 of 2013 in the case of
G.H.R. Education Foundation Society, Nagpur and
another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors., and
other companion Writ Petitions, he submits that in
the absence of University Affiliation, the name of
the Institution cannot be included in the
Centralised Admission Process (CAP) for admitting
the students. He supports the impugned Corrigendum
and order.
9. As per the Show Cause Notice dated 13.04.2016
referred to above, in all three deficiencies were
12 wp5442-16.odt
noticed by the Inspecting Committee in respect of
Diploma Level Engineering Courses proposed to be
conducted in the Second Shift by the petitioner in
the academic year 2016-2017. The petitioner
appeared before the Standing Complaint Committee
and furnished its explanation on 19.04.2016.
After considering the said explanation, the
impugned Corrigendum came to be issued on
01.05.2016. However, it does not contain any
specific ground for withdrawal of approval. It
simply states "Corrigendum for-closure of courses
under punitive action". It is only in the order
dated 11.05.2016 that the ground for withdrawal of
approval has been stated. It is mentioned that the
Standing Complaint Committee observed overlapping
of 5.25 hours in Second Shift and recommended for
closure of all courses in Second Shift from
academic 2016-2017. It is further mentioned that
the recommendations of the Standing Complaint
Committee were considered by the AICTE and it has
13 wp5442-16.odt
decided to grant closure to all the courses in the
Second Shift from the academic year 2016-2017 to
the petitioner. From this order, it is clear that
the approval of the petitioner has been withdrawn
on the sole ground of overlapping of 5.25 hours in
the Second Shift. It follows that the remaining
two grounds were non-existent for considering the
question of withdrawal of approval of the
petitioner vide the impugned Corrigendum and
order. Consequently, the reply of respondent nos.2
and 3 which is more informative than defensive, to
the extent it has no bearing on the sole ground of
withdrawal of approval of the petitioner and the
case law, which has no relevance to the
controversy as to the specific sole ground of
withdrawal of approval, needs no consideration.
10. As defined at Item No.29, paragraph No.18 of
the Approval Process Handbook 2016-2017 published
by AICTE "Two Shift Working" means where
14 wp5442-16.odt
educational activities of the Technical
Institution are conducted in two spells of time
i.e. First Shift, generally, between 8.00 a.m. to
4.00 p.m. and Second Shift, generally, between
1.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. That means there should be
overlapping in these two shifts for a maximum
period of three hours. The petitioner had prepared
the time tables of the First Shift and Second
Shift from 7.45 a.m. to 3.15 p.m. and 10.00 a.m.
to 5.30 p.m. respectively, having overlapping of
5.25 hours. It was not in conformity of the norms
of overlapping between the working hours of two
shifts as fixed by AICTE. Therefore, respondent
no.4 issued notice dated 13.04.2016 calling upon
the petitioner to show cause as to why the Diploma
Level Engineering courses conducted by it in the
Second Shift should not be recommended to the
AICTE for their closure. There were three
deficiencies mentioned in that show cause notice.
However, ultimately only one deficiency i.e.
15 wp5442-16.odt
overlapping of 5.25 hours, only was considered for
closure of the Second Shift of the petitioner.
The petitioner received an e-Mail communication
from respondent no.2 on 13.04.2016 whereby it was
asked to appear before the Standing Complaint
Committee at VJTI Mumbai on 19.04.2016 from 12.00
noon onwards to submit the status report of
compliance of the discrepancies pointed out in the
show cause notice.
11. The petitioner appeared before the Standing
Complaint committee as directed in the e-Mail
dated 13.04.2016 and furnished status report in
respect of overlapping of time by 5.25 hours, the
petitioner tried to justify it on the ground that
most of the students admitted for the courses hail
from the villages scattered within the radius of
25 to 30 kms. They are from poor families. Though
the petitioner has purchased four buses for
bringing the students, still some of the students
16 wp5442-16.odt
come by State Transport buses, which are not
available while going back to their native places
after 7.00 p.m. However, the petitioner further
assured that if such timings are not permissible
as per the norms of AICTE, it would make the
timings as per the norms only. Accordingly, the
petitioner furnished an undertaking in writing on
a stamped paper assuring to follow the time tables
for the First Shift and Second Shift as per the
norms of AICTE, before respondent No.2 on
21.04.2016. It seems that thereafter, i.e. on
25.04.2016, the AICTE extended approval to the
petitioner to conduct Diploma Level Engineering
Courses in Civil, Electrical and Mechanical
Engineering in the Second Shifts in the academic
year 2016-2017.
12. It is strange to note that after hardly about
five days of extending approval on 25.04.2016, the
AICTE issued Corrigendum dated 01.05.2016 to
17 wp5442-16.odt
withdraw the said approval, closing the Second
Shift of the petitioner under punitive action.
The AICTE further passed final order dated
11.04.2016 on the sole ground that there was
overlapping of 5.25 hours in the Second Shift. As
contended by the learned Counsel for respondent
nos.2 and 3 as well as the learned AGP appearing
for respondent nos.1, 4 and 5, it is true that the
AICTE is the Apex Body and final authority in the
matter of grant or refusal of approvals to the
Technical Institutions. However, such Apex Body is
not expected to take decisions arbitrarily,
capriciously and contrary to the object for which
it has been established. As per Regulation No.11
of the AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical
Institutions) Regulations, 2012, it may in
exceptional cases, for removal of hardship or such
other reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any
of the provisions of these Regulations in respect
of any class or category of Institutions. The
18 wp5442-16.odt
AICTE could have considered the reasons given by
the petitioner in respect of overlapping of 5.25
hours and could have relaxed the norms of
overlapping hours, if it would not have adversely
affected the academic interests of the students.
Even otherwise, there was no reason for the AICTE
to totally ignore and discard the written
undertaking given by the petitioner on 21.04.2016
to bring down the overlapping from 5.25 hours to
3.00 hours as per the norms of AICTE. It was
always open to the AICTE to inspect the
functioning of the petitioner to verify whether
the norms of overlapping hours were being strictly
followed by the petitioner and in default, to
order closure of the Second Shift courses
conducted by the petitioner. The closure of the
Second Shift courses, in our opinion, was not the
only option in the circumstances of the present
case. As a matter of fact, such a punitive action
should have been the last option, keeping in view
19 wp5442-16.odt
the country-side students taking education in the
Polytechnic Institution run by the petitioner.
The job of the AICTE, in our opinion, is not just
to work as fault finding agency and direct closure
of the courses, without extending any opportunity
to the Technical Institutions to remove the
deficiencies.
13. The petitioner undertook in writing to bring
the overlapping hours in the First and Second
shift in conformity to the norms of the AICTE. The
petitioner has been successfully and effectively
conducting the courses in the Second Shift since
2008-2009 with the approval of AICTE as is evident
from the approval orders produced on record. In
the circumstances, the decision of the AICTE for
closure of Second Shift courses of the petitioner
in the academic year 2016-2017 vide order dated
11.05.2016, that too, after extending approval
vide order dated 25.04.2016, has to be
20 wp5442-16.odt
characterised as arbitrary exercise of powers and
accordingly is liable to be quashed and set aside.
14. In the case of G.H.R. Education Foundation
Society, Nagpur (supra), this Court has emphasized
the need of having affiliation prior to admitting
students in the Technical Institutions. The
observations made in this judgment have no bearing
on the facts of the case in hand.
15. In the ultimate analysis of the facts and
circumstances discussed above, we hold that the
Corrigendum dated 01.05.2016 and the order dated
11.05.2016 are arbitrary and unreasonable. They
are liable to be quashed and set aside. The
approval order dated 25.04.2016 issued by
respondent no.3 is liable to be restored. Because
of the impugned Corrigendum and order, the
petitioner could not proceed with the admission
process even after getting approval vide order
21 wp5442-16.odt
dated 25.04.2016. Therefore, the latest cut-off
date fixed by the respondents, so far as the
petitioner is concerned, will have to be directed
to be extended by five days so as to facilitate
the petitioner to complete the centralised
admission process for the academic year 2016-2017.
16. In the result, we allow the Writ Petition with
the following order :-
O R D E R
(i) The Corrigendum dated 01.05.2016 and the
order dated 11.05.2016 closing the Diploma
Level Courses conducted by the petitioner in
the Second Shift, are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The order dated 25.04.2016 issued by
respondent no.3 extending approval to the
Second Shift Courses of the petitioner for the
academic year 2016-2017 stands restored.
22 wp5442-16.odt
(iii) The respondents shall include the
petitioner in the Centralised Admission
Process for the Second Shift Diploma Courses
for the academic year 2016-2017 in pursuance
of the order dated 25.04.2016 and extend the
latest cut-off date for the petitioner only by
five days from today, so as to enable it
participate and complete admission process.
(iv) The respondents shall publish
extended cut-off date of the petitioner on
their official Websites for information of all
the concerned.
(v) Rule made absolute in the above
terms.
(vi) The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(vii) The parties shall bear their own
costs.
23 wp5442-16.odt
(viii) The parties to act on authenticated
copies of this order.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
