Shreeyash Pratishthans ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5262 Bom

                                                                  W.P.No.9358/2017
                                       1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 9358 OF 2017

Shreeyash Pratishthan's
Shreeyash College of Engineering
& Technology, Gat No.258 (P),
Satara Parisar, Beed Bypass road,
Near SRDF Camp, Aurangaabad
Through its Director of Premises
Uttam s/o Baburao Kalwane,
Age 55 years, R/o Laxmi Nagar,
Aurangabad, Taluka and District
Aurangabad                                               .. Petitioner

        Versus

1.      State of Maharashtra,
        through the Secretary,
        Higher & Technical Education,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

2.      The Director of Technical
        Education, Maharashtra State,
        3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai

3.      All India Council for Technical
        Education, New Delhi,
        7th Floor, Chandralok Building,
        Janpath, New Delhi 110001
        Through its Member Secretary                     .. Respondents

Mr A.M. Karad, Advocate for petitioner Mr V.S. Badakh, AGP for respondents no.1 and 2 Mr S.V. Advant, Advocate for respondent no.3

CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND A.M. DHAVALE, JJ

DATE : 31st July 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties,

petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

2. The petitioner-institution is seeking directions to the respondent

no.2 Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai to

W.P.No.9358/2017

accord sanction for the intake capacity of the petitioner-institution for

the Direct 2nd Year Engineering Course in accordance with the

extension of approval letter dated 23 rd September 2016, issued by the

All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as

"AICTE" for brevity) and further issue directions to allot the students

in consonance with the revised intake capacity for the academic year

2017-18.

3. The petitioner-institution is operating a college of Engineering

since 2008 on no grant basis. The Engineering College is permitted to

admit students by virtue of grant of continuation of affiliation by the

AICTE in accordance with the Approval Process Handbook. The

College of Engineering imparts training to the students of Engineering

Degree in Computer Science and Engineering, Electronics and

Telecommunication Engineering and Mechanical Engineering faculties.

The approved intake of the Engineering College in respect of these

three faculties for the year 2015-16 was 120 students, however, the

approved intake was reduced to 30 in respect of all the three courses

by virtue of orders issued by the AICTE on 14 th Jun 2016. It does

appear that the petitioner-institution made representations to the

AICTE and in view of the subsequent order issued by AICTE on 23 rd

September 2016, the intake of the students in respect of three

Engineering Degree courses, referred to above has been prescribed as

60 students. However, since intake was increased by 30 students at

the fag end of September, the College could not admit the students

for the academic year 2016-17 and the strength of the students

admitted during the academic year 2016-17 in respect of above said

W.P.No.9358/2017

three courses was limited as 30 students. In the instant petition,

challenge is raised to the orders issued by the State Government

restricting intake capacity of the college in respect of aforesaid three

courses, for admitting the students to Direct Second Year additional

batch. In view of the policy prescribed by the AICTE, the College of

Engineering is entitled to open additional division for the Second Year

Engineering Course. The students who have completed Diploma

Course in Engineering and obtained B.Sc. degree are eligible to secure

admission to Direct Second Year Engineering Course. The intake

capacity of the Direct Second Year Engineering Course shall have to

be determined in accordance with Clause 9 of the Approval Process

Handbook for the year 2017-18 published by AICTE. It is provided in

Clause 9, second paragraph, that "Diploma Engineering students shall

be eligible for admission to Direct Second Year Engineer Courses up to

a maximum 20% 'Approved Intake' (30% for institutions in Andaman,

Nicobar, Lakshdweep, Daman and Diu) which shall be over and above

supernumerary to the 'Approved Intake' plus the unfilled vacancies of

1st year as per the Approval Process Handbook."

4. The Government of Maharashtra has published information

handbook for admission to undergraduate technical courses for the

year 2017-18. The handbook published by the State Government also

refers to the admissions for Direct Second Year Engineering and

Technology and Pharmacy Courses. The State has formulated rules

which are incorporated in Schedule-II relating to Direct Second Year

Engineering and Technology admissions. The distribution of seats

available are required to be notified on the website before submission

W.P.No.9358/2017

of form for centralised admission process. It is provided that (i)

Lateral Entry Seats: "20%" of the Sanctioned Intake for Engineering

and Technical would be available (ii) The seats remaining vacant of

particular branch less the admission during the previous year with due

consideration of the changes of the course or institution as given in

Rule 16, would be permitted.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon Clause (ii)

referred to above contends that since the institution was permitted to

admit additional 30 seats in view of corrigendum issued by the AICTE

on 23rd September 2016, the unfilled seats or vacancies remaining

shall have to be computed for the purposes of determining the intake

for the Direct Second Year Engineering and Technology Courses. The

petitioner contends that since the additional 30 seats were permitted

by AICTE in the month of September 2016, after completion of process

of admission, the institution could not fill those seats and as such,

seats remained vacant. It is contended that the vacancies remaining

during the year 2016-17 shall be considered to be vacant seats, for

the purpose of computing the total intake for Direct Second Year

Engineering and Technology Courses admissible for the college. The

contention raised by the petitioner to the extent permitting the

sanctioned intake in respect of Lateral Entry Seats i.e. 20% of the

sanctioned intake for Engineering and Technology Courses deserves

to be considered favourably. The sanctioned intake for Engineering

permitted by AICTE in view of the permission accorded on 23 rd

September 2016 was 60 seats for the above referred three courses.

While granting extension of approval for the year 2017-18, AICTE has

W.P.No.9358/2017

recorded the intake approved for the year 2016-17 First Year

Engineering and Technology Courses in respect of the three Courses

referred to above as 30 students and accordingly State has computed

the approved intake for the Direct Second Year Engineering and

Technology Courses permissible for the college. According to us, the

petitioner-institution shall be permitted to fill in Lateral Entry Seats,

20% of the sanctioned intake in Engineering and Technology Courses

based upon the approval accorded by AICTE and we direct the

respondent-State to compute the seats accordingly and permit the

institution to admit the students based upon such calculations.

6. The contention of the petitioner that institution shall be

permitted to fill in the vacancies, based upon number of seats, which

remained vacant within the sanctioned intake and as such 30 seats

permitted by the AICTE by virtue of the corrigendum issued on 23 rd

September 2016, shall be computed for the purposes of determining

the intake for Direct Second Year Engineering and Technology Courses

does not deserve consideration. The institution was permitted the

revised intake of additional 30 seats in the month of September 2016

and by then, the process of admitting the students to Engineering

Courses regulated as per the programme declared by the State of

Maharashtra was already over. Even otherwise, as per the directive

issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Parshavanath

Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs. All India Council for Tech.

Education & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 385, it was not

permissible for the petitioner-institution to admit the students after

the programme/schedule for admission prescribed by the State was

W.P.No.9358/2017

over. The unfilled seats, which were sanctioned after the cut off date

by the AICTE cannot be considered to be the vacancies so as to

facilitate the institution to admit additional students. AICTE has

published the regulations under the heading "Approval Process

Handbook 2017-18" and in view of Regulation 9 Chapter VI, it is

permissible for the institution to admit 20% of Lateral Entry Seats (+)

unfilled vacancies of First Year as per the Approval Process Handbook.

7. The Approval Process Handbook prescribes time frame for

admitting the students and since the admission programme was not

adhered to and the revised strength was made available after the

schedule of admission prescribed by the State Government was

already complete, the so called vacancies on which the petitioner is

placing reliance were, in fact, not available for the college/technical

institution. The revised seats permitted by the AICTE under the orders

dated 23rd September 2016 were not available for the college to be

filled in for the year 2016-17, for the simple reason that by the time

the revised seats were permitted, the whole process of admission

regulated by the Director of Technical Education/State Government

was already over and as such, the revised seats permitted by AICTE

under the orders issued on 23rd September 2016 cannot be computed

for the purposes of the term "vacancies", appearing in Regulation 9 of

Chapter VI of the Approval Process Handbook for the year 2017-18.

The vacancies shall be available as per the "Approval Process

Handbook" as well as the judgment in the matter of Parshavanath

Charitable Trust Vs. All India Council for Technical Education (cited

supra) delivered by the Supreme Court prescribing the time frame and

W.P.No.9358/2017

since the revised seats were made available after the admission

programme was over, those resultant vacancies cannot be said to be

available to the institution in consonance of Regulation 9 of Chapter VI

of the Approval Process Handbook. We, therefore, decline to grant

benefit in respect of the 'vacancies' in favour of the institution for

determining the strength of Direct Second Year Engineering and

Technology Course.

8. The petitioner-institution as such shall be permitted to fill in

Lateral Entry Seats for each of the Course referred to above.

9. Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above. There

shall be no order as to costs.

       ( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)                   ( R.M. BORDE, J.)




vvr