Bombay High Court
Sanmarg Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 27 September, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
Judgment 1 1.wp3640(JUD)-19.odt
-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3640 OF 2019
1) Sanmarg Shikshan Sanstha,
a Society registered under the provisions
of Societies Registration Act and
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act having
Office at E-2/F-3, New Nandanvan,
Nagpur, through its Secretary,
Shri Kiran S/o Krishnarao Pandav
2) Late Vasantdada Polytechnic
E-2/F-3, New Nandanvan, Near Water
Tank, Nagpur 440 009, through its
Principal, A.K. Jajulwar. .... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1) All India Council for Technical Education
having Office at Nelson Mandella Marg,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070, through
it's Member Secretary
E-mail : [email protected]
2) Director of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State having Office at 3,
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai
E-mail : [email protected]
3) Maharashtra State Board of Technical
Education, 49, Kherwadi, Bandra (E)
Mumbai-400 051, through its Director
E-mail: [email protected] .... RESPONDENTS.
______________________________________________________________
Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, AGP for the respondent no.2/State
______________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2021 02:20:01 :::
Judgment 2 1.wp3640(JUD)-19.odt
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. We have already taken a view while allowing the application
being Civil Application (CAW) No.1401 of 2021, by passing a detailed
order that both the objections taken by respondent No.1, as seen from
its reply (Page 69), are not tenable at law. We have found that there
being no norms prescribed by the All India Council for Technical
Education (for short 'the AICTE') for payment of salary of the teaching
and non-teaching staff, it should not be a matter of concern for the
AICTE as to at what rate salary should be paid to the teaching and non-
teaching staff and therefore, the objection taken by the AICTE that no
bank statement has been furnished by the college Authority to it in
order to enable it to verify the issue of payment of salary in terms of
6th Pay Commission Recommendation is not sound. We have also found
that the requirement of land having increased area has come into force
with effect from 31.12.2018 and that being so, it would not be
Judgment 3 1.wp3640(JUD)-19.odt
applicable to the colleges, which were established much earlier than
the year 2018.
4. This college has received its first approval in the year 1990,
though on year to year basis and was receiving approval later on also
on yearly basis, but that could not mean that every year, whenever the
case of the petitioner-college is considered for grant of approval, the
college would have to be treated as if it has been established only
during that year.
5. This is the view taken by the Coordinate Division Bench of this
Court at Aurangabd in the case of Dr.J.J. Magdum College of
Engineering through its Principal Vs. AICTE and others in Writ Petition
No.10130 of 2014, vide its judgment delivered on 03.05.2019. The
Division Bench has held that the new guidelines being prospective in
nature, would only apply to the cases where approval for starting new
course has been sought. This means that the new guidelines would not
be applicable to the existing courses or existing colleges.
6. In the present case, no approval for starting of any new course or
new college has been sought and therefore, the new guidelines would
have no application to the approval sought in the present case. Thus,
we are of the view that the facts of the instant case are squarely
covered by the view taken by the Division Bench at Aurangabad in the
Judgment 4 1.wp3640(JUD)-19.odt
aforestated case.
7. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The petition is
allowed.
8. The impugned order of withdrawal of approval is hereby
quashed and set aside.
9. We direct the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to grant approval to the
college for the year from 2019-20 and allow the petitioner-college to
take part in the central admission process.
10. Rule accordingly. No costs.
( ANIL S. KILOR, J ) ( SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
ndthawre
