Sanmarg Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur ... vs All India Council For Technical ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13915 Bom

                                                                            1wp3640.2019.odt
                                              1/3



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                    CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO.1401 OF 2021
                                       IN
                      CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3640 OF 2019

 Sanmarg Shikshan Sanstha, through its Secretary, Shri Kiran s/o. Krishnarao Pandav and
             anr. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions           Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
                            Mr.F.T. Mirza, Advocate for petitioners
                            Mr. N.P. Lambat, Advocate for respondent No.1
                            Ms. N.P. Mehta, AGP for the respondent No.2/State


                            CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                    ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2021.

The application is strongly opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.1. According to him, the petitioner-Institution has not submitted documents of bank statements showing the payment of salary and also does not fulfill the norms regarding land requirement as prescribed in the Amended Rule which came into force with effect from 31.12.2018 and as stated in Annual Process Handbook.

2. As far as the first objection is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'the AICTE') does not prescribe any norms for payment of salary and if this is so, it should

1wp3640.2019.odt

not be any concern of the AICTE as to, at what rate the salary of the teachers and the lecturers must be paid by the college.

3. None of the teachers is before this Court, nor any teacher has raised any grievance about non- payment of salary as per the 6 th Pay Commission Recommendation. Therefore, this objection taken by the AICTE, at least at this stage, does not appear to be sound.

4. As regards the second objection pertaining to the deficient land possession by the petitioner college, we must say that the issue appears to be settled by the view taken by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court 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, judgment delivered on 03.05.2019, wherein the Division Bench has held that to a college established before the aforestated norms came into force, the norms regarding land requirement prevailing at the time when the first approval was granted to the college would govern and not the norms which came later on in the year 2018. Thus, even the second objection, at least at this stage, cannot be accepted.

5. In view of above, we find that this application deserves to be allowed and it is allowed in terms of its

1wp3640.2019.odt

prayer clause.

6. The application is disposed of.

7. Authenticated copy be furnished to the parties.

                                           JUDGE                              JUDGE
nd.thawre