Ims Engineering College vs All India Council For Technical ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3456 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Date of decision: 1st August, 2014

+      LPA 524/2013 & CMs No.11259/2013 (directions), 11263/2013
       (additional facts), 11828/2013 (additional facts) & 12834/2013 (Order
       1 Rule 10)
       IMS ENGINEERING COLLEGE                      ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. with
                             Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv.

                                   Versus

    ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL
    EDUCATION & ANR                            ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar with Ms. Priti
                           Kumari, Adv. for R-1.
                           Mr. Anil Mittal with Mr. Anuj Kumar
                           Ranjan, Adv. for R-2.
                           Mr. Anshuman Jain, Adv. for the
                           applicant.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 12th July, 2013 of the

learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.320/2013 filed

by the appellant and directing the respondent Mahamaya Technical University

to transfer the students who were admitted by the appellant/writ petitioner in

the academic year 2012-13 in the courses for which the appellant writ petitioner

had no approval, to the nearby All India Council for Technical Education

(AICTE) approved technical institutions affiliated to the said University. The

respondent AICTE was also directed to allow supernumerary seats in the

institutions in which the said students were so accommodated.

2. Notice of the appeal was issued and vide interim order dated 6 th August,

2013, the transfer of the students as ordered by the learned Single Judge was

stayed. We have heard the counsel for the appellant on 14 th July, 2014 and the

senior counsel for the appellant on 17th July, 2014 as well as the counsel for the

respondent AICTE and reserved judgment giving liberty to both the parties to

file their written submissions. Written submissions have been filed by the

counsel for the appellant.

3. During the hearing, it was informed that the respondent Mahamaya

Technical University has now merged in U.P. Technical University. Though

the counsel for the appellant had faintly suggested that an opportunity be given

to substitute and serve the said U.P. Technical University but finding the same

not to have been done till date inspite of sufficient time having elapsed and

further finding the appellant to be enjoying the interim stay in this proceeding

and yet further being of the view that further delay if any will hurt the students,

who vide the judgment of the learned Single Judge had been ordered to be

transferred to the other Institutes and who owing to the interim order in this

appeal were continuing in the institute of the appellant if ultimately the appeal

were to be dismissed, we proceeded with the hearing.

4. We must also record that though on 14th July, 2014, a counsel claiming to

be representing the said students had appeared and had also stated that he was

supporting the appeal but upon our enquiring from the said counsel as to how it

was in the interest of the students to continue in the Institute of the appellant, if

the same does not have approval from the respondent AICTE and as to how the

said students hoped to get a degree, the counsel had stated that he will obtain

instructions. He failed to appear on 17th July, 2014 though we find that on the

basis of the appearance given by him, his name has been recorded in the order

dated 17th July, 2014.

5. The appellant filed the writ petition, pleading:

(i) that it is a self financed private college established in the year

2002;

(ii) that the appellant while applying for extension of approval for the

academic year 2012-13 qua the engineering courses / subjects for

which it had already been granted approval by the respondent

AICTE in the previous years, also sought approval of the

respondent AICTE for increasing the intake of students in B. Tech

(Electrical & Electronics Engineering) from 60 to 120 and for

commencing new course of B.Tech (Civil Engineering) in two

shifts with intake of 60 students in each shift;

(iii) that the appellant, again in accordance with the prescribed

procedure of the respondent AICTE, was to view the status of its

application for extension of approval and for approval for

increased intake and for new course, on the respondent AICTE's

web portal;

(iv) that the respondent AICTE on 10th May, 2012 uploaded on its web

portal the status of the application submitted by the appellant for

extension of approval and approval for increased intake and for

new course and the approval displayed, besides showing grant of

extension, also showed the respondent AICTE to have granted

approval / permission to the appellant for increasing the intake in

B.Tech. (Electrical & Electronics Engineering) course from 60 to

120, as well as for starting B. Tech (Civil Engineering) in two

shifts of 60 students each;

(v) the appellant immediately approached the Mahamaya Technical

University, Noida to expedite the grant of affiliation for the

academic years 2012-13;

(vi) that prior to 10th May, 2012, on 25th April, 2012, the respondent

AICTE had conducted a surprise inspection of the college

premises of the appellant; the respondent issued a show cause

notice dated 24th May, 2012 to the appellant pointing out certain

deficiencies;

(vii) the appellant gave a detailed reply to the show cause notice and

also availed of the opportunity of personal hearing on 11th June,

2012;

(viii) on 16th July, 2012, the respondent AICTE got conducted another

surprise inspection of the college premises of the appellant by the

Expert Visiting Committee (EVC);

(ix) that the EVC reported the appellant to be complying with all the

requirements;

(x) that the Mahamaya Technical University, Noida also inspected the

college premises of the appellant on 21st July, 2012 and 29th

August, 2012 and inter alia granted permission to the appellant for

increasing the intake of students in B.Tech. (Electrical &

Electronics Engineering) from 60 to 120 and for starting B.Tech.

(Civil Engineering) with intake of 60 student in each shift, for

which appellant had been granted approval by the respondent

AICTE;

(xi) that on 21st October, 2012, the appellant was telephonically asked

to come to the office of the respondent on 22nd October, 2012 with

a list of faculty members; however the officials of the appellant on

reaching the office of the respondent AICTE were asked to appear

before a Hearing Committee and submitted the list of faculty

members; however on 29th October, 2012 a protest was lodged as

to the manner in which the appellant was called to appear on 22 nd

October, 2012, without prior notice;

(xii) the appellant on 7th November, 2012 received communication

asking the appellant to appear before the Standing Complaint

Committee (SCC) / Standing Appellate Committee (SAC) of the

respondent AICTE on 8th November, 2013 again with the list of

faculty members; the appellant again submitted documents;

(xiii) that the appellant on 5th December, 2012 also made a

representation to the respondent AICTE;

(xiv) on 12th December, 2012, the appellant received a communication

to attend the hearing before the SAC of the respondent AICTE on

17th December, 2012 with supporting documents; the appellant

again appeared and submitted all the documents;

(xv) that Mahamaya Technical University also on 17 th December, 2012

issued affiliation letter to the appellant with respect to the

academic session 2012-13 including for the new course of B.Tech.

(Civil Engineering) & increased intake in B.Tech. (Electrical &

Electronics Engineering);

(xvi) that the respondent AICTE vide letter dated 4th January, 2013 to

the appellant informed the appellant that the respondent AICTE

had not acceded to the request of the appellant for introduction of

the new course in B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) and increased

intake in B. Tech. (Electrical & Electronics Engineering) as

aforesaid.

6. The writ petition was entertained and a response thereto was filed by the

respondent AICTE. During the hearing before the learned Single Judge on 13 th

January, 2013 an agreement was reached between the appellant / writ petitioner

and the respondent AICTE that the appellant / writ petitioner shall appear

before the Committee constituted by the respondent AICTE on 7th February,

2013 along with the documents, comprising of list of faculty (discipline wise /

course wise), original selection proceedings, approval receipts from the

University, Form 16A and attendance register and salary slips for the last six

months and the hearing of the writ petition was adjourned. The appellant so

appeared before the Court directed Committee and the said Committee

submitted its report to the Court. It appears that the Vice Chairman and

Director of the appellant had also misbehaved before the said Committee and

for which conduct they appeared in person before the learned Single Judge on

15th February, 2013 and apologized and which apology was accepted. In the

meanwhile, Mahamaya Technical University addressed a letter dated 7 th

February, 2013 to the respondent AICTE stating that the list of faculty

members / Director / Principal as submitted by the appellant to the University

had not been approved by the University. The said letter was brought to the

notice of the learned Single Judge on 21st February, 2013 and which resulted in

the said Mahamaya Technical University which till then was not a party to the

writ petition being impleaded as a party thereto. The appellant / writ petitioner

during the hearing before the learned Single Judge on 30th April, 2013 again

sought an opportunity of hearing before the AICTE to satisfy the respondent

AICTE that it complied with all the requirements. However, the said

suggestion was not acceptable to the respondent AICTE. The Mahamaya

Technical University also filed an affidavit before the learned Single Judge.

7. The learned Single Judge has vide impugned order dismissed the writ

petition, finding / observing / holding:

(a) that the Court directed Committee comprising of Justice P.C. Jain

(Retd.), Professor B.B. Ahuja, Deputy Director, College of

Engineering, Pune and Professor K. Thirumaran, NIT, Trichi had

reported:

(i) that the appellant claimed that 17 faculty members to be on

study leave but was unable to show any documents in that

regard including of payment of salary to them;

(ii) that the Director of the appellant institute / college was not

qualified as per Regulations; he was required to be a

Graduate in Engineering / Technology with post graduate

qualification also in Engineering/Technology and PhD in

Engineering / Technology but was not even a Engineering /

Technology graduate;

(iii) that the appellant college had been unable to show that it

had any recruitment process for selection of faculty;

(iv) that the appellant had admitted that no individual approval

letters as required had been given by Mahamaya Technical

University with respect to appointment of faculty members

though each faculty member had been given an ID by the

said University;

(v) however the University on enquiries had informed that none

of the teachers in the appellant including the Director had

been approved by the said University;

(vi) that though the appellant ought to have had 228 faculty

members but had only 215; out of the said 215 also, 39 had

been appointed after the commencement of the academic

session 2012-13 and out of which 38 were appointed only in

January, 2013 i.e. five months after the commencement of

the academic session; thus prior to January, 2013, as against

the requisite 228 faculty members, there were only 180

faculty members;

(vii) that for B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) first and second shift,

there were no faculty members available as against the

requirement of four faculty members for each shift;

(viii) that though as per the Rules / Regulations, the Selection

Committee for recruitment of faculty members was required

to have a nominee of the University but the University had

informed that the appellant had never approached it for

nominating anyone on the Selection Committee;

(ix) that the University had also informed that it does not allot

any ID number to any faculty members of any affiliated

college and only for the purpose of examination, a teacher

code and a password which is not ID number is issued;

(b) that there is no reason to reject the report aforesaid of the Court

directed Committee; though the appellant had filed certain

objections thereto but there was no substance in the said

objections;

(c) that the conduct of the appellant before the Committee was also

totally unacceptable;

(d) as against the requirement of 228 faculty members, only 76 faculty

members were found present in the campus of the appellant

College;

(e) it was therefore evident that the overall faculty strength of the

appellant college was much less than the required strength and

respondent AICTE cannot be expected to grant approval for start

of a new course; the same also constitute justification for

withdrawing the 'System Generated Approval';

(f) that though the appellant sought to explain the shortage in faculty

members by saying that the course in all subjects / streams of

B.Tech. in the first year is common but the same could not be

accepted in the face of the Regulations of AICTE;

(g) that the students which were admitted by the appellant for the

academic year 2012-13 on the strength of System Generated

Approval were thus required to be transferred / accommodated in

the neighbouring AICTE approved colleges.

8. The counsel for the appellant during the hearing on 14th July, 2014

argued that the 120 students admitted by the appellant to the B.Tech (Civil

Engineering) and the additional 60 students admitted by the appellant to the B.

Tech. (Electrical & Electronics Engineering) courses in the year 2012-13, and

who vide the impugned order had been ordered to be transferred to other

colleges and of which order in this appeal interim stay has been granted, have

already completed two out of the four years course and are now in their third

year. Attention was drawn to the download taken on 17th May, 2012 from the

website of the respondent AICTE of the letter dated 10 th May, 2012 of the

respondent AICTE to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education,

Government of Uttar Pradesh according approval to the appellant to admit 120

students in B.Tech. (Electrical & Electronics Engineering) as against the intake

of 60 sanctioned for the said course in the previous academic year 2011-12 and

to admit 120 students in B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) in two shifts with intake

strength of 60 in each and in which course no students were admitted in the

previous academic year 2011-12. It was argued that the respondent AICTE,

after having so granted approval on 10th May, 2012, and in pursuance whereto

180 students i.e. 120 in B.Tech (Civil Engineering) (two shifts) and additional

60 students in B. Tech (Electrical & Electronics Engineering) were admitted,

could not have on 4th January, 2013 withdrawn the said approval.

9. We had on 14th July, 2014 enquired from the counsel for the appellant

the status of the academic year 2013-14 with respect to the said two courses.

We were informed that the appellant, in the academic year 2013-14, did not

apply only for extension of approval dated 10th May, 2012 (though withdrawn

on 4th January, 2013) for admission of any students in B.Tech. (Civil

Engineering) or for admission of additional 60 students in B. Tech (Electrical &

Electronics Engineering) and resultantly no students in B.Tech. (Civil

Engineering) were admitted in the academic session 2013-14 and in B. Tech

(Electrical & Electronics Engineering) only 60 students were admitted.

10. We also enquired from the counsel for the appellant the position with

respect to the academic year 2014-15. We were told that the appellant has been

granted approval for admission of only 60 students in B. Tech. (Civil

Engineering) and the position of B. Tech. (Electrical & Electronics

Engineering) remains the same i.e. the approval is for admission of 60 students

only.

11. We had as such enquired from the counsel for the appellant that when the

appellant in the academic year 2013-14, subsequent to the academic session

2012-13 qua which these proceedings are concerned, did not even apply for

admitting any students in B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) or for additional strength

of 60 in B.Tech. (Electrical & Electronics Engineering), was it not indicative of

the appellant in the academic session 2012-13 also being not eligible for

commencing the new course in B. Tech. (Civil Engineering) and for additional

strength of 60 students in B. Tech. (Electrical & Electronics Engineering). We

further enquired from the counsel for the appellant on 14 th July, 2014 that

whether not the fact that the appellant even in the current academic year 2014-

15 has approval for only 60 students instead of 120 students in B.Tech (Civil

Engineering) and 60 students in B.Tech (Electrical & Electronics) instead of

120, also re ipsa loquitor is indicative of the appellant even in the year 2012-13

being not eligible for the approvals in dispute inasmuch as if the appellant was

so eligible, the said eligibility would have continued in the subsequent

academic sessions 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is not the case of the appellant that

though the appellant was eligible in 2012-13 for the new courses in B. Tech

(Civil Engineering) and for increased strength in B. Tech (Electrical &

Electronics Engineering) but made itself ineligible therefor in the subsequent

academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Faced therewith, the counsel for the

appellant had sought adjournment.

12. During the hearing on 17th July, 2014, the senior counsel for the

appellant purported to respond to the aforesaid query by contending that the

appellant could not have applied for approval in the year 2013-14 for B.Tech

(Civil Engineering) or for increased in strength in B. Tech (Electrical &

Electronics Engineering) owing to the pendency of the writ petition.

13. We are unable to agree. The Regulations of the AICTE require approval

for each academic year. The appellant admittedly applied for approval qua

other courses. The appellant if deemed itself equipped and eligible in the

academic year 2013-14 for admitting students in B.Tech (Civil Engineering) or

for admitting additional strength of students in B.Tech. (Electrical &

Electronics Engineering) could have very well so applied or sought a direction

from this Court for consideration of its application for the academic year

2013-14. Similarly, the fact that the appellant in the academic session 2014-15

applied for admission of only 60 students instead of 120 in B. Tech (Civil

Engineering) and 60 instead of 120 students in B.Tech (Electrical & Electronics

Engineering) is unequivocal admission of the appellant of being not equipped /

eligible for admitting 120 students in B.Tech (Civil Engineering) and additional

60 students in B.Tech (Electronic & Electricals Engineering) for the academic

year 2012-13.

14. Though the senior counsel for the appellant also sought to poke holes in

the proceedings conducted by the respondent AICTE, resulting in the letter

dated 4th January, 2013 which was impugned in the writ petition but we do not

deem it expedient to deal with the said arguments inasmuch as inspite of the

learned Single Judge, during the pendency of the writ petition having given yet

another opportunity to the appellant to prove its eligibility before a Committee

comprising of a retired High Court judge and two Professors, was unable to do

so.

15. The counsel for the respondent AICTE has drawn our attention to the All

India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical

Institutions) Regulations, 2012. With reference to Regulations 4.1, 4.9, 4.11,

4.27, 4.28 and 4.31, it is argued that the process of according approval for

extension of approval and / or for increase in intake in existing course and / or

for adding course is without manual / human intervention and web portal based;

if the institution fills all the columns of the prescribed form, approval is

automatically given though is not visible till the Expert Committee has

accorded approval; that the grant of approval is on the basis of self disclosure

and without any scrutiny and the institutions are expected to provide true and

complete information and documents; however if the information given and / or

the documents provided are found to be false or incomplete, the Regulations

provide for withdrawal of approval and other actions.

16. It is further argued by the counsel for the respondent AICTE that though

on the basis of disclosure by the appellant, the respondent AICTE on 10th May,

2012 displayed approval having been granted to the appellant for the fresh

additional course in B. Tech (Civil Engineering) and for increased intake in B.

Tech (Electrical and Electronics Engineering) but on scrutiny of documents, the

appellant was not found eligible to commence the fresh course in B.Tech (Civil

Engineering) and to additional intake in B. Tech (Electrical & Electronics

Engineering) and thus correction was made on the website of the respondent

AICTE in the evening of 17th May, 2012 itself and as per which correction, the

appellant was not accorded approval for commencing the fresh course in B.

Tech (Civil Engineering) and for additional strength of 60 students in B. Tech

(Electrical & Electronics Engineering). This is so stated in the additional

affidavit dated 26.02.2013 of the respondent AICTE filed before the learned

Single Judge.

17. We then enquired as to when the appellant admitted 120 students in B.

Tech (Civil Engineering) and for additional strength of 60 students in B. Tech

(Electrical & Electronics Engineering).

18. We were informed it was in July-August, 2012.

19. We then enquired as to why the appellant so admitted the students when

the respondent AICTE had in the evening of 17th May, 2012 itself withdrawn

the approval. Though the counsel for the appellant faintly sought to controvert

the above but on enquiry whether the appellant had filed or was in possession

of any download from the website of the respondent AICTE after 17 th May,

2012 to show that thereafter also the appellant was shown as having approval

for admitting 120 students in B. Tech (Civil Engineering) and additional 60

students in B. Tech (Electrical & Electronics Engineering), the counsel for the

appellant stated that he had none. We may notice that the appellant has filed a

printout of the download done on 22nd October, 2012 and as per which the said

approval does not exists. The appellant has also filed a reply dated 11th March,

2013 to the additional affidavit aforesaid of the respondent AICTE and a

perusal thereof also shows the appellant to have not controverted the removal

on evening of 17th May, 2012 of approval dated 10th May, 2013 from the

website of the respondent AICTE. All that is pleaded is that notice of such

removal of approval was not given, neither to appellant nor to the University

nor to the State Govt. to whom the approval dated 10 th May, 2012 had earlier

been communicated. The appellant has also admitted learnt of withdrawal of

approval on 6th August, 2012.

20. What thus emerges is that the appellant, lacking advantage of the

approval accorded by the respondent AICTE on 10 th May, 2012 but which was

withdrawn in the evening of 17th May, 2012 and of which withdrawal the

appellant, if not earlier, at least on 6th August, 2012 was made aware, went

ahead with the admission of students and for which admission the appellant, on

the date of admission had no approval of the respondent AICTE. The

communicated dated 6th January, 2013 of the respondent AICTE impugning

which the writ petition was filed, was merely a rejection by the respondent

AICTE of the representation of the appellant against withdrawal/non-grant of

the approval sought for additional students in B.Tech (Electrical & Electronics

Engineering) and additional course in B.Tech (Civil Engineering).

21. The Mahamaya Technical University also filed an affidavit in May, 2013

before the Single Judge to the effect that the appellant, as required to as an

affiliate college/institution of the University, had not involved the University in

the appointment of a single faculty member. The same also raises doubts as to

the genuineness/merit even of the faculty members which exit in the appellant

college.

22. In the aforesaid scenario when the bodies entrusted with

regulating/controlling education have found deficiencies in the appellant

college, we find no reason to interfere. There is another aspect. The challenge

by the appellant to the decision of the respondent AICTE communicated vide

letter dated 6th January, 2013 of rejection of representation of appellant against

withdrawal/non-grant of approval for additional students in existing course and

for additional course, in our view ended upon the appellant as well as

respondent AICTE agreeing before the learned Single Judge for consideration

of the matter by the Court directed Committee. The report of the Court directed

Committee also is against the appellant. The appellant is deemed to have

agreed to be bound by the said report and cannot, after the said report is against

it, revive the challenge.

23. From the aforesaid, it will be clear that the appellant is not entitled to any

relief.

24. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

25. The Mahamaya Technical University having now merged with the

Punjab Technical University, the said Punjab Technical University will be

bound by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and the respondent

AICTE and the Punjab Technical University to immediately take steps for so

transferring the students.

26. We also impose costs of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant for misrepresenting

the facts and for abuse of the process of this Court.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 01, 2014 'gsr'..