Delhi High Court
Guru Teg Bahadur Institute Of ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 11 August, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 11, 2016
+ LPA 451/2016 & & C.M.No.29163/2016(stay),C.M.No.29164/2016
(addl.docs.)
GURU TEG BAHADUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
& ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Sr.Adv. with
Dr.Sarbjit Sharma, Mr.Jasmeet Singh,
Ms.Priamvada Surolia, Ms.Devika Bhagat,
Ms. Gayatri and Ms.Aastha, Advs.
Versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anil K.Soni, Adv. with
Mr.Naginder Benipal, Adv. for R-1/AICTE.
Mr.Arun Birbal, Adv. with Mr.Sanjay Singh, Adv.
for DDA.
Ms.Anita Sahani, Adv. for R-3/GGSIPU.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
Ms.G. ROHINI, Chief Justice (ORAL)
1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3684/2016
aggrieved by the dismissal of CM No.15761/2016 by the learned Single
Judge by order dated 02.08.2016.
2. The appellant No.2/writ petitioner No.2 is Delhi Sikh Gurudwara
Management Committee, stated to be a statutory body constituted under
Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1971 with the primary object of looking after
Gurudwara properties in Delhi and also imparting education, etc. The
appellant Nos.1 and 3/writ petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are the two Technical
Institutions established by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee
(for short 'DSGM Committee').
3. While appellant No.1 is an Institute which conducts Under-Graduate
courses and operates from Rajouri Garden of Delhi, the appellant No.3 is an
Institute which conducts Polytechnic courses and grants Diplomas in
Engineering. It operates from Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Both appellant
Nos.1 and 3 are governed by the provisions of All India Council for
Technical Education Act, 1987 ('AICTE Act, 1987'). Appellant No.1 being
an Institute conducting Under-Graduate courses is affiliated to Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University.
4. W.P.(C) No.3684/2016 was filed by the appellants aggrieved by two
proceedings of AICTE dated 19.04.2016 placing the appellant Nos.1 and 3
under "No Admission Status" for the Academic Year 2016-17 for the
reasons stated therein.
5. Initially, by order dated 17.06.2016 in CM No.23394/2016, this Court
as an interim measure permitted the appellants/petitioners to take part in
counselling process but not to admit students.
6. Thereafter, CM No.15761/2016 came to be filed seeking to stay the
operation of the impugned letters dated 19.04.2016 and direct AICTE to
grant extension of approval to appellant Nos.1 and 3 for the Academic
Session 2016-17. By the impugned order dated 02.08.2016, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the said application observing -
"53. By this application, the petitioners seek ad-interim stay
of the impugned letters of AICTE dated 19.04.2016. The
effect of such an order would amount to stay of the direction
of AICTE placing the petitioners 1 and 3 in NO
ADMISSION category. Which would imply that the
petitioners would be permitted to admit students without
there being any approval of AICTE or affiliation with the
University or Technical Board, as the case may be. It is not
in dispute that all institutes, existing and new, require
approval of the AICTE prior to any intake of students for
any academic session. Without any approval of AICTE,
there cannot be any affiliation with any university or
technical board.
54. AICTE in the impugned letters dated 19.04.2016 has
pointed out to deficiencies in both the petitioner Institute and
Polytechnic. Both the Institute and Polytechnic have been
refused approval for intake of students for the academic
session 2016 - 2017. Since there is no approval by AICTE,
the Petitioner Institute cannot seek any affiliation from the
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Respondent
No. 3) and the Petitioner Polytechnic cannot seek affiliation
with the Directorate of Training and Technical Education
(Respondent No. 4).
56. Even if assuming the issue of the use of land were to be
ignored for the time being, because of delay on the part of
DDA, the petitioners would have to remove the other
deficiencies. After removal of the deficiencies, the
petitioners would have to approach AICTE for approval
which would then have to have the facilities inspected once
again. If approval is accorded, the Petitioner would have to
then approach the University or the Technical Board for
affiliation. Only once all this is done would the petitioners be
able to have intake of students. The entire process would
take time.
57. One can also not lose sight of the facts submitted by the
Counsel for UGC that 6870 candidates have already been
allotted seats as per their rank and as per the rank of the
Institutes and choice of the candidates. The third round of
counseling was concluded on 16.07.2016 The sliding round
was held on 21.07.2016. The remaining vacancies, are to be
filled up in the spot round of counseling to be held between
31.07.2016 to 06.08.2016. The academic session is to
commence from 01.08.2016.
58. In case, the Petitioner Institute is provisionally permitted
to admit students, the entire exercise of allocation of
seats/counseling undertaken over a period of two months in
various institutes would be set to naught. It would have a
cascading effect of unsettling the entire allocation of seats
and would disrupt the academic schedule. Further, in case
the petitioner does not to succeed in the Writ Petition, the
students admitted by interim orders, would have to be
adjusted in different institutes in and around Delhi which
may not be possible on account of unavailability of seats at
that point of time and may also lead to litigation and
harassment to students.
59. No doubt, a High Court while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would have
the power, in the facts of a case, to direct AICTE to grant
approval and also permit intake of students after the
scheduled date. However, exercise of such a power would be
the exception and not the rule. In my view, the facts of the
present case do not justify such an exceptional exercise of
power.
60. Orders permitting provisional admission of students
imposing conditions such as making it clear to the students
that against the refusal to grant extension of approval, the
writ petition was pending and any admission made would be
subject to the outcome of the petition and students shall not
be entitled to claim any equity on the basis of the interim
order, in my view, create a lot of uncertainty. It puts the
career of students, who take provisional admission, at risk.
The mere fact, that students are willing to take such a risk,
does not justify putting them at such a crossroad unless the
peculiar facts of the case warrant such an interim order. As
noted above, the facts of the present case, do not justify such
an interim order.
61. In view of the above, I find no merit in the application. It
is accordingly dismissed."
7. Assailing the said order, it is submitted by Shri A.S. Chandhiok, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the alleged
deficiencies on the basis of which the appellant Nos.1 and 3 Institutes were
placed in "No Admission Status" are factually incorrect and therefore the
learned Single Judge ought to have permitted the appellant Nos.1 and 3
Institutes to make admissions for the Academic Year 2016-17. It is also
submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University has already granted affiliation
for the appellant No.1 Institute for the Academic Year 2016-17 and thus
erred in concluding that without approval of AICTE there cannot be
affiliation with any University or Technical Board.
8. However, it is pointed out by Shri Anil K. Soni, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents that the recommendation of the University for
grant of affiliation for the programmes conducted by the appellant No.1 was
subject to AICTE approval and the same does not carry any weight since
AICTE declined to grant approval for the Academic Year 2016-17. It is also
contended by the learned counsel that since the Academic Schedule fixed for
the Academic Year 2016-17 is over and the Academic Session has already
commenced from 01.08.2016, there cannot be any direction for admission of
students at this stage and the learned Single Judge was therefore right in
declining to permit the appellants to make admissions pending disposal of
the main writ petition.
9. Having perused the material available on record, we found that certain
major deficiencies with regard to the land, building, infrastructure and
faculty were specified in the orders dated 19.04.2016 while placing the
appellant Nos.1 and 3 under "No Admission Status" for the Academic Year
2016-17. One of the said deficiencies is non-fulfilment of faculty criteria
and as we could see, it was found by the Standing Appellate Committee that
more than 50% of the faculty members are on contract basis without proper
selection process and they are not even paid salary as per AICTE norms.
Therefore, the contention of the appellants that there is no valid ground for
placing the appellant Nos.1 and 3 under "No Admission Status" is without
any substance.
10. Para 14.4 of AICTE (Grant of Approvals for the Technical
Institutions) Regulations, 2012 reads as under:
"14.4 Non fulfillment in Faculty: Student ratio, not
adhering to pay-scales and / or qualifications prescribed
for teaching staff
Institutions not maintaining prescribed Faculty: Student
ratio, not adhering to Pay scales and / or qualifications
prescribed for teaching staff for more than 18 months, shall
be liable to following punitive action by the Council from
any one or more of the following.
1. Suspension of approval for supernumerary seats, if any,
for one academic year.
2. No admission status in respective courses for one
academic year.
3. Withdrawal of approval in the respective course.
4. Withdrawal of approval of the Institution."
11. In the light of the above statutory provision, the action of AICTE in
placing the appellant Nos.1 and 3 under "No Admission Status" for the
Academic Year 2016-17 cannot be held to be ex-facie illegal, particularly
for the purpose of granting interim relief by permitting to admit the students.
12. Be that as it may, as per the Admission Schedule set out in
Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. v. All India Council for Technical
Education & Ors.; (2013) 3 SCC 385, 1st August of every year shall be the
commencement of Academic Session and 15th August shall be the last date
upto which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any
reason. It was made clear by the Supreme Court that no student should be
admitted in any Institution after the last date under any quota. It was also
made clear that 15th May shall be the last date for granting or refusing
approval by University/State Government. As rightly held by the learned
Single Judge absolutely no case is made out by the writ petitioners to deviate
from the said Schedule.
13. It is also relevant to notice that though the appellants were permitted
by way of an interim order dated 17.06.2016 to participate in the
counselling, they were not allowed to admit the students. No purpose would
therefore be served by permitting the appellants to admit the students at the
fag end of the Admission Schedule. At any rate, such direction by way of an
interim order is against the interest of the students and therefore we do not
find any reason to interfere with the order under appeal.
14. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 11, 2016
kks
