Delhi High Court
Mangalmay Institute Of ... vs Ggsip University And Anr on 5 June, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: May 26, 2017
Judgment delivered on: June 05, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2377/2017, CM No. 10223/2017
+ W.P.(C) 2393/2017, CM No. 10328/2017
+ W.P.(C) 2465/2017, CM No. 10633/2017
+ W.P.(C) 3148/2017, CM No. 13715/2017
+ W.P.(C) 2798/2017, CM No. 12198/2017
+ W.P.(C) 2955/2017, CM No. 12864/2017
MANGALMAY INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & TECHNOLOGY AND
ANR
ACCMAN BUSINESS SCHOOL AND ANR
TRINITY INSTITUTE OF INNOVATION IN PROFESSIONAL STUDIES &
ANR
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
GREATER NOIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANR
DELHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY &
MANAGEMENT ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sacchin Puri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sanjeev
Nasiar, Ms.Mehak Tanwar, Advs. for the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2393 of 2017
Mr.R.K.Saini, Ms.Asha Jain Madan,, Mr. Varun
Nagrath & Mr. Udit Malik Advs. also appearing
for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 2377/2017,
2393/2017, 2465/2017 & 2798/2017
Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manjit Singh
Ahluwalia, Ms.Wamika Trehan, Advs. in
W.P.(C) 2955/2017
Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Adv. for the petitioner in
W.P.(C) 3148/2017
versus
GGSIP UNIVERSITY AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Mukul Talwar, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Anita Sahani
and Ms. Leela Suman, Advs. for R1-GGSIP
University in W.P.(C) Nos. 2377/2017,
2393/2017, 3148/2017 and 2955/2017.
W.P.(C) 2377/2017 and connected matters Page 1 of 59
Mr.Parag P.Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Sradhananda Mohapatra, Adv. for GGSIP in
W.P.(C) 2798/2017
Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC (GNCTD) with Ms.
Neelam Kholiya, Adv. for R-2 in W.P.(C)
2377/2017, 2393/2017, 2465/2017, 3148/2017
and 2798/2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. As common issue arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions, which is
primarily a challenge to the letter dated February 2, 2017 of the respondent No.2 to the
respondent No.1, they are being decided by this judgment.
Facts in W.P.(C) 2377/2017
2. The present petition has been filed by two petitioners Mangalmay Institute of
Management & Technology and Mangalmay Foundation Trust. It is the case of the
petitioner No.2 herein that it has established an Educational Institution with all
infrastructure and facilities to start academic activities and imparting education from the
academic session 2017-18. As the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No.1
University extends to the whole of National Capital Region, the respondent No.1 has
been considering applications for affiliation of educational institutes located/established
in NCR.
3. It is the case of the petitioners, on December 22, 2016, the petitioner No.2
Institute was granted the NOC by the concerned State Government i.e. U.P.
Government for its affiliation with the respondent No.1 University for several courses.
It is their case that on December 28, 2016, the petitioner also informed respondent No.1
University about the same and requested it to grant affiliation, subject to completion of
formalities. It is averred that the University starts the process of inviting applications
and then considering proposals for affiliation in the month of March, 2017. However,
without any prior notice or information, the Directorate of Education, Government of
NCT of Delhi respondent No.2, all of a sudden, issued an order/letter dated February 2,
2017 to the Registrar of respondent No.1 University stating that the Competent
Authority has approved that affiliation of new institutions located in NCR be kept in
abeyance till further orders. It is their case that the said letter was uploaded only on
February 14, 2017. On February 17, 2017, the petitioners and other affected
educational institutes made a representation to the Hon‟ble Lt. Governor of Delhi
stating that the said communication is in contravention of Section 4 (1) of the
Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1998, ( Act of 1998) which equally applicable to the
institutions in NCT of Delhi and also institutions situated in NCR. A similar
representation was made on February 16, 2017 to the Secretary, Higher Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It is their case on March 02, 2017, the respondent No.1
University has posted, on its website, a notice calling for applications from
Societies/Trusts/Govt. Departments/Government Institutions for establishment of new
institution to conduct programmes in affiliation with the respondent No.1 University for
the academic session 2017-18. Pursuant thereto, representation dated March 3, 2017
was made and also a meeting was held with the Hon‟ble Lt. Governor of Delhi on
March 10, 2017. Insofar as new institutions located in NCR are concerned, the
petitioners averred that the notice referred to the letter dated February 2, 2017 by
respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 for keeping affiliation of new institutions
located in NCR outside NCT of Delhi in abeyance.
Facts in W.P.(C) 2393/2017
4. The present petition has been filed by Accman Business School and Balibhadra
Foundation, a Registered Trust. It is the case of the petitioner No.2 herein that it has
established an Educational Institution with all infrastructure and facilities to start
academic activities and imparting education from the academic session 2017-18. As the
territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 University extends to the whole of
National Capital Region, the respondent No.1 has been considering applications for
affiliation of educational institutes located/established in NCR. It is the petitioners case,
on June 16, 2016, the petitioner No.2 was granted NOC by the concerned State
Government i.e. U.P. Government. Soon thereafter, petitioner No.2 submitted the NOC
to the respondent No.1 University on June 20, 2016. It is their case, on February 19,
2016 it submitted all necessary documents along with application for affiliation for three
programmes/courses with the respondent No.1 University. This was followed by
reminder dated October 20, 2016. It is their case, on February 4, 2017 the petitioner
No.1 made an application for affiliation, online. It made a representation dated
February 9, 2017 confirming that all required infrastructures and facilities have been
arranged at the campus. The petitioners referred to the communication dated February
2, 2017 from the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. It is also the case of the
petitioners that the said letter was uploaded on February 14, 2017. The petitioners also
referred to the joint representation made to the Hon‟ble Lt. Governor stating that the
said letter is in contravention of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1998. The petitioners also
referred to the notice posted on the website inviting applications for proposal from the
Societies/Government Departments/Government Institutions for establishment of new
institution to conduct programme in affiliation with the respondent No.1 University for
the academic session 2017-18. The petitioners also referred to the meeting they had
with the Hon‟ble Lt. Governor and the Director of Higher Education. Insofar as new
institutions located in NCR are concerned, the petitioners averred that the notice
referred to the letter dated February 2, 2017 from the respondent No.2 to the respondent
No.1 for keeping affiliation of new institutions located in NCR outside NCT of Delhi in
abeyance.
Facts in W.P.(C) 2465/2017
5. The present petition has been filed by two petitioners, Trinity Institute of
Innovation in Professional Studies and Everyday Exim (a Non-Profitable Company). It
is the case of the petitioners herein that it has established an Educational Institution with
all infrastructure and facilities to start academic activities and imparting education from
the academic session 2017-18. As the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No.1
University extends to the whole of National Capital Region, the respondent No.1 has
been considering applications for affiliation to educational institutes located/established
in NCR.
6. It is their case, on January 3, 2017 the petitioner No.2 institute was granted NOC
by the concerned State Government i.e U.P. Government. It also refers to the fact that
between January and March, 2017, the University starts the process of inviting
applications and then considering the proposals for affiliation. The petitioners refer to
the letter dated February 02, 2017 from the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1
University. The petitioners also state that the said letter was uploaded on the website of
the respondent No.1 University on February 14, 2017. On February 16, 2017, the
petitioners made a representation to the Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi for reconsideration of the same. They also refers to a joint representation made
along with certain affected private educational institutions to the Hon‟ble Lt. Governor
of Delhi pointing out that the decision is in contravention of Section 4(1) of the Act of
1998.
7. It is averred, on February 21, 2017, a similar representation was made to the
Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. However, no response was
received on the same. The petitioners also refers to the notice dated March 2, 2017, a
reference of which has already been made above. They also refers to a communication
dated March 03, 2017 and the meeting held with the Hon‟ble Lt. Governor of Delhi and
the Director, Higher Education of Govt. of NCT of Delhi on March 10, 2017.
Facts in W.P.(C) 3148/2017
8. The present petition has been filed by Institute of Engineering & Technology. It
is the case of the petitioner, the Society namely All India Society for Advance
Education & Research established the petitioner institute at Alwar in the year 1998 and
has been successfully running B.Tech, M.Tech, MBA, MCA courses with the approval
of the AICTE and affiliation from Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. The AICTE
and the Rajasthan Technical University have granted extension of approval to the
petitioner institute and also for affiliation for the academic session 2016-17. It is
averred that the respondent No.1 University has the jurisdiction to grant affiliation to
institutes, which are located in NCR as defined in National Capital Region Planning
Board Act, 1985. On January 16, 2017, the petitioner Institute had applied to the
respondent No.1 University for grant of affiliation. The petitioner had also applied to
the Directorate of Training for issuance of NOC for change of affiliating University. It
is the case of the petitioner that on January 30, 2017, the petitioner applied to the
Rajasthan Technical University for issuance of No Objection Certificate for change of
affiliating University. The petitioner herein referred to the letter dated February 2,
2017, a reference of which has already been made above. It is stated that the Govt. of
NCT vide its letter dated February 15, 2017 requested the petitioner to submit
documents for further processing of request for grant of NOC for change of affiliating
University. The petitioner again sought approval from the AICTE for the session 2017-
18 vide its letter dated February 17, 2017. On February 21, 2017, the Rajasthan
Technical University has given its No Objection for change of affiliating University.
On March 08, 2017 the State Government of Rajasthan has also granted NOC to the
petitioner to change the affiliating University. It is averred, the petitioner vide its letter
dated March 10, 2017 again submitted all documents to the respondent No.1 University
for grant of affiliation. It is the petitioner‟s case that it vide its letter dated March 16,
2017 applied for issuance of NOC to the Director, Directorate of Training & Technical
Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner also submitted to the respondent
No.1 University, the No Objection Certificate issued by the Government of Rajasthan to
Rajasthan Technical University for grant of NOC by the said University on March 22,
2017. It is the case of the petitioner that despite NOC, the respondent No.1 University
failed to grant affiliation to the petitioner Institute.
Facts in W.P.(C) 2798/2017
9. The present petition has been filed by Greater Noida Institute of Technology and
Shri Ram Educational Trust. It is the case of the petitioners herein that it has
established an Educational Institution with all infrastructure and facilities to start
academic activities and imparting education from the academic session 2017-18. As the
territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 University extends to the whole of
National Capital Region, the respondent No.1 has been considering applications for
affiliation of educational institutes located/established in NCR.
10. It is their case, on January 29, 2016, the petitioner No.2 submitted a proposal to
the University for three courses. On December 8, 2016, the petitioner Institute applied
for grant of NOC to the concerned State Government for several courses and the same
was granted by the U.P. Government and the same was submitted to the respondent
No.1 University. It is the case of the petitioners normally the process of inviting and
then considering proposal for affiliation is between the months of January and March,
2017 of the particular year. On February 13, 2017, the petitioner made an application
for affiliation to the respondent No.1 University as well as to the Secretary, Department
of Training & Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It is the case of the
petitioners that without prior notice or information, the Directorate of Education, Govt.
of NCT issued letter dated February 02, 2017 to the respondent No.1 University, which
was uploaded on the website of the respondent No.1 University on February 14, 2017.
It was only thereafter, the petitioners have come to know that the Competent Authority
has decided to keep in abeyance the affiliation of new Institutions located in NCR till
further orders. Since the communication dated February 2, 2017 is against the interest
of similarly situated educational institutes, they made a representation dated February
17, 2017 to the Hon‟ble Lt. Governor stating that the same is in contravention of
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1998. A representation was also made on February 27, 2017
to the respondent No.1 University but none of the representations evoked any response.
The petitioner has referred to the notice posted on the website of the respondent No.1
University calling for applications from Societies/Trusts/Govt. Department/Govt.
Institutions for establishment of new institution to conduct programmes in affiliation
with the respondent No.1 University for the academic session 2017-18. The said notice
also refers to the letter dated February 2, 2017 keeping affiliation of new institutions
located in NCR in abeyance. It is their case, that they have made representation to the
Hon‟ble Lt. Governor of Delhi on March 3, 2017. They also refer to a meeting on
March 10, 2017. No concrete results have followed till the filing of the writ petition.
Facts in W.P.(C) 2955/2017
11. The present petition has been filed by Delhi Institute of Technology and
Management. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was granted approval
by the AICTE and is affiliated to DCR University of Science & Technology, Sonepat.
On March 02, 2015 the petitioner applied to respondent No.1 University for affiliation
for academic session 2015-16, which was responded to by the respondent No.1
University, stating that NOC from the State of Haryana was required. It is also stated
that the National Commissioner for Minority Educational Institution issued the
certificate dated September 27, 2016 certifying that the petitioner institute has been
declared as minority institution on the ground that the petitioner was established and
being administered by the Members of the Sikh Community. Vide letter dated January
18, 2017, the Commission granted NOC to the petitioner Institution. The petitioner
refers to the letter dated February 2, 2017, a reference of which has already been made
above.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that it came to know on February 14, 2017 about the
letter dated February 2, 2017 through the website of respondent No.1. The petitioner,
being aggrieved by the said letter dated February 2, 2017 made representations to
respondents 1 and 2 on March 8, 2017 and March 2, 2017 respectively. On March 9,
2017, the respondent No.2 forwarded the representation to the respondent No.1 for
consideration.
13. It may be stated here that the respondents 1 and 2 have filed short affidavits.
Suffice to state, the affidavits does not contain the parawise reply. The stand of the
respondents in their respective affidavits, being identical, I am referring to the short
affidavit as filed by the University in W.P.(C) No. 2377/2017. It is the case of the
respondent No.1 that the University was created under the Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprashta Act, 1998 ( Act of 1998) passed by the Legislative Assembly of NCT of
Delhi to establish and incorporate an affiliating University at Delhi to facilitate and
promote studies, research and extension work in emerging areas of higher education
with focus on professional education for example engineering, technology, management
studies, medicine, pharmacy, nursing, education and also to achieve excellence in these
and connected fields and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Respondent no.1 denied that Section 4 of the Act of 1998 enjoins upon the University a
duty to affiliate any and every institution. On the contrary, Section 4 creates power in
favour of the University exercisable in the area of the NCR Zone. Respondent no.1
states, the grant of affiliation with the University is done as per the Act, Statute,
Ordinance & the regulations of the University. Every year the University invites the
proposals for grant of affiliation. For the academic session 2016-17, the proposal was
invited vide public notification dated January 29, 2016 and the last date for submission
of application by online mode was March 29, 2016 till 11:59 pm. & the last date for
submission of printout of online application was March 31, 2016 at 3.00 pm. Till the
last date of submission of the application, the petitioner did not submit any application
for affiliation in the Academic Session 2016-2017. Respondent no.1 denied that the
decision of the University to keep in abeyance, the affiliation of new institution in the
NCR Zone outside Delhi is without jurisdiction or discriminatory. Section 4 of the Act
of 1998 is only an enabling legislation extending the jurisdiction of the University to the
areas covered in the NCR zone. The exercise of this power in the NCR Zone is subject
to the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Further, the said decision
dated February 02, 2017 is not discriminatory as the same is based on permissible
classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the last two years the
admission in the institutions situated in the NCR zone beyond Delhi was around 40% in
2015-16, and the same is around 47% in 2016-17, whereas the admission in the
institutions situated in the NCT Delhi is around 95% during the same period. The issue
of huge vacancy in the NCR zone outside Delhi in comparison to the institutions located
in Delhi was examined by a duly constituted Committee of the University in its meeting
dated 08.11.2016. The committee Inter Alia, amongst other observed as follow:
"The committee understands that the Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University had the unique mandate and the privilege
to affiliate institutions based in NCR of Delhi. However, given the
huge difference between the pattern of admissions in NCT of Delhi
and beyond the NCT of Delhi the committee is of the view that the
abnormally high state of vacant seats in the Outside NCT Delhi
institutions are not only economically and academically not-viable
but also it reflects poor image on the overall reputation of the
University. Because of this reason the committee is of the view that
until the admission status vis-a-vis the vacancy against the existing
seats do not improve and matches with the Delhi based institutions
and further affiliation to new institutions beyond the NCT of Delhi
should be suspended as an interim policy measure. Accordingly, the
committee unanimously recommends that the University should not
affiliate new institutions beyond the NCT of Delhi, till the admission
statistics in outside Delhi institutions improves to an acceptable
level, i.e., atleast 80% seats are filled, from the coming Academic
Session 2017-18 onwards. This policy decision through interim,
shall have the effect of overall consolidating the existing affiliated
institutions of the NCT of Delhi and Outside NCT of Delhi and thus
add to the academic standard and economic viability of those
institutions as well as stop erosion to the reputation of the
University because of the staggering vacancies against the existing
admission seats."
14. It is their case, thereafter, the matter was, inter alia, discussed in the meeting held
on November 25, 2016 in the office of Secretary, Education, Govt. of Delhi. The
following members were present in the meeting:
1. Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of NCTD.
2. Director, Higher Education, Govt. of NCTD.
3. Director, Training and Technical Education, Govt. of NCTD.
4. Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi.
5. Incharge, Affiliation, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
Delhi.
6. Incharge, Admissions, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
Delhi.
15. The details of the discussion held and recommendations of the Committee are as
under:
"The Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
apprised the members about the status of admissions in the
University for the academic session 2016-17. On the of the
observations was that in the institutions located outside the NCT of
Delhi in the NCR, the status of admissions has been dismal, upto
45% of seats remain vacant. Moreover in the last few years new
affiliations have been primarily granted in the NCR region (outside
the NCT of Delhi). Since a major portion of seat in the institutions
located in NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) are remaining vacant,
affiliation of new institution in NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) may
not lead to any fruitful exercise. Moreover, currently there are
about 120 institutions affiliated to the University. As per the
Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan report (page 111). Following
are the paths that can be taken in reforming the affiliation system:
.............................
(I). Limit the number of colleges to be affiliated to any University
to 100. ..........."
16. Based on the recommendations made in the meeting held on November 25, 2016
in the office of the Secretary, Education on November 30, 2016, the Affiliation Branch
put up a separate proposal to keep affiliation of new Institutions in NCR (Outside Delhi)
in abeyance for approval of Hon‟ble Chancellor of the University (Lieutenant Governor
of NCT of Delhi).
17. The approval of the Competent Authority for keeping Affiliation of new
institutions located in NCR (Outside Delhi) in abeyance, was conveyed by the A.O.
(HE), Directorate of Higher Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide DHE4 (60)/Policy
guideline/14-15/Pt.File/435-437 dated February 02, 2017.
18. The Board of Affiliation of the University in its meeting dated 06.03.2017 took
note of various issues relating to the affiliating capacity of the University, the
maintenance of desired academic standards in the affiliated institutions, the relevant
facts and proposal regarding keeping the affiliation of new institutions located in NCR
Outside NCT of Delhi in abeyance and its approval by the Competent Authority vide
letter NO. DHE-4 (60)/Policy guideline/14-15/Pt. File/435-437 dated February 02,
2017 and ratified the same.
19. The policy decision dated February 02, 2017 is not discriminatory. There are as
many as around 13 self financing private affiliated Institutes in the NCR Zone which
have been affiliated in the past as per the policy then applicable. The details of these
institutions with their respective year of initial affiliation are stated herein below:
1. Army Institute of Education, Greater 2003
NOIDA, UP
2. Army Institute of Management and 2004
Technology, Greater NOIDA, UP
3. Delhi Metropolitan Education, NOIDA, 2012
UP
4. Delhi Technical Campus, NOIDA, UP 2013
5. JIMS Engineering Management Technical 2013
Campus, Greater NOIDA
6. Shri Krishna College of Education, 2013
Baghpat, UP
7. SGIT School of Managerment, Gaziabad, 2015
UP
8. BLS Institute of Technology Management, 2007
Bahadurgarh, Haryana
9. Delhi Global Institute of Management, 2016
Faridabad, Haryana
10. Bhagwan Mahveer School of Architecture, 2015
Sonepat, Haryana
11. Mahavir Swami Institute of Technology, 2014
Sonepat, Haryana
12. BM Institute of Engineering & Technology, 2016
Sonepat, Haryana
13. Bhagwan Mahavir College of Engineering 2016
& Management, Sonepat, Haryana
20. All these Institutions have been given affiliation prior to the notification dated
February 02, 2017. The impugned policy dated February 02, 2017 is applicable for
Academic Year 2017-18 and beyond till further orders. The Amity Law School is
temporarily operating from the campus of Amity University since 2007 which was
affiliated as early as 1999.
21. It is stated that the grant of NOC by the respective State Govt. and creation of
infrastructure etc. petitioner does not create any legal right to demand affiliation from
the University.
22. It is stated that right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not an
unqualified right. The decision to keep the affiliation in abeyance is based on
considered regulatory frame work within Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
It is stated that the petitioners have option to seek affiliation from other Universities in
the State of UP and thus pursue their freedom under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India.
23. It is stated that the decision of the respondents is based on considered facts and
issues to promote quality education and research with respect to institutions affiliated to
the University. In this context one of the foremost recommendation of the Rashtriya
Higher Education may be particularly taken note that the number of affiliated Colleges
to any University should be limited to 100. Further, to ensure imparting higher standard
of teaching and research the University has to play a critical role in terms of its
affiliating capacity. The University has already around 120 institutions with around
80,000 students.
24. That the affiliating capacity of the University has not grown on the same pace as
the number of affiliated institutions and the students. Mere grant of affiliation to an
institute does not serve the public interest or the interest of the students until the
University is in a position to ensure desired academic standards in its affiliated
Institutions.
25. In these circumstances, it is stated that the present Petition is devoid of any merit
and is an abuse of process of law. The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less
the relief prayed for.
26. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.
2377/2017, 2465/2017 & 2798/2017 would submit that the decision to keep in abeyance
the affiliation of new institutes located in NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) is both
arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction. He would state, after the petitioner had
incurred huge expenditure on the infrastructure for the establishment of the Institute and
had obtained the NOC from the concerned State Government, it could not have been
denied the affiliation by the respondent No.1 except on the grounds mentioned under the
Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1998 Statute or Ordinance thereunder. However,
the impugned order/action of the respondents gave no reason in support of its decision
to deny affiliation to be new institutes. He states, being a State University, every
decision of the respondents 1 and 2 is obliged to be supported by reason else the same
would be arbitrary and thus hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He would
state, Section 4 of the Act of 1998 provides that the limits of the area within which the
University shall exercise its power, shall be those of NCR as defined in the National
Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985. The preamble of the National Capital
Region Planning Board Act, 1985 talks of the object of the Act to provide for the
constitution of a planning board for the preparation of a plan for the development of the
National Capital Region and for coordinating and monitoring the implementation of
such plan and for evolving harmonized policies for the control of land use and
development of infrastructure in the NCR. He would state, an obligation is cast upon
the respondents by the statute to ensure about that the development of the infrastructure
in the entire NCR. The respondents cannot discriminate between the institutes in NCT
of Delhi and NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) as they all form one class. He would
state, since as per section 4 of the Act of 1998, it is applicable to the entire NCR, all
institutes within the NCR are equal and no classification can be made between the
institutes in NCT of Delhi and those in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi),
particularly when the classification has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
Thus by allowing the affiliation of new institutes in the NCT of Delhi and not allowing
affiliation to those situated outside the NCT of Delhi, the respondents have acted in total
contravention to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He would
state, the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary inasmuch as the respondents
have debarred the petitioners from applying for affiliation at the threshold. He would
state, the affiliation is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1998 read with the
Statute/Ordinance/Regulations framed thereunder. Section 4 of the Act makes it
mandatory for the respondents to grant affiliation if the institution agrees to accept the
statute and the ordinances.
27. It is his submission that Statute 24 which lays down essential terms and
conditions of affiliation and ordinance-I which prescribes the procedure for application
for affiliation and its processing and consideration by the University. He states, grant of
affiliation is mandatory for an institution which has accepted the statutes and the
ordinances and has complied with all the provisions prescribed therein. He submits it is
not the case of the respondents here that the petitioners have not accepted the statute and
the ordinances or that it has not complied with any of the mandatory requirements
prescribed under the Act/Statute/Ordinance. It is thus fallacious for the respondents to
contend that the provisions of Section 4 are not obligatory. He submits that the
contention that the admissions in the institutions located outside the NCT of Delhi in the
NCR has been dismal, is not a valid ground for denial of affiliation under the Act, as by
the executive action or policy decision, the provisions of the Act enacted by the
legislature, cannot be modified or curtailed. He submits, in any case the aforesaid
contention is factually incorrect. A perusal of the chart (page 93) would show that in
some of the institutes the vacancy position is as low as 10%. He would state, a general
order cannot be passed denying affiliation to all the institutes in the NCR (outside the
NCT of Delhi) on the general ground that the vacancy position in the NCR (outside the
NCT of Delhi) is dismal, even if true. The respondents cannot presume that even in the
case of petitioner Institute the vacancy position would remain dismal. The right of the
petitioner cannot be infringed on the basis of presumptions and exemptions and by per-
judging the issue. He submits the petitioner cannot be denied an opportunity to prove
itself, particularly when the statute/ordinance provides for the discontinuation of
affiliation on the ground of non performance for consecutive 2-3 years. In this regard,
he would place reliance upon the minutes of meeting held on 25 th November, 2016
wherein it was decided that at the time of renewal of NOC for any program for grant of
intake for any program, status of admission as against the sanctioned seats will be
reviewed and if for any programme in an institute the admission has been less than 50%
of the sanctioned seats constitutively for the last three academic years then no fresh
admission will be allowed. As regards the affiliated institutes it has been decided that if
for a programme in an affiliated institution the admission has been less than 50% of
sanctioned seats consecutively for two years when the university will issue a warning
letter that a further third consecutive year also the admission is less than 50% then no
fresh admission will be considered for the fourth year.
28. He would state, the above provision duly takes care of the interest of the
respondents and the students by debarring the non performing institutes from getting
NOC after 2/3 years of failure/non performance. This can thus not be a valid ground for
denial of affiliation to the petitioner. According to him, to the contrary, the decision to
debar the new institutes from getting affiliation appears to be in collusion with the
existing institutes in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) which are guilty of non-
performance in the past. The petitioner is entitled to give a competition to the existing
institutes in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) and to prove itself once affiliation is
granted. The impugned decision is thus both, arbitrary and unjust and stinks of
malafide. He states, 85% seats of the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) are reserved for
the Delhi residents, who cannot be denied the opportunity of getting admission in good
institutes even if located in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi). The impugned
decision is thus contrary to the interest of the Delhi residents. He submits the reliance
placed by the respondents on the RUSA is also misplaced inasmuch as RUSA 2013 as a
condition for grant of funds to the State, has recommended affiliation reforms, to the
effect that the number of colleges to be affiliated to any University be restricted to 100.
The said provision has no relevance inasmuch as the number of affiliated colleges to
GGSIP University has already crossed 100 (126). The RUSA guidelines came in the
year 2013. The respondents have no explanation as to why they allowed the crossing of
the prescribed strength of 100 in the past and added more colleges beyond the figure of
100 even after coming into force of RUSA Guidelines, in the academic years 2014-15
and 2015-16 and are ready to do so even during this academic year i.e 2017-18, as long
as the new institutions/colleges applying for affiliation are situated with the limits of
NCT of Delhi. He states, the guidelines themselves provide that if the number is
restricted to 100, then new Universities shall be established. The respondent State was
thus obliged to establish a new University to cater to the needs of the Delhi/NCR
residents. He would draw the attention of the Court to the relevant extract of the RUSA
guidelines, which is reproduced as under:-
"Under RUSA, the State government's commitment to undertake reforms in
the affiliation system is a priori condition for getting the funding.
Following are the paths that can be taken in reforming the affiliation
system:
(i) Limit the number of colleges to be affiliated to any University to 100.
However, this would mean establishing more affiliating Universities than
the present number."
29. According to him, the aforesaid guidelines cannot be resorted to by the
respondents to deny affiliation to the petitioner, particularly when it is not the case of
the respondents that the State Government has no funds and RUSA is refusing to
provide funds till the time the number of colleges affiliated to GGSIP University is
brought down to 100 or affiliation of new institutions is to be stopped altogether. He
would rely upon the following judgments in support of his contention:-
(i) (1991) 1 SCC 212 ShrilekhaVidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of U.P.
(ii) W.P.(C) No. 775/2016 Vidha Sudha Welfare Foundation Samiti v.
National Council for Teacher Education.
30. Ms. Anubha Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3148/2017
would state, the act of University and State to restrict grant of affiliation is malafide,
arbitrary and ultra vires the powers of the authority which refused affiliation. Hence,
the impugned letter and action of GGSIP is liable to be quashed. The action of GGSIP
is to protect vested interests of presently affiliated institutes by creating monopoly in
their favour and not de-affiliating them despite their poor performance / low standards
of education. Restricting entry of new institutes would not ensure enhancement in
standards of education. She states, the reason for denial is the impugned letter dated
February 02, 2017 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, but the same cannot
override / amend the Act and statutes. Further, all applications could not have been kept
in abeyance for an indefinite period of time, without assigning any reasons. The
impugned letter, being a non-speaking communication could not be a basis for rejection
of all applications for affiliation. The letter issued by the State Government is also
without the approval of the competent authority. She states, the genesis of this letter is
illogical reasoning of GGSIP that fresh affiliations may not be granted to institutes in
NCR because existing institutes have very low percentage of admissions. This is devoid
of merit and not a sustainable ground for such refusal. Firstly, admissions in other
colleges cannot be a ground for refusing affiliation to the petitioner. Secondly, further
limiting the institutes would eliminate competition, create monopoly of existing
institutes and would not improve the standards of admission / education. This
contention of University is in fact a garb to protect the vested interests of existing
affiliated institutes and has been done at their behest, since GGSIP has not taken any
steps to dis-affiliate the non-performing / below standard institutes. No such
undertaking has been given by GGSIP before this Court, which prima facie falsifies the
ground for maintaining high standards. Without even considering the application of the
petitioner on conducting inspection, GGSIP without any basis or record cannot conclude
that the petitioner institute does not confirm to high standards of education. If the
University really keen on maintaining the standards, then it should dis-affiliate the
existing institutes and consider the new applicants on the basis of their individual
merits. She states, the petitioner institute has been granted Accreditation in 2006 by the
National Board of Accreditation (NBA), which reflects international standard in
Education. Considering the infrastructure, facilities and quality education, etc.,
National Project Implementation Unit (NPIU), A Unit of Ministry of HRD, Govt. of
India for implementation of World Bank Assisted Project in Technical Education has
granted Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (TEQIP) Phase II. IET-
Alwar is the only Private Engineering College of Rajasthan which has selected by the
NPIU for the World Bank project in view of its infrastructure, facilities, manpower,
quality education etc. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner institute has an
average admission rate of more than 60% over the last few years. The petitioner is a
deserving institute located within the jurisdiction of GGSIP University and hence liable
to be granted affiliation. She would state, another contention of GGSIP that Rashtriya
Uchhtar Shiksha Abhiayan (RUSA) scheme limits the number of affiliated colleges to
any University to 100 has been quoted out of context. The complete recommendation
has not been placed before this Court which would have clarified things. An abstract
has been quoted only to mislead the Court. RUSA is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme,
launched in 2013 which aims at providing support funding to eligible state funded
institutions. However, in the present case, it is neither the contention of the State or the
University or the institute that any funding is required from the Central Government.
Self financed institutions are not covered under the Scheme. It is relevant to mention
that the report was published in the year 2013, but GGSIP on its own never followed the
same and as per their own admission, has granted affiliation to colleges till the year
2016. This plea taken now is a mere afterthought to deny affiliation to the petitioner.
Now GGSIP cannot deny claim of the petitioner to be considered for affiliation on the
basis of said report. She would state, the next contention of GGSIP that the petitioner
cannot be affiliated on the ground that an alternative affiliating university is available is
also not sustainable. Availability of an alternative gives the petitioner choice to seek
affiliation from any of them, upon fulfilling the criteria and eligibility conditions. There
is no statutory bar to seek affiliation from a university of choice, in case more than one
affiliating universities have jurisdiction over the institute. The action of the university is
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of rights of the petitioner to seek affiliation. She
states, the further contention of GGSIP that there is no obligation on the university to
grant affiliation is also unsustainable. Since the petitioner institute fulfils all the
essential conditions for affiliation, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the
same. GGSIP cannot act arbitrarily and is under an obligation to consider all the
applications for affiliation as per the Act, statutes and ordinances governing the same.
She would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rungta Engg.
College v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, (2015) 11 SCC 291
to contend, that Supreme Court has set aside the decision of the university not to grant
the affiliation to the College since the same was without any justifiable basis. Hence the
Court directed grant of affiliation to the institute. In the present case also, affiliation is
being denied without any basis especially when the petitioner institute has been getting
regular AICTE approvals. She states, the impugned action of GGSIP University is
violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The respondents have
not granted affiliation, without assigning any reasons for the same. It is her submission,
GGSIP University herein has admitted and accepted that online applications have been
invited from the existing institutes located in NCR (outside Delhi) for grant of
provisional affiliation for Academic year 2017-18. The petitioner institute has been in
operation and working since the year 1998 and is an existing institute. Hence, as per the
own admission by the University, affiliation is being granted for the current academic
year to existing institutes which are located in NCR. Therefore, the petitioner institute is
entitled to be granted affiliation for the current academic year by the university as per its
own policy. She states, despite impugned letter dated February 02, 2017, the
Government of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated February 15, 2017, has requested the
petitioner to submit documents for further processing of request for grant of "No
Objection Certificate" for change of Affiliating University of the institute. It is relevant
to mention that the said letter has been issued subsequent to a general letter issued by
the Government of Delhi to the Registrar of the University on February 02, 2017. But,
till date no further action has been taken in that regard by the respondent no.2
University. She states, the arbitrary action of GGSIP creates discrimination even
amongst the similarly situated institutes within the NCR region. Limiting the number of
affiliated institutes within NCR to 100, creates monopoly in favour of those granted the
benefit of affiliation thereby eliminating competition from better institutes which may
come up in the NCR regions. This would not ensure that quality of education would be
maintained and rather the same may fall and the students would be forced to pay much
higher fees to such institutes. The distance of RTU-Kota from IET-Alwar is approx. 550
Kms. (10 hours journey and there is no direct connectivity from Alwar City) and the
GGSIP, Delhi is only approx. 160 Kms. From IET-Alwar and well connected with road
and train transport facility. Therefore, the students and parents are uncomfortable
(money wise and time wise) to visit RTU-Kota for their work. IET-Alwar is the oldest
private Engineering College of Rajasthan established in 1998 and have good reputation
in NCR. After affiliating from GGSIP, the NCR students including Minority and
backward students will be benefitted. She states, once the petitioner institute is eligible
affiliation cannot be denied to the petitioner due to pick and choose policy by GGSIP
and admission in other institutes cannot be a ground for declining affiliation to the
petitioner.
31. Mr. Sacchin Puri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.
2393/2017 would state the Act categorically provides for the jurisdiction vide Section 4
of the Act & Ordinance 1 Rule 3. The Act provides that the same can be amended only
in terms of Section 26 of the Act, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:
"26(2) The Board of Management may, from time to time, make new
or additional Statutes or may amend or repeal the Statutes referred
to in sub-section(1):
Provided that the Board of Management shall not make, amend or
repeal any Statutes affecting the status, powers or constitution of any
authority of the University until such authority has been given a
reasonable opportunity of expressing its opinion in writing on the
proposed change and any opinion so expressed within the time
specified by the Board of Management has been considered by the
Board of Management."
32. He would state, the admitted case of the respondents is that the letter dated
February 2, 2017 is merely a guideline and does not amend the Act per se. The
impugned letter has the effect of bringing about an amendment in the Act inasmuch as it
tends to restrict the affiliation under the Act prospectively with respect to new colleges
which may wish to seek affiliation with the respondent No.1. He would state, in the
counter-affidavit of respondent no.1 it has been admitted that it is only a guideline and
not a Notification though the respondent No.1 affiliation Board‟s deemed Notification
as reproduced hereinunder:-
"The approval of the Competent Authority for keeping Affiliation of new
institutions located in NCR(Outside Delhi) in abeyance, was conveyed by
the A.O. (HE), Directorate of Higher Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
vide DHE4(60)/Policy guideline/14-15/Pt.File/435-437 dated 02.02.2017."
33. He would state, the respondents in their argument have not sought to justify or
state that the said guidelines is either permissible in law or that the same was notified
and has the effect of amending the Act. Merely the respondents have argued that they
have the right to reject any college which seeks affiliation on said principles and norms.
He would state, the reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of the Supreme
Court is misplaced inasmuch as the Supreme Court has specifically held that the
respondents have the right to reject an application but at no place, it was held that the
respondents can by themselves bring out guidelines to stop an institute from applying
itself. The entire attempt of the respondents is to create a smoke screen by giving
reasoning that they have power to stop the institute from applying for affiliation, under
which provision they could have done so vis-à-vis the fact that the Act itself envisages
that an institute which is situate within the jurisdiction of the University has a right to
apply and that unfettered right of making application cannot be curbed or taken away by
way of any reason whatsoever. He would state, the attempt of the respondent to state
that the Act was primarily meant for State of Delhi is misconceived and on the face of it
is liable to be rejected for the reason that while interpreting an Act, the Act itself is to be
seen and nothing can be added or subtracted from the Act. The attempt is to add
something which does not exist in the Act and as such this argument of the respondents
is liable to be ignored. He would state, at this point in time the controversy does not
involve evaluation of an application but only involves whether the respondents have a
right to restrict the petitioner from applying or seeking affiliation. The petitioners had
already filed the application on February 09, 2017 which has not been considered. Even
otherwise, vide judgment reported as (2015) 10 SCC 80 Ponnaiyah Ramajayam
Institute of Science and Technology Trust v. Medical Council of India and Another,
the Supreme Court held that an application must be considered on merits even if it is
made after the expiry of period provided. He states, in view of the fact that the
respondents have virtually conceded that the Act has not been notified and have been
unable to show any provision under a guideline can be framed which has the effect of
curbing the jurisdiction under a Statute, it is to be deemed that the guideline is ultra
vires of the Act and is liable to be set aside. The consequent application of the Institute
is liable to considered on merits. He would state without prejudice, the so-called
reasoning given by the respondents for bringing out the guidelines is virtually illegal
and malafide. He relies on a chart handed over to show that a Greater Noida institute
has 80% seats filled vis-à-vis the Institute situate in Dwarka which are in the region of
45% to 50%, this information has been downloaded from the website of the respondent
University and have not be rebutted by the respondent even though the same was
handed over to respondent on May 24, 2017, which shows that the respondent No.1 has
misled the Delhi Government by saying that number of vacancies outside Delhi is not
even 50%, it is to be noted that the respondents have the power under Section 5 to
disaffiliate an institute which is having less than 50% filled up seats, having said that the
respondent has not utilized its powers for any of its institute for the reasons best known
to them thus cannot today bring out reason for stopping an application to be considered
on its merits. He would state, the respondent‟s affidavit filed in another case stating that
they have rejected the 15 institutes of Delhi in the year 2017 on the face of it shows that
the same were considered on merits then rejected for the reason that the respondent
Management did not reject them but the scrutiny committee rejected. The very fact that
the security committee scrutinized the application shows the intent of the respondent in
allowing the application for Delhi and considering them on the merit itself, which cuts
across the feeble attempt of the respondent to try and say that they have not given any
affiliation in the year 2017 for the reason that they do not wish to expand though no
such reason has been stated in the affidavit itself in which the language has been very
carefully used so as to attempt to mislead this Court. He would state, the RUSA
committee is merely a committee giving guidelines which guidelines have to be applied
in its totality and cannot be applied selectively having said this it is maintained that
these guidelines do not have statutory force and then themselves have been violated by
the respondents. He would state, the respondents‟ action of accepting application and
considering for the institutes from Delhi is discriminatory against the petitioners whose
applications have not been accepted and considered, though said 15 institutes and the
petitioner fall on same footing being in the same jurisdiction to which the said Act
applies.
34. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No. 2955/2017 would state, the petitioner is impugning inter-alia the decision dated
February 02, 2017 of the Government of NCT of Delhi whereby it has decided to keep
in abeyance, till further orders, filing and consideration of applications for affiliation to
the Guru Gobind Singh Indraparastha University/ R-1 by the new educational institutes
established in NCR (outside NCT of Delhi) but new institutes in the NCT of Delhi are
allowed to apply for affiliation and the University notice dated March 02, 2017 issued to
that effect. He would state, the petitioner has been recognized as a Minority
Educational Institution run buy a Sikh Foundation and is free to run its own affairs, and
in view of the Section 10A The National Commission for Minority Educational
Institution (Amendment) Act, 2006 the petitioner is well within its right to apply for
affiliation, moreover there is no statutory bar for the petitioner to apply for affiliation
even if the there is already subsisting affiliation. He would state, the decision to keep in
abeyance the affiliation of new institutes located in NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) is
both arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction. After the petitioner had incurred huge
expenditure on the infrastructure for the establishment of the Institute and had obtained
the NOC from the concerned state Government, and the said infrastructure/facilities as
well as the facilities in the institution are of impeccable standard, the petitioner could
not have been denied the affiliation to the respondent no.1 except on the grounds
mentioned under the Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1998 Statute or Ordinance
thereunder. However the impugned order/action of the respondents gave no reason in
support of their decision to deny affiliation to the new institutes. Being a State
University, every decision of the Respondent nos.1 and 2 is obliged to be supported by
reason else the same would be arbitrary and thus hit by article 14 of the Constitution of
India. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as
(1991) 1 SCC 212 Shrilekhavidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of U.P; wherein the Supreme
Court held as under :-
"13 ....... Termination of an appointment without the existence of any
cogent reason in furtherance of the object for which the power is given
would be arbitrary and, therefore, against public policy..."
35. He submits, as per the settled law the reasons in support of any decision must
exist initially. The validity of an action cannot be judged by the reasons in the shape of
affidavit or otherwise given in the court subsequently. He would state, the reasons
given for the first time in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents for giving
different treatment to the institutes situated in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) and
the institutes of NCT are: -
a. That in the institutions located outside the NCT of Delhi in the NCR, the status of
admissions has been dismal, upto 45% of seats remain vacant.
b. That there are already about 120 institutions affiliated to the University whereas
according to the report of Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) the prescribed
limit of the number of colleges to be affiliated to any university is 100.
36. He submits Section 4 of the 1998 Act provides that the limits of the area within
which the university shall exercise its powers, shall be those of NCR as defined in the
National Capital Region Planning Board Act, No.2 of 1985. The preamble of the
National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 talks of the object of the Act to
provide for the constitution of a planning board for the preparation of a plan for the
development of the National Capital Region and for coordinating the monitoring the
implementation of such plan and for evolving harmonized policies for the control of
land use and development of infrastructure in the NCR. Thus an obligation is cast upon
the respondents by the statute to ensure development of the infrastructure in the entire
NCR. The respondents cannot discriminate between the Institutes in NCT of Delhi and
NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) as they all form one class. Since as per section 4 of
the 1998 Act, it is applicable to the entire NCR, all institutes within the NCR are equal
and no classification can be made between the institutes in NCT of Delhi and those in
the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi), particularly when the classification has no nexus
to the object sought to be achieved. Thus by allowing the affiliation of new institutes in
the NCT of Delhi and not allowing affiliation to those situated outside the NCT of
Delhi, the respondents have acted in total contravention to the provisions of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. He would state, the impugned action of the respondents is
arbitrary in as much as the respondents have debarred the petitioners from applying for
affiliation at the threshold. He would state, the affiliation is governed by the provisions
of the 1998 Act read with the statute/ ordinance / regulations framed thereunder.
Section 4 of the Act makes it mandatory for the respondents to grant affiliation if the
institution agrees to accept the statute and the ordinances.
37. According to him, a perusal of Section 4 of the Act clearly establishes that grant
of affiliation is mandatory for an institution which has accepted the statutes and the
ordinances and has complied with all the provisions prescribed therein. It is submitted
it is not the case of the respondents here that the petitioners have not accepted the statue
and the ordinances or that it has not complied with any of the mandatory requirements
prescribed under the Act/ Statute/ Ordinance. It is thus fallacious for the respondents to
contend that the provisions of section 4 are not obligatory.
38. He states, the contention that the admission in the institutions located outside the
NCT of Delhi in the NCR has been dismal, is not a valid ground for denial of affiliation
under the Act, as by the executive action or policy decision, the provisions of the Act
enacted by the legislature, cannot be modified or curtailed. Without prejudice to the
above, he would state, in any case the aforesaid contention is factually incorrect.
According to him, a general order cannot be passed denying affiliation to all the
institutes in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) on the general ground that the vacancy
position in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) is dismal, even if true. The respondents
cannot presume that even in the case of petitioner institute the vacancy position would
remain dismal. The right of the petitioner cannot be infringed on the basis of
presumptions and by pre-judging the issue. He would state, the petitioner cannot be
denied an opportunity to prove itself, particularly when the statute/ ordinance provides
for the discontinuation of affiliation on the ground of non-performance for consecutive
2-3 years. Reliance is placed upon the minutes of meeting held on 25.11.2016 wherein
it was decided that at the time of renewal of NOC for any program for grant of intake
for any program, status of admission as against the sanctioned seats will be reviewed
and if for any programme in an institute the admission has been less than 50% of the
sanctioned seats constitutively for the last 3 academic years then no fresh admission will
be allowed. As regards the affiliated institutes it has been decided that if for a
programme in an affiliated institution the admission has been less than 50% of
sanctioned seats consecutively for 2 years when the university will issue a warning
letter that a further third consecutive year also the admission is less than 50% then no
fresh admission will be considered for the fourth year.
39. He would state, the above provision duly takes care of the interest of the
respondents and the students by debarring the non-performing institutes from getting
NOC after 2/3 years of failure/ non-performance. This can thus not be a valid ground
for denial of affiliation to the petitioner. He would state, to the contrary, the decision to
debar the new institutes from getting affiliation appears to be in collusion with the
existing institutes in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) whichare guilty of non-
performance in the past. The petitioner is entitled to give a competition to the existing
institutes in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) and to prove itself once affiliation is
granted. The impugned decision is thus both are arbitrary and unjust and stinks of
malafide. He states, 85% seats of the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi) are reserved for
the Delhi residents, who cannot be denied the opportunity of getting admission in good
institutes even if located in the NCR (outside the NCT of Delhi). The impugned
decision is thus contrary to the interest of the Delhi residents. He states, the reliance
placed by the respondents on the RUSA is also misplaced inasmuch as the Rashtriya
Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) 2013, as a condition for grant of funds to the State,
has recommended affiliation reforms, to the effect that the number of colleges to be
affiliated to any University be restricted to 100. The said provision has no relevance
inasmuch as the number of affiliated colleges to GGSIP University has already crossed
100(126). The RUSA guidelines came in the year 2013. The respondents have no
explanation as to why they allowed the crossing of the prescribed strength of 100 in the
past and added more colleges beyond the figure of 100 even after coming into force of
RUSA Guidelines, in the academic years 2014-15 and 2015-16 and are ready to do so
even during this academic year i.e. 2017-18, as long as the new institutions/ colleges
applying for affiliation are situated with the limits of NCT of Delhi. In any case the
guidelines themselves provide that if the number is restricted to 100, then new
universities shall be established. The respondent state was thus obliged to establish a
new University to cater to the needs of the Delhi/ NCR residents. He would submit, the
petitioner institute though affiliated to small time university in Sonepat having students
of more than 70% from Delhi and wants to affiliate to university which has name and
there is no impediment / bar for having affiliation to a university of its choice. No
statute or law debars the petitioner to choose a university. He states, the present
petitioner university has state of the art infrastructure and faculty and more than 1300
students are enrolled with the petitioner out which more than 70% are domiciled in
Delhi and as such petitioner has legitimate expectations that they can choose the
respondent university. He would rely upon the following judgments in support of his
submissions:-
(i) (1991) 1 SCC 212 Shrilekhavidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of U.P;
(ii) (1978) 1 SCC 405 Mohinder Singh Gill v.Chief Election Commissioner;
(iii) W.P.(C) No. 775/2016 Vidha Sudha Welfare Foundation Samiti v. National
Council for Teacher Education decided on February 02, 2016
(iv) (2015) 11 SCC 291 Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai and Another v.
Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University and Another.
40. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Mr. Mukul Talwar, learned Senior Counsels and
Mr. Devesh Singh appearing for the respondents would state, though couched as a writ
of certiorari, the relief sought by the Petitioners is actually a writ of mandamus,
commanding the Respondent University to permit the Petitioners to apply for affiliation
to it. The only ground raised is that Section 4 of the Act of 1998 confers jurisdiction
upon the Respondent University to affiliate institutes located not only in the NCT of
Delhi but also to institutes located in other parts of the NCR. Insofar as legal right is
concerned, they would state, A mere reading of Section 4 reveals that it is only an
enabling provision and does not confer any legal right upon the Petitioners to
compulsorily seek affiliation from the University. In fact, sub-section (2) of Section 4
of the Act makes it clear that affiliation is not compulsory and even those who are
admitted to its privileges have to agree to accept the statues and ordinances of the
University. The use of the word „privileges‟ by the Legislature is illuminating. The
said term implies a discretion on the part of the University even in the matter of inviting
application for affiliation. It is trite law that a writ of mandamus shall be issued only
where the Petitioners are able to establish a legal right and this Hon‟ble Court shall not
issue a writ of mandamus to enforce only an enabling provision.
41. Regarding petitioners already affiliated or have a right to their respective State
Universities is concerned, they would state, it is an admitted case that all three states of
Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan have at least one or more State Universities to
which the Petitioners are entitled to apply for affiliation. In fact two of the Petitioners
out of six connected Writ Petitions are admittedly already affiliated to their respective
State universities. There is therefore no question of placing any restriction on the
Petitioners‟ right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India which in any case is
available only to citizens. The petitioner herein described itself as a Trust or Companies
and is therefore not a citizen.
42. Insofar as Policy decision is rational or not is concerned, they would state, the
decision of the University to invite applications from new Institutes located only in the
NCT of Delhi is a policy decision taken by the University considering the current
circumstances and to meet certain exigencies. The said decision, even according to the
Petitioner, does not suffer from the vice of malice, malafide or arbitrariness. The
decision is based upon the fact that the University has about 120 institutes affiliated to it
whereas the Rashtriya Uchchtar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) (National Higher Education
Mission), taking note of the falling quality of academics & research and the unmindful
commercialization of education in affiliating university has recommended that the
Universities should not, ideally, have more than a hundred institutes affiliated to it. The
decision is further based upon the fact that the Institutes located in the other parts of
NCR on the average of vacancy position of upto 45% of the seats which is much higher
than the average figure for the Institutes located in the NCT of Delhi. In this regard, in
the month of October, 2016 the Academic Branch of the University had initiated a
discussion within the University and had forwarded a note to the Vice Chancellor, upon
which he appointed a High Powered Committee to examine the said issue. The
Committee gave it report on 13th November, 2016. The said Committee in its report
discussed the issue of abysmally low pattern of admission in the NCR Zone institutions
vis-a-vis the NCT of Delhi based institutions and it was of the view that the abnormally
high state of vacancies in the Outside Delhi Institutions make them economically and
academically non-viable which directly impact the quality and standard of teaching,
research and academics and thus the interest of admitted students and the society in
general. The state of low admission in affiliated institutions also reflects poorly on the
overall reputation, academic standing and goodwill of the University. The credibility,
reputation and goodwill of the University are legitimate concerns of the University.
They rely on the observation of the Division Bench of this Court in Rahul Dhaka Vikas
Society and Anr. v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors. 89 (2001)
DLT 337 (DB).
43. It is their submission, the Report of the High Powered Committee of the
University dated 13th November, 2016 was further considered and discussed in a
meeting held on 25th November, 2016 headed by the Secretary Incharge of Higher
Education. In the said meeting the recommendations of the RUSA for reform in
affiliating process with the objective to improve the quality of education and minimizing
the commercialization of education in the affiliating university was also discussed and
the Committee took note the specific suggestion of RUSA that the number of institutions
affiliated with the University should not be more than 100. It was resolved in the
meeting that a separate proposal on this issue be initiated by the University and sent to
the Government. A proposal to this effect was sent to the Government dated 30 th
November, 2016 thereafter, the Government - Respondent no.2 considered the proposal
and issued its communication dated 2nd February, 2017 which is impugned in the present
petition.
44. They would state, the policy decision impugned which has been ratified by the
Board of Affiliation of the University in its 66 th meeting, is in no way discriminatory. It
is submitted that the University is a State University and has been set up by the
Government of NCT of Delhi. Public funds available to the Government for the welfare
of the citizens and residents of Delhi have been used on the capital expenditure
expended for setting up of the University. In fact, the land on which the University is
situated in Dwarka was granted and thus is owned by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
Moreover, the petitioners have option of applying for affiliation to their respective state
universities whereas the Institutes similar self-financing institutes situated in
Government of NCT of Delhi can only apply to the Respondent University for
affiliation. Finally, a comparison of the status of admissions and utilization of the
capacity of the Institutes located in the NCT of Delhi and those located in other parts of
the NCR show a glaring difference, with the Institutes located outside NCT of Delhi
showing a vacancy position of upto 45% of the seats; which affects the reputation,
goodwill and standing of the University as explained above. It also lowers the economic
and financial viability of the concerned Institutions which may give rise to legal and
practical difficulties for the University and besides subjecting the admitted students
therein to poor quality of education and academic hardships.
45. Insofar as the issue of commercialization is concerned, they would state, the
University cannot permit its name to be used or its jurisdiction to be abused by the
institutes for commercializing education. In fact, the Petitioners are insisting that it
should be affiliated by the Respondent University and not by its own respective state
Universities is seeking to encash the good reputation and standing of the Respondent
University. The University is well within its rights and powers to regulate the affiliation
process and take a policy decision not to invite applications from the Petitioners and
other institutes located outside Delhi keeping in mind the average track record of all
such institutes as a whole.
46. They would state, all self-financing institutions affiliated to the Respondent
University, irrespective of whether they are situated in Delhi or in other areas of NCR,
require that 85% of their seats be reserved for Delhi students. The balance 15% are
filled up on an All India basis. These institutions located in the NCR Zone do not
command sufficient confidence of the Delhi based students and thus leading to huge
vacancies in such institutions. The low admission classroom fail to raise desired kind of
academic wholesomeness for maintaining high standard of teaching and academic
deliberations in classrooms as well as at institution level. The admitted students in such
institutions with low admissions are left to suffer with poor classroom and institutional
academic deliberation. Such institutions even if they want to raise standard of teaching
at par with other established institutions in right earnest, they fail to do so, as being self
financing they are palpably constrained by economic resources, which they are not able
to raise and sustain because of low admissions.
47. It is their submission, the Respondent University has filed an affidavit in the
present Writ Petition putting on record certain subsequent facts in its affidavit dated
May 25, 2017. The University has brought on record the fact that even the Institutes
located in NCT of Delhi who had applied for affiliation for the ensuing academic year
have not been granted affiliation. They would state, alongwith its additional affidavit
dated May 25, 2017, the Respondent University has filed a copy of the resolution of the
67th Meeting of the Board of Affiliation held on 12 th May, 2017. The cases of all the
new institutes located in the NCT of Delhi who had applied for affiliation for Academic
year 2017-18 have been decided. It is further submitted that at this stage the Petitioner
Institutions cannot be considered for affiliation for the Academic Year 2017-18 as it
would lead to reopening the process of affiliation from the beginning which shall entail
inviting application from all other aspirant institutions which may be more than the six
Petitioner Institutions. It will entail giving a public notification inviting applications,
then processing of these applications, thereafter inspection of these institutions by duly
constituted Committees, followed by processing of inspection reports for consideration
by the Board of Affiliation, convening the Board of Affiliation and consideration of the
Inspection Reports and then communication of the decision of the Board of Affiliation
to the Applicant Institutions. All this processes are likely to take another two months
which in turn would unsettle the notified timeline for admission for the Academic
Session 2017-18 consequently, affecting the commencement of the Academic Session
by 1st August, 2017. The Supreme Court in the Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors.
V. All India Council for Tech. Edu & Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 385 has laid down timeline
for affiliation, admission and commencement of the academic session which is binding
and sacrosanct. Opening the affiliation process of the University for consideration of the
new Institutes for the academic year 2017-18 at this stage would unsettle compliance
with the timeline set by the Supreme Court.
48. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the written
submissions / synopsis filed by them, the question which arises for consideration is
whether the respondents, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, (University in short) are justified in their decision to keep the affiliation of
new institutions located in National Capital Region (outside NCT of Delhi) in abeyance
till further orders.
49. In so far as the submissions made that the impugned decision violates Article 19
(1)(g) of the Constitution is concerned, the petitioner not being "Citizens" cannot plead
violation of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. A reference in this regard may be
made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases reported as "AIR 1963 SC 811
State Trading Corporation of India and Ors. v. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Vishakhapatnam & Ors.; 2011 3 SCC 193, Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. & Ors. V. State
of UP and Ors. Further, it is not the case of the petitioners that the impugned decision
has an effect on their existence / Constitution or their right to carry any profession or
carry on any occupation, trade or business (as Trust/Societies). Similar is the position
with regard to the institutes established by the Trust/Societies. The grievance of the
petitioners primarily is that they have been restrained from applying for affiliation.
Seeking affiliation is a statutory right under the provisions of the Act of 1998 / Statute
24 / Ordinance-I. So, the impugned decision cannot be said to be in violation of Article
19(1)(g). The Supreme Court in the context of Article 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution in
the case reported as AIR 1962 SC 171 All India Bank Employees' Association v.
National Tribunal has inter alia held the right to form Association does not entitle the
Citizen or individual or Group forming the Association a concomitant right to claim that
the objects for which the Association is formed too is part of the larger fundamental
right to form Association. I reproduce the relevant Paras of the said judgment as under:
"the argument of the learned Counsel, viz., that the right
guaranteed to form "an union" carries with it a concomitant right
that the achievement of the object for which the union is formed
shall not be restricted by legislation unless such restriction were
imposed in the interest of public order or morality, that calls for
critical examination. We shall be referring a little later to the
authorities on which learned Counsel rested his arguments under
this head, but before doing so we consider it would be proper to
discuss the matter on principle and on the construction of the
constitutional provision and then examine how far the authorities
support or contradict the conclusion reached. The point for
discussion could be formulated thus : When sub-clause (c) of cl.(1)
of Art.19 guarantees the right to form associations, is a guarantee
also implied that the fulfilment of every object of an association so
formed is also a protected right with the result that there is a
constitutional guarantee that every association shall effectively
achieve the purpose for which it was formed without interference
by law except on grounds relevant to the preservation of public
order or morality set out in clause (4) of Article.19? Putting aside
for the moment the case of Labour Unions to which we shall refer
later, if an association were formed, let us say for carrying on a
lawful business such as a joint stock company or a partnership,
does the guarantee by sub-cl.(c) of the freedom to form the
association, carry with it a further guaranteed right to the
company or the partnership to pursue its trade and achieve its
profit-making object and that the only limitations which the law
could impose on the activity of the association or in the way of
regulating its business activity would be those based on public
order and morality under clauses (4) of Article 19? We are clearly
of the opinion that this has to be answered in the negative. An
affirmative answer would be contradictory of the scheme
underlying the text and the frame of the several fundamental rights
which are guaranteed by Part III and particularly by the scheme
of the seven freedoms or groups of freedoms guaranteed by sub-
clauses (a) to (g) of clause (1) of Art. 19. The acceptance of any
such argument would mean that while in the case of an individual
citizen to whom a right to carry on a trade or business or pursue
an occupation is guaranteed by sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of
Article 19, the validity of a law which imposes any restriction on
this guaranteed right would have to be tested by the, criteria laid
down by clause (6) of Article 19. if however he associated with
another and carried on the same activity-say as a partnership, or
as a company etc., he obtains larger rights of a different content
and with different characteristics which include the right to have
the validity of legislation restricting his activities tested by
different standards, viz., those laid down in clause (4) ofArt. 19.
This would itself be sufficient to demonstrate that the construction
which the learned Counsel for the appellant contends is incorrect,
but this position is rendered clearer by the fact that Art. 19-as
contrasted with certain other Articles like Articles 26, 29 and 30-
grants rights to the citizen as such, and associations can lay claim
to the fundamental rights guaranteed by that Article solely on the
basis of their being an aggregation of citizens, i.e., in right of the
citizens composing the body. As the stream can rise no higher than
the source, associations of citizens cannot lay claim to rights not
open to citizens, or claim freedom from restrictions to which the
citizens: composing it are subject.
The resulting position way, be illustrated thus If an association
were formed' for' the purpose of arriving on business, the right to
form it would be Guaranteed by sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of
Article 19 subject to any law restricting that right conforming to
clause (4) of Article 19. As regards its business activities,
however, and the achievement of the objects for which it was
brought into existence, its rights would be those guaranteed by
subclause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 subject to any relevant
law on the matter conforming to clause (6) of Article 19; while the
property which the association acquires or possesses would be
protected by sub-el. (f) of cl. (1) of Art. 19 subject to legislation
within the limits laid down by cl. (5) of Art. 19. We consider it
unnecessary to multiply examples to further illustrate the point.
Applying what we have stated earlier to the case of a labour union
the position would be this: while the right to form an union is
guaranteed by sub-clause (c), the right of the members of the
association to meet would be guaranteed by sub-el. (b), their right
to move from place to place within India by sub-cl.(d), their right
to discuss their problems and to propagate their views by sub- cl.
(a), their right to hold property would be that guaranteed by sub-
clause (f) and so on each of these freedoms being subject to such
restrictions as might properly be imposed by clauses (2)to (6) of
Article 19 as might be appropriate in the context. It is one thing to
interpret each of the freedoms guaranteed by the several Articles
in Part III a fair and liberal sense, it is quite another to read
which guaranteed right as involving or including 'Concomitant
rights necessary to achieve the object which might be supposed to
under lie the grant of each of those rights, for that construction
would, by a series of ever expanding concentric circles in the
shape of rights. concomitant to concomitant rights and so on, lead
to an almost grotesque result."
50. That apart, I agree with the submission of Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Talwar that two
out of six petitioners are already affiliated to their respective State Universities; so there
is no question of placing any restriction on the petitioners right under Article 19 of the
Constitution. Even with regard to the balance four petitioners they can seek affiliation
with the State Universities. Hence this plea on behalf of the petitioners is liable to be
rejected.
51. In so far as the submissions of Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Kirti Uppal and other
counsels that (i) Section 4 of the Act of 1998 provides that the limits of the area within
which the University shall exercise its powers shall be those of NCR as defined in the
National Capital Regional Planning Board, 1985; (ii) makes it mandatory for the
respondents to grant affiliation if the institution agrees to accept the Statute and
Ordinances; (iii) the respondents cannot discriminate between the institutes of Delhi and
NCR as they form one class and no classification can be made particularly when the
classification has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved are concerned, it is
necessary for answering these submissions to reproduce Section 4 of the Act of 1998 as
under:
"**4. Jurisdiction:
(1) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, the
limits of the area within which the University shall exercise
its powers, shall be those of The National Capital Region as
defined in the National Capital Region Planning Board Act,
1985 (2 of 1985).
(2) No college or institution situated within the jurisdiction
of the University shall be compulsorily affiliated to the
University, and affiliation shall be granted by the University
only to such college or institution as may agree to accept the
Statutes and the Ordinances."
52. From the perusal of Section 4 it is seen that it confers upon the University, the
geographical limits within which it can exercise its powers under the Act, i.e., NCR.
The geographical limits have been fixed in terms of the National Capital Region
Planning Board Act, 1985. This would not mean, the powers of the University would
include the powers specified in the Act of 1985. Further, the first part of sub-clause 2 of
Section 4 stipulates no college or Institution situated within the jurisdiction of the
University shall be compulsorily affiliated to the University. In other words, there is no
obligation on a College or Institution within the jurisdiction to be affiliated to the
University. The later part of sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the Act of 1998 makes it clear
that even those who are admitted to its privileges have to agree to accept the Statutes and
Ordinances of the University. The conditions under which Colleges and Institution may
be admitted to the privileges of the University and the conditions under which such
privileges can be withdrawn, are laid down in Statute 24. It is necessary that such
conditions are fulfilled by a College or an Institution. Clause-3 (iii) of Statute 24
provides that University can reject a request for affiliation or grant it in whole or in part.
Clause 9 of Statute 24 contemplates suspension or withdrawal of affiliation. Similarly,
Clause 3.1 of Ordinance-I contemplates a College or Institution applying for affiliation
to the University within the time limit fixed by the University.
53. It is a conceded case of the petitioners as submitted during the arguments and is
also clear from Clause 3.1 of Ordinance-I that till such time the applications are invited
by the University, an Institute on its own cannot submit an application for affiliation. If
that be so, no institute be that in NCT of Delhi or NCR can submit an application for
affiliation till such time the University invites applications. There is nothing in Section
4 / Statute 24 / Ordinance-I which obligates the University to call for applications every
year for affiliation. So it follows, the University may or may not invite applications for
affiliation or it can limit the applications in a particular manner as has been done vide
the impugned order / letter. This necessarily means Section 4 / Statute 24 / Ordinance-I
does not make the grant of affiliation mandatory. The only question to be decided is
whether the decision is discriminatory and no classification can be made. The stand of
the respondents in justifying the decision as noted from the short affidavit is as under:
"8. It is submitted that in the last two years admissions in the
institutions / professional colleges etc. situated in NCR Zone
beyond the NCT of Delhi was around 40% of the total vacancies in
the year 2015-16, and the same was found to be around 47% in the
year 2016-17, whereas the admission in the institutions situated in
the NCT of Delhi was around 95% of the total vacancies during the
same period. The issue of huge vacancy in the NCR Zone outside
the NCT of Delhi in comparison to the institutions located in Delhi
was examined by the Respondent No.1 and it was observed that
there was a huge difference between the pattern of admissions in
NCT of Delhi and those beyond the NCT of Delhi. The abnormally
high number of vacant seats in the institutions located in the NCR
Zone beyond the NCT of Delhi were found to be unviable and it was
for this reason that the Respondent No.1 had the view that until the
admission status vis-à-vis the vacancy position against the existing
seats does not improve and matches with the position in Delhi
based institutions, any further affiliation to new institutions beyond
the NCT of Delhi should be suspended as an interim policy
measure. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 recommended that
they should not affiliate any new institutions beyond the NCT of
Delhi, till the admission statistics in outside Delhi institutions
improves to an acceptable level, i.e. at least 80% seats are filled,
from the coming Academic Session 2017-18 onwards. This shall
have the effect of overall consolidating the position of the existing
affiliated institutions of NCT of Delhi and outside NCT of Delhi and
thus add to the academic standards and ensure maintenance / up-
gradation of the quality of these institutions. In this regard a
meeting held on 25.11.2016 in the office of Secretary, Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The following members were present in the
said meeting:
i. Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
ii. Director, Higher Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
iii. Director, Training and Technical Education, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi.
iv. Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
Delhi.
v. Incharge, Affiliation, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, Delhi.
vi. Incharge, Admissions, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, Delhi.
9. The details of the discussion held and recommendations of the
committee are as under:
"The Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
apprised the members about the status of admissions in the
University for the academic session 2016-17. One of the
observations was that in the institutions located outside the
NCT of Delhi in the NCR, the status of admissions has been
dismal, upto 45% of seats remain vacant. Moreover, in the
last few years new affiliations have been primarily granted in
the NCR region (Outside the NCT of Delhi). Since a major
portion of seats in the institutions located in NCR (outside the
NCT of Delhi) are remaining vacant, affiliation of new
institution in NCR (Outside the NCT of Delhi) may not lead to
any fruitful exercise. Moreover, currently there are about 120
institutions affiliated to the University. As per the Rashtriya
Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan report (Page-111).
Following are the paths that can be taken in reforming the
affiliation system:
(I) Limit the number of colleges to be affiliated to any
university to 100 ....................
Considering these aspects, the members recommended that
new affiliation in NCR (outside Delhi) be put in abeyance. The
University should put up a proposal for the same separately."
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 25.112016 are annexed
herein as Annexure-R-1.
10. Based on the recommendation made in the meeting held on
25.11.2016 a proposal was received from the Respondent No.1, i.e.,
Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University for approval of Hon'ble
Chancellor of the University (Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi)
and the Hon'ble Chancellor (GGSIPU) / Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi has approved that affiliation of new institutions located in
NCR, outside of NCT of Delhi be kept in abeyance till further orders.
In compliance of the same, the order no. DHE4(6) Policy guideline /
14-15/Pt.file/435-437 dated 02.02.2017 was issued."
54. The aforesaid reveals two reasons which weighed with the authorities for taking
the impugned decision, (1) the Seats remaining vacant to the extent of 40% in the
academic year 2015-16 and 47% in the academic year 2016-17, in the Institutes in NCR
as against admission in the Institutes in NCT of Delhi being 95% during the same
period; (2) for limiting the number of affiliation to 100 in terms of RUSA.
55. With regard to 1 above, the following statistics have been taken into consideration
when the proposal was mooted on October 13, 2016,
Status of Admissions for Major CETs for the Academic Year 2016-17 and 2015-16
Delhi Outside Delhi Total
Academic % % Vacant %
Session Intake Filled Vacant vacancy Intake Filled vacant Vacancy Intake Filled vacancy
2015-16 22393 21081 1312 5.86 2860 1700 1160 40.56 25253 22781 2472 9.79
Total 2016-17 22544 21433 1111 4.93 4280 2243 2037 47.59 26824 23676 3148 11.74
56. I may state here during the course of hearing, a Chart was handed over to contend
that Greater Noida Institute has 80% seats filled vis-à-vis the Institute situated in
Dwarka which has 45% - 50% seats filled as per the information downloaded from the
website of the respondent / University. On this Mr. Tripathi has taken an objection that
the Chart does not depict the source of information. It is noted that the Chart produced
does show the information with regard to seats in Greater Noida is based on the IP
University list. A comparison is made with an Institute in Greater Noida and an Institute
in Delhi. To get a clear picture on the data which resulted in the decision the concerned
file was produced before the Court. The Chart as depicted above was the basis of the
decision. For outside Delhi Institutes the statistics was regard to all the Institutes outside
Delhi including Greater Noida. So the decision is on a consideration of overall position
of the Institutes outside Delhi and not confining to Greater Noida. The figures are
glaring. There is some basis for classification between the Institutes within Delhi and
those outside Delhi. Suffice to state there are valid reasons for the respondents to take a
decision as rampant affiliation may affect the credibility, reputation and goodwill of the
University as has been held by this Court in Rahul Dhaka Vikas Society and Anr.
(Supra). The Submission of Mr. Tripathi that the petitioners have option of applying for
affiliation in their respective State Universities whereas similar self-financing Institutes
situated in NCT of Delhi can only apply to the respondent University for affiliation is
appealing. The submission of Mr. Tripathi that lower admission statistics in the
Institutes in NCR also lower the economic and financial viability of the concerned
Institutions may give rise to legal and practical difficulties for the University and besides
subjecting the admitted students therein to poor quality of education. In other words
education standards need to be maintained is also appealing. His relatable submission
that the University cannot permit its name to be used or its jurisdiction to be abused for
commercializing education and the University is well within its right and power to
regulate affiliation process by taking a policy decision not to invite applications from the
Institutes located outside Delhi for certain good valid reasons is also appealing. The
above said decision has been approved at the highest level by the Chancellor of the
University / Lt. Governor of Delhi and Board of Affiliation and cannot be faulted.
57. In so far as the second reasoning for the impugned decision based on RUSA
recommendation is concerned; the said stand was countered by the counsel for the
petitioners by stating that the figure has crossed above 100 that too after the
recommendation of the RUSA, 2013 in the academic years 2014-15 and 2015-16 and the
RUSA recommendations are only in the nature of guidelines. There is no dispute that
RUSA did recommend for the restricting the affiliation to 100. It is also conceded
position that the affiliations have gone beyond 100 i.e., 126. But that cannot a reason for
allowing further affiliations which would take the figure beyond 126. The stand of the
University in the additional affidavit dated May 25, 2017 is that 15 Institutions from
within the NCT of Delhi had applied for affiliation to the University. However, none of
the said Institutes were considered for affiliation for the academic year 2017-18 by the
Board of Affiliation. In other words, the respondent University has not granted
affiliation to any new Institutes. This aspect may indicate that the University is adhering
to the RUSA recommendation. If that be so, no prejudice has been caused to the
petitioners. The plea of discrimination shall also be unsustainable. In so far as the
judgment referred to by Mr. Saini in the case of Vidha Sudha Welfare Foundation
Samiti (Supra) and connected writ petitions are concerned, the said judgment would not
be applicable in the facts of this case inasmuch as in those cases, this Court was
concerned with a challenge to a Notice dated February 27, 2015 of the NCTE inviting
applications for Teacher Training Courses by excluding certain districts of Madhya
Pradesh where the petitioner institutes were situated. This Court referred to (i) a
judgment / order dated January 20, 2016 passed in W.P.(C) 19819/2015 by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh wherein the High Court held all applications received before
the cut-off from the excluded district of state of Madhya Pradesh shall be treated as valid
and eligible to participate in the consideration process, (ii) judgment of this court in
Divine Mission Society (Regd.) v. National Council for Teacher Education and ors.
W.P.(C) 2889/2013 and (iii) to an earlier interim order passed in the same writ petitions.
It disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to consider the application of the
petitioners and a final decision to be taken thereon. Suffice to state the decision of this
Court is based on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P(C)
19819/2015; judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 2889/2013. Surely, if an application is
legally valid, it needs to be considered. On facts, the judgment is distinguishable.
58. One of the submissions made by Mr. Sacchin Puri, learned Sr. Counsel for the
petitioners in W.P.(C) 2393/2017 is that the impugned decision would necessarily
require an amendment to the Statute in terms of Section 26 (2) of the Act of 1998. The
said submission is without merit. I have already held that Section 4 of the Act of 1998 /
Statute 24/Ordinance-I does not obligate the University to call for applications for
affiliations nor they obligate grant of affiliation mandatory. Mr. Puri could not point out
as to how the impugned decision, which according to Mr. Puri is in the nature of
guideline is at variance with the provisions of the Act / Statute 24 / Ordinance-I and
require amendments. As the impugned decision is not in violation to the Act / Statute 24
and Ordinance-I no amendment is required. The reliance placed by Mr. Puri on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of
Science and Technology Trust (supra) is concerned, there the Supreme Court is
concerned with the facts where the petitioner Institute‟s proposal for establishment of a
new medical college for the academic year 2015-16 was returned on the ground the
same was submitted after the cut-off date of August 31, 2014. The Single Jude of this
Court allowed the Writ Petition. The judgment was reversed by the Division Bench.
One of the documents, essentiality certificate was submitted on September 10, 2014.
The Central Government rejected the application on the ground that essentiality
certificate was not submitted before the cut-off date of August 31, 2014. The Supreme
Court held the Institute was not at fault in the matter of submission of application and
other required documents and the approach of the Central Government is unjustified.
The Supreme Court allowed the SLP and directed the consideration of the application.
Having seen the judgment of the Supreme Court, the same has no relevance /
applicability to the facts of these cases. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court was
concerned with the rejection of the application for grant of recognition. In the case in
hand, the challenge is to the decision of the Govt. of NCT / University not to call
applications from Institutes in NCR for affiliation.
59. In so far as the submission of Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for
the petitioners in W.P.(C) 2955/2017, that the petitioner institute has been recognized as
a minority educational institution run by a Sikh Foundation and is free to run its own
affairs and in view of Section 10 (A) of the National Commission for Minority
Educational Institution (Amendment Act, 2006) and the petitioner is within its right to
apply for affiliation is concerned, the same is without any merit. The declaration under
Section 10(A) of the Amendment Act of 2006 is only a declaration with regard to an
institution being a minority institution and nothing more. The declaration does not
confer a right in favour of the petitioner to apply / seek affiliation. In this regard a
reference can be made to a judgment of this Court reported as 180 (2011) Delhi Law
Times, 268, Medical Council of India v. All Karim Educational Trust and Anr.
wherein this Court has held that the NOC granted by the National Commission for
Minority Educational Institution is for the purpose of establishing an Institution as a
Minority Educational Institution and not for the purpose of affiliation by the CBSE. No
benefit shall flow to the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2955/2017 on the basis of the declaration
under Section 10 (A) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution
(Amendment Act, 2006).
60. In so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners that as Statute / Ordinance
contemplates debarring non-performing Institutes from getting NOC after 2/3 years of
failure / non-performance and the ground on which the impugned decision is taken, is
concerned, suffice to state the ground of failure / non-performance pertains to those
Institutes which have affiliation. Even otherwise, that would still not preclude / restrain
the respondents, taking a decision in the manner now taken in view of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of National Council for Teacher Education v. Sri
Shyam Shiksha Prashiksham Sansthan 2011 (3) SCC 238 wherein the Supreme Court
in Para 33 has held as under:
"33. The consultation with the State Government/Union Territory
Administration and consideration of the
recommendations/suggestions made by them are of considerable
importance. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that
majority of the candidates who complete B.Ed. and similar courses
aspire for appointment as teachers in the government and
government aided educational institutions. Some of them do get
appointment against the available vacant posts, but large number of
them do not succeed in this venture because of non-availability of
posts. The State Government/Union Territory Administration
sanctions the posts keeping in view the requirement of trained
teachers and budgetary provisions made for that purpose. They
cannot appoint all those who successfully pass B.Ed. and like
courses every year. Therefore, by incorporating the provision for
sending the applications to the State Government/Union Territory
Administration and consideration of the
recommendations/suggestions, if any made by them, the Council
has made an attempt to ensure that as a result of grant of
recognition to unlimited number of institutions to start B.Ed. and
like courses, candidates far in excess of the requirement of trained
teachers do not become available and they cannot be appointed as
teachers. If, in a given year, it is found that adequate numbers of
suitable candidates possessing the requisite qualifications are
already available to meet the requirement of trained teachers, the
State Government/Union Territory Administration can suggest to
the concerned Regional Committee not to grant recognition to new
institutions or increase intake in the existing institutions. If the
Regional Committee finds that the recommendation made by the
State Government/Union Territory Administration is based on valid
grounds, it can refuse to grant recognition to any new institution or
entertain an application made by an existing institution for increase
of intake and it cannot be said that such decision is ultra vires the
provisions of the Act or the Rules." (emphasis supplied)
61. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court holds that for valid grounds the
regional committee can refuse recognition to new institution or entertain applications
made by an existing institution for increasing intake. The judgment is applicable in all
fours, to the cases in hand.
62. In so far as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Kirti Uppal and Ms. Anubha
Aggarwal in the case of Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai and Anr. (Supra), is
concerned, the same has no application in the facts of this case as the issue which fell for
consideration was not the same, which is being decided in this batch of petitions.
Similarly, the reliance placed by Mr. Saini on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) (Supra) is concerned, the same has no application in the
facts of this case and in view of my conclusion above. Even the reliance placed on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in M.S. Gill (Supra) has no application.
63. The submissions, that the impugned decision has been taken in collusion with the
existing institutes in the NCR, which are guilty of non-performance in the past is an
allegation of malafide. It is stated by the respondents that the impugned decision has
been taken at the level of Chancellor (Hon‟ble Lt. Governor of Delhi) and the Board of
Affiliation. It that be so, the allegations are unsustainable and also cannot be looked into
as it is a settled law that there has to be sufficient pleadings and persons against whom
the allegations are made should be impleaded as parties.
64. The plea advanced with regard to infrastructure / facilities etc. possessed by the
petitioners is concerned, the same has no bearing on the impugned decision and on my
conclusion above.
65. I may only state here, that the decision of the respondents is to keep the affiliation
of new institutions located in NCR in abeyance till further orders, which means, it is not
a decision of permanent nature.
66. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the view that the impugned
decision cannot be interfered with in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
CM No. 10223/2017 in W.P.(C) 2377/2017
CM No. 10328/2017 in W.P.(C) 2393/2017
CM No. 10633/2017 in W.P.(C) 2465/2017
CM No. 13715/2017 in W.P.(C) 3148/2017
CM No. 12198/2017 in W.P.(C) 2798/2017
CM No. 12864/2017 in W.P.(C) 2955/2017
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JUNE 05, 2017
ak/jg
