Sunrish Group Of Institution, ... vs All India Council For Tech. Edu. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2628 Raj

(1 of 6) [CW-13614/2016]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13614/2016

Sunrise Group Of Institution, Udaipur, Near Barimata Temple, Jhamarkotra Road, Umrada, Udaipur Thro, Resident Of Plot No. 1, Opposite U.i.t. Community Centre, Hiran Magri, Sector No. 4, Udaipur Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. All India Council For Technical Education, 7Th Floor, Chandralik Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 Through Its Secretary

2. Rajasthan Technical University, Kota Through Its Registrar, Akelgarh, Rawat Bhati Road, Kota

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mool Singh Panwar

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

15/02/2022

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of

all concerned.

The petitioner-institution has preferred this writ petition

claiming the following relief:-

"1. The respondents may kindly be directed to grant enrollment number to 44 students, as specified in the list submitted by the petitioner vide Annex.3, and permit them to undertake the examination of B.Tech Course (1st year) for the academic session 2016.

2. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

(2 of 6) [CW-13614/2016]

The brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that

the petitioner-institution is running B.Tech., M.Tech. and MBA

Courses since year 2000 in pursuance of the sanction given by the

All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The petitioner-

institution received due sanction for the academic session i.e.

2016-17 for intake capacity of 60 students for the courses i.e. the

Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Computer Science

Engineering, Electrical & Electronics Engineering and

Communication Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Civil

Engineering, and 120 students were sanctioned for the petitioner-

institution. After the counselling, some seats were lying vacant,

which were filled by the petitioner-Institution in August, 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were

total 44 seats, out of which, 34 students were admitted prior to

15.08.2016 and remaining 10 were admitted post 15.08.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

despite taking the issues regarding regularizing such admissions,

the same has not been done by the respondents. Learned counsel

for the petitioner further submits that by virtue of the interim

order dated 19.11.2016, the petitioner-institution was permitted

to enable the participation of the students in the course in

question. Thus, as per the interim order granted by this Court, the

students were permitted to get their offline examination forms

forwarded by the petitioner-institution to the Rajasthan Technical

University, Kota, without creating any equity in their favour.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

course of students is at the verge of completion, and thus, any

adverse view of this Court would prejudice the career of the

(3 of 6) [CW-13614/2016]

students, who have undertaken the education in question for last

four years and even more.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by

virtue of the past practice as well as the certain orders issued by

the State Technical Education Department, one of which is

Annexure-2 dated 28.08.2015, the admission into the courses of

engineering were permitted to be directly given by the colleges

against the vacant seats.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

counselling was not conducted by the State itself in accordance

with the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also contended

by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Technical

Education itself issued an advertisement, which is placed as

Annexure-5, regarding the admission of students post 15.08.2016,

after the cut-off date by Hon'ble Apex Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that

the respondent no.2-University issued an admission notice and

invited online application forms from the eligible candidates for

registration and choice filling in the Rajasthan Engineering

Admission Process (REAP)-2016 for admission of students in first

year degree course under graduate programme for bachelors

degree in different disciplines of Engineering (B.Tech./B.E.) in

various Government aided and private unaided technical

institutions of the Rajasthan for the Sessions 2016-17 from

01.06.2016.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the

petitioner-Institution was not at all authorized or competent to

provide direct admissions to any student, who has not participated

in the process (REAP-2016), but despite that, the petitioner-

(4 of 6) [CW-13614/2016]

Institution in the garb of the letter dated 28.08.2015 provided

unauthorized & unlawful admission to the 44 students. Learned

counsel for the respondents thus, refutes the applicability of

Annexure-2 dated 28.08.2015.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the

Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the issue of Technical Education in

the matter of Parshvanath Charitable Trust Vs. All India

Council for Technical Education & Ors. reported in (2013) 3

SCC 385, whereby a strict schedule has been formulated and

nothing contrary to such schedule can be permitted to be done by

any of the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

judgment rendered by Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the

matter of Ghugal Yukta Anil Vs. State of Chhattisgarh; Writ

Petition (Civil) No.3485/2019, 3574/2019, 3474/2019,

decided on 21.10.2019.

Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to

judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of

Education Promotion Society for India & Anr. Vs. Union of

India & Ors. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 38, the relevant portion

of which reads as under:-

"6. In this case the petitioners want a general extension of time not on account of any particular difficulty faced by any individual college or university but generally on the ground that a large number of seats for the P.G. courses are lying vacant. It is stated that more than 1000 seats are lying vacant. In the affidavit filed by the UOI it is mentioned that as far as deemed universities are concerned there are 603 seats lying vacant. However, it is important to

(5 of 6) [CW-13614/2016]

note that out of 603 seats lying vacant only 31 are in clinical subjects and the vast majority (572) that is almost 95% of the seats are lying vacant in non- clinical subjects. There is no material on record to show as to what is the situation with regard to the remaining 400500 seats. This Court however can take judicial notice of the fact that every year large number of non clinical seats remain vacant because many graduate doctors do not want to do post- graduation in nonclinical subjects. Merely because the seats are lying vacant, in our view, is not a ground to grant extension of time and grant further opportunity to fill up vacant seats. The schedule must be followed. If we permit violation of schedule and grant extension, we shall be opening a Pandora's box and the whole purpose of fixing a time schedule and laying down a regime which strictly adheres to time schedule will be defeated.

7. We may note that in the schedule prescribed, there are three rounds of counselling, the first round, the second round and the mop up round. The mop up round was to be completed by 31.5.2019 and if some seats remain vacant even after the mop up round it cannot be helped. Extension cannot be granted just because some seats are lying vacant without there being any other justification.'

In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits most of the admissions i.e. about 30 students, out of 44

students, were prior to 15.08.2016, as per the deadline fixed by

Hon'ble Apex Court, and thus, the regularization ought to be done.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws

cited above, this Court finds that the petitioner-Institution was not

having any lawful authority whatsoever to give admissions for the

(6 of 6) [CW-13614/2016]

undergraduate programme of bachelors degree in a discipline of

Engineering (B.Tech./B.E.) and was not having any permission

from the State/University/AICTE, and thus, all such admissions

granted contrary to rules, cannot be given legal sanction by this

Court. The specialized education of engineering has to be given a

completely uniform and disciplined mode as laid down by Hon'ble

Apex Court while laying down strict guidelines.

Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to

show a single document, which authorized the petitioner-

institution to continue with filling of seats even when the students

were not having their registration and did not appear in Rajasthan

Engineering Admission Process (REAP) 2016. The petitioner-

Institution seeks intervention over and above the orders of

Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the advertisement and Act of the

State, which cannot be accepted, as it would be a direct breach of

the guideline laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

This Court feels anguished that number of years of the

students have been wasted, but the agony of this Court cannot

culminate into the relief because the relief prayed for is strictly

bound by the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

and the statutory bodies regulating the engineering education.

Hence, no case for making any interference is made out.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.

All pending applications also stand dismissed accordingly.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 24-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)