Full Judgment
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :
9707. of 2013 Aditya College of Technology & Sciences - V/s - All India Council for Technical Education and others Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.
Hon’ble Shri Justice M.A.Siddiqui.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Sidharth Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Sharma, counsel for the respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER
26/06/2013 Challenging the order and show-cause issued to the petitioner as contained in the communication made on 6.4.2013 and 29.4.2013, in the matter of rejecting an application submitted by the petitioner/Institute for the purpose of grant of extension of approval for starting a CouRs.i.e.Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift).and also withdrawing the letter of approval earlier granted for the Academic Session 2012-13, this writ petition has been filed.
2- Petitioner claims to be a Private self-financing Institute imparting training and education in various Technical and Professional Courses like BE, MBA etc.It is established by a Society registered under the Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, namely the Aditya Shiksha Prasar Sansthan.
It is the case of the petitioner Institute that it was established in the year 2007 and since then is imparting education in connection with various courses like BE, MBA etc.on the basis of sanction and approval granted by AICTE.
Details are given with regard to the sanction and affiliation granted for running these courses right Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
2. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.from the year 2007 upto the current session 2012-13.
In January, 2012 the Institute applied for starting certain courses namely Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) in Cement Technology and Mechanical Engineering and applied for an intake of 60 seats each.
It is the case of the petitioner that they fulfil the norms and standards required for starting the aforesaid courses.
On the basis of the application submitted the authorities of the respondent/University conducted physical inspection and verification of the Institute, Expert Committee undertook the visit and submitted report and based on the same, an approval was granted in the second week of April, 2012 and finally on 10.5.2012 vide Annexure P/4, the AICTE conveyed its approval with regard to undertaking a couRs.in Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) for 120 seats.
Accordingly, based on the approval granted by AICTE, petitioner is said to have approached the State Government in the Directorate of Technical Education, for conducting further formalities and for 120 seats admission process for the Session 2012-13 commenced, and vide letter dated 19.6.2012, the Directorate of Technical Education informed the affiliating University namely the Rajeev Gandhi Prodoyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, for affiliating the petitioner Institute and thereafter it is stated that all the formalities were conducted, admissions were granted and 120 students started pursuing the couRs.for the Academic Session 2012-13.
It is stated that the petitioner Institute submitted all the details necessary for grant of approval as indicated hereinabove and the particulars of the Principal employed in the Institute alongwith qualification and other details were also communicated.
3- It is stated that with regard to the qualification and other particulars of the Principal, there was no “suppression”.
or “mis- representation”.
by the Institute and the affiliation and sanction as mentioned hereinabove, for 120 Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) CouRs.was accorded without any hindrance by the respondents.
However, when the Institute sought extension of the approval granted for the forthcoming session and when within the stipulated period on12.2.2013, the necessary formalities were completed, it is stated that the impugned Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
3. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.action has been taken by the AICTE, mainly on the ground that the Principal of the Institute does not fulfil the qualifications prescribed for appointment and, therefore, it is stated that as the statutory norms laid down for conducting a Course, namely Polytechnic Diploma, is not fulfilled by the Institute, the approval earlier granted is withdrawn, the students already admitted are directed to be shifted to various other Institutes and the request for extension of approval for the next academic session is also rejected.
Challenge in this writ petition is made to these impugned actions.
4- Shri Sidharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, took us through the material available on record; the application submitted by the Institute, initially for grant of approval; the particulars disclosed in the application, i.e….
with regard to the Principal, one Dr.
Parihar, and argued that when the application was submitted his age, qualification and other details were clearly mentioned, these were verified by the Council and without any objection approval was granted.
There was no suppression or mis-representation by the Institute and not on the ground that the qualification of the Principal is not fulfilled action is taken, which adversely affects the right of the Institute so also the admission already granted to more than 120 students, on the basis of the approval earlier granted.
Accordingly, the fiRs.ground canvassed is that when with open eyes and on scrutiny of all the material adduced by the petitioner approval was granted, the same could not be withdrawn in the manner done.
5- It was further emphasized by Shri Sidharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Principal in question Dr.
Parihar, is possessing the qualification of B.Sc, M.Sc and is a Ph.D holder.
The norms laid down upto 2006 were fulfilled by Dr.
Parihar.
Now, as per the norms fixed in the year 2012, as a Principal has to be B.Tech, M.Tech with Ph.D Degree holder, Dr.
Parihar does not fulfil this qualification.
It is stated that considering the changed norMs.petitioner’s accepted for appointing a new Principal and accordingly when the show- cause notice - Annexure P/14 dated 15.2.2013 was issued, they Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
4. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.submitted their reply rectifying their deficiency and pointed out that a new Principal, one Dr.
C.L.Saraf, meeting all the requirements, have been appointed.
the Principal and Institute were given personal hearing, as is evident from Annexure P/15, on 24.3.2013, and inspite of the fact that Dr.
C.L.Saraf was meeting all the requirements, on the ground that he is over-age being more than 70 years of age, his appointment is not approved and, therefore, after approval from the Directorate of Technical Education, another person Dr.
Srinivasa V.
Prasad has been appointed on 23.4.2013 vide Annexure P/16, and intimation in this regard was also made to the AICTE.
Accordingly, it is stated that not Dr.
Srinivasa V.
Prasad is appointed, he is working as Principal and is fully qualified, meeting all the requirements as is applicable, therefore, rejection and the impugned action undertaken on 6.4.2013 is not correct.
Pointing out that appeal filed on 17.4.2013 has also not been considered and after the impugned action was taken, a corrigendum has been issued on 29.4.2013, with regard to granting approval to certain other courses after the new Principal was appointed, but in the matter of conducting the Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) Course, as permission was not granted, this writ petition is filed.
6- Inviting our attention to certain interim order passed by a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2621/2013 (Radhaswami Institute of Science and Technology versus AICTE and otheRs.- Annexure P/18 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others versus AICTE and otheRs.Civil Appeal No.9048/2012, reported in 2012(12) SCALE 219 Shri Sidharth Gupta argued that in this case the approval was granted to the petitioner well within the cut-off dates and deadline fixed by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra).and not only because of the fault of the respondents, petitioner/Institute is suffering and, therefore, the approval and other sanction should be granted.
Taking us through the documents and material available on record, much emphasis was made by Shri Sidharth Gupta to the effect that the AICTE having accorded approval in the year 2012 and the Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
5. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.Institute having admitted students after participating in the counseling and other formalities in accordance to rules, the action taken for issuing the show-cause notice and withdrawing the formal approval earlier granted is unsustainable.
7- Accordingly, Shri Sidharth Gupta emphasized that not the Institute is functioning with a duly approved and qualified Principal, therefore, the action impugned should be quashed and the approval granted.
8- Respondents have filed a reply and it is pointed out that fulfillment of the requirement under the AICTE (Grant of Approval for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 2011) - Annexure R/1/2 is the requirement of law.
It is stated that as per the qualifications prescribed for appointment of a Principle to a Technical Institution running Polytechnic Courses, the incumbent should be BE/B.Tech and ME/M.Tech in the relevant subjects with fiRs.class or equivalent either in BE/B.Tech or ME/M.Tech.
It is stated that the Principal appointed by the petitioner Dr.
Parihar was only Graduate and Post Graduate in Science (B.Sc and M.Sc).he was not qualified and, therefore, the action is taken.
Referring to the statutory requirements as contained in the Regulation of 2011, and the Handbook of formalities to be completed, Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that as per the statute all qualifications prescribed should be fulfilled by the Institute when the application is submitted with all its particulars or loaded in the website of the Council.
Referring to the provisions of the AICTE Approval Process Handbook (2013-14).the qualifications prescribed for appointment of a Principal, it is stated that the Rules and Procedure statutory in nature prescribed, contemplates that the Institute should have ‘zero deficiency’ as per the report generated on the Web Portal.
Referring to the Handbook - Annexure R/1/1; Regulations of 2011 and Clause 14.3 thereof, with regard to the fact of non-fulfillment of statutory requirement in the matter of qualification of the Principal, learned counsel for the respondents/council argued that as on the date of Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
6. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.submission of the application on the Portal and Website of the Council, the Principal appointed, namely Dr.
Parihar was not fulfilling the qualifications required as per the statute and as the deficiency was rectified and the condition for appointment of a qualified Principal was only fulfilled when the new Principal was appointed namely Dr.
Srinivasa V.
Prasad was appointed on 24.4.2013 i.e… much after the impugned action was taken on 6.4.2013, respondents submit that it is not a case where interference can be made by this Court as the statutory requirement in the matter of qualification and appointment of a duly qualified Principal is not existing, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner/Institute.
9- It is argued by Shri Pramod Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, that even if earlier some benefit was granted ignoring the requirement of the statute, it is a mistake committed by the Council and the Council has all the right to correct the mistake.
It is submitted by him that estoppel will not apply in the present case, as estoppel against the statute or contrary to law is not permissible.
10- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
11- It is not in dispute that when the petitioner applied for grant of approval, for conducting the Polytechnic Diploma (II Shift) CouRs.for 120 seats on 10.5.2012, one Dr.
Parihar was appointed and was working as Principal of the said Institute.
From the documents that have come on record and the material available, particularly the Regulations of 2011 and the Handbook contemplating procedure for appointment, it is clear that the qualifications prescribed in the matter of appointing a Principal to the Institute is that the incumbent should be BE/B.Tech or ME/M.Tech in the relevant subjects with fiRs.class or equivalent either in BE/B.Tech or ME/M.Tech.
This requirement is stipulated in the statutory provisions and it is an admitted position that this requirement is not fulfilled by Dr.
Parihar, he was only a Graduate and Post Graduate in Science (B.Sc and M.Sc) with a Ph.D, at the relevant time.
The initial qualification prescribed according to petitioner’s own showing Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
7. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.underwent a change in the Academic Session 2011-12.
The petitioner himself in paragraph 4, of the writ petition, admits that the qualification of the Principal underwent change in the Academic Session 2011-12.
That being so, it is an admitted position that when the petitioner sought for approval for conducting the CouRs.in January 2012, for the Session 2012-13, the qualification for appointment of Principal was B.Tech/M.Tech with Ph.D Degree, and at that point of time Dr.
Parihar was not qualified.
Even though in the application submitted by the petitioner as is available on record, the particulars of the Principal has been correctly mentioned and it is clear from these particulars that are available on record that on the date of submission and the application for approval, which was allowed in the official Website of the Council i.e….
on 5.2.2012 vide Annexure P/7, the Principal - Dr.
Jitendra Singh Parihar was not qualified, but still for reasons which are not available on record, approval was granted for conducting the course.
Even though in Annexure P/7, the document is shown to be a deficiency report, it is not known as to how and on what basis initial permission was granted to the Institute vide communication - Annexure P/4, on 10.5.2012.
This requires inquiry and action to be taken by the Council.
The petitioner wants this Court to say that petitioner disclosed all the correct information inspite thereof and without there being any mis- representation or suppression of fact by the petitioner, when the approval was granted, it cannot be withdrawn now, as has been done.
12- For the purpose of argument or for the purpose of sympathetic consideration of the case of the petitioner, such an argument looks attractive, but when the procedure for grant of approval, affiliation and sanction for conducting Technical Education is governed by a statutory provision like the Regulations of 2011, as indicated hereinabove, and when the statute contemplates that things have to be done in a manner as prescribed under the statute, the question is can this Court ignoring the statutory requirement or contrary thereof grant relief to the petitioner merely because the respondents have committed mistake Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
8. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.or have not conducted their task of verification before approval in a proper manner?.
13- The provisions of the Statute and the legal requirement in the matter of granting approval to colleges of education or permission for affiliation or running a couRs.has to be applied strictly and if the provision of law contemplates doing of a thing in a particular manner, no mandamus can be issued in deviation to or contrary to the requirement of law.
That being so, we are not inclined to accept the contention of Shri Sidharth Gupta to the effect that in the absence of any mis-representation or fraud being established by the petitioner, once the approval was granted things cannot be re-opened or action taken against the petitioner particularly when not the norms with regard to a proper Principal being appointed is fulfilled.
When approval earlier granted was contrary to law, it cannot be legalized or regularized by a subsequent act of appointing a qualified Principal.
In this regard, if the requirement of the statute as is made out from the Handbook - Annexure R/1/1 is taken note of, it is seen that under Clause 8, at page 15, the procedure for approval and allotment of intake in the II Shift is indicated.
It is clearly stipulated in this provision that the Institute should have ‘zero deficiency’ as per the report generated on the Web Portal.
That apart, the requirement of Regulation of 2011 - Annexure R/1/2 also contemplates (Clause 14.3) that non-fulfillment of requirement of qualified Principal or Director entitles an Institute to be put under ‘no admission status’.
A complete reading of the provisions of Handbook and the Regulations of 2011 clearly shows that approval or sanction for conducting a CouRs.or starting a particular couRs.is evaluated on the basis of information, infrastructure and other facilities available at the time of inspection of the Institute or when the application is submitted for grant of approval or sanction.
The statutory requirement with regard to qualification of a Principal are required to be fulfilled when the application is submitted and not on a later date.
When the procedure for appointment, as indicated hereinabove shows that the Institute should have ‘zero deficiency’ as per the report generated on the Web Portal, it means that Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
9. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.when the information is furnished alongwith the application in the Web Portal, there should be ‘no deficiency’ with regard to the Institute in question 14- In the present case, the report generated vide Annexure P/7 goes to show that there was a deficiency in as much as the Principal Dr.
Jitendra Singh Parihar, on 5.2.2012, was not qualified to work as a Principal and, therefore, when the process of grant of approval was made, it was a defective process in as much as the Institute was not having requisite norms for grant of approval.
Thereafter, when the show- cause notice was given for withdrawal of the approval and when the mistake was detected and when the proposed action was to be taken, the petitioner knowing the same rectified this defect on 4.3.2013, by appointing another person, namely Dr.
C.L.Saraf as a Principal, and produced him at the time of hearing before the Appeals Committee, on 24.3.2013.
When this was done, the Committee took note of these facts and recorded the following reasons for rejecting the claim.
The reason indicated in the impugned action reads as under: “Observation: Deficiency in qualification of principal and institution’s reply dated 4.3.2013 to the Show Cause Notice - ‘Recently appointed principal has done his P.G.Diploma in 1962 which confirms his age at present to be more than 70 yeaRs.Proper appointment has not been done & more over 6th pay is not paid to the principal.
Hence appointment of the principal is not as per the norms of AICTE.
Hence in view of the above the students of the college may be shifted to other institutes as per the AICTE rule/norMs.for the 2nd Shift Diploma CouRs.under consideration.
No increase and additional courses for 2013-14.’ Recommendation: “Recommended for rejection.”
15- From the aforesaid, it is clear that on 6.4.2013, when the order - Annexure P/1 was passed and when the matter was considered by the Committee, the deficiency was that the Institute was not having a qualified Principal.
Thereafter, from the pleadings made by the Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
10. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.petitioner it is clear that when this action was taken, petitioner hurriedly took steps for appointment of Dr.
Srinivasa V.
Prasad vide Annexure P/16, on 23.4.2013, requested for granting another opportunity for appointment of a Principal.
The representation in this regard made goes to show that the new Principal was appointed on 26.3.2013 i.e… much after the fiRs.meeting was held by the Appeals Committee on 22.3.2013.
16- From the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner/Institute when it applied for grant of approval for the CouRs.in question did not fulfil the norms fixed for appointment and it is only when the impugned action was being taken that the norms were fulfilled.
From a reading of the Handbook - Annexure R/1/1 and the relevant clauses of the Regulations of 2011, it is clear that the requirement and the eligibility criteria fixed under the statute for grant of approval are to be fulfilled at the time when the approval is sought for and in this case when the approval was sought for in January 2012, the norms were not fulfilled by the Institute.
It is only after hearing of their appeal that they took steps for fulfilling the norMs.If the norms are not fulfilled, the petitioner is only entitled for reconsideration of his case for the next academic session in accordance to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra).17- Once it is found by this Court that certain norms are laid down under the statute, which are to be fulfilled by an Institute seeking approval and when it is found that these norms are not fulfilled at the time when the approval is sought for, in ignorance to the rules and by giving a go by to the rules, no mandamus can be issued.
Fulfillment of the statutory norms as laid down is a mandatory requirement and once the said requirement is not shown to be fulfilled, this Court cannot issue any mandamus or interfere into the matter.
It may be taken note of that apart from the aforesaid, Supreme Court, in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust (supra).has laid down a detailed schedule to be fulfilled in the matter of grant of approval and in the judgment rendered, it has been clearly laid down that the schedule as has been approved by the Supreme Court has to be strictly followed.
The academic calendar Writ Petition No ::
9707. ”
11. Aditya College of Technology and Sciences versus AICTE and otheRs.fixed by the Supreme Court has to be strictly adhered to and no deviation from the aforesaid schedule is permissible.
If the aforesaid schedule as fixed by the Supreme Court is taken note of, then it is seen that the order granting or refusing approval has to be issued positively by 10th of April, of the relevant year.
The appeal filed has to be decided by the Appeals Committee by 30th of April, of the relevant year; and, the University has to grant affiliation or approval by 15th of May, of the relevant year.
In the present case, the time limit for grant of approval is already over and within this time period the petitioner was not fulfilling the norms for grant of approval.
That being so, contrary to the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court as indicated hereinabove and in violation to the statutory rules, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter.
18- Merely because of some mistake or by ignorance something happened in granting the original approval on 10.5.2012 vide Annexure P/4, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter.
As indicated hereinabove, when it is clear that on 10.5.2012 and when within the time limit fixed by the Supreme Court, norms for fulfilling the statutory requirement were not fulfilled by the institute, no mandamus for granting approval for the current academic session can be granted, as any direction issued in this regard by this Court will not only run contrary to the statutory norms and the Regulations of 2011, but it will also be in violation to the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court and mandated to be given full effect.
It is a case where, when original approval was being granted in 2012, the norms were not fulfilled by the Institute in question.
It is only at the time of hearing of the appeal that the Principal having requisite qualifications was appointed.
19- As the Institute in question has failed to fulfil the statutory requirement at the relevant time when approval was sought for, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere.
20- Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
( RAJENDRA MENo.) ( M.A.SIDDIQUI ) JUDGE JUDGE Aks/-