(Prayers in WP.No.19870/2014: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent in F.No.2-OC/Misc/SRO/AB [1-45693811] dated 16.06.2014 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to conduct necessary inspection and pass orders regarding the continuation of recognition to the petitioner Institution M/s.Annai Veilankanni Pharmacy College.
WP.No.15231/2015: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents relating to the order of the 1st respondent F.No.Southern/1-2479984919/2015/LOR-Chapter 2 dated 07.04.2015 and F.No.2-OC/Misc/SRO/AB [1-45693811] dated 30.04.2015 and quash the same and directing the 1st respondent to grant Extension of Approval to the petitioner College from all the existing courses for the academic year 2015-16 in view of paragraph 32[x] of the judgment reported in 2006 [4] CTC 483.)
Common Order
1. The petitioner / Pharmacy College, aggrieved by the orders dated 16.06.2014, 30.04.2015 and 24.04.2016 respectively, passed by the Regional Director of Southern Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education [AICTE], Chennai-6, for non-granting of Extension of Approval to the petitioner / College for the academic years 2014-15, 015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, has filed these writ petitions.
2. The issue to be decided in these writ petitions is one and the same and therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions, briefly narrated, are as follows:-
[A] The Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University granted affiliation to the petitioner / College from the academic year 1995-96 till 2013-14. The Pharmacy Council of India, had also approved the courses for the academic years 1995-96 to 2017-18. AICTE had granted approval to the petitioner / College from the academic year 2004-05 to 2012-13. AICTE, vide communication dated 10.04.2013, has informed the petitioner about non-granting of Extension of Approval for the academic year 2013-14 and it was put to challenge in WP.NO.11509/2013. This Court, vide order dated 09.04.2014, had directed Dr.MGR Medical University to pass orders on the application of the petitioner for grant of affiliation without taking into consideration the above cited order of AICTE dated 10.04.2013. The petitioner for the subsequent academic year 2014-15 had also met with the same fate as AICTE in its communication, has made a decision not to grant Extension of Approval for the academic year 2014-15 and once again, challenge was made by filing WP.No.19870/2014 and this Court, vide interim order dated 22.08.2014 made an observation that the deficiencies pointed out by AICTE could not have cropped up for the current academic year 2014-15 and therefore, granted interim direction to include the petitioner / College for counselling. Thereafter, the Expert Visit Committee of AICTE visited the College and inspected the infra-structure and other facilities available and certain deficiencies have been pointed out as per the Inspection Report and vide communication dated 26.03.2015, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Standing Compliance Committee [SCC] with regard to the compliance of the deficiencies pointed out and a detailed Compliance Report was submitted on 02.04.2015. However, AICTE has rejected the application for Extension of Approval for the academic year 2015-16 vide communication dated 30.04.2015 and the said is the subject matter of challenge in WP.No.15231/2015 and vide interim orders dated 28.05.2015 in MP Nos.2and3/2015, this Court granted interim orders for inclusion of the petitioner / College for the Counselling for the academic year 2015-16 and also granted an order of ad-interim direction on 11.08.2015 in MP.No.1/2015, permitting the Under-Graduate students to take examinations subject to final outcome of the writ petition in WP.No.19870/2014 and similar direction was also passed on 12.10.2015 in MP.No.2/2015.
[B] WMP.No.3672/2016 in WP.No.19870/2014 was filed praying for declaration of the results and this Court, had directed Dr.MGR Medical University to declare the results without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the main writ petition.
[C] The Compliance Report filed by the petitioner / College as to the deficiencies pointed out has been considered and AICTE, vide communication dated 05.04.2016 has directed the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Committee on 08.04.2016 and it was considered and vide order dated 24.04.2016, the request made by the petitioner / College for Extension of Approval for the academic year 2016-17 came to be rejected and the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation pointing out that each and every deficiency has been complied with and insofar as the Building / superstructure is concerned, in the light of the judgment reported in 2006[4] CTC 483 [Consumer Action Group rep. By its Trustee, Tara Murali and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009 and others], the petitioner / College is entitled to get regularisation of the Building as it came into being before the year 1999 and that the application for regularisation filed before the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [CMDA] along with the prescribed fees is yet to be disposed of, for which the petitioner / College cannot be blamed. However, AICTE without due and proper application of mind, has rejected the request for Extension of Approval stating that the decision of Council on the basis of Standing Appellate Committee is final and binding.
4. Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Kandan Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.Nos.15231/2015 and 18405/2016 and Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No.198792014, has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents filed in support of these writ petitions and would contend that all the deficiencies pointed out, have been complied with in full and insofar as the Building is concerned, it is entitled to get regularisation in the light of the above cited judgment and necessary application along with prescribed fees have been submitted to CMDA and the application is under process and therefore, it cannot said that the Buildings have no approval. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that on account of various interim orders passed by this Court, the students were permitted to write examinations and therefore, prays for appropriate direction to declare the results and in the event of failure on the part of the students to get a pass mark, they may be permitted to write the supplemental / main examinations and prays for appropriate orders.
5. Per contra, Mr.Ar.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Standing Counsel for AICTE has drawn the attention of this Court to the Counter Affidavit and would submit that insofar as the Buildings are concerned, the Sanctioned Layout as well as the Sanctioned Plan are yet to be made available and the Expert Committee had also made visits and found that necessary infrastructural facilities are lacking, such as laboratory, library, books and journals etc., and therefore, AICTE took a fair and proper decision not to grant Extension of Approval for the academic years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and unless and until the petitioner / College fulfills all major infrastructure and other facilities, it cannot be allowed to impart education to the concerned students. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the students attached to the petitioner / College have to undergo Pharmacy courses which is very vital for identification and administration of proper course of medicine to the concerned patients and on account of lack of major and infrastructure facilities, one cannot expect the College to impart quality education and taking into consideration the said aspect also, a fair decision has been taken to deny the request made by the petitioner for Extension of Approval and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Mr.G.Hari Hara Arun Soma Sankar, learned Counsel appearing for Dr.MGR Medical University has invited the attention of this Court to the common counter affidavit filed in these writ petitions and would submit that as per Statute 36 Clause [c] of the Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University Act, the petitioner / College can admit the candidate only after the approval has been obtained from AICTE and the Pharmacy Council of India and also from the University and in the absence of Extension of Approval, the University cannot give any permission for admission of students and despite the fact that the petitioner / College is ineligible to admit any candidates without prior permission of the above cited Institutions. It had admitted the students and obtained interim orders to enable them to write the examinations and got declaration of the results on one occasion also and admittedly, no such permission has been granted by AICTE and also by Dr.MGR Medical University and it cannot take the advantage of the interim orders also for the reasons that the said orders are subject to the result of the writ petitions and prays for dismissal of these writ petitions.
7. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
8. A perusal of the impugned orders, which are the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions, prima facie would disclose that as per the Report of the Inspection Committee, the deficiencies still exist and one of the major deficiencies appear to be lack of approved layout and plan for the buildings. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the decision of this Court reported in Consumer Action Group's case [cited supra] reported in 2006 [4] CTC 483, it is entitled to get regularisation for the buildings for the reason that it came into existence prior to the year 1999 and after getting regularisation, it has also paid a sum of Rs.1,16,675/- to CMDA and the application is yet to be processed. Therefore, the fact remains that the petitioner is yet to get building plan approval and no steps have been taken by the petitioner / College to expedite the said process.
9. In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2013 [2] SCC 617, the affiliation / recognition of Teachers Training Institutes came up for consideration and it is relevant to extract paragraphs 69 and 70:-
......
69. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a condition precedent to running of the courses by the institute. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to commence the relevant academic courses. There is a possibility of some conflict between a University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with the provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, the matter is squarely answered in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya [2006 [9] SCC 1] where the Court stated that after coming into operation of the Central Act, the operation of the University Act would be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges. It also observed that provision of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of such affiliation by the University would remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the University for grant and continuation of affiliation must be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by NCTE.
70. Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of section 14[3][a] of the Act, NCTE is required to grant or refuse recognition to an institute. It has been empowered to impose such conditions as it may consider fit and proper keeping in view the legislative intent and object in mind. In terms of section 14[6] of the Act, the examining body shall grant affiliation to the institute where recognition has been granted. In other words, granting recognition is the basic requirement for grant of affiliation. It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining body. It is the requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct meaning and consequences. In Bhartia Education Society Vs State of H.P. [2011 [4] SCC 527], this Court held that [SCC p.534, para 19]:-
19. The purpose of 'recognition' and 'affiliation' is different. In the context of the NCTE Act, 'affiliation' enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in public examinations conducted by the examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diplomas and certificates. On the other hand, 'recognition' is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teaching education.
and also considered the time schedule for admission and held that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly adhered to, without exceptions and nothing in the hierarchy of the State Government, University, NCTE or any other Appellate or Body involved in this process can breach schedule for any direct or indirect reason and adherence to the schedule achieves the object of the Act and its various aspects and disobedience results in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within the stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit.
10. In Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput Vs. Gulbarge University represented by its Registrar and others reported in 2014 [3] SCC 767, qualification prescribed for the candidature for appointment to the post of lecturer in MCA came up for consideration and the primordial submission made was that when the Expert Body, i.e., the Board of Appointment consisting of high academicians has found the concerned person eligible and qualified which has also been approved by another Expert Body, the High Court ought not to have acted as Court of Appeal by examining the pros and cons and come to a different conclusion and it is held that the academic issues must be left decided by the Expert Body concerned, which deserves great respect and the Court cannot act as an appellate authority in such matters and when two views are possible and the Expert Body has a possible view, the same deserves acceptance.
11. The AICTE after three inspections, found that the petitioner / College lacks infrastructural facilities and further that it lacks Building Plan Approval and it is the stand of the petitioner / College that all deficiencies pointed out, have been fully complied with and in the light of the interim orders passed by this Court, permitting the petitioner / College to admit the students and write the examinations, the result of the same should be published. In support of the same, reliance is also placed upon the judgment reported in 2011 [4] SCC 527 [Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that though the institution run by Bhartia Education Society remaining recognised and the Board, though not granted affiliation for the years 2002 and 2003, but permitted the students to appear for examination in order to do complete justice and ordered regularisation subject to the fulfillment of eligibility criteria. No doubt, this Court in series of orders, directed the respondents to permit the Institute to participate in the counseling process and taking advantage of the same, they admitted the students and in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court, the students are allowed to sit for the examination. But the fact remains that no Extension of Approval has been granted by AICTE to the petitioner / College right from the year 2014-15 and Dr.MGR Medical University did not continue the provisional affiliation from the academic year 2014-15 and the Pharmacy Council of India also did not approve the petitioner / College for the academic year 2015-16.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India repeatedly disapproved the fact of granting interim directions on humanitarian grounds to permit the students to appear for examination and also for declaration of results and observed that the Courts cannot grant interim orders on humanitarian grounds error to law. The said findings have been laid down in the judgments reported in
[a] 1991 [3] SCC 87 [State of Tamil Nadu Vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute] ;
[b] 1986 Supp SCC 166 [N.M.Nagaeshwaramma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh] ;
[c] 1986 [2] SCC 667 [A.P.Christian Medical Educational Society Vs. of A.P.];
[d] 1992 [4] SCC 435 [State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale].
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, may pass such a decree or make such an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it ....... However, this Court lacks such a power in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even for the sake of arguments, had the petitioner / College had complied with all deficiencies pointed out by AICTE, the fact remains that it is yet to get the Building Plan Approval and admittedly, the application for regularisation is still pending consideration before the CMDA and unless and until the petitioner gets the Building Plan Approval which is one of the essential requirements, it is not entitled to get the Extension of Approval and until the Extension of Approval is granted, there cannot be any extension of affiliation by Dr.MGR Medical University. Therefore, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and the reasons assigned therein, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by AICTE warrant no interference.
14. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed and all the interim orders granted earlier, are vacated. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.