Judgment:
ORDER
1. An Education Institution is conceived and established for the welfare and benefit of the students. If, however, paramount interest of the students is sacrificed at the alter of profiteering of Institution and the members running the same, should it close down or should it be permitted to continue for its own benefit and survival, is the question that needs adjudication in this writ filed by petitioner-Nalwa Poly Technic Institute. Whereas, the thrust to challenge the impugned orders, which have virtually resulted into closing down the Institution, if for not a long period then at least for the academic years 1995-96 and 1996-97, rests upon technicalities, the order are sought to the defended on the strength of activities indulged in by the petitioner-Institution resulting into imparting wholly inadequate and below standard education to the students. Before, however, the grounds on which the impugned orders, Annexures P-15 and P-16 are sought to be quashed, are referred to, it shall be useful to give brief back-drop of the events culminatinginto filing of the present writ.
2. Petitioner-Polytechnic was established by Hari Singh Nalwa Trust having its registered office at New Delhi. Initially the institute was established by 100% private efforts with a view to spread technical education as also with a view to provide opportunities of employment and a economic growth in the State of Haryana. The Trust is registered as a Charitable Trust and is also running other education institution, namely, Nalwa Lovely Public School which is providing education up to 10+2 course affiliated to C.B.S.E., New Delhi since 1986. Provisions for establishment and control of private technical institutions has been provided by All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as the Act and the Regulations) which is established under S. 3 of the Act (sic). The State of Haryana recommended to the Council that the petitioner-Polytechnic be established with students strength 90 in the disciplines of Textile Design (30), Electronics and Communication Engineering (30) and Computer Engineering (30). This was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 15-6-1993 sent by Director, Technical Education, Haryana. The final approval which was granted for the establishment of the petitioner Polytechnic was communicated vide letter dated 17-6-1994 with the student strength in the Ist semester admission of 40 each in three disciplines referred to above. Polytechnic courses are regulated by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder which provide for four years course in Textile Design consisting of 8 Semesters of six months each and the remaining two courses are of 31/2 years duration consisting of 7 semesters of six months each. The approval that was granted vide letter dated 17-6-1994 was for commencing the Polytechnic with students strength of 120 for the 1st Semester. In due course of time when the Polytechnic was to be fully operational the strength of the Polytechnic was to be increased to 400 students. While granting approval for commencing the Polytechnic certain specific conditions and certain general conditions were.made applicable by theCouncil. The case of the petitioner is that certain norms called the AICTE norms were established by Council for the guidance of Polytechnics all over India for providing mandatory facilities by the Polytechnics, if they were to remain as recognised approved Polytechnics. The norms relate to provision of building, faculty equipment, books and others. Periodic reviews of the facilities is also provided which used to be done by the Council through its experts to ensure that the prescribed norms are being adhered to. It is the case of the petitioner that all admissions to the Polytechnic are controlled by the State. In other words. Polytechnic cannot admit students of its own. All staff recruited in the faculty has to conform to the prescribed norms of qualifications and in Selection Committee representatives of the State including the Director Technical Education is to participate. The selection of staff, therefore, cannot be done without participation of the State representative. The staff has to be paid salaries as per the AICTE scale and the fee to be charged from students has also been prescribed under the Regulations framed by the Council vide notification dated 20-5-1994, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure P-2 to the petition. It is further the case of the petitioner that the guidelines contained in Annexure P-2 followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case (AIR 1993 SC 2178) and various directions of the Supreme Court have been incorporated in these guidelines. Guidelines provide that fee for technical institutions has to be determined by a State Level Committee which shall, inter alia, determine fee payable on the basis of the estimates of recurring expenditure of previous two years audited figures and projected requirements for the next three years. The underlying spirit behind the guidelines was that the Polytechnic once established should be self-sufficient and self-financial from the fees which is appropriately fixed by the Council through State Level Committee. Fifty per cent of the seats being payment seats and 50% being free seats. The free seats are those seats where the fee payable is the same as prescribed in the Government Institution while the paid seats are thoseseats where fee ischarged to cover all the recurring expenditure of the Polytechnic. The guidelines also prescribed that if a professional college contravenes any provision of these regulations, Council may withdraw its approval after making such enquiry as it may consider appropriate and after giving the professional college an opportunity of being heard.
3. In the letter of approval Annexure P-! there was a requirement of providing endowment funds as prescribed by AICTE. The Trust vide letter dated 1-7-1994 sent representation to the Council that the requirement of the endowment funds should be waived as it is unaided institution which is being financed through donations by public at large. There was no response to this letter and the petitioner, therefore, presumed that its request must have been accepted. However, after the petitioner Polytechnic was established, a State Government Committee approved the admission of 120 students in the petitioner Polytechnic in three disciplines for the Ist Semester of academic year 1994-95. These admissions were finalised by the Principal of Haryana Multi-Polytechnic, Nelo-kheri which is a Government institution in accordance with the guidelines (Annexure P-2). For the academic year 1995-96, another 120 students were admitted by a similar procedure through a Committee headed by Principal, Ambala Polytechnic. Admissions for the academic year 1995-96 were made by the Committee constituted under the guidelines of the Council after satisfying itself that various facilities to be provided by the Polytechnic have been established in accordance with the norms and time frame approved by the Council. It is further the case of the petitioner that it had engaged all the required staff and provided all the facilities mainly by raising donations to the tune of Rs. 17.25 Lacs as also providing other infrastructure facilities like land, free of cost. Fee fixed for the free seats by the State Level Committee in the academic year 1994-95 was Rs. 3600/- and for the academic year 1995-96 Rs. 1500/-. Fee for payment seats was fixed by the Haryana State Level Committee at Rs. 14,000/- for the two academic years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The petitioner further pleads that the troublestarted at the time of Assembly Elections in April, 1996 in Haryana when Shri Hari Singh Nalwa, Chairman of the Trust who was sitting Congress M.L.A. contested the Assembly elections in 1996 as an independent candidate. He opposed the official candidates of Congress and the Haryana Vikas Party. It is stated that the political rivals in the election and in public life who were opposed to Sh. Nalwa, were opposed to the continuation of Polytechnic also and were interested in seeing that , some damage is caused to the institution and its members. The students resorted to strike which it is stated was politically motivated. This provided a ready handle to the misguided section of students to launch a strike in Polytechnic during election compaign. Earlier on 23-3-1996 one Smt. Manju Kumari who was a Lecturer in the Textile discipline resigned from service without giving mandatory one month advance notice. She expressed her inability to attend the institute because of personal reasons. She resigned on 23-3-1996 by addressing a letter on that . behalf. For getting the substitute the management of the petitioner-Polytechnic initiated action for selection of a substitute which could not be done immediately. It is further the case of the petitioner that the misguided section of students acting on changed political climate arising out of Sh. Nalwa con testing as an independent candidate against official candidates of Congress and Haryana Vikas Party, chose to go on strike on 6-4-1996. Ostensibly because there was no proper faculty in Textile on account of resignation of Smt. Manju Kumar. There was no Charter of Demands submitted by the students to the Principal or Chairman or even to the State. Some of ihe students it is further pleaded had support from the Director Technical Education Haryana, Smt, Menakshi Bansal, who was hostile to Hari Singh Nalwa for the reason that she was under the impression that Nalwa had opposed her promotion to the post of Director Technical Education prior to her promotion in 1994. At the behest and en-couragement of Smt. Menakshi Bansal, Director Technical Education, the students were persuaded to sit in Dharana at the office of the Director Technical Education to press for their demand which till then had not been specified. Dharna commenced at Chandigarh from 9-4-1996. Meanwhile, on 9-4-1996 itself the Principal of the petitioner Polytechnic had sent a letter by post to the Director Technical Education, Haryana, giving details as to how the strike of the students was without any justification and was mischievous. However, once the Dharna was launch-ed, Director Technical Education sent a team on 11-4-1996 headed by Deputy Director Sh. M. M. Sharma with a view to enquire into the reasons for strike. The Committee discussed the whole matter with the Principal. The Committee was told that the strike did not have the support of all the students but only a section of them who are misbehaving constantly. It was also pointed out that complaints regarding staff, equipment and other facilities of the petitioner-Polytechnic were wholly false and necessary proof wherever required was also furnished. It is the case of the petitioner that the Committee went back satisfied and did not ask for any explanation on any point. On the contrary. Principal of the College of his own gave details vide letter dated 11-4-1996 by way of letter addressed to the Director Technical Education. Along with the letter certain enclosures including copies of two compromises made, were sent. On 16-4-1994 letter was sent by respondent No. 3 to Polytechnic asking for compliance of the various deficiencies pointed out by the AICTE Expert Committee vide their letter dated 15-3-1996. Compliance of this was given in the prescribed time vide letter dated 21-4-1996 by the Principal of Polytechnic pointing out that all the requirements as pointed by the AICTE have been duly fulfilled and complied with. Earlier vide letter dated 11-4-1996, compliance report was sent to AICTE also. The follow up Committee of AICTE thereafter visited Polytechnic on 8-5-1996. The Committee consisted of various experts. It is the case of the petitioner that they also did not ask for any information in writing from the Polytechnic, even though they asked for Some information orally, which information they were accordingly provided.'The strike was, however, not called off, nor the Government took any stand in thematter and as a result thereof the Chairman of the Polytechnic addressed a personal letter to the Minister Technical Education, Haryana to see into the matter to ensure normal working of the Polytechnic. It was mentioned in the letter that the strike was motivated and supported by Director and there was conspiracy for closing the institution. It was also pointed out that a meeting of the parents of the students and Principal of the College should be arranged with a view to resolve the controversy and normal working. On 24-5-1996, however, petitioner learnt from a news item that all the students studying in the Polytechnic have been assured by the Minister that they will be transferred to the nearest Technical Institutions thereby closing the Polytechnic. On 26-5-1996 the Principal of the Polytechnic referred to news item published in the 'Danik Tribune,' sent a representation to the Director Technical Education suggesting that the transfer of students as is clear from the newspaper was an act of high-handedness and the decision to that effect was wholly arbitrary. A request was, thus, made not to implement the decision announced to the press. On 26-5-1996 the Chairman of the Polytechnic as also the Principal called on Minister of Technical Education. He assured them that no arbitrary or ex parte action shall be taken and Poly-technic should approach Commissioner, Technical Education personally. The Principal and the Chairman called on the Com-missioner Technical Education on 27-5-1996. He directed them to go to Joint Secretary Technical Education. The Chairman and Principal thereupon called upon Shri Khemka, the Joint Secretary and explained to him in detail. He pointed out that on the file sent to the Government, it had not been pointed out by the Directorate of Technical Education that any list of teaching staff and equipment was furnished by the Polytechnic to the Director or its Committee. He also assured that he would verify the correctness of the position and that no unfair or arbitrary decision shall be taken against the Poly-technic. On 3-6-1996, a Committee of Investigators headed by Smt. Menakshi Bansal Director Technical Education consisting often members visited the institute. They went around the premises, laboratories, saw the equipment and other facilities and also met the staff and expressed no dissatisfaction in the working of the Polytechnic. It is the case of the petitioner that the Committee sent on 3-6-1996 headed by Smt. Menakshi Bansal was an eye Wash as the action to shift the students from the petitioner-Polytechnic to other institutions had already been taken vide letter dated 2-6-1996. which was a Sunday. The purpose of this Committee to inspect the college was pre-empted by the Director Technical Education herself by issuing letter dated 2-6-1996, copy whereof is annexed with the writ as Annexure P-15. Similar letters were also sent to all students informing that guest classes for the students of Nalwa Polytechnic have been opened in various places in Government Polytechnics of the State of Haryana and they should start attending classes in those institutions im-mediately. The Chairman of the Polytechnic sent another representation on 8-6-1996 highlighting the illegal and arbitrary action taken by the Government in closing the institution on the ground that no opportunity was provided to the management before shifting the students. On 21-6-1996 the Principal of the Polytechnic also addressed a letter to the Director, Technical Education requesting that the fees due for one quarter from the students be remitted immediately so that Polytechnic is able to discharge its legal financial obligations to the staff.
4. It is this order allocating the students to other Polytechnics in the State that has been challenged in the present writ. It appears that during the pendency of the writ another order dated 23-8-1996 (Annexure P-19) was passed which necessitated amendment of the writ petition. Annexure P-19 is a letter which has been addressed to Director, Technical Education, Haryana by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Haryana, Technical Education Department, which spates that the Government has considered the matter regarding the temporary adjustment of the students of above Polytechnic in the form of guest classes and decided that the students be adjusted in the manner indicated in the letterunder reference.
5. On the facts as have been fully detailed above the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that orders Annexures P-15 and P-19 which have virtually resulted into the petitioner-Polytechnic coming to a grinding halt could not be passed without issuing a show cause notice or hearing the petitioner. The connected limb of the argument is that once the approval to establish and run the institution was accorded by the Council, the same could not be withdrawn without granting an opportunity of hearing as is clearly provided in the Regulations framed by the Council itself as also that since the Council has not passed any such order, the Government of Haryana was not vested with any power to pass such order which virtually amounts to withdrawing the approval. The contentions of the learned counsel on the first blush appear to be very attractive, but, when the matter is examined in view of the averments made in the two sets of written statements one filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and other by respondents 3 to 5, these lose all their sting. It has been, inter alia; pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that petitioner-Polytechnic is a private unaided polytechnic managed by a Trust.The college was approved by AICET vide letter dated 17-6-1994 (Annexure P-1) subject to fulfilment of specific terms and general conditions as mentioned in the letter for the Session 1994-95 to conduct three diploma courses. The admission to the College is made by Director, Technical Education, Haryana as per criteria laid down by the State Government. It shall, at this stage be very useful to refer to specific and general conditions, fulfilment whereof was necessary and the approval was granted only subject to fulfilment thereof :
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. The infrastructural and other facilities including faculty, equipment, books etc., should be provided as per AICTE norms.
2. A Principal having qualifications, experience etc. as per AICTE norms should bein position before admission of students.
3. One Professor and two Lecturers in each discipline having qualifications, experience etc. as per AICTE norms should be in position before admission of students.
4. The infrastructural and other facilities in terms of class rooms, tutorial rooms, labs., workshop, library etc. as per AICTE norms for at least first year of the courses should be in a position before actual admission of the students.
5. The infrastructural and other facilities in terms of building, labs, shops, books etc. for subsequent years as per AICTE norms should be in position at least six months in advance before actual start of classes of those years.
6. The teaching faculty strength should be available foreach year of the study well before the commencement of the course and this shouldibe progressively raised by appointing Professors, Asstt. Professors and Lecturers as per AICTE norms maintaining the cadre proportion.
7. The approval is subject to the condition that the management should produce immediately (i) a duly registered undertaking on non-judicial stamp paper, and (ii) an evidence of financial soundness to the AICTE, Delhi.
8. The AICTE scales of pay should be granted to the teaching faculty.
9. The institute shall provide an evidence of availability of affiliation of the courses from the respective University in this name before the start of session 1994-95.
10. The institute should get affiliation to the State Board of Technical Education before actual admissions are made for academic year 1994-95.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The Management including the governing body of the college shall be constituted and its Chairman shall be appointed as per the guidelines of AICTE.
2. No new courses shall be started or an on-going course shall be discontinued by theinstitution without the prior approval of the AICTE,
3. The intake in any of the approved courses shall not be altered by the institution without the prior approval of AICTE.
4. Adequate funds shall be available with the Institution to meet the financial obligations of recurring and non-recurring nature as prescribed by the AICTE including endowment fund as prescribed by the AICTE.
5. All infrastructural, instructional and other facilities shall be provided as per the AICTE norms prescribed from time to time.
6. Teaching and other staff shall be selected according to the prescribed qualifications, experience and pay scales as prescribed by AICTE from time to time and that they shall be paid full salaries and allowances regularly and in time.
7. The tuition and other fees shall be charged as prescribed by the State Government within the overall criteria/limits as prescribed by the AICTE from time to time.
8. The institution shall not charge any capitation fee or donation for admission or other higher charges from the students/ guardians of the students in any form.
9. Admission shall be made on merits and as per the norms and guidelines of the AICTE.
10. The State Government policies for admission of SC/ ST, other weaker sections of society etc. shall be followed by the institution,
11. Institution by virtue of the approval by AICTE shall not automatically become eligible to receive financial grants or assistance from the Central or State Government.
12. Institution shall maintain records and books of accounts as prescribed by the competent authority.
13. The account of the institution shall be audited by Chartered Accountant or any agency authorised by the competent authority and shall be open for inspection by theAICTE or any body authorised by it.
14. The Institution shall be subject to a special audit and inspection as prescribed by the AICTE.
15. Institution shall turn require as prescribed by competent authority/AICTE for ensuring maintenance of standards.
16. The institution may be visited by an Officer or a Committee of the AICTE or its regional office from time to time to review the progress made by the Institution in fulfilment of the conditions as laid down by the AICTE.
17. The Institution shall constitute a Planning and Monitoring Board (PMB) for the continuous monitoring of implementation of norms and standards of the AICTE. There shall be an evaluation of the Institution in a plan period by the AICTE.
6. It has been clearly mentioned in letter Annexure P-l that the approval is subject to fulfilment of specific and general conditions as also the same is subject to full compliance with the scheme as prescribed by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 4-2-1993 in Unni Krishnan's case (AIR 1993 SC 2178) and the related guidelines and criteria as may be fixed by the AICTE, UGC or the Central Government from time to time. It has further been pleaded in the written statement that the Regional Office constituted an Expert Committee regarding extension of approval of petitioner-Polytechnic and to continue the conduct of courses as approved for 1994-95. The Committee reached the college on 12-12-1994. The AICTE on consideration of the observation made by the Expert Committee and recommendations of the Regional Committee approved the institution for admission for the session 1995-96 by letter dated 22-2-1995 with a specific condition that, 'Admissions to be made for 1995-96 only after provision of additional infrastructural facilities and verification of compliance by an Expert Committee during April, 1995, prior to admissions.' Expert Committee once again visited the college on 31-8-1995 and recommended approval for two courses for the year 1995-96, The AICTE on the consideration of the observation made by the Expert Com-mittee and the recommendations of the Regional Committee extended the conditional approval for admission for. the year 1995-96 for two courses by letter dated 26-7-1995. The Committee once again visited the college on 31-8-1995 to find out the position of infrastructural facilities in terms of staff, building, equipments, library books and others available with the College pertaining to Textile Design Course. AICTE on the recommendations made by the Expert Committee extended approval for the Textile Design course for the session 1995-96 vide letter dated 8-9-1995 subject to fulfilment of the specific conditions as prescribed in Annexures P-l and P-2. The Expert Committee again visited the college on 11-1-1996 to verify compliance of conditions. The observations of the Expert Committee and the recommendations of the Regional Committee were considered by AICTE and number of deficiencies were noted as enlisted in letter dated 15-3-1996. The list of deficiencies is mentioned in Annexure R-l (page 121 of the paper book). The AICTE further advised the college for removing the above deficiencies well in time and submit compliance report by 31-3-1996. It is further mentioned that the Expert Committee will visit the College during April, 1996. Director, Technical Education, Haryana informed the Member Secretary of AICTE vide memo dated 12-4-1996 that the students of the College were on strike and were on Dharna in front of Directorate of Technical Education and requested for inspection of the college. Accordingly, Expert Committee visited the college on 8-5-1996 and found number of deficiencies/irregularities. The report of the Expert Committee dated 8-5-1996 has been annexed as Annexure R-II with the written statement. It will be useful to reproduce the deficiencies as spelled out from Annexure R-II.
LAND
The institute does not have any land in its name. The trust has about 24 acres of land as intimated by Principal. It was suggested that about 90 acres of land should be transferred inthe name of Polytechnic to ensure its proper growth.
BUILDING
The Institute has been functioning in two blocks. One block is housing the disciplines of computer engineering and electronics and communication engineering. The carpet area of this block is about 9000 sq. ft. (Anne-xure B) having six rooms in the ground floor and six rooms in first floor. Each room measuring about 33 ft. x 25 ft. Ground floor is having the laboratories and workshops whereas first floor is having lecture halls.
Second block is having five rooms having carpet area of about 5300 sq. ft. At present three labs have been functioning in this block. The carpet area of these labs is about 2310 sq. ft. The remaining area is still occupied by Export Company of Nalwa. Principal intimated that this area has been handed over to the Polytechnic by the Company but there was no documentary proof.
Chemistry lab. of the Nalwa Public School, which is running adjacent to the Polytechnic and managed by the same Trust i.e. Hari Singh Nalwa Trust, is being shared by the Polytechnic.
The present accommodation is not at all sufficient to run the present courses. Even more accommodation shall be required when 3rd year classes start in July, 1996. Two to three labs/shops have been housed in one room. The rooms are poorly lighted. There is no common room, administrative block. There is no provisions of students amenities except a small play field which is also shared by Nalwa Public School. Fire safety arrangements have not been provided in the buildings.
LIBRARY
The Institute does not have its own library. The library is shared with Nalwa Public School. The area of the library is approx. 800 sq. ft. which is much below the AICTE norms. The following are the details of books (disciplinewise) available in the library as per information supplied by the Principal :--
1. Electronics39 Titles109 Volumes2. Mechanical21 Titles82 Volumes3. Electrical14 Titles41 Volumes4. Electrical13 Titles45 Volumes5. Maths10 Titles36 Volumes6. Computer35 Titles94 Volumes7. App. Chem.2 Titles9 Volumes8. English10 Titles56 Volumes9. Physics6 Titles
________38 Volumes
___________Total150 Titles480 Volumes
The library is having very small number of books. No technical journal is being sub--scribed.
STAFF
The institute does not have sufficient teaching staff as per AICTE norms. There is no regular teaching staff available in the discipline of Textile Design. Two part-time teachers have been appointed recently in the Department of Textile Design. Only three Lecturers have been working in the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering and two Lecturers in the Department of Computer Engineering. One Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering and one Lecturer in Electrical Engineering are avail-able in addition to three Lecturers in Applied Sciences. There are three workshop instructors appointed against four workshop instructors required. The list of staff available is given at Annexure-C. The staff is inexperienced and is freshly recruited. Some of the staff has been appointed after the strike of the students. Staff is not able to impart proper instructions and conduct the practicals. No senior positions such as senior Lecturers and Heads of Department are available. The appointment of one Head of Department and one senior Lecturer is very essential for each department for its proper functioning and growth. The staff is not being paid allowance as per State Govt. Rules.
The Principal of Nalwa Public School has been performing the additional duties ofPrincipal of Nalwa Polytechnic. The Principal is a non-technical person and has hardly any experience to run a technical institute.
There are about 5 Nos. technical supporting staff, 3 Nos. office staff and 5 Nos. Class IV staff (such as Peon, Sweeper, Gardener etc.).
POSITION OF EQUIPMENT,
MACHINERY LABS AND WORDSHIPS
The Institute has not established proper labs and workshops so far. The labs and workshops were found in bad condition. Proper furniture has not been provided in the labs and workshops. The electric connections and water supply is also not proper. Some of the machines were found out of order and obsolete. No proper record about the conduct of experiments and practicals has been maintained by the staff. In some of the labs, it was observed that the equipment/machinery has been very recently procured. There is acute shortage of machinery and equipment as per norms, in all the labs and shops. The reports of the experts in this regard are attached at Annexure-D.
The Institute has not made any effort to procure the equipment and machinery which is required for final year students. The final year classes, shall commence from July/ August, 1996.
The space for the labs and workshops as per AICTE norms/syllabus, is insufficient. Two to three labs have been functioning in one room. No drawing hall has been provided. The furniture provided in the lab/shops is insufficient and of (sic) quality.
STUDENTS AMENITIES
Proper students amenities are not made available by the Institute. There are no sports, cultural, welfare activities arranged by the Institute for the students. Institute has a small play-field which is shared with Nalwa Public School. A small tea stall is available. Dispensary has not been provided. Even first aid facility is not available in the institute, which is very essential specially in the workshops. Toilets have not been provided in the Polytechnic campus'. Proper drinking waterarrangements have also not been made.'
HOSTEL AND RESIDENCES
There is no provision of hostel for the students. Residences has not been provided to the staff.'
7. Perusal of the deficiencies is revealing. It appears that at no front the institution is equipped and while reading these shortcomings, Mr. Rathee counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 vehemently contends that this institution is only selling education and that too by imparting such education by which the students can never make a proper grade and never come up to the efficiency required of those who obtain degrees or diplomas of the subjects that are being taught in the petitioner-Institution. It is further the case of the respondents that the report of the Expert Committee dated 8-5-1996 was communicated to AICTE, New Delhi vide letter dated 10-5-1996 for necessary action with a copy to the Director, Technical Education, Haryana. The AICTE addressed a letter to the Director, Technical Education on 20-5-1996 requesting to consider the report of the inspection made by the Committee on 8-5-1996 and let the AICTE know the appropriate action to be taken. Director, Technical Education replied to the Advisor, AICTE on 15-7-1996, intimating that the College has no potential to continue conducting the classes as it lacks infrastructural facilities such as staff, equipments, labs. etc. and the College is unable to impart effective training to the students. Despite repeatedly pointing out the discrepancies/shortages by the Expert Committee of AICTE, the College had not made up the deficiencies which indicates incapability and lack of genuine interest in developing the College by the Trust. The Director, Technical Education further pointed out that keeping in view the difficulties of the students who were on strike since 8-4-1996, the State Government decided to conduct special guest classes for these students in various institutes, so that there is no loss of studies and time. The students would be adjusted in other private Polytechnics in the next Semester. The report of the Expert Committee dated 8-5-1996 was placed beforethe Regional Committee on 6-7-1996. The Regional Committee recommended to AICTE that its approval may not be accorded for the reasons recorded by the Expert Committee. The final decision by AICTE was yet to be taken.
8. In the identical written statement filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 the cause of the petitioner has been opposed with equal vehemence. There is no need at all to advert to detailed pleadings contained in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 5, as the main grounds on which the cause of the petitioner has been opposed are the same that have been taken up by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner has also filed replication and has by and large reiterated the averments made in the putition.
9. I have gone through the pleadings, heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. The first contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner ought to have been heard in the matter, is totally devoid of any merit. Immediate reference be made to the letter granting approval to the petitioner-Polytechnic and conditions of approval mentioned therein. It has already been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment that approval was accorded by AICTE by clearly mentioning that the same was subject to fulfilment of general and specific conditions which have been detailed above. It was, thus, a case of provisional approval which was dependent upon happening or non-happening of certain matters. In case the conditions so specifically given in detail were not to be fulfilled, there was no approval as the same had to be authenticated and finalised on fulfilment of the conditions. The right of the petitioner i.e. approval granted by AICTE had not crystallised and if the approval was not there or the same was provisional, in withdrawing the same no hearing was required to be given. At this stage, it may be mentioned that even though technically the approval has so far not been withdrawn, yet the recommendation of Expert Committee is for withdrawal of the same. The report of the Expert Committee could not b.e faulted on any ground. There isabsolutely no assertion in the petition that the Experts constituting the Committee were under the influence of the Director, Technical Education or any one else against whom allegations of mala fide have been alleged. They are all persons of eminence and had no axe to grind in submitting a false report. Not only that there is not an iota of evidence on record to suggest that they had given a false and exaggerated report, the various documents annexed with the report have been signed by the Principal of the Institution. The Principal while signing did not raise any protest by even remotely mentioning that either the institution or Principal was not associated at the time of visit of the Expert Committee or that the report was not correct or exaggerated. Once the Court opines that the report of the Expert Committee is correct, the action of the State Government in allocating the students already admitted to other colleges cannot be faulted. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, as mentioned above, was at pains in endeavouring to explain that in so far as the Council is concerned, no final order had been passed and the State Government was not entrusted with any jurisdiction or power to pass such orders which may virtually amount to withdrawal of approval. It is true that in so far as Council is concerned, no formal orders withdrawing the approval have been passed, even though as mentioned above the Expert Committee has recommended for withdrawing the approval. The contention of the learned counsel, as noted above, has to be rejected for the reason that the State Government while passing orders Annexures P-l 5 and P-19 did not deal with the matters which are exclusively in the domain of the Council. The State Government has simply adjusted the students in other Polytechnic institutions located in the State to vouchsafe their interests. If by orders Annexures P-15 and P-19 the institution has virtually stopped functioning, but the impugned orders are not as such with regard to withdrawal of approval, no meaningful argument can be advanced. This Court after going through the records of the case is of the firm view that the impugned orders were required to be passedas an institution by indulging in profiteering and not caring for the interests of the students had made itself liable for non-grant of approval. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the educational institutions are conceived and established for paramount interest of students and not for the institutions which indulge in profiteering and endeavouring to confer degrees to the students who shall be far below the required standards. No fault, thus, can be found with the impugned orders Annexures P-16 and P-19.
10. Till such time the petitioner-institution does not fulfil the condition subject to which the approval was granted, it cannot complain of adjustment of the students to other institutions as has been done by impugned orders Annexures P-16 and P-19. It may be recalled, that adjustment of students who were initially admitted in the petitioner-institution is temporary one and if the petitioner fulfils all the conditions and raises its level of imparting education as per prescribed norms, it shall always be open to it to ask for reconsideration of the matter and if the A1CTE gives it a clean chit, it shall not be difficult for it to admit fresh students in the ensuing session and call back the adjusted students.
11. There is no merit in this petition which is totally devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.
12. Other connected petition bearing No. 8832 of 1996 which was filed by some of the students who were admitted in other institutions has since been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated September 13, 1996.
13. Petition dismissed.