IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :
30. 4-2013 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.K.AGRAWAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHKUMAR W.A.No.2444 of 2010 M.P.No.1 of 2013 Shanmuga Polytechnic College, (Formerly known as Shanmugha Polytechnic) Administered by Vee.See.Bee Trust, having its Head Quarters at No.5, Subrayan Nagar Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chenna”
024. rep.by its Registrar cum Finance Officer .. Appellant Vs.
1. All India Council for Technical Education, Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, I.P.Estate, New Delh”
002. rep.by its Member Secretary.
2. Southern Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education, Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chenna”
006. rep.by its Regional Officer 3. Commissioner of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chenna”
025. .. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed in W.P.No.22813 of 2010. For Appellant : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for G.R.Associates For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Ms.AL.Gandhimathi
R.K. AGRAWAL, A.C.J.
& N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.11.2010, dismissing the writ petition in W.P.No.22813 of 2010 filed by by the Shanmugha Polytechnic College/appellant.
2. The appellant herein filed the above writ petition to quash the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the second respondent viz., Southern Regional Office of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Chennai, insofar as not approving the Diploma in Engineering and Communication Engineering courses are concerned and direct the respondents to grant unconditional approval for Diploma Electronics and Communication Engineering courses.
3. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned single Judge are as follows: (a) Vee See Bee Trust, which is an Educational and Charitable Trust, in order to cater the needs of the students of Thanjavur District, established a Polytechnic by name Shanmugha Polytechnic at Thanjavur. Balaseva Educational and Charitable Trust, which is also an Educational Charitable Trust, established an engineering College by name Shanmugha College of Engineering at Thirumalaisamudram, Thanjavur District. Both the Engineering college and the Polytechnic were functioning in the same compound. (b) The Engineering College was affiliated to the Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli and approved by the AICTE. The Polytechnic was approved by the AICTE as well as the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Engineering College was declared as Deemed to be University in the year 2001 under the name of 'Shanmugha Arts and Science Technology and Research Academy' (SASTRA). The polytechnic continuously in operation under the same name was renamed as Shanmugha Polytechnic College. (c) According to the appellant, the Educational Agency of the SASTRA University and the Educational Agency of Shanmugha Polytechnic College are sister Trusts and they are sharing the resources/infrastructures among themselves in accordance with the National Educational Policy as well as AICTE norms and the AICTE norms nowhere prohibit sharing of facilities of the University with the nearby institution. (d) In the year 2001, the first respondent/AICTE decided to entrust the approval of Diploma Engineering programmes to the State Government, though there is no provision in the AICTE Act, and the State Government through the third respondent has been recognising the courses of Shanmugha Polytechnic College. (e) The second respondent/Southern Regional Office of AICTE was constituted as an approved authority on behalf of the AICTE and for the year 2009-2010, the second respondent imposed a condition that the three classrooms, computeres, laboratory equipments cannot be shared by the Shanmugha Polytechnic College and the same should be rectified and a compliance report is to be submitted. Against the said condition imposed, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the Regional Committee, who was designated as Appellate Authority and filed an appeal on 11.12.2009 and the said appeal is yet to be disposed of. (f) The third respondent sent a communication on 2.7.2010 alleging certain deficiencies on the same lines as that of second respondent, for which the appellant sent a reply stating that as against the condition imposed, appeal was preferred in respect of sharing facilities and there is no shortage of faculty members. (g) The appellant also applied for extension of approval before the second respondent and admitted students to all branches in July, 2010, as the admissions are to be closed for the first year before 9th July. (h) On 16.8.2010 the second respondent passed the impugned order stating that they are in the process of constituting an Appeal Committee with regard to the appeal filed by the appellant. The order dated 16.8.2010, not granting approval for ECE course, was challenged on the ground that sharing of facilities of the Engineering College, which has now become a Deemed University, is in accordance with the National Policy of Education and the same is permissible under the AICTE Act and Regulations; that the Act and Regulations nowhere prohibit sharing of the facilities; and that, the University as well as the Polytechnic are in the same compound and sharing being followed from 1995, directing the appellant to provide separate facility, is contrary to the National Policy of Education as well as against the provisions of the AICTE Act.
4. The said writ petition was resisted by the respondents 1 and 2 by filing counter affidavit contending that the AICTE approves the Technical Institution for courses on the basis of norms and standards specified, and no course other than those specifically approved by the Council be run in the same premises by sharing the same facilities as per the new regulations framed in the year 2010 and the appellant was specifically informed while granting approval for the course of Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering for the year 2009-2010, to provide separate infrastructural facilities as SASTRA University is not coming within the purview of AICTE. It is the specific contention of the respondents that sharing of facilities in the SASTRA University by the appellant is impermissible.
5. The learned single Judge considered the issue and dismissed the writ petition, against which this writ appeal is filed.
6. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Polytechnic submitted that as sharing facilities with Technical Institutes is permissible under the National Educational Policy as well as AICTE norms and the second respondent is not justified in directing the appellant to provide for separate facilities for the continuance of approval of Diploma courses of appellant Polytechnic as the appellant is conducting polytechnic courses by sharing of facilities with the SASTRA University, which is formerly known as Shanmugha College of Engineering. Both the institutions are situated within the same campus, though established and administered by two sister Trusts and sharing of facilities is permitted from 1984 and as such the AICTE cannot now say that on the basis of sharing of facilities with the SASTRA University extension of approval for Diploma in Electronics Communication Engineering cannot be granted for the year 2010-2011. The sharing of facilities having been permitted for the past 25 years and the AICTE having already overruled the objections of the Regional Committee regarding unconditional approval of all courses, the appellant remitted a sum of Rs.4 crores with the Trust which is running SASTRA University for maintenance and use of the facilities and Clause 9(a) quoted by the Regional committee of the AICTE in the application cannot have application, which cannot override the norms and standards. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that merely because the erstwhile Shanmugha College of Engineering became Deemed University from 2001, which does not require any approval from the AICTE, the courses offered by the Shanmugha College of Engineering cannot be treated as unapproved courses in the eye of AICTE, particularly when only based on the recommendation of the AICTE as well as UGC the Shanmugha College of Engineering was granted Deemed University status by issuing notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the SASTRA University and TCS, a leading industry, have created a world class infrastructure, spending over Rs.20 crores and the Sastra University has been declared as a Centre for relevance and excellence in advanced computing and information processing. The consortium facilities are being used by the Polytechnic as well as SASTRA University and therefore the question of creation of separate infrastructures for the Polytechnic does not arise.
7. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the AICTE on the other hand relied on the Approval Process Hand Book issued by the AICTE, particularly Clause 55.4 and submitted that as per Clause 55.4 no course other than those specifically approved by the Council, be run in the same premises sharing the same facilities and the SASTRA University being not an approved institution of the AICTE after it was given the Deemed University status, and only due to the said fact the second respondent insisted the appellant to create separate facilities for the approval of the Polytechnic course and there is no illegality in the said order. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the said approval guidelines having been framed under the powers conferred under Section 23 of the AICTE Act, 1987, the same is having statutory force and the appellant is also bound by the said provision and unless the appellant creates separate infrastructural facilities for the polytechnic, the Diploma course offered by the appellant cannot be approved.
8. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the AICTE.
9. The point for consideration in this writ appeal is that the contention of the appellant that it is entitled to share the facilities of the SASTRA University, which is conducting engineering courses, for the continuance of approval of Diploma Courses is sustainable.
10. It is an admitted fact that before confirmation of Deemed University status to the Shanmugha College of Engineering, the said college was approved by the AICTE for conducting Engineering courses. It is also a fact that the said Engineering College was inspected by the AICTE and recommended by the UGC and having satisfied with the excellence of education being provided in Shanmugha College of Engineering, the Government of India declared the said Shanmugha College of Engineering as a Deemed University by issuing notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956, which is now called SASTRA Deemed University.
11. The appellant polytechnic is offering Diploma courses from the year 1984 and was granted approval for offering Diploma in Civil Engineering, Electrical and Electronics engineering, and subsequently approval was granted to conduct courses in Automobile Engineering and Computer Technology. The approval granted to various courses are being renewed from time to time.
12. The National Policy of Education 1986, paragraph 120 permits sharing and pooling of resources with University Departments and between neighbouring University/colleges. The said paragraphs reads as follows: "With escalation in the cost of equipment, books and journals, a system of sharing and pooling of resources within University departments and between neighbouring universities/ colleges, particularly in metropolitan areas and large cities, should be worked out within the next year (1993-94) by the UGC in consultation with the State Governments. To ensure better utilization of equipment costing Rs.2 lakh or more, their use should be monitored by introducing a system of "Utility Audit" based on log book entries indicating the number of hours per day such equipment is put to use by faculty and students." The AICTE also in the Norms and Standards issued in the year 1995, 1999 and in the Hand Book for Approval for 2008-2009 permits multi use of facilities. The said provision reads as follows: "Multi-Use of facilities: To make maximum use of available facilities (resources), sharing of resources among the institutions closely located should be encouraged. It goes without saying that similar facilities should not be duplicated within one institution by different departments. Facilities existing in one department should be freely available to another within the institution. Central facilities could be established for teaching / research / consultancy work. It will be desirable to have a consortium approach of having centralized laboratories of sophisticated instrumentation by mobilization from the group of departments/ institutions and share those facilities. This scheme can be adopted where the institutions can form themselves as a group to achieve both optimization of resources and also overall fiscal economy." 13. As rightly contended by the learned senior Counsel for the appellant, AICTE norms nowhere prohibits sharing of facilities with nearby institutions. Clause 55(4) of the approval process Hand Book issued in the year 2010-2011 relied on by the learned counsel for the AICTE only states that no course other than those approved by the Council be run in the same premises, sharing the same facilities. It is not the case of the AICTE that Shanmugha College of Engineering, which is now functioning as SASTRA University was never granted approval by the AICTE. AICTE considered the academic excellence of Shanmugha College of Engineering and recommended for the grant of Deemed University status and merely because the Central Government has granted status of Deemed University to the Shanmugha College of Engineering, the said Shanmugha College now functioning as SASTRA University cannot be treated as an unapproved institution of AICTE. It is not the case of the respondents that the SASTRA University is lacking any facilities and it is one among the listed 44 deemed Universities against whom case involving allegation of non-availability of infrastructural facilities, is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court, i.e., VIPUL case.
14. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submitted that for the purpose of granting continuance of approval of the Diploma courses, the second respondent can very well inspect the Engineering courses offered in SASTRA University to find out as to whether for offering such courses, infrastructural facilities are available as per the AICTE norms and in fact whether sharing of facilities is being done with the said University by the appellant polytechnic with all infrastructural facilities.
15. It is well settled principle of law that UGC as well as AICTE must ensure co-ordinated development for promoting Technical education with good standards. Bearing the said fact in mind, this Court is of the view that the contention of AICTE/second respondent that the sharing arrangement made by the appellant with the Engineering courses offered by SASTRA Deemed University cannot be treated as a valid sharing of facilities for continuance of approval of Diploma courses of the appellant Polytechnic, merely on the technical plea that as on today engineering courses offered by SASTRA are not approved by the AICTE after grant of Deemed University status.
16. The AICTE being the approving authority, can very well inspect and ascertain as to whether the appellant is having infrastructural facilities for continuing the Diploma courses by sharing of facilities with the SASTRA University and if the respondents 1 and 2 are not satisfied with the availability of facilities, then only approval of any Diploma course can be denied to the appellant Polytechnic College, which is being run from the year 1984.
17. In the light of the above findings, we are not inclined to sustain the impugned order passed by the second respondent, which was confirmed by the learned single Judge by dismissing the writ petition. The second respondent is directed to consider the approval of Polytechnic courses offered by the appellant, without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index :Yes/No (R.K.A., ACJ) (N.P.V.,J) Internet :Yes/No 30th April, 2013 Vr The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice & N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J Vr Pre-Delivery Judgment in W.A.No.2444 o”
30. 4-2013