iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1139850',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1139850',
		(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Iitt College of Engineering Vs State of Punjab and Another - Citation 1139850 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1139850',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'iitt College of Engineering',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'iitt College of Engineering Vs. State of Punjab and Another',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-05-08',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.</p><p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.</p><p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.</p><p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.</p><p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:</p><p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”</p><p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.</p><p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.</p><p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Punjab and Another',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1139850',
	(int) 1 => 'iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1139850/iitt-college-engineering-vs-state-punjab'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>CWP No.6788 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6788 of 2014 Date of decision:08.05.2014 IITT College of Engineering ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.B.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute, praying that the name of the petitioner-College be added in the list of affiliated Colleges, authorized to make admissions on behalf of Punjab Technical University for various B.Tech/M.Tech/MBA Courses for the academic session 2014-15, in accordance with the notifications dated 24.02.2014 & 25.02.2014.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. The pleaded case of the petitioner-College is that it was set up in the year 1998 at Pojewal, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by the International Institute of Telecom Technology Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The setting of the Engineering College was approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short, the 'AICTE') and various courses were started thereafter and from 1998 to 2008, permission had been granted for continuing the courses after inspection. The College was affiliated to the respondent-University. Reference was made to the Sailesh ranjan affiliation for the session 2009-10, as per order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P2). 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -2- The College was fully functional and was making admissions and even the State of Punjab had issued the No Objection Certificate, as per notification dated 24.07.1998 (Annexure P3). It has been averred that this College is located in 23.5 acres of land and approximately, the covered area is 3.5 lacs sq.ft., with various facilities of hostel, mess, libraries, college buildings etc. An order dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P5) was passed whereby the approval by the AICTE was withdrawn and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.8302 of 2012. In the said case, an interim order was passed on 04.05.2012 that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner under the colour of the order dated 06.06.2011. It is stated that the said writ petition has been admitted. An interim order was passed in the said case on 13.07.2012, wherein the petitioner-Institute was permitted to participate in the counselling, provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Since approval was not granted for the session 2013-14 by the AICTE, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4179 of 2013, which was allowed on 10.04.2013 (Annexure P7). This Court, in the said case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been forced to approach this Court repeatedly at the hands of the AICTE and set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 whereby the application for approval for session 2013-14 had been declined and a direction was issued to consider and decide the application for extension of session 2013-14, as an appropriate and duly submitted application had been submitted for granting approval for 2013-14, already subject matter under Chapter II of the Handbook. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10.04.2013 reads as under: “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and also contrary to the orders dated 4.5.2012 and 23.1.2013 passed by this Court. Thus, the impugned order dated Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and 21.1.2013 (Annexure P-15) is hereby ordered to be set aside. integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -3- Consequently, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are directed to treat the application of the petitioner, already submitted under Chapter II of the Handbook, as an appropriate and duly submitted application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14. They are further directed to consider and decide the application for granting extension of approval for the session 2013-14, without any further loss of time by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Before parting with the order, this Court hope and trust that respondents No.1, 4 and 5 will proceed on a reasonable, fair and constructive approach, while passing the order on the application of the petitioner. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.”. 3. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1273 of 2013, filed by AICTE was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.2014, by holding that there could not be any effective relief granted to the present petitioner for the academic session 2013-14. After the decision of the Single Bench, the petitioner had applied on 26.12.2013, to the respondent-University, bringing to its notice the decision of the writ petition and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & others 2013 (8) SCC271that it could not be restricted by the AICTE approvals. It was, accordingly, requested that the name of the petitioner- College be restored in the list of Colleges for admissions during 2014-15 and the name of the College be re-included in the list of colleges affiliated with the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Various representations, thereafter, were also addressed on 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014, to the same effect, to include the name of the Institution in the list of affiliated institutions and to make physical inspection of the Institution. However, the respondent-University did not respond to the said Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -4- correspondences. On 24.02.2014, vide the notification, the list of Colleges which were affiliated with the University and to which admission was to be made on behalf of the respondent-University was published. Resultantly, the present writ petition came to be filed, seeking the necessary relief.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>4. The defence of the respondent No.2-University is that as per the Schedule published, the last date for filing on-line applications was 20.11.2013, initially. The inspection of colleges was to be done on 20.12.2013 to 31.01.2014, in the first phase and from 16.01.2014 to 16.03.2014, in the second phase and the affiliation order was to be released by 16.03.2014. The on-line application could also be submitted till 31.01.2014, after paying additional fees of `50,000/- and by 31.03.2014, by paying additional fees of `1,00,000/- and after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor. It is, accordingly, averred that the petitioner-College had failed to apply for the continuous affiliation in view of the advertisement/notification/order dated 29.10.2013, 21.11.2013, 20.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. It was, accordingly, submitted that after the closure of the web portal, the affiliation for 2014-15, cannot be considered. In para No.10 of the preliminary submissions, it was further averred that the petitioner had to apply on-line for the academic session 2014-15 and it deliberately did not apply on-line despite the permission given by the University from time to time and the petitioner-College cannot be put up in the admission category in view of the above mentioned objections.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>5. There was, however, no denial to the fact that wayback on 26.12.2013, the College had applied for affiliation and it is a matter of fact that the respondent-University has not bothered to intimate the petitioner-Institute that it was to apply on-line and deposit the necessary fees. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any communication was addressed to the petitioner- Sailesh ranjan Institute to apply in the necessary performa. 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and The communications dated integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -5- 21.03.2014, 24.03.2014, 25.03.2014 & 29.03.2014 have also not been denied. Thus, it would be apparent that the respondent-University did not respond to the representations of the petitioner-College and neither asked it to apply in the prescribed performa. It is also admitted fact that earlier, the affiliation was there and it is only due to the order passed by the AICTE on 06.06.2011, withdrawing the recognition that the petitioner-College could not admit students.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>6. Keeping in view the technical objection which has been raised by the University, this Court is of the opinion that the infrastructure which is available and which is a valuable asset of the Nation is not being properly put to use due to the very lax attitude of the respondent-University. The blame can also be put on the petitioner-College which also had a duty to fill up and apply in a proper procedure. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is for the benefit of the students aspiring to achieve the degrees. It would be in the interest of both the petitioner-College and the students that the said resources can be put to use. A Division Bench of this Court in Association of Education Colleges Vs. Haryana State 2009 (1) SCT157examined the issue whereby a large number of seats for the B.Ed. Course were going vacant and the University was opposing the said prayer for admission on the ground that it was at a belated stage and the students had not appeared in the entrance test. It was noticed that the seats were available in the Colleges and were supported by the infrastructural requirements stipulated by the NCTE, which was a valuable resource and should not be allowed to go waste, subject to the fulfilment of the academic standards. Accordingly, it was held that the students should be allowed to be admitted on the basis of merit who had appeared in the qualifying examinations, without holding any independent Common Entrance Test. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>“14. The next question then is whether this Court should permit Sailesh ranjan admissions or let the available seats go waste, Which out of the 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and two options would serve the ends of justice is the only question that integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -6- detained us. If one were to adopt a pedantic and hyper technical approach, one could say that admissions need not be made at this stage as the University's apprehension of dilution of academic standards and disturbance of academic calendar should not be disregarded. The wisdom behind that approach however, appears out- weighed by the compelling need to avoid the wastage of seats and denial of an opportunity to eligible students to get admitted against the same. It is true that academic standard needs to be maintained and academic decisions by expert bodies respected as far as possible, but it is equally true that when admissions are delayed, a certain amount of adjustment can and ought to be made by the Institutions as also the affiliating University. These adjustments do not, however, necessarily dilute the academic standard as is apprehended by the University in the instant case. The Institutions are ready and capable of making up the requisite number of working days by holding special classes for the students, who have joined late. The admission granted at this stage will not also require the University to compromise on the 40 days practice teaching or the percentage of lectures, which a student must have for being declared eligible for taking the examination. It is noteworthy that candidates admitted to a session has to perform by the same standard as is required of the other candidates in order to be declared successful in the examination. If a student, otherwise admitted late, is unable to come up to the standard of the University, he/she will be declared unsuccessful. Super-added to the above is the fact that the number of students, who may even now seek admissions, may not be very large to require holding of any test to determine their inter-se merit for grant of admission. The argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Colleges may have to hold independent CET for granting admissions, which may delay the completion of admission process, is in our opinion, misplaced. Such a situation could arise only where the number of students applying is more than the number of seats available in the Institutions. That, however, is not the position in the instant case. Even so, the apprehension that lesser merited students may be admitted while ignoring meritorious students, can be allayed by directing that the Institutions shall grant admissions strictly in accordance with the merit in the qualifying examination, which is one of the recognized norms for granting such admissions.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>. Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.6788 of 2014 -7- 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be issued to the University to inspect the premises of the petitioner- Institute, within a prescribed period and pass necessary orders as to whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is entitled for making admissions to the following academic sessions 2014 onwards.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>8. Accordingly, the respondent-University is directed to entertain the application dated 26.12.2013 and communicate to the petitioner-Institute, the deficiencies which are there in the application, as per rules and regulations. The amount of late fees, shall be deposited immediately, within one week after the demand has been raised by the respondent-University. Inspection be carried out within a period of 2 weeks from the date the application is received along with the due amount. After the inspection has been done, the respondent-University shall pass the necessary orders on the issue of affiliation, within 3 weeks thereafter and grant necessary permission for making admissions, if the affiliation is approved.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. With the above said directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.05.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document