1995 (3) TMI 466 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 to private engineering colleges.
2. Interpretation of the definitions of "private college" and "college" in the Act and Rules.
3. The role of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the State Government in regulating technical education.
4. The principle of "communis error facit jus" in interpreting the Act and Rules.
5. The impact of prior judgments and the principle of res judicata.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976:
The Supreme Court examined whether private engineering colleges fall under the ambit of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act) and the Rules made under the Act. The High Court had previously held that the Act and the Rules do not apply to the College, and this judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court.

2. Interpretation of Definitions:
The Act defines "private college" in Section 2(8) as a college maintained by an educational agency and approved by or affiliated to a university. However, the Rules define "college" in Rule 2(b) to include only Arts and Science Colleges, Teachers Training Colleges, Physical Education Colleges, Oriental Colleges, Schools of Social Work, and Music Colleges, excluding professional and technical colleges. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the definition in the Rules is exhaustive and not inclusive, thereby excluding professional and technical colleges from the Act's purview.

3. Role of AICTE and State Government:
The AICTE, established by a Government resolution in 1945 and later by the AICTE Act, 1987, oversees the coordinated development of technical education. The State Government, through the Directorate of Technical Education, regulates private engineering colleges. The Grant-in-Aid Code issued by the Director of Technical Education also governs these institutions. The Supreme Court noted that the existing regulatory framework for technical education was functioning satisfactorily and did not need to be replaced by the Act and the Rules.

4. Principle of "Communis Error Facit Jus":
The High Court had observed that both the Central and State Governments had consistently interpreted the Act and the Rules as not applying to professional institutions. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, invoking the principle of "communis error facit jus," which means common error makes law.

5. Prior Judgments and Res Judicata:
The Supreme Court addressed the contention that a prior judgment in Writ Petition No. 2756 of 1976 operated as res judicata. The High Court had rejected this argument, noting that the earlier judgment did not preclude the College from challenging the applicability of the Act and the Rules. The Supreme Court agreed with this view.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, and the Rules made under it do not apply to professional and technical educational institutions. The Court emphasized that the existing regulatory framework for technical education, governed by the AICTE and the Directorate of Technical Education, remains in force.