9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant-University requires prior approval from AICTE to start technical courses or programmes. 2. Whether the regulations made by AICTE obligating universities to seek prior approval are valid and enforceable. 3. The relative operation and interaction between the AICTE Act and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act. Summary: Issue 1: Prior Approval Requirement The core legal question addressed in this appeal is whether the appellant-University, established under the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981, must obtain prior approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) before starting any technical courses or programmes. The AICTE filed a writ petition seeking to prevent the University from conducting technical courses without its prior approval, as mandated by the AICTE Act and its regulations, particularly Regulation No.4. The appellant-University contended that it does not fall under the definition of "Technical Institution" as defined u/s 2(h) of the AICTE Act and, therefore, is not obligated to seek such approval. Issue 2: Validity and Enforceability of AICTE Regulations The Single Judge and Division Bench of the Madras High Court upheld AICTE's stance, relying on the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Sambasiva Rao alias Sambaiah & Ors. Vs. Osmania University, which held that the AICTE Act, being a special law, overrides the general provisions of the UGC Act. The appellant argued that the regulations obligating universities to seek prior approval were beyond AICTE's regulation-making powers and thus null and void. The Supreme Court found that the AICTE Act does not intend to undermine the autonomy of universities or the UGC. The AICTE's role concerning universities is advisory and recommendatory, not supervisory or controlling. Therefore, regulations requiring universities to seek prior approval for starting technical courses are inconsistent with the AICTE Act and unenforceable. Issue 3: Interaction between AICTE Act and UGC Act The Supreme Court emphasized that the legislative intent of the AICTE Act is not to subordinate universities to AICTE but to ensure the maintenance of standards in technical education. The AICTE Act and UGC Act, both enacted by Parliament, have distinct roles. The AICTE's powers are confined to technical institutions as defined u/s 2(h), excluding universities. The court highlighted that the AICTE Act's provisions, particularly Section 10(1)(k), do not cover universities, and any regulation extending AICTE's control over universities is void. The court criticized the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in M. Sambasiva Rao's case for oversimplifying the UGC's role and incorrectly interpreting the AICTE's authority over universities. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Madras High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petition filed by AICTE. The court declared that AICTE regulations requiring universities to seek prior approval for starting technical courses are void and unenforceable. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Sambasiva Rao's case was also deemed incorrect. The court clarified that while universities must conform to AICTE's standards and norms, they are not required to obtain prior approval from AICTE to start technical courses.
|
