9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 728 - SC - Indian LawsPrinciples of interpretation of Statutes - Power to inspect the colleges and University running technical courses - Grant of approval to the colleges - Definition of technical education as contained in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act - Examination of the University for making themselves eligible for degrees - Phrase engineering technology by reading the words engineering and technology - Whether the colleges affiliated to University are obliged to take separate permission/approval from the AICTE to run classes in Technical Courses in which the affiliated university of the colleges is not required to obtain any permission/approval under the AICTE Act itself? HELD THAT - It is relevant to refer to the exclusion of university from the definition of technical institution as defined under section 2(h) of the AICTE Act. The Institution means an institution not being university the applicability of bringing the university as defined under clause 2 (f) of UGC Act includes the institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act and therefore the affiliated colleges are excluded from the purview of technical institution definition of the AICTE Act. A careful reading of sub-sections (2)(c) (3) (4) and (5) of Section 12A of the UGC Act makes it abundantly clear about colleges which are required to be affiliated to run the courses for which sanction/approval will be accorded by the university or under the control and supervision of such universities. Therefore affiliated colleges to the university/universities are part of them and the exclusion of university in the definition of technical institution as defined in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act must be extended to the affiliated colleges to the university also otherwise the object and purpose of the UGC Act enacted by the Parliament will be defeated. From TMA Pai s case 2002 (10) TMI 739 - SUPREME COURT makes it very clear that in view of decision of the eleven Judges Constitution Bench of this Court the scheme framed under the Unni Krishnan s case 1993 (2) TMI 326 - SUPREME COURT has been overruled. Therefore the autonomy of the university is recognized in the said case and the object and intendment of the Parliament in excluding the universities from the definition of technical institution as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act makes is explicitly clear after scanning the definition of education institution with reference to the exclusion of universities and Sections 10 11 12 and 13 of the AICTE Act. The object of the statutory enactment made by the Parliament has been succinctly examined by this Court in Bharathidasan University 2001 (9) TMI 1126 - SUPREME COURT and Parshvanath Charitable Trust cases 2012 (12) TMI 1088 - SUPREME COURT therefore they have rightly made observations that the role of the AICTE Act in view of the UGC Act and the powers and functions conferred by the UGC for controlling and regulating the universities and its affiliated colleges has been explicitly conferred upon the UGC. Hence they have been given the power to regulate such universities and regulations in relation to granting sanctions/approvals and also maintaining educational standards and over-seeing the prescription of the fee structure including the admission of students in various courses and programmes that will be conducted by the university and its institutions constituent colleges units and the affiliated colleges. Therefore we have to hold that the Bharathidasan University case 2001 (9) TMI 1126 - SUPREME COURT on all fours be applicable to the fact situation of these appeals and we have to apply the said principle in the cases in hand whereas in the decisions of Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute case 1995 (3) TMI 483 - SUPREME COURT and Jaya Gokul Education Trust s case 2000 (4) TMI 824 - SUPREME COURT this Court has not examined the cases from the aforesaid perspective. Therefore the same cannot be applied to the fact situation. The reliance placed upon those judgments by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the AICTE is misplaced. Accordingly point nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellants. Answer to Point No.3 The words technology and engineering as per the dictionaries referred to supra would clearly go to show that MCA also comes within the definition of technology. Therefore the contention that technical education includes MCA as raised by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the AICTE stand to its reasoning and logic in view of the nature of MCA course which is being imparted to the students at post graduation level which is being conducted by the institutions constituent colleges and affiliated colleges to the universities. The same is a technical education and therefore it comes within the definition of technical education but for its proper conduct of courses and regulation the role of AICTE must be advisory and for the same a note shall be given to the UGC for its implementation by it but not the AICTE. Accordingly point no.3 is answered in favour of respondent AICTE. The amended Regulation Nos. 8(c) and 8(iv) of 2000 were introduced by the AICTE in exercise of its power under section 10(k) of AICTE Act by adding the MBA and MCA courses within the purview of the provisions of AICTE as it is included in the Regulation as a technical education. It is the case made out by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Prashant Bhushan that the amended Regulation has not been placed before the Parliament which is mandatory as per the provisions of Section 24 of the AICTE Act the said contention has not been disputed by the AICTE in these cases. The law laid down in Bharathidasan University case for the reasons recorded by us while answering point nos.1 and 2 in favour of the appellants the said decision on all fours be applicable. We have distinguished Adhiyaman Education and Research Institute and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust cases from Bharathidasan University case in the reasoning portion while answering point nos.1 and 2. Therefore the said two cases need not be applied to the present case. Thus the common impugned judgment and order passed is hereby set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether colleges affiliated to a university are obliged to take separate permission/approval from AICTE to run technical courses. 2. Whether the MCA course is a technical course within the purview of the definition of 'technical education' under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act. 3. Whether courts can read something in a statute that is not expressly provided. 4. Whether the impugned amendment dated 16.8.2000 of the 1994 Regulations would not take effect without being placed before Parliament. 5. Whether rules or regulations made under an act can override or enlarge the provisions of the act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Obligation of Affiliated Colleges to Seek AICTE Approval: The appellants argued that the High Court erred in holding that colleges affiliated to universities must seek AICTE approval for running technical courses, despite universities being exempt. The Supreme Court noted that the AICTE Act defines 'technical institution' as an institution, not being a university, which offers courses of technical education. The Court emphasized that the role of AICTE vis-`a-vis universities is advisory, recommendatory, and guiding, not supervisory or controlling. The Court held that affiliated colleges, being part of the university system, should not be required to seek separate AICTE approval. The interpretation by the High Court was found to be contrary to the law laid down in the Bharathidasan University case. 2. MCA Course as Technical Education: The Court examined whether the MCA course falls under 'technical education' as defined in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act. It referred to various dictionary definitions of 'technology' and 'engineering' and concluded that MCA, involving computer applications, indeed constitutes technical education. However, the Court clarified that while MCA is a technical course, AICTE's role is advisory, and it should communicate its standards to UGC for implementation. 3. Interpretation of Statutes: The appellants contended that the High Court wrongly interpreted the statute by inserting a comma between 'engineering' and 'technology,' thus expanding the scope of the AICTE Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should not add or delete words in a statute unless there is ambiguity. The Court found that the High Court's interpretation was incorrect and contrary to established principles of statutory interpretation. 4. Validity of Amended Regulations Without Parliamentary Approval: The appellants argued that the amended regulations dated 16.8.2000 were invalid as they were not placed before Parliament as required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act. The Supreme Court agreed, citing the principle that if a statute prescribes a particular procedure, it must be followed strictly. The failure to place the amended regulations before Parliament rendered them invalid. 5. Overriding Provisions of the Act: The Supreme Court reiterated that rules or regulations made under an act cannot override or enlarge the provisions of the act itself. The Court held that the amended regulations of 2000, which sought to bring MBA and MCA courses under AICTE's purview, were invalid as they were not placed before Parliament. The Court emphasized that AICTE's role is advisory, and it cannot enforce standards directly on universities or their affiliated colleges. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, holding that affiliated colleges do not need AICTE approval for running MBA and MCA courses. The Court upheld the autonomy of universities and their affiliated colleges, emphasizing the advisory role of AICTE and the necessity of following statutory procedures for amending regulations. The appeals were allowed, and the relief sought in the writ petitions was granted.
|
