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.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include: (a) Whether colleges affiliated with a university are required to obtain separate permission/approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to run technical courses when the affiliated university itself is not required to obtain such approval under the AICTE Act. (b) Whether the Master of Computer Applications (MCA) course qualifies as a technical course under the definition of 'technical education' as per Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act. (c) Whether courts can interpret statutes by adding words or punctuation not explicitly present in the language of the Act. (d) Whether the amended AICTE Regulations dated 16.8.2000 are effective without being placed before the Parliament. (e) Whether rules or regulations made under an Act can override or expand the provisions of the Act. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (a) Requirement of AICTE Approval for Affiliated Colleges: - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The AICTE Act and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act were central to determining the requirement of AICTE approval for affiliated colleges. The precedent set by the Bharathidasan University case was pivotal. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized the distinction between universities and technical institutions as defined in the AICTE Act. It noted that universities and their affiliated colleges are governed by the UGC Act, and the AICTE's role is advisory regarding universities. - Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the AICTE Act does not intend to control universities or their affiliated colleges, as they are excluded from the definition of "technical institution" under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act. - Application of law to facts: The Court concluded that affiliated colleges, being part of the university system, do not require AICTE approval to offer technical courses. - Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the AICTE's argument that affiliated colleges should be treated as separate entities requiring approval, citing the UGC's regulatory role. - Conclusions: The Court held that affiliated colleges are not required to seek AICTE approval for technical courses. (b) MCA Course as Technical Education: - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The definition of "technical education" under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act and the interpretation of similar terms in previous cases were considered. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted the terms "engineering" and "technology" using various dictionary definitions and concluded that the MCA course falls within the scope of technical education. - Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the MCA course involves technical education due to its content and structure. - Application of law to facts: The Court determined that the MCA course is a technical course, but AICTE's role remains advisory for universities and their affiliated colleges. - Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged the AICTE's argument that MCA is technical education but emphasized the advisory role of AICTE concerning universities. - Conclusions: The MCA course is considered technical education, but AICTE's approval is not required for universities and their affiliated colleges. (c) Interpretation of Statutes: - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated that statutory interpretation should adhere to the express language of the statute and avoid adding or omitting words unless necessary. - Conclusions: The High Court's interpretation of the AICTE Act by adding punctuation was incorrect, and the Court emphasized literal interpretation. (d) Effectiveness of Amended AICTE Regulations: - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 24 of the AICTE Act mandates that regulations be laid before Parliament. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the amended regulations were ineffective as they were not placed before Parliament as required. - Conclusions: The amended AICTE regulations are invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. (e) Overriding or Expanding Provisions of the Act: - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that regulations cannot override or expand the scope of the Act itself. - Conclusions: The AICTE regulations cannot expand the scope of the Act to include universities and their affiliated colleges. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - The Court held that affiliated colleges of universities do not require AICTE approval to offer technical courses, including MCA and MBA, as they are governed by the UGC Act. - The Court affirmed that the MCA course qualifies as technical education under the AICTE Act, but AICTE's role is advisory for universities and affiliated colleges. - It was determined that statutory interpretation should adhere to the express language of the statute without adding or omitting words unnecessarily. - The amended AICTE regulations were deemed invalid due to non-compliance with the requirement of being laid before Parliament. - The Court concluded that regulations cannot override or expand the provisions of the Act. - The judgment set aside the common impugned judgment of the High Court and allowed the civil appeals, granting relief to the appellants by affirming that AICTE approval is not required for MBA and MCA courses offered by affiliated colleges.
|
