2014 (9) TMI 1054 - HC - Indian Laws

Withdrawal of approval status of Institute - All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE ) decided to place the petitioner-institute under withdrawal of approval status for 2014-15 and requested the Principal Secretary (Higher and Technical Education) Delhi and also Registrar, GGSIP University to shift affected students of the institute to other AICTE approved institutes affiliated to their University in consultation with the State Government - Held that - Reliance of petitioners on University s inspection report dated 16th June, 2014 is misplaced as AICTE has taken a decision in accordance with the procedure prescribed in its regulations and the same did not contemplate inspection by an affiliating university. It is to be noted that the respondent- University before this Court has admitted that its inspection was purely an annual exercise to evaluate academic standards and teaching methods at the institute and not for evaluating the infrastructure and other physical parameters pertaining to the respective institutes. Thus, the University s inspection report cannot be taken into account while deciding the issue of grant of approval to petitioners. The contention of petitioner regarding deficiencies in the case of Amity School of Engineering and Technology cannot be adjudicated upon in view of its non-impleadment. It is to be noted that it is AICTE s case that while Amity college was granted permission on self assessment basis, petitioner s application was rejected after the Expert Visiting Committee inspected petitioners premises in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Clause 11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook. Moreover, the equality concept in Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept and petitioners cannot claim parity for continuing a deficiency. In a catena of judgements it has been held that negative equality is not a valid legal ground. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the petitioner-institute suffers from several deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Visiting Committee. Despite various notices issued by AICTE to petitioner-institute to shift to a permanent site, it has been conducting engineering course from temporary premises for more than fifteen years. While it is true that the time to shift premises has been extended till 31st December, 2014, yet this Court finds that no steps have been taken by petitioners for shifting their college to a permanent site. After all a building cannot be constructed overnight Consequently, this Court of the view that the impugned order dated 24th June, 2014 suffers from no illegality, irregularity and/or procedural impropriety. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as applications are dismissed and the interim order dated 3rd July, 2014 is vacated.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the AICTE's decision to place the petitioner-institute under "withdrawal of approval status" for 2014-15.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Alleged bias and discriminatory treatment by AICTE.
4. Deficiencies in infrastructure and faculty as pointed out by AICTE.
5. Petitioner's failure to shift to a permanent site.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of AICTE's Decision:
The petitioners challenged the AICTE's order dated 24th June 2014, which placed the petitioner-institute under "withdrawal of approval status" for the academic year 2014-15. The AICTE's decision was based on multiple inspections and reports, including a CBI report and an Expert Visiting Committee (EVC) report, which highlighted significant deficiencies in the institute's infrastructure, faculty, and adherence to norms. The court observed that the AICTE followed a detailed and elaborate procedure, including issuing show cause notices, considering replies, and conducting hearings before the Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee. The court found no illegality in the AICTE's decision-making process.

2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the AICTE violated principles of natural justice by not considering their reply dated 4th June 2014 and not providing an opportunity for a hearing. However, the court found that the petitioners were given multiple opportunities to present their case, including hearings before the Standing Complaint Committee and the Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee. The court noted that the petitioners' representatives appeared before the committee on 5th June 2014 but failed to submit any supporting documents. The court concluded that the principles of natural justice were duly followed.

3. Alleged Bias and Discriminatory Treatment:
The petitioners contended that the AICTE applied different standards to similarly placed institutions, citing the example of Amity School of Engineering and Technology, which was granted approval despite similar deficiencies. The court held that the petitioners could not claim parity for continuing deficiencies and emphasized that the concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is positive. The court noted that negative equality is not a valid legal ground and dismissed the petitioners' claim of bias and discriminatory treatment.

4. Deficiencies in Infrastructure and Faculty:
The AICTE's Expert Visiting Committee report dated 23rd May 2014 pointed out several deficiencies in the petitioner-institute, including shortfalls in building area, qualified faculty, and various facilities such as classrooms, tutorial rooms, computer centers, libraries, and seminar halls. The court found that these deficiencies were major and not minor in nature. The court also noted that the petitioners had not taken any substantial steps to rectify these deficiencies despite multiple notices and opportunities.

5. Petitioner's Failure to Shift to a Permanent Site:
The petitioners had been operating from temporary premises since 1999 and had failed to shift to a permanent site despite AICTE's instructions and court orders. The court observed that the AICTE had extended the time for shifting to a permanent site till 31st December 2014, but the petitioners had not taken any steps towards this. The court emphasized that a building cannot be constructed overnight and found that the petitioners' failure to shift to a permanent site was a significant factor in the AICTE's decision.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the AICTE's order dated 24th June 2014 did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or procedural impropriety. The writ petition and applications were dismissed, and the interim order dated 3rd July 2014 was vacated.