2000 (4) TMI 824 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987 occupied the field, making it unnecessary to obtain further approval from the State Government or other authority.
2. Whether the rejection orders by the State Government were valid on merits and if the University should have continued the affiliation based solely on AICTE's permission.

Summary:

Issue 1:

The Supreme Court addressed whether the AICTE Act, 1987, precluded the need for additional State Government approval for establishing technical institutions. The judgment referenced the case of *State of Tamil Nadu & Another v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Others, [1995] 4 SCC 104*, emphasizing that the AICTE Act, specifically section 10(k), granted the AICTE the authority to approve new technical institutions. The Court held that any State law requiring further approval would be void due to repugnancy with the AICTE Act. The Kerala University statute 9(7), which required obtaining the "views" of the State Government, did not equate to needing its "approval". Thus, the AICTE's approval was deemed sufficient, and any additional State requirement would be invalid.

Issue 2:

The factual position showed that the AICTE had granted conditional approval on 30.4.1995, based on recommendations from various committees. The Mahatma Gandhi University had included the appellant in its list of affiliated colleges for 1995-96, pending the "views" of the State Government. However, the State Government refused permission without providing substantial reasons. The Supreme Court found this refusal illegal, noting that the AICTE's approval process involved consultation with State representatives, including the Director of Technical Education. The State's policy against new engineering colleges was not a valid ground for refusal, as policy decisions on technical education rested with the AICTE. The University should have granted affiliation based on AICTE's approval and could not impose conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, upholding the Single Judge's decision that AICTE's approval was sufficient. The State Government's refusal was quashed, and the Mahatma Gandhi University was directed to consider the appellant's application for affiliation based on AICTE's approval and relevant University statutes not inconsistent with the AICTE Act. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.