2012 (12) TMI 1088 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for Special Leave Petition (SLP) by students.
2. Shifting of the college without requisite approvals.
3. Non-inclusion of the college in the Centralised Admission Process (CAP).
4. Withdrawal of approval by AICTE.
5. Legal principles regarding AICTE's role and authority.
6. Compliance with AICTE regulations and procedural requirements.
7. Time schedule for grant of approval and admissions.

Summary:

1. Application for Special Leave Petition (SLP) by students:
IA Nos.1-2 of 2012 were applications filed by two students of Parshavanath College of Engineering for permission to file a special leave petition against the judgment dated 22nd August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The applications were allowed subject to just exceptions. SLP (C) No.26086 of 2012 was preferred by the appellant-Trust against the same judgment. Leave granted in both the SLPs.

2. Shifting of the college without requisite approvals:
The appellant-college shifted its location to a new site in May 2008 without prior approval from AICTE, No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the University of Mumbai, the State Government, or an Occupation Certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Thane. AICTE's Expert Committee noted these deficiencies during an inspection on 28th June, 2008. Despite these issues, AICTE granted an extension of approval for the academic years 2008-2011.

3. Non-inclusion of the college in the Centralised Admission Process (CAP):
A show cause notice was issued by AICTE on 18th May, 2010, stating that the college had shifted to another location without obtaining prior approval. This led to the college not being included in the CAP by the State Government. The appellant challenged this non-inclusion by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which allowed the petition and directed the college to be included in the CAP.

4. Withdrawal of approval by AICTE:
On 7th January, 2011, AICTE passed an order withdrawing the approval granted to the appellant-college due to non-compliance with regulations, including the lack of an Occupation Certificate and necessary permissions. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging this withdrawal, noting that the college had shifted without necessary approvals and did not have clear title to the land.

5. Legal principles regarding AICTE's role and authority:
The AICTE Act, 1987, aims to improve the technical education system across the country, granting AICTE exclusive responsibility to coordinate and determine standards of higher education. AICTE's role is advisory and recommendatory concerning universities, emphasizing the importance of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms.

6. Compliance with AICTE regulations and procedural requirements:
Clause 9.22 of the AICTE Handbook for Approval Process 2008 outlines the procedure for changing the location of an institution, requiring NOCs from the State Government and affiliating body, and submission of land documents. The appellant-college failed to comply with these requirements, leading to the withdrawal of approval by AICTE.

7. Time schedule for grant of approval and admissions:
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the time schedule for grant of approval and admissions. The AICTE should inform applicants of deficiencies within three weeks, and the entire process should be transparent and fair. The court approved a fixed and unaltered time schedule for admissions to ensure consistency and fairness.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the court issued several directions, including strict adherence to the grant/refusal of approval and admission schedule, disciplinary action for non-compliance, and re-allocation of students to recognized colleges. The AICTE was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 for its irresponsible working, recoverable from the erring officials' salaries.