9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes. 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 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recommendation of allotment as well as a direction to AICTE not to withhold the approval to the petitioners for running the Engineering Degree College for the Academic Year 2005-2006. 5. On 09th February, 2005, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim order that respondent-AICTE could not unreasonably withhold approval to the petitioner for its undergraduate Engineering Course for the Academic Year 2005-2006 only on the ground that it did not possess a permanent site. 6. Between 2006-2011, petitioners approached this Court before the start of each academic session and were granted relief inasmuch as the interim order dated 05th February, 2005 was continued for subsequent academic years. 7. By a detailed order and judgment dated 25th March, 2011, petitioners' writ petition along with a batch of matters was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. However, extension of approval for two Academic Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 was granted to the petitioners. 8. In the meantime, on 29th January, 2010, the SP, CBI, vide its letter informed the Chief Vigilance Officer, AICTE that from 1999, petitionerinstitute had been continuing to operate from temporary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation till date. 3. CBI Report reveals that significant shortage as regards the area but marginal shortage as regards the built up area, student ratio, computer internet etc. were pointed out by various Expert Committees that visited the college (01-11-1999, 2000-2001, 25-07-2002 and 18/01/2006). As per the report of the CBI, No Admission status was granted to the institute vide letter dated 04-07-2002 of AICTE. 4. Show Cause Notice was issued to the Institute vide letter dated 14/05/2004. On the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi, Extension of Approval for the session 2005-06 was granted to the institute and EOA is being granted every year till 2013-14. 5. The Institute applied for site change in the A.Y. 2012-13 which was not recommended by RC and its application was rejected on account of deficiencies reported by the Scrutiny Committee dated 27/03/2013. 6. The Institute failed to shift the site even after lapse of more than 13 years and thereby violated the rules and regulations of Approval Process. The Institute has also failed to comply with the direction of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in C.M. No.6159/2011 in WP (c) No.2459- 60/2005 whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Process Handbook is reproduced hereinbelow:- 11 Procedure for restoration against punitive actions. 11.1 Applicant makes an application for restoration on the Web Portal along with the application for extension of approval of the next academic year. 11.2 The restoration is subject to Expert visit 11.3 The expert Visit Committee shall verify all the requirements as per the approval process hand book. 11.4 Expert Visit Committee report shall be placed before Standing Complaint 11.5 Recommendations of the Standing Complaint Committee shall be placed before Executive Committee for necessary Approval/ratification. 11.6 The Institute may appeal as per the procedure of appeal in Chapter I if the status quo on punitive action is maintained. 16. Accordingly, the Expert Visiting Committee conducted an inspection of the petitioner-institute on 23rd May, 2014. 17. The Expert Visiting Committee in its report pointed out not only shortfall in building area and qualified faculty as well as cadre ratio, but also small size of boys' common room, girls common room, cafeteria, classrooms, tutorial rooms, computer centre, libraries, seminar halls etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in size No document submitted. Not accepted. 17. Class room UG Short by six meters each class room No document submitted. Not accepted. 18. Laboratories UG Short by above fifty per cent No document submitted. Not accepted. 19. Seminar Hall short by three rooms. No document submitted. Not accepted. 20. The EVC also observed as follows: Land area should be 2.5 acres. The college is running in a Deficiencies are not rectified. rented building situated in Budhpur Village. College may be advised to shift to the own land and building. Originally the building seems to have constructed for a hotel. Therefore, the room size are not as per norms marginally. Faculty list of 64 members is submitted. About 45 area approved by University. The faculty available for interaction is only 47. Faculty cadre ratio is to be maintained. More doctors in domain areas are required. Infrastructure neatness needs to be improved. Class rooms labs should be 66 m2 each. Present Status: No EOA for 2013-14. Operating on Temporary Location since the year 1999. RECOMMENKDATIONS OF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Uppal, the rest of the discrepancies pointed out by respondent-AICTE in the impugned order were minor in nature and had been rectified. Mr. Uppal contended that as there was substantial compliance with all rules and regulations of respondent-AICTE, petitioner should have been granted approval for extension of affiliation for the Academic Year 2014-2015 for its engineering course. In this connection, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Al-Karim Educational Trust Anr. vs. The State of Bihar Ors., JT 1996 (2) S.C. 662 wherein it has been held as under:- 11. In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical Council of India to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction. We must make it clear that we are not diluting the importance of fulfilling the essential pre-requisite set by the Medical Council before granting recognition. The facts of this case are very special and exceptional. In the present case, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iswasan, Delhi, even though it was running on a temporary site and on a smaller piece of land than the petitioner-institute. Mr. Uppal stated that petitioners had come to know that the said institution had received a total score of 57.6% in the inspection conducted by the Joint Assessment Committee of Delhi Government, whereas petitioner-institute had received a score of 69.33% in the inspection report. In this connection, he relied upon the order dated 14th July, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in W.P.(C)6021/2014, Mahatma Education Society's Pillai's Institute of Information Technology vs. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) wherein it had been held as under:- 15. There is no material that, out of 1800 such institutions in Maharashtra, only these are the defaulting institutions. The complainant also unable to justify their restrictions and insistence to proceed only against these institutions. There is also nothing on record to show that all other 1800 institutions are without deficiencies. 16. We are not suggesting that institutions should not remove the deficiencies. But, this is not the way to deal with such institutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion itself provide for relaxation/exemptions. We fail to understand that if there were indeed some area/land deficiencies, how the letters of approval were issued to the Petitioners at the threshold. We are not here to give decisions on the respective deficiencies at this stage, but as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that those norms and standards and regulations/rules unless interpreted and/or considered by this Court and/or even by the supreme authority under AICTE Act and/or other Act, such drastic action would definitely cause injustice and hardship to all the concerned. There is nothing on record to show that any findings and/or reasons have been given by the Council, while interpreting these regulations. It is relevant to note that there is power to relax, whereby the Council may in exceptional cases for removal of any hardship and/or other reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the deficiencies of this kind of any classes or categories of institutions. No proper opportunity was given to the Petitioners to put up their case before taking such drastic action. The decision, therefore, so taken is arbitrary and not in consonance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute was continued. He pointed out that it was only on 25th March, 2011 that this Court dismissed the said writ petition and subsequently by order dated 13th May, 2011 passed in CM No.6159/2011 noted that ......In our considered view, prayer (c) was a sequitur to the relief claimed in prayer (a) and prayer (b). 31. Mr. Kumar contended that as the petitioner-institute had failed to shift to its permanent site even after fifteen years of its functioning and in spite of order dated 13th May, 2011 passed by this Court as well as CBI report, AICTE issued Show cause notice dated 14th June, 2013. 32. Mr. Kumar stated that after giving full opportunity of hearing in accordance with Clause 12 of AICTE 2012 Regulations and after complying with principles of natural justice, AICTE vide its letter dated 30th October, 2013 placed the petitioner-institute under No Extension of Approval 2013- 14 status . 33. Mr. Kumar further stated that upon an application for the academic session 2014-15, the petitioner-institute was considered as per the procedure for restoration against punitive action as provided under Clause 11 of Chapter IV of AICTE Approval Process Handbook. He pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Amity School of Engineering and Technology was concerned, he stated that assuming without admitting that petitioners‟ argument was correct, then also it could not claim parity for continuing a deficiency. 38. Mr. Kumar submitted that the Policy of the State Government dated 02nd April, 2014 did not override the condition of approval and Norms and Standards laid down by the AICTE in terms of its Regulations of 1994 and 2012 and also the policy decision of AICTE which mandated all institutions to shift to a permanent site. 39. Mr. Kumar also stated that there was no indication much less any undertaking or assurance given by the petitioners in the writ petition regarding shifting to permanent site by 31st December, 2014. 40. After the arguments were over, Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner handed over an additional affidavit dated 13th August, 2014 enclosing a copy of the Academic Audit Report dated 16th June, 2014 prepared by the representative of the respondent-University. Mr. Uppal contended that the contents of the said report contradicted the objections raised by various inspection teams constituted by AICTE. 41. Thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96 SC 11 the Supreme Court has held as under:- 89. ..............The judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. The restraint has two contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial intervention; the other covers the scope of the court's ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action. 90. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself. 91..............It is thus different from an appeal. When hearing an appeal, the Court is concerned with the merits of the decision under appeal................ 100.........It is not function of a judge to act as a super board, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator. 217.............Since the power of judicial review is not an appeal from the decision. We cannot substitute our decision since we do not have the necessary expertise to review............. 219........Apart f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mention that the Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee comprises a retired High Court Judge, a Principal and a Professor. It does not comprise any serving officer or employee of AICTE. It is the independent Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee that has stated that neither any document nor any reply was filed by the petitioner. No allegation of bias or malice has been levelled against any member of the Standing Appellate/Complaint Committee. Consequently, this Court is unable to accept the contention of petitioner-institute that neither its reply nor its documents were taken on record. 51. Further, to say that petitioner was unaware of CBI report prior to issuance of the impugned order is not correct. It was extensively referred to in Show Cause Notices dated 14th June, 2013, 24th September, 2013 and AICTE's order dated 30th October, 2013. 52. In any event, CBI's report dated 29th January, 2010 was only a starting point of enquiry as the impugned decision is based on deficiencies pointed out by the AICTE's Expert Visiting Committee‟s report dated 23rd May, 2014. 53. The interim order dated 14th July, 2014 passed by Bombay High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies 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. 59. 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. In Union of India and Others vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Supreme Court has held as under::- 26. A claim on the basis of guarantee of equality, by reference to someone similarly placed, is permissible only when the person similarly placed has been lawfully granted a relief and the person claiming relief is also lawfully entitled for the same. On the other hand, where a benefit was illegally or irregularly extended to someone else, a person who is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
