G H APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR. versus JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 732 · Decided: 10-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY &
ANR.
v.
JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4016 of 2020)
DECEMBER 10, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND V.
RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015:
Purpose of enactment – Held: To regulate technical education in
the State of Kerala.
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015: s.30(2)
– Power of Syndicate to lay down norms for grant of affiliation for
additional courses – Held: The source of power for the Syndicate
to prescribe norms and standards for affiliation is s.30(2) – s.30(2)
begins with the words “subject to the provisions of the Act and the
Statutes” – So, if there is something in the Act or the Statutes which
regulates or controls the power of the Syndicate, then the Syndicate
may be bound by such prescription – But if there is nothing in the
Act/Statutes or if there are no Statutes at all, then it cannot be said
that the power itself is unavailable – Therefore, the absence of
Statutes, till they were made for the first time on 07.08.2020, did not
mean that the power under s.30(2) could not be exercised – The
absence of the Statutes (till 07.08.2020) would only mean the
absence of Statute-stipulated conditions and procedure for
affiliation, but not the absence of the very power of the Syndicate
flowing out of s.30(2)(iii) – Thus, when the Statutes have not
prescribed any conditions for affiliation but have left it to the
Syndicate to take care of matters relating to affiliation, the function
of the Syndicate to lay down norms and standards by virtue of the
powers conferred by s.30(2), is made free of any fetters – High
Court was in error in holding that the resolutions passed by the
Syndicate prescribing norms and standards for the grant of
affiliation for additional courses were ultra vires the Act –
Universities – Education/Educational Institutions.APJ Abdul Kalam
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 732
732
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
733
Technological University Act, 2015: s.14(6) – Whether High Court
was correct in holding that in the absence of the Statutes, recourse
was available only to the Vice Chancellor under s.14(6) – Held:
s.14(6) says that in the absence of the Statute, it is the Vice-
Chancellor who has the power to regulate any matter which is
required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations – It cannot be
interpreted to mean that the Syndicate itself will be powerless in the
absence of the Statutes and that the Vice Chancellor will have the
power – In any case, the language of s.14(6) is such that the Vice
Chancellor may first regulate the matter by issuing directions and
thereafter submit the same “as soon as may be” for the approval of
the Board of Governors or other authority or body concerned – By
virtue of s.30(2)(iii), the Syndicate can be taken to be the “other
authority” referred to in s.14(6) – Therefore, it was not necessary
for the Vice Chancellor to fall back upon s.14(6) on the ground
that there were no Statutes at that time – High Court erred in holding
that in the absence of the Statutes, recourse was available only to
the Vice Chancellor under s.14(6), overlooking for a moment that
the power under s.30(2)(iii) would not become otiose due to the
absence of the Statutes.
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015: Role
of appellant-University vis-a-vis AICTE – Enhancement of norms
and standards for admission as prescribed by AICTE – Held: While
it is not open to the Universities to dilute the norms and standards
prescribed by AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe
enhanced norms – Universities.
Universities: Power of Universities to incorporate any
additional conditions for affiliation – Case laws discussed.
AICTE – Development in AICTE after 2012 – After the advent
of AICTE Regulations, 2012, the applications for extension of
approvals are processed by AICTE only online, merely on the basis
of the self-disclosure made by the colleges in their online
applications – Though AICTE has reserved to itself the power to
conduct inspections and take penal action against colleges for false
declarations, such penal action does not serve any purpose for the
students who get admitted to colleges which have necessary
infrastructure only on paper and not on site – The Regulations of
the AICTE are silent as to how the students will get compensated,
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.