LexJAYA GOKUL EDUCATIONAL TRUST versus THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JAYA GOKUL EDUCATIONAL TRUST -- ,,_..... V. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE AND ANR. B APRIL 11, 2000 [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] Education: c All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act)- Section 1 O(k)-Grant of approval for estab~1)lent of technical institutions under the Act-Grant of affiliation by University-Role of State Goveni- ment-Held, State Government is required to give its 'views' on establishment and affiliation and not 'approval'-Kerala University First Statute: Clause D 9(7)-AICTE Regulations: 8(4). Constitution of India-Article 246-AICTE Act, 1987 and Kera/a Uni- versify First Statute-Held, provisions of State Act cannot be inconsistent with Central Act-Seventh Schedule-list I : Entry 66 and list III : Entry 25. E Appellant-trust sought permission from University and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to establish a self-financing Engineering College. A team of professors of the University inspected the facilities provided by the Trust and made a recommendation for granting permission. The AICTE granted conditional approval subject to fulfilment F of certain conditions by the Trust. The Trust under the impression that State Government's approval is also required, sought permission from it in this connection. Meanwhile, the University forwarded to the State Govern- ment a list of colleges and courses for affiliation during academic year 1995-96 which included the college of the Trust. The State Government refused permission to the Trust to establish the college. The Trust filed a G Writ Petition before High Court challenging the decision of the State Government. Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Uni- versity to consider Trust's application for permanent affiliation ignoring the State Government's decision and pass appropriate orders. The State if r~ Government was also directed to reconsider its decision. The Division H Bench allowed the writ appeal of the State Government and dismissed the 1234 • r JAYA GOKUL EDU. TRUST v. COMMR. AND SECY. HR. EDU. AND ANR. 1235 Writ Petition of the Trust. A In appeal to the Court, the Trust contended that after coming into force of the AICTE Act, 1987, a Central Act, the Kerala University First Statute conferring a power on the State Go".ernment or University for granting approval is inconsistent with the Central Act and is void; that the State Government and the University do not have any independent role to play in respect of institutions and technical education; that AICTE granted approval after consulting the State Government and the University as per its regulations; that the University is required to obtain views and not approval from the State Government and that the Trust need not take permission from the State Government to establish a college. The State Government contended that it has taken a policy decision to stop approval for establishment of new Engineering Colleges as there are more Engineering Colleges in the State, both aided and un-aided, and to avoid commercialisation of education. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. Section lO(K) of the AICTE Act, 1987 occupied the field relating the 'grant of approvals' for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the Act alone were to he complied'with. The provisions of the University Act or its statutes required the University to obtain the 'views' of the State Government. That could not be characterised as requiring the 'approval' of the State Government. If the University Statute could be so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the State Government would be repugnant to the provisions of section lO(K) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would be void. There are enough provisions in the AICTE Act for consultation by the Council of the AICTE with various agencies, including the State Government and the University concerned. The State Level Com- mittee and the Central Regional Committees contained various experts and State representatives. In case of difference of opinion as between the vari- ous consultees, the AICTE would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the State Governments and the Universities. The University could not im- pose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.