LexOM SAI PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY & ANOTHER versus ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2017) 8 S.C.R.1028 OM SAi PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY & ANOTHER v. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ANOTHER B (Writ Petition (C) No. 571 of 2017) AUGUST 16,2017 [DIPAK MISRA AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.) Education/Educational Insitutuions - All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) - Grant of approval to start college - C Proposal of petitioner to AICTE in Feb. 2017 for starting two institutes namely A/BS and AIJ:f for the academic year 2017-18 - Deficiencies found with respect to the fact that both the institutes were situated on the same land and shared various other common facilities, which deficiency could not be condoned under the Rules D - However. such deficiency removed by petitioner only in July, 2017 by withdrawing the proposal related to AIM - Accordingly, AICTE accorded approval to petitioner on 21" July, 2017 to start A/BS for the academic year 2018-19 - Plea of petitioner that it submitted the application for grant of approval within the specified timeline and it was the inaction of AICTE which resulted in delay and thus, AICTE E be directed to permit the petitioner to start its college A/BS from the academic year 2017-18 - Held: In terms of the statutory timelines specified under the AICTE Act and the regulations framed ·thereunder for grant of approval, AICTE does not have any jurisdiction or auhtority to issue approval for commencement F of a new course beyond J(Jh April of the year immediately preceding the commencement of an academic year - In the instant case, the deficiencies noted were removed by the petitioner after it withdrew the proposal relating to AIM vide letter dated 5'h July, 2017 - It was only thereafter that AICTE could process the proposal of the petitioner and accordingly granted the permission on 2I" July, 2017 G - Since, approval accorded by AICTE was after the cut off date of JO'h April, 2017 for the academic year 2017-18, it issued approval for starting A/BS institute for the academic year 2018-19 and not 2017-18 - No fault can be found with AICTE in that regard - Petitioners not entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition - Further. petitioners directed to pay cost of Rs.50,0001- to the H respondents. 1028 OM SAi PUNYA EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE 1029 SOCIETY & ANR. v. AICTE AND ANR. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 From the facts which have now emerged it is noticed that the petitioners were fully aware of sharing of the same piece of land and some of the common facilities between A the two institutes but did not disclose that fact in the original application (proposal). Whereas, the team of officers of EVC who B had v~sited the site for inspection on the earlier occasion were obstructed from entering the building complex, obviously with ulterior design. Realising that the deficiency of two institutes sharing the same plot and some of the common facilities would come in the way of the petitioners, the petitioners were advised C to withdraw the proposal in respect of AIM. That decision was taken by the petitioners on 1'' July, 2017, which was communicated to AICTE only on 51h July, 2017. It is only after receipt of that communication, the AICTE proceeded on the assumption that the stated deficiency stood removed in respect of AIBS and accorded approval to the said institute on 21•1 July, D 2017, but for the academic year 2018-19. In the backdrop of the .aforementioned facts, it is unfathomable as to how AICTE can be held responsible for the delay in issuing the Letter of Approval in respect of AIBS for the academic year 2017-18. [Paras 7 and 11] [1036-C-D; 1038-C-E] E · 1.2 Further, it is not open to AICTE to breach the timelines specified in the AICTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder for processing the proposal for grant of a Letter of . Approval. It is well settled that the schedule specified in the Regulations has statutory backing. Its adherence is mandatory and not directory. As per the said schedule, AICTE does not F have any jurisdiction or authority to issue approval for commencement of a new course or for additional intake of students beyond 301h April of the year immediately preceding the commencement of an academic year. The admission schedule for academic year .2017-18 had already commenced and was G substantially completed. The academic year had also commenced . and the last date for completing the admission proc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.