Disposed

G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust Lucknow Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Amar Nath Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024WRIC/6761/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court directed the University to consider the petitioner-institution for affiliation and admission by 07.09.2024, ignoring statutory cutoff dates. This was because AICTE granted approval late due to internal delays regarding pending complaints against the petitioner, constituting a rare circumstance for judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

University directed to consider petitioner for affiliation and admission by 07.09.2024 ignoring cutoff dates; petition disposed.

G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust Lucknow Thru. Authorized… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58822

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6761 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust Lucknow Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Amar Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Paavan Awasthi

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aditya Vikram Singh,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Lalit Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Lalit Shukla for respondent No.s 2 and 3 and Sri Aditya Vikram Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material available on record.

¶8

The grievance raised by the petitioner is with regard to issuance of letter of extension of approval to the petitioner for conducting B.Tech and MBA courses for academic session 2024-25 from All India Council of Technical Education i.e. respondent No.2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got approval regularly since 2009 and the same has been extended and lastly it was extended on 1.8.2023. With regard to academic session 2024-25 application was made by the petitioner on the web portal which has been showing as 'Extension of Approval (EOA)' has been issued but the petitioner has not been able to download a copy of the said letter. Subsequently, he has been informed by the respondent No.2 that there are certain complaints pending before Public Grievance Redresssal Cell (PGRC) and accordingly EOA has not been notified.

¶9

Shri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that in the 161 executive committee, the matter

¶10

pertaining to the petitioner as well as allegations levelled against him were duly considered and it has been resolved to reduce 10% intake for the approved course and also suspended AICTE grants for one academic year.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order of the executive committee has not been formally communicated to the petitioner and in this regard the respondents have to issue a letter of extension of approval to the petitioner.

¶12

Shri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of instructions submits that the said letter of extension shall be issued forthwith in the maximum period of three working days.

¶13

Further a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner stating that in the peculiar circumstances of the case where only filing of the present writ petition that the AICTE has informed this Court about the grant of approval to the petitioner after 10% reduction of intake and formal order has to be passed within next few days, it has been prayed that University may also consider grant of affiliation to the petitioner. The said prayer has been opposed by the respondent stating that any such direction would breach the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 385 . According to the said judgment, the schedule has been given in paragraph no. 41 therein, according to which, the last date for granting or refusing approval by the AICTE is 10th April and last date for granting or refusing approval by University is 15th May. It has also been informed to this Court that in certain circumstances, the Supreme Court itself has interfered in the matter and approval and affiliation were directed to be granted beyond the time

¶14

prescribed under the said schedule. It was specifically stated in the case of Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health and Sciences and others reported in AIR 2012 3396 wherein the Supreme Court itself has permitted transgression of the cutoff-date. Accordingly, it was stated that in the rare cases the cutoff-dates can be altered in the certain circumstances. It was also submitted that this Court in the case of Smt. Ramapati Sewa Nyas and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 18243 (MS) of 2018 had considered this aspect of the matter and considering that the AICTE itself has granted approval after the cut-off-date. This Court had passed suitable directions to the University to consider the case of the petitioner-institution therein for purpose to an admission.

¶15

In the present case, it seems that the approval was kept pending in light of the certain allegations having been levelled against the petitioner-institution and it is only the executive committee of the AICTE, who in its 167th meeting have taken a decision to grant approval after 10% reduction intake of the approved courses, which e-mail has been communicated to the petitioner only on 28.08.2024. Though as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra) , the said approval ought to have been granted prior to 10th April and for 2024 the date was extended till 10th June. In any view of the matter, the said approval has been granted beyond the prescription made by the Supreme Court by the AICTE itself. Accordingly, this constitutes a rare circumstance for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not the case any of the respondents delay has occurred due to the petitioner but solely on account of the fact that AICTE itself had considered the certain complaints against the petitioner passed the order for granting approval only on 28.08.2024. Accordingly, considering

¶16

that the admission are still underway and will continue till 15.09.2024, it is provided that the University shall consider the petitioner-institution in light of the approval granted by the AICTE by 07.09.2024 and in case the University grants approval it will bring the name of Institution of the petitioner also on the portal of the University for admission purposes, ignoring the cut-off-date as given in the Parshvanath case (supra) .

¶17

Learned counsel for University assures the Court that the University shall expeditiously take decision in the matter.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid directions and observations, this petition is disposed of.

¶19

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 Virendra

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust Lucknow Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Amar Nath Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust Lucknow Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Amar Nath Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

R.K. College of Systems and Management Thru Its Chairman Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare andORS

M/S Sarswat Peroxides Private Ltd. Throu Its Director Vs the Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Gomti Nagar Lko.

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and Others

Anil Kumar @ Anil Rastogi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education,Lko. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Vijay Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others