Dismissed

Al-Khateeb Government Aided v. All India Council for

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2019WA/1853/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a writ appeal challenging the rejection of student admissions by the All India Council for Technical Education due to infrastructural deficiencies in an aided polytechnic.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed to set aside the single judge order dismissing the writ petition was dismissed; interim applications disposed of.

Al-Khateeb Government Aided Vs All India Council… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1853 OF 2019 (EDN-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

AL-KHATEEB GOVERNMENT AIDED POLYTECHNIC BHOOPASANDRA RMV IV STAGE BENGALURU – 560 094 MANAGED BY KHATEEBI SERVICE SOCIETY ® NO.503, HTM DURGAH COMPOUND OTC ROAD, COTTONPET BENGALURU – 560 053 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. KAREEN BAIG S/O LATE KHADER BAIGS

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SHRI JANARDHAN G, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR

¶15

TECHNICAL EDUCATION (A STATUTORY BODY OF GOVT. OF INDIA) REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY NELSAN MANDELA MARG VASANTH KUNJ NEW DELHI – 110 067

¶16

¶17

DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

¶18

TANTRIK BHAVAN PALACE ROAD

¶19

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(SHRI P.B.ACHAPPA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 SMT.SONA M.BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 - ABSENT (VAKALATH NOT FILED))

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE’S ORDER IN W.P.NO.21826/2019 DATED 6.6.2019 IN DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME, AS PRAYED FOR.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 6^th

¶27

June 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition

¶28

filed by the appellant, which is running an aided polytechnic. The challenge in the writ petition filed by the appellant was to the approval granted on 25^th April 2019 by All India Council for Technical Education (for short ‘the said Council’).

¶29

By the communication dated 25^th April 2019, the approval earlier granted was extended for the academic year 2019-2020. A number of deficiencies were noted in the said

¶30

¶31

approval. The appellant was informed that if compliance of the deficiencies is not reported within a period of six months, strict action will be initiated. In fact, in the said communication, most of the deficiencies which are noted were based on the self disclosure made by the appellant.

¶32

There is a subsequent order dated 30^th April 2019 passed by the said Council, which is based on an appeal preferred before the Standing Appellate Committee (for short ‘SAC’). The appeal was filed on 11^th April 2019. After inspection by the SAC, various deficiencies were noted. Therefore, SAC recommended grant of approval for Civil and Computer Science only with 50% reduction in intake capacity for the academic year 2019-2020. SAC also recommended closure of three courses. It is noted by SAC that there was an acute shortage of infrastructure, computational facility, library facility, etc. The Council relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of PARSHVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST AND OTHERS vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS¹ .

¶33

1 (2013) 3 SCC 385

¶34

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the judgment and order dated 20^th June 2019 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. He pointed out that before the learned Single Judge, sitting at Dharwad Bench, material was produced to show that the said Council had extended approval in case of 38 Government Polytechnic Institutions in the State of Karnataka with the deficiencies similar to that of the petitioner on the basis of the assurance or undertaking given by the State Government. The assurance was to get rid of the deficiencies in two years. The learned Single Judge granted relief to the petitioner therein subject to furnishing such undertaking.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the steps have been taken by the appellant to clear the deficiencies and therefore, the appellant be permitted to admit the students to the subjects of Mechanical as well as Electronics and Communication. He submitted that the deficiencies are minor in nature.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even the appellant is willing to furnish necessary

¶38

¶39

undertaking to clear the deficiencies within a stipulated time and subject to that, the appellant be permitted to admit the students by granting an interim order.

¶40

We have carefully considered the submissions.

¶41

The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the recommendations of Standing Hearing Committee of the said Council based on the deficiencies noted by the Council.

¶42

What was challenged in the petition was the order dated 25^th April 2019 passed by the said Council. On the second page of the said order, the deficiencies have been incorporated, which are based on the self-disclosure made by the appellant. The deficiencies set out are administrative area deficiency, amenities area deficiency, computational deficiency (lack of adequate number of computers), deficiency in library facilities, instructional area common facilities as well as deficiencies in other facilities. The said other deficiencies are insufficiency of classrooms and labs, insufficiency of toilets and absence of fans and lights in many classrooms and labs. It is stated that labs and classrooms are having tin sheet roof. This

¶43

¶44

is the state of affairs noted by the said Council in the institution which is allegedly functioning from the year 1985.

¶45

Now, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the further order dated 30^th April 2019 passed by the said Council based on the recommendations of SAC. These recommendations are of closure of three courses.

¶46

We have perused the said order. It records that the deficiencies in administrative area still exist. It is noted that there are serious deficiencies in providing personal computers and only 66 computers were available. Compliance reported about the deficiencies in library facilities was only partially accepted, as the deficiencies were found in library management software, reading room capacity and multi media PC. However, it was noted that in view of the closure of three courses by the institution, some of the deficiencies may be covered.

¶47

The communication dated 25^th April 2019 is based on the report of the Standing Hearing Committee dated 15^th March 2019. Thereafter, further order dated 30^th April 2019 has been

¶48

¶49

made on the basis of an appeal before the SAC in April 2019. In the order dated 30^th April 2019, the said Council has noted acute shortage of infrastructure, computer facilities, library facilities, etc. Considering the larger interests of the students, the said Council applied strict test as laid down by the Apex Court.

¶50

Now, we turn to the order dated 20^th June 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, sitting in Dharwad Bench. The order proceeds on the footing that the private institutions, which are aided institutions running polytechnics, will have to be treated on par with the Government Polytechnics. Firstly, with the greatest respect to the learned Single Judge, we do not agree that the private institutions running aided polytechnics are on par with the Government Polytechnics. The polytechnics run by the private institutions and the polytechnics run by the Government belong to different classes. Secondly, even assuming that by taking an undertaking from the appellant, the students can be permitted to be admitted to the courses not permitted by the Council, the question is about the future of the students who will be admitted under the interim

¶51

¶52

orders to the courses. In the event of the appellant failing to comply with the undertaking, the appellant institution and its office bearers can be penalized under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. But, the students will be the real sufferers as they may not succeed in getting their Diplomas and their precious years and money will be wasted. Moreover, the said order of the learned Single Judge does not bind a Division Bench.

¶53

Two experts bodies forming a part of the said Council have examined the facilities of the appellant. The body of the experts has found deficiencies on the basis of the self disclosure given by the appellant and on inspection. In the academic matters, especially when two expert bodies have applied their mind, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the stand taken by the said Council.

¶54

The appellant has repeatedly said that it is willing to give an undertaking to comply with the deficiencies. Thus, it is an accepted position that even today, there are deficiencies existing in the polytechnic. Based on the undertaking, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we cannot allow the appellant to take chances with the

¶55

¶56

future of the students, who will be admitted to the courses, where there is a direction of “no admission”.

¶57

Hence, for the reasons we have recorded, we concur

¶58

with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant may be permitted to make a representation to the said Council. It is always open for the appellant to make such a representation, which is bound to be considered in accordance with law by the said Council.

¶60

The pending interlocutory applications do not survive and are disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

Al-Khateeb Government Aided v. All India Council for

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Al-Khateeb Government Aided v. All India Council for

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

Similar cases

M/S. Kalasa Estate Vs Canara Bank

State of Karnataka Vs Sri K P Gopalakrishna

Karnataka State Licensed Electrical Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri. Doddachowdappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gopalrao T Kukdolkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivalingappa Vs the State of Karnataka