Partly allowed

All India Council of Technical Education v. the Director, Mgm Polytechnic College

Kerala HC21 Mar 2016WA/595/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging an interim order directing the appellants to collect fees. The Court held the Single Judge was unjustified to assume application submission without verifying portal status.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Single Judge is modified directing the AICTE to consider valid complaints of technical snags, and if confirmed, to open the Web Portal for a limited period for the petitioner to submi

All India Council of Technical Education Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/1ST CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WA.No. 595 of 2016 () IN WP(C).8549/2016

¶6

-----------------------------------------AGAINT THE ORDER IN I.A.No.3786/2016 IN W.P.(C)No.8549/2016 DATED 16.3.2016

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 :-

¶8

1. ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION 7TH FLOOR, CHANDRALOK BUILDING, JANPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶9

2. CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, 7TH FLOOR, CHANDRALOK BUILDING, JANPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶10

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

¶11

ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL CAMP OFFICE, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016.

¶12

4. ADVISOR, ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, 7TH FLOOR, CHANDRALOK BUILDING, JANPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMURTHY, SC

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER :-

¶15

THE DIRECTOR, MGM POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 612.

¶16

BY SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-032016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶19

W.A. No.595 of 2016

¶20

Dated this the 21^st day of March 2016

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Shaffique, J.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶24

The appellants challenge the interim order dated 16.3.2016 passed in I.A.No.3786 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.8549 of 2016, by which, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to collect the application fee from the petitioner within a period of three days.

¶25

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner uploaded the on-line application for approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The application had to be submitted on or before 24 hours on 29.2.2016. According to the petitioner, after completing all the formalities, they clicked 'submit' button at about 11.35 p.m. The same was not accepted and the message displayed was “the server you are trying to access is either busy or experiencing difficulties. Please close the Web browser, open a new browser

¶26

W.A. No.595 of 2016

¶27

-: 2 :-

¶28

window and try logging in again (00.03.38)”. The petitioner submits that this message had appeared in the screen at 11.57 p.m. and Ext.P3 is the document evidencing the same. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner sent an E-mail, Ext.P4, to the respondents stating that the Web Portal was hanging from 22 hours onwards and the message displayed as evident from Ext.P3. The E-mail was sent to other authorities as well, copies of which are produced as Ext.P5. However, there was no response from the respondent authorities and accordingly, the writ petition was filed seeking for the following reliefs :-

¶29

“A. Issue writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or order commanding the first Respondent to accept and receive Ext.P2 on line application for approval (current application No.1-2892914591 dated 29.2.2016) submitted by M.G.M. Polytechnic College, Kilimanoor, Thiruvananthapuram District, Kerala, available in their web portal and process the same by receiving it from the back end of its web portal and process the same on such terms as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.

¶30

B. Direct the respondents to consider Exts.P4, P5 to P5(b) forthwith or within such time.

¶31

C. Direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application with fine by extending similar treatment as to that of existing institutions as provided in Ext.P8.”

¶32

W.A. No.595 of 2016

¶33

-: 3 :-

¶34

When the writ petition was taken up on 10.3.2016, the learned Single Judge issued an order directing the petitioner to appear before the AICTE, Bangalore and in the presence of the Regional Director, the petitioner was permitted to download and handover a copy of the application. This order was passed since the petitioner submitted that their application is still in the Web Portal of AICTE. Pursuant to the said direction, the Web Portal of AICTE was accessed and the petitioner's application was retrieved. On this basis, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3786 of 2016 seeking for a direction to accept the application of the petitioner and process the same by accepting application fee pending disposal of the writ petition. In fact, no counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, as the matter was disposed of after obtaining instruction through the Standing Counsel.

¶35

The learned Single Judge having taken note of the fact that the application of the petitioner was available in the Web Portal of the AICTE, observed that notwithstanding the delay in the matter, the application shall be processed in accordance with law and a direction was issued to collect the necessary fee.

¶36

W.A. No.595 of 2016

¶37

-: 4 :-

¶38

The AICTE and its officers have approached this Court challenging the aforesaid interim order, inter alia contending that the application of the petitioner was not at all submitted. The online application, which was retrieved was only an application available in the Web Portal, which does not amount to submission of the application. It is contended that unless the application is submitted and necessary fee is paid, the application will not be treated as a proper application. It is also argued that the petitioner had not submitted the application before the stipulated time and as a result of which, the learned Single Judge ought not to have issued any direction. It is stated that the appellants cannot open the Web Portal for the purpose of submission of application and payment of fee, as the matter stands now, since the time fixed was already over and there might be several other persons, who would have prepared the application, but could not have submitted on account of the fact that the time has already expired. It is argued that the time for submission of application was with effect from 21.1.2016 to 22.2.2016, which was further extended till 29.2.2016 till 4.00 hours and when there was sufficiently long period for submitting an on-line application, the contention that it was submitted only before

¶39

W.A. No.595 of 2016

¶40

-: 5 :-

¶41

22 hours on 29.2.2016 cannot be accepted. That apart, it is submitted that several applications were submitted and received by the AICTE even at 11.56 p.m. on 29.2.2016. Four applications were received after 11.30 p.m. as well. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that there is no basis for the contention urged on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner and hence, sought for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶42

On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner placed reliance on Ext.P3, by which, it was indicated that the server could not be accessed as it was either busy or experiencing difficulties. It is stated that this message was received at 11.57 p.m. and immediately, on noticing that they cannot access the Web Portal, they sent an E-mail to the help desk at 12.26 a.m. and thereafter a complaint was given as Ext.P5 to the Chairman, AICTE as well on 1.3.2016. It is argued that if the time for submission of application was over, Ext.P3 would have been blank and therefore, when there is instruction that new Web browser has to be opened, it clearly indicated that the Web Portal was hanging and the petitioner could not have accessed the Web site. It is also submitted that when the

¶43

W.A. No.595 of 2016

¶44

-: 6 :-

¶45

application of the petitioner was available in the computer of AICTE, it is an instance where the application is already submitted and what remains was only payment of fees.

¶46

Having regard to the respective contentions of the parties, the short question that arises for consideration in such an instance is whether the Web Portal was opening for access to any person, who submits their application until 24 hours on 29.2.2016. The petitioner's main contention is that though they have prepared the application and tried to click 'submit' button, the information received was as evident from Ext.P3. Whereas, according to the AICTE, the application would remain in the Web Portal and unless the 'submit' button is accessed and the application fee is remitted, it will not amount to submission of application. This, according to the learned counsel for the AICTE, is evident from the entry made by the Regional Officer in Ext.P9 dated 14.3.2016, wherein, the Regional Officer had made the following observation :-

¶47

“The officer from institute “MGM Polytechnic College” has downloaded the application as uploaded by them in the AICTE Web Portal in my presence at AICTE SWRO Bangalore on 14.3.2015. However, the status in Web Portal shows as application “not submitted”.

¶48

W.A. No.595 of 2016

¶49

-: 7 :-

¶50

Apparently, the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that application is already submitted and therefore, what is required is only collection of the fees. For submitting an application, necessarily the Web Portal has to be opened for a specified time to enable the application to be accessed in the Web Site and to submit the same after effecting payment of fees. Since the time has already expired, some more time has to be granted. Under such circumstances, merely for the reason that the application is downloaded from the Web Portal of AICTE does not mean that there is submission of application. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that the application is not submitted. The question is, what further direction can be issued in the matter.

¶51

Having regard to the fact that there might be several applicants waiting for submitting their applications, whether the Web Portal has to be re-opened on account of the technical snag, which is highlighted by the petitioner, is a matter to be considered by the competent authority itself. This Court cannot come to a conclusion based on the available materials as to whether there was technical snag involved in the matter or not.

¶52

W.A. No.595 of 2016

¶53

-: 8 :-

¶54

The primary question to be considered is whether there was situation, by which, the petitioner could not access the Web Portal on account of the reason stated in Ext.P3 before the specified time. According to the petitioner, the Web Site was hang from 10 p.m. on 29.2.2016 to 12.05 a.m. on 1.3.2016. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that when a complaint, Ext.P5, had been submitted to AICTE, it is for the said authority to take into consideration the difficulty experienced by the petitioner in opening the Web Portal in order to submit an application in time and to take a decision in the matter. It may not be possible for this Court to consider whether Ext.P3 indicates that the petitioner cannot access the Web Portal within the specified time, or that the petitioner had uploaded the application within time. If as a matter of fact there was a technical snag or if the petitioner had uploaded the application within 24.00 hours on 29.2.2016, necessarily the petitioner should be given an opportunity to rectify the shortcomings. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing to collect the fee from the petitioner on the basis that the application is already submitted.

¶55

W.A. No.595 of 2016

¶56

-: 9 :-

¶57

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, this writ appeal can be disposed of with the following directions :-

¶58

The competent Officer of AICTE shall consider Ext.P5 and if the Web Portal was having a technical snag during the relevant time or if the application is uploaded before 24.00 hours on 29.2.2016, they shall open the Web Portal for a limited period to enable the petitioner to access the Web Site and submit their application along with the fees. Any orders in this regard shall be passed within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and intimate the petitioner accordingly. The order of the learned Single Judge shall stand modified to the above extend.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶61

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶64

Jvt/21.3.2016

All India Council of Technical Education v. the Director, Mgm Polytechnic College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India Council of Technical Education v. the Director, Mgm Polytechnic College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zeena B. Vs P.Mohanendra Kurup

Nallasivam Pillai Vs Dandapani Boyan

T.P.Balan Vs the Director of Local Fund Audit & Other

P.M.Nizar Vs the Distict Collector and Others

Krishnakumar Vs the Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau

The Commissioner for Entrance Examination Vs University of Calicut