Partly allowed

The Principal, Amal Jyothi College of Engineering v. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University

Kerala HC13 Jul 2018WA/1381/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ appeals where colleges sought affiliation for new courses or intake but failed to intimate AICTE approval before the Supreme Court's stipulated deadline. It allowed a third appeal regarding increased intake where the college complied with timelines, directing the University to grant affiliation if inspection criteria were met.

What did the court decide?

Allowed W.A. 1386; directed University to inspect college within five days and grant affiliation within two days if criteria met, ensuring intake starts by 20.07.2018.

The Principal, Amal Jyothi College of Engineering Vs… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WA.No. 1381 of 2018 IN WPC. 17295/2018

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02-07-2018IN WP(C) 17295/2018 of THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE)

¶7

APPELLANT(S)

¶8

THE PRINCIPAL, AMAL JYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOOVAPPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 518.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 016.

¶12

2. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

4. THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASAAN KUNJU, NEW DELHI 110 067.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, KTU BY SRI.JAYKAR K.S., SC, AICTE

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2018 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1417 OF 2018 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

HRISHIKESH ROY, Ag.C.J. & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1381 of 2018, W.A.No.1417 of 2018

¶19

¶20

W.A.No.1386 of 2018

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2018

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar,J.

¶24

These writ appeals arise from the common judgment dated 02.07.2018 in W.P.(C).Nos.16675, 17295 & 18478 of 2018. The common issue that was raised in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein, who are the appellants before us, was whether the approval granted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for additional course/increase in intake in a Post Graduate or Under Graduate programme/course in Engineering and Technology would result in automatic affiliation for such additional course/increase in intake by the affiliating University, namely, the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. The learned Single Judge, after consideration of the factual situation in each of the writ petitions, found in favour of the petitioners on the issue of whether the State Government could take a policy decision not to grant permission to open new Engineering Colleges for additional courses or additional intake for the academic year 2018-2019 in any self financing institutions in the State. It was found that once the AICTE granted approval, then the said approval would attain supremacy vis-a-vis the policy of the State Government as well as the affiliating University. The stand of the respondent University that any request for affiliation for increase in intake/additional courses based on the approval granted by AICTE cannot be considered for the current

¶25

¶26

W.A.No.1381 of 2018 & con.cases

¶27

academic year on account of the policy decision taken by the State Government, was held unsustainable. When it came to the factual particulars in each of the writ petitions, the learned single Judge found that, although the petitioners could apply for affiliation, based on the AICTE approval that was obtained by them in respect of the new courses, the submission of application for affiliation, as also the obtaining of the approval from the AICTE, had to be within the time schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court in Parsvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for

¶28

Technical Education [(2013) 3 SCC 385] . It was found that the petitioners had not adhered to the time schedule prescribed in the said judgment with regard to submission of the details regarding AICTE approval in respect of the course, and intimation with regard to the proposals for starting additional courses/additional intake, and hence, the petitioners could not aspire for an affiliation for the academic year 2018-2019. It is aggrieved by the said findings in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the appellants are before us in these writ appeals. Since there is a difference in the factual particulars in the three writ appeals we take up the same separately for the purposes of disposal.

¶29

W.A.No.1381 of 2018 : The appellant herein is the Principal of Amal

¶30

Jyothi College of Engineering, Kanjirappally, Kottayam district. It is seen from the documents produced along with the writ petition, as also from the chronological list of dates of events submitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, that

¶31

¶32

W.A.No.1381 of 2018 & con.cases

¶33

the last date for receipt of application for affiliation with the respondent University was 08.03.2018, which was subsequently extended to 22.03.2018. It is not in dispute that the appellant preferred an application before the respondent University on 13.03.2018. The application in question contained a reference to, not only the existing courses for which the appellant had obtained an AICTE approval in the previous year, but also to two additional courses, namely, B.Tech in Food Engineering and Technology and M.Tech Environmental Engineering. We note that the AICTE approval in respect of all the courses conducted by the appellant, including the two new courses, was obtained on 10.04.2018, in adherence to the time schedule prescribed in the Parsvanath's case (supra) . The appellant, however, intimated the fact of grant of approval by the AICTE, in respect of all the courses, including the two new additional courses, to the University only by its communication dated 24.05.2018. This communication having been made after the cut-off date for grant of affiliation prescribed in the Parsvanath's case (supra) ie. 15.05.2018, will operate against the appellant in its quest for an affiliation for the two new courses, so as to have an intake of students to the new courses in the academic year 2018-2019. We note that the decision in Parsvanath's case (supra) makes it abundantly clear that the schedule for grant/refusal of approval and admission as laid down by the Supreme Court has to be strictly adhered to all authorities concerned including the AICTE, University, State Government and any other authority directly or indirectly connected with the grant of approval and

¶34

¶35

W.A.No.1381 of 2018 & con.cases

¶36

admission. Although the learned counsel for the appellant would refer to the decisions of this court in Irinjalakuda Diocesan Educational Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (judgment dated 11.06.2015 in W.P(C).No.13969 of 2015) and Fr.Thomas Melvetteth v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (Judgment dated 15.07.2016 in W.P. (C).No.21351 of 2016 and connected case), where this court had held that the cut -off date fixed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parsvanath's case (Supra) does not preclude this Court from issuing directions in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to follow the said reasoning on the facts of the instant case, since, admittedly the appellant did not comply with the requirement of furnishing the necessary information for processing of the application for affiliation before 15.05.2018, which was the last date for grant of affiliation by the University. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single judge in the said writ petition.

¶37

Responding to the apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that, if the application for affiliation in respect of the new courses is not considered by the respondent University this year, the two new courses would not be displayed in the web portal of the University when an application is made in the next year by the appellant, we record the submission of the learned Standing counsel for the

¶38

¶39

W.A.No.1381 of 2018 & con.cases

¶40

respondent University, based on the statement filed by him in the writ petition, that inasmuch as the appellant has obtained the AICTE approval in respect of the two new courses by the order dated 10.04.2018 of the AICTE, by virtue of the provisions of Clause 4.29 of the AICTE Regulations, 2016 governing the grant of approval in technical institutions, and taking note of the approval already granted by the AICTE for the additional new courses, the said new courses would also automatically be displayed on the web portal of the respondent University, in relation to any application submitted by the appellant college for affiliation for the next year. The writ appeal is otherwise dismissed.

¶41

W.A.No.1417 of 2018 : The appellant herein is the Carmel College of Engineering and Technology, Punnapra, Alappuzha district, that is similarly placed as the appellant in W.A.No.1381 of 2018. We note from the facts stated in the writ appeal that, although the AICTE approval in respect of the two additional courses that was proposed by the appellant was obtained on 10.04.2018, the intimation with regard to the receipt of approval of the AICTE in respect of the two new courses, as also the proposal of the appellant to seek affiliation in respect of these two courses, was made known to the University only on 25.05.2016 (Ext.P3). This intimation being well after the cut-off date of 15.05.2018 that was fixed by the Supreme Court in Parsvanath's case (supra) , we are of the view that there is no scope for an interference with the directions of the learned Single Judge in the

¶42

¶43

W.A.No.1381 of 2018 & con.cases

¶44

judgment impugned in the writ appeal.

¶45

Responding to the apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that if the application for affiliation in respect of the new courses is not considered by the respondent University this year, the two new courses would not be mentioned in the web portal of the University when an application is made in the next year by the appellant, we record the submission of the learned Standing counsel for the respondent University, based on the statement filed by him in the writ petition, that inasmuch as the appellant has obtained the AICTE approval in respect of the two new courses by the order dated 10.04.2018 of the AICTE, by virtue of the provisions of Clause 4.29 of the AICTE Regulations, 2016 governing the grant of approval in technical institutions, and taking note of the approval already granted by the AICTE for the additional new courses, the said new courses would also automatically be displayed on the web portal of the respondent University, in relation to any application submitted by the appellant college for affiliation for the next year. The writ appeal is otherwise dismissed.

¶46

W.A.No.1386 of 2018 : In this writ appeal preferred by the petitioner Fr.Thomas Melvettath, the Chairman Vimal Jyothy Engineering College Chemperi, Kannur district, the facts are slightly different. The appellant herein does not seek affiliation in respect of additional courses but merely seeks an increase in

¶47

¶48

W.A.No.1381 of 2018 & con.cases

¶49

the intake that was permitted in respect of the B.Tech Computer Science Course. The increase in intake sought was from 60 to 120. It is not in dispute that the appellant obtained the AICTE approval in respect of the increased intake of students on 10.04.2018, in conformity with the time schedule prescribed in Parsvanath's case (supra) . Thereafter, the intimation of the AICTE approval was given to the respondent University on 21.04.2018. It is not in dispute that even without the formal intimation from the appellant, the AICTE approval of 10.04.2018 was communicated to the respondent University directly from the AICTE. Thereafter, the respondent University had time up to 15.05.2018 for conducting any inspection for the purposes of granting affiliation in respect of the additional intake sanctioned as well. The University, however, chose not to grant affiliation in respect of the additional intake. This was questioned by the appellant in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. In the impugned judgment, with reference to the appellant's case, the learned Single Judge went only by the delay occasioned by the appellant in preferring the writ petition beyond 15.05.2018, which was the last date fixed by the Supreme Court for the respondent University to grant affiliation for the academic year 2018-2019. In the instant case, however, we find that inasmuch as the application for affiliation in respect of the courses in question was filed within the time permitted by the respondent University, and the fact of obtaining the approval of the AICTE for the additional intake was also made known to the respondent University through the communication dated 21.04.2018, it was the

¶50

¶51

W.A.No.1381 of 2018 & con.cases

¶52

inaction on the part of the respondent University in considering the said fact that led to the affiliation for additional intake being disallowed by the respondent University. We note therefore, that this is a case where there was no breach of the time limit stipulated by the Supreme Court in Parsvanath's case (supra) in the matter of grant of affiliation, and the affiliation sought being only in respect of an additional intake, cannot be said to be hit by the time schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court in Parsvanath's case (supra) . Resultantly, we allow this writ appeal and

¶53

direct the respondent University to conduct an inspection of the appellant college within five days from today, for the limited purpose of satisfying itself of the existence of infrastructural requirements, including faculty, to support the additional intake of students. If the appellant institution satisfies the criteria for affiliation in respect of the additional intake of students, then the affiliation shall be granted within two days thereafter, so that the appellant receives the same on or before 20.07.2018.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

HRISHIKESH ROY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶58

mns

The Principal, Amal Jyothi College of Engineering v. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal, Amal Jyothi College of Engineering v. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiju Sekhar Vs Saju George

John Thomas Vs the Director of Technical Education

M/S. Marymatha Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

L.Anil Kumar Vs Sanjay M Kaul IAS

Vellora Rajan Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Kidmath Organization of Padne Vs State of Kerala