Allowed

Swami Devi Dyal Hi Tech Education Adademy v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2009CWP/11846/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted a writ of mandamus directing the AICTE to reconsider the petitioner's application to convert its girls engineering institute into a co-educational one. The directions allowed treating the institute as co-educational for student allotment pending the AICTE's final decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection letter set aside; AICTE directed to decide on conversion of girls institute to co-educational one within 10 days and treat institute as co-educational for admissions pending final d

Swami Devi Dyal Hi Tech Education Adademy… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CWP No.11846 of 2009 : 1:

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶3

Date of decision: 19.08.2009

¶4

Swami Devi Dyal Hi-Tech Education Academy

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Haryana and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶10

Present: Mr.Rajive Atma Ram, Senior Advocate,with Mr.Arjun Partap “Atma Ram, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.SK Monga, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1&2.

¶12

Mr.AS Virk, Advocate,for respondent No.3.

¶13

Mr.SK Sharma, Advocate,for respondent No.4.

¶14

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner is an institution established to impart education for various engineering courses. The institute was duly recognised by the AICTE vide letter dated 29.06.2008 as an Engineering College for girls only. The intake capacity of the college is 270 for three different engineering courses with 90 intake capacity for each course. The petitioner approached the AICTE vide letter dated 28.08.2008 for permission to convert the girls college to a co-education institution from academic session 2008-2009. Receiving no response, the petitioner sent another representation dated 16.10.2008 for the same purpose. Even this representation of the petitioner has not been responded to. The petitioner

¶16

CWP No.11846 of 2009 : 2:

¶17

has accordingly approached this Court seeking a direction in the mature of mandamus to permit the petitioner to convert the Institute from Girls Institute of Engineering to Co-educational Institute for Engineering as the petitioner has not been able to attract enough number of girl students to fill up the intake capacity. It is stated that during the academic session 20082009 only 24 girl students could be admitted and for the session 20092010, only 9 girl students have been admitted.

¶18

It is contended that the petitioner has created all infrastructure and has also requisite number of the faculty members according to the intake capacity of the students. However, the girl students are not available. The petitioner-institute is starving and is at the stage of collapse.

¶19

The AICTE has not filed the reply and has argued the matter. However, Mr. Sharma appearing on its behalf submits that the petitioner should possess the requisite infrastructure and faculty members for the purpose. It is further contended that the petitioner institution cannot be converted into a co-educational institution as various incentives were given to the petitioner-Institute at the time of its establishment as a girls institute.

¶20

A similar issue came to be considered by this Court in CWP No.8318 of 2009 (Shree Siddhivinayak Educational Trust Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 15.07.2009. In the aforesaid writ petition also, the issue of conversion of the girls institute into a co-educational institute has been considered after rejection of the request by the AICTE. While considering the aforesaid issue, this Court made the following observations:-

¶21

“........................ The petitioner now wanted to convert the Women Institutions into Co-education

¶22

CWP No.11846 of 2009 : 3:

¶23

Institutions.

¶24

In the short reply filed by the respondents, the grounds for rejection as mentioned in Annexure P-7, have been reiterated.

¶25

Vide order dated 10.07.2009, further information was sought from the AICTE. The said order reads as follows:-

¶26

“Reply on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 filed in Court is taken on record.

¶27

The moot question that needs consideration is whether the policy of the AICTE permitting establishment of girls institute is an absolute bar for its alteration at any subsequent stage or there is no embargo for such an established institution to apply for deviation for conversion into a co-education institution. Mr.Sharma shall produce the requisite policy on the next date of hearing. List on 14.07.2009.”

¶28

Mr.SK Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the AICTE has produced the Policy Decisions of the Council with regard to Approval Process. He has referred paragraphs 9.20, 9.21 and 9.28 of the Policy Decision to argue that the petitioner is not entitled to convert its existing

¶29

CWP No.11846 of 2009 : 4:

¶30

institutions into integrated Campus as a Coeducation institution. Paragraph 9.20 deals with the change of name of an institution, whereas paragraph 9.21 deals with change of category of an Institution i.e. from Self-financing to Aided etc. Both these paragraphs have no application in the present case. Paragraph 9.28 deals with the establishment of New Technical institutions for Women, which is reproduced as under:-

¶31

“ 9.28 Establishment of New Technical Institutions for Women. For establishment of new technical institutions exclusively set up for women certain norms have been relaxed which are as follows:-

¶32

a. Land: For the technical institutions exclusively set up for women, the land norms prescribed for establishment of all other Technical Institutions have been relaxed up to 50% in rural category and 20% in Metro & State Capital category and 10% in Mega Cities category.

¶33

b. FDR and Processing Fee: 20% relaxation are allowed in FDR amount and processing fees for establishment of new technical

¶34

CWP No.11846 of 2009 : 5:

¶35

institutions exclusively set up for women. c. Built up area & Number of courses and intake: The total built up area required for setting up of new institutions are as per existing norms. However, to start with institutions for women will be allowed up to 5 courses with total annual intake of 300 with each course intake not exceeding 90.

¶36

d. Single window system for processing proposals: Two copies o the application shall be submitted to the Member Secretary, AICTE along with a proof of having submitted a copy of the application each to the affiliating University and State Government and a Demand Draft of Rs.5000/- drawn on a nationalized bank in favour of “The Member Secretary, AICTE” payable at New Delhi. One copy of the application shall be directly submitted each to the affiliating University and the State Government either in person or through Speed/Registered Post.”.

¶37

From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is abundantly clear that for establishment of the New Technical Institutions for

¶38

CWP No.11846 of 2009 : 6:

¶39

Women, the AICTE had introduced various incentives stipulated therein. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did avail all incentives while introducing two Women Institutions referred to above and now the petitioner-Trust has approached AICTE for conversion of these Institutions into coeducational institutions and for integration of the Campus.

¶40

Mr.Sunil Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at the Bar and has also referred to the averments made in his application Annexure P-3 to the effect that the petitioner is still ready and willing to forego all incentives. Not only this, the petitioner has given the details in paragraph 21 of the writ petition to indicate that petitioner has already surrendered all incentives and benefits secured at the time of establishment of the two Women Institutions. It is

¶41

also stated that the land for coeducational/integrated Campus has already been purchased and the necessary infrastructure is complete and ready. It is also stated that the petitioner even deposited the additional fee for establishing a co-educational Institution. It is, accordingly, prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to switch over to the co-educational

¶42

CWP No.11846 of 2009 : 7:

¶43

institution because the petitioner has completed all norms as required by the AICTE.

¶44

Even though the AICTE in its impugned letter Annexure P-7 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for conversion of the Girls Institutions to Co-educational Institutions, no but rules, regulations or norms or policy decision has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to conversion of the Girls Institutions into co-education Institutions. What has been brought to my notice is paragraph 9.28 of the Policy decision which only provides for relaxation of norms in case one intends to establish a girl institute. It does not, in any manner, create an embargo for conversion of the girls Institution to co-educational institution if the Institution is ready and willing to meet all norms/requirements of the AICTE.

¶45

In view of the above, present petition is allowed. Impugned letter dated 04.03.2009, Annexure P-7, is hereby set aside. The AICTE is directed to take a fresh decision on the application of the petitioner for conversion of the existing girls Institutions to that of co-education Institutions with integrated campus on the basis of the norms meant for the Co-education Institutions/integrated

¶46

CWP No.11846 of 2009 : 8:

¶47

campus, as stipulated in Annexure P-2. The petitioner has also notified the courses intended to be started after conversion, even though, presently, the petitioner is running different kinds of courses. AICTE will also examine this aspect of the matter and may permit the petitioner to switch over to new courses as may be considered appropriate. The AICTE is further directed to pass a fresh order keeping in view the above aspects subject to fulfillment of the necessary conditions/norms by the petitioner in this regard. Let the decision in this regard be taken within a period of one week from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority.”

¶48

In the present case also, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to forego all the incentives obtained by it for establishment of the girls institute. Not only this, in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the additional processing fee. It is also averred that the petitioner has also purchased the additional adjoining land of 5 acres and has already created the additional FDR of Rs.15 lacs.

¶49

In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed in the light of the judgment mentioned hereinabove. It is directed that the petitioner be allowed to convert the girls institute to a co-educational

¶50

CWP No.11846 of 2009 : 9:

¶51

institute subject to completion of all formalities. Respondent No.4 will accordingly allot the students to the petitioner institute after it acquires the status of co-educational institute. It is further directed that the AICTE will take decision on the request of the petitioner for conversion of the present girls institute into a co-educational institute within a period of 10 days. In the meantime, respondent No.4 will allot students to the petitioner institution treating as a co-educational institute. However, the final admissions will remain subject to the decision of the AICTE.

¶52

19.08.2009 BLS

¶53

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶54

Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES

Swami Devi Dyal Hi Tech Education Adademy v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Devi Dyal Hi Tech Education Adademy v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Amrinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Arti and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sardar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Micky Samyal Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gurdeep Singh and Ors. Vs Director, Rural Development & Panchayats & Anr.

Ajmer Singh Vs Union of India etc.