Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.11778 OF 2020(V) PETITIONER: ST.THOMAS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY KOZHUVALLOOR P.O. CHENGANNUR, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT 689 521, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JOSE THOMAS. BY ADVS.  R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV.  JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.11949 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: PROVIDENCE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, VATTAMALA, ANGADIKKAL SOUTH, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-689122, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DR.K.G.BALAKRISHNAN. BY ADVS.  R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.12338 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: CHRIST KNOWLEDGE CITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHRIST NAGAR, KUZHOOR, AIRAPURAM POST, MANNUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 541. BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016. 3 THE VICE CHANCELLOOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV.  JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.12345 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: ILM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TECHNO VILLAGE, METHALA, KIZHILLAM P. O., PERUMBAVOOR - 683 541, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. K. IBRAHIM. BY ADV.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.12347 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: BASELIOS MATHEWS II COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, LAKE VIEW, MUTHUPILAKADU, PORUVAZHY(PO), SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 520. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016. 3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.12565 OF 2020(U) PETITIONER: NIRMALA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KUNNAPILLY P.O., MELOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 311. BY ADVS.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV.  JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.12659 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: HOLY GRACE FOUNDATION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KURUVILASSERY P. O., MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 735. BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016. 3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.12709 OF 2020(K) PETITIONER: JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ARACKAPADY, VENGOLA P.O.PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 564. BY ADV.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV.  JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.12865 OF 2020(G) PETITIONER: SREE GURUDEVA CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.SECRETARY, KATTACHIRA, PALLICKAL P.O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 503. BY ADV.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.12933 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: THE MUSALIAR EDUCATION TRUST KOLLAM MUSALIAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAKOM P.O. CHIRAYINKEEZHU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 304, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADVS.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.12946 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MANGALAM HILLS, VETTIMUKAL P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686 631, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BIJU VARGHESE. BY ADVS.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 12 AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.13134 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: ROYAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND RESEARCH CENTRE REP BY ITS SECRETARY, AKKIKAVU, CHIRAMANANGAD P.O., MARATHANCODE VIA, THRISSUR-680 604. BY ADVS.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.13141 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: KERALA MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION (KMEA), ARANGATHU CROSS ROAD, PULLEPPADY, COCHIN-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADVS.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.13252 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: MALABAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DESAMANGALAM, PALLUR (P.O.), CHERUTHURUTHY (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT - 679 532. BY ADV.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.13337 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: GURUDEVA TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 2/83-85, MANJALI PAZHAYA KADAVU, MANJALY, MANNAM P O, KARUMALLUR, ERNAKULAM-683520. BY ADVS.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV.  JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.13457 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: THE MAR THOMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, ST.THOMAS NAGAR, MUKKOLAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.13558 OF 2020(T) PETITIONER: PRS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,PALIYODU, DALMUGHAM.P.O,NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695125. BY ADV.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV.  JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.13743 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER: MET's SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING KARUVILASSERY P O, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA 686564, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DR. SHAJU ANTONY AYINIKAL. BY ADV.  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,UGC , SPECIAL GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.M.A.ASIF R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 20 TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AICTE BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22- 07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).11778/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 06-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 21 P.V.ASHA, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.11778, 11949, 12338, 12345, 12347, 12565, 12659, 12709, 12865, 12933, 12946, 13134, 13141, 13252, 13337, 13457, 13558 & 13743 of 2020 ------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of August, 2020b. JUDGMENT
Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are aggrieved by the denial of affiliation by the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University to the educational institutions run by them, on the ground that the petitioner Colleges do not fulfill the conditions/norms fixed by the University. In all these cases except in one, the petitioners seek affiliation based on approval granted to them by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for commencing additional/new courses. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11949 of 2020 seeks affiliation based on approval granted for MBA programme. According to the petitioners, the University has no authority to insist any further condition once approval is granted by the AICTE. The contentions raised in all these Writ Petitions are more or less similar and the issue raised is also common. The claims and contentions in each of the Writ Petitions are as given below:
2.WP(C) No.11778 of 2020 2.1. The petitioner college started B.Tech courses in 2010-11 with a total intake of 300 seats in (1) Civil Engineering (2) Mechanical Engineering (3) W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 22 Electrical & Electronics Engineering (4) Electronics & Communication Engineering (5) Computer Science & Engineering, with approval from AICTE and affiliation from M.G University. On formation of the APJ Adbul Kalam Technological University in the year 2015, the affiliation got transferred to the respondent University by virtue of Section 60 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, ('the University Act 2015' for short). On account of the low turn out of students, the intake capacity in the branches Electrical and Electronics Engineering and Electronics and Communication Engineering was reduced from 60 to 30 seats in the year 2018. In the year 2020- 21, the petitioner college submitted application for approval to start undergraduate courses in B.Tech Agricultural Engineering and B.Tech Artificial Engineering and Machine Learning with an intake of 30 seats each. As per Ext.P3 e-mail dated 06.03.2020, the University informed the Colleges that applications if any for commencement of new courses/additional batches shall be submitted in the prescribed format on or before 10.03.2020 and the petitioner submitted its application in the format on the same day, before the University. The AICTE, as per Ext.P2 order dated 9.6.2020 granted extension of approval for the Undergraduate courses in (1) Civil Engineering and (2) Mechanical Engineering with an intake of 60 each, (3) Electrical and Electronics Engineering, (4) Electronics and Communication Engineering with an intake of 30 each and (5) Computer Science and Engineering with an intake of 60. Along with that, approval was granted for new courses in (6) Agricultural Engineering and (7) W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 23 Computer Science and Engineering (Artificial Intelligence Engineering and Machine Learning) with an intake of 30 each. Even though the petitioner had submitted application for affiliation and also for NOC from the University as well as the State Government as per Exts.P4 and P5 letters on 9.3.2020 and 10.03.2020, the University or Government did not respond. It was stated that the petitioner could not remit the processing fee and inspection fee of Rs.1 lakh with the University for the new courses, since the web portal was not open after 22.05.2020. Whileso, the University circulated Ext.P6 letter dated.10.6.2020 to the Principals of the Colleges informing that the syndicate has taken a decision fixing the following norms for grant of affiliation: 1) at least one of the existing programmes should be NBA accredited. In case of PG programmes, the concerned UG Programmes should have NBA accreditation, 2) the average annual intake in the institution for the previous 3 years should be more than 50% of the sanctioned intake, 3) the proposed programme should have AICTE approval and NOC from the Government and 4) the proposed programme should have industry demand/employment potential. The petitioner is challenging the conditions fixed for granting affiliation alleging that it is arbitrary. It is also stated that though the petitioner institution does not have NBA accreditation, it is having accreditation from National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) which is an equivalent accreditation granted by the autonomous institution of the UGC. According to the petitioner, as per the Approval Process Handbook issued by the AICTE, NBA accreditation or NOC are not necessary for sanctioning additional W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 24 courses; when the intake capacity in other branches of study is reduced, additional courses can be granted without NBA accreditation; when AICTE has granted approval for the 2 additional courses with intake of 30 each, the University has no authority to deny affiliation, fixing such norms; University cannot insist the very same condition when AICTE granted approval; deficiency, if any, is to be looked into by the AICTE; NOC cannot be insisted in the light of Ext.P8 judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1487 of 2019, which was affirmed in Ext.P9 judgment of the Apex Court. The petitioner alleged that the denial of affiliation is illegal and beyond the authority of the University. The petitioner also alleged that the syndicate has no authority to fix any norms in the matter of affiliation; as per Section 63(2) of the University Act, the procedure for affiliation is to be prescribed in the Statutes; State Government has not framed any Statute so far, as provided in Section 43 of the Act 2015. The petitioner challenges the decision in Ext.P6 on that ground also. It is also stated that the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) to establish an educational institution is curtailed unlawfully and the restriction does not come within the purview of reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).
2.2. In the statement filed on behalf of the University on 24.06.2020 it was stated that the syndicate had in its meeting held on 04.02.2020 resolved to fix the following norms for granting affiliation for new programmes for the year 2020-21.
1) at least one of the existing programmes should be NBA accredited. In case of PG programmes, the concerned UG Programmes should have NBA accreditation, W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 25
2) the average annual intake in the institution for the previous 3 years should be more than 50% of the sanctioned intake, 3) the proposed programme should have AICTE approval and NOC from the Government and 4) the proposed programme should have industry demand/employment potential. It was stated that the matter of granting new programme was under active consideration and yet to be finalised. Producing Ext.R1(a) minutes of the meeting of the syndicate held on 17.06.2020, it was stated that even after the AICTE granted approval for the commencement of course, the University has the authority to consider the same as per Chapter IV para.30 clause 2 sub clause xiv of the Act, according to which, the syndicate has the power to arrange for and direct investigation into the affairs of affiliated colleges, to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency, for ensuring academic and administrative resources, infrastructural facilities, academic performance, performance of teacher etc., and in case of disregard of such instructions, to modify the conditions of affiliation or take such steps as it deems proper. The minutes dated 17.06.2020, would show that the matter relating to the request of 28 Colleges which applied for new programmes but were not shortlisted was considered in it and it was noticed that some of the colleges were having pass percentage above 50%; some having intake above 50%, though not having NBA accreditation and hence required to be examined separately; syndicate resolved to place the matter before the standing committee for affiliation with Prof: POJ Lebba as Chairman to examine the request for affiliation and to revise the norms and to submit the recommendations. It was stated that under Section 8(4) in Chapter II of W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 26 the Act, University is vested with the power to affiliate institutions as constituent colleges, autonomous colleges or regular colleges or colleges with academic autonomy and also to withdraw the affiliation of the colleges; the academic autonomy of the University has been upheld by this Court in various judgments; the criteria fixed by the syndicate of the University in the year 2019-20 for granting new programmes was upheld by this Court in the judgments in W.P(c).Nos.18319/2019, 17087/2019 and 16479/2019; in the judgment in W.P(C).No.2748/2017; it was observed that the Universities are obligated to consider the application for affiliation and to deal with the factors on a case to case basis. The University stated that on account of the out break of COVID 19 pandemic the University could not conduct the inspection; at the same time the University has to be vigilant as a regulatory body to prevent further dropping of academic standard of engineering branch; therefore, it was necessary for the University to take its own measures invoking its power conferred on it under the Act to safeguard the interest of the student community. It was stated that Degrees of NBA accredited tier-1 Engineering institutions are valid in 20 nations. While NAAC certifies institutions, NBA accredits the programmes run by the institutions; NBA is more specific that it expects that the graduating Engineers should have the graduate attributes as defined in Washington accord; an institute may have a mix of excellent programmes as well as some average programmes; being an institution, obliged to improve the academic standards of the Graduate, Post Graduate and Research Programmes in Engineering Science, Technology and W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 27 management the University has chosen NBA accreditation instead of NAAC; the syndicate has not acted beyond its authority.
2.3. In the counter affidavit dated 07.07.2020, the University stated that the petitioner is not entitled to affiliation for the additional courses; as per para 2.15.4(a) and (b) of the Approval Process Handbook (APH) issued by the AICTE for the year 2020-21, those technical institutions which are not eligible for applying for NBA accreditation alone are permitted to apply for additional courses; an institution becomes eligible to apply for NBA accreditation when 2 batches have passed out from the institution; for engineering courses it would be 5 years. Under para.8 of Ext.R2(a) proforma for accreditation, the institution has to state whether two batches have passed out in the programmes under consideration; as the petitioner institution was established in 2010, it became eligible for applying for accreditation in 2015; since a physical visit of the institution was not possible for the scrutiny committee of AICTE, the AICTE required all the institutions seeking additional courses to file an affidavit in Ext.R2(b) proforma, para.11 of which was production of NOC from University before the scrutiny committee of AICTE. As the University has not issued any NOC, the approval granted by AICTE for the year 2020-21 is subject to production of NOC from University; the grant of affiliation by University is not automatic; but on fulfillment of the norms fixed by the University; the petitioner would not fall under para 2.15.4(b) of APH also, as it only enables an existing institution where the approved intake of students is more than the actual number of students admitted, to apply for W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 28 additional courses with an intake of the seats which remain vacant; for that the institution has to surrender the seats which are vacant; the petitioner institution has not surrendered any seat; closure application of the existing course is only pending consideration of the University; affiliation for additional course could be considered only on production of NOC from the University; in the meeting held on 25.06.2020 , the Syndicate decided to fix higher norms for granting additional courses to institutions without NBA accreditation; the student intake in an institution is a relevant factor for evaluating its excellence as per the parameters laid down in Ext.R2(c) by the National Institute of Ranking Frame (NIRF); the University has granted affiliation for additional courses to all colleges having NBA accreditation; norms in Ext.R2(b) are fixed only for those institutions which do not have NBA accreditation. It is stated that the qualification of norms laid down by central agency is only benchmark; State or other agency in the State including University are entitled to lay down higher norms for granting affiliation; even as per the norms fixed by AICTE, NBA accreditation is a mandatory requirement for additional courses; Regulation 6(3)(a) of the AICTE regulation provides that university has to consider the grant of affiliation after confirming that the applicant had fulfilled all norms and standards through the procedure prescribed in the Approval Process Handbook. At the same time, as per Clause 4.9 of the AICTE Regulations, production of NOC from affiliating university/ board/State Government is one of the conditions to be fulfilled by the new/existing institutions conducting technical programmes and hence NOC from the University is required W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 29 for grant of approval for the additional courses by the AICTE. It is also stated that the provisions contained in para.2.15, 2.15(1), 2.15(2), 2.15(3) etc. of Ext.R2(d) APH also would show that NBA accreditation is necessary to seek approval for additional courses from the AICTE. The petitioner, who does not have NBA accreditation, is not entitled for approval for starting the additional courses. It is stated that the syndicate had, in order to ensure that only deserving technical institutions are granted NOC for starting additional courses, appointed a sub committee to look into the matters regarding recommendation of new courses or programmes from among the applications of affiliated colleges; the subcommittee after considering the Annual Employability Survey 2019 submitted by an agency appointed by the Government of India and NASSCOM-McKinsey report "Perspective 2020" and the duties and functions of NBA constituted by AICTE, found that NBA accreditation of an institution should be an important criterion for selection of institution; the Sub Committee further found that institutions which have undergone the process of NBA accreditation were getting higher rating in the academic audit of the affiliated institutions, conducted by external auditors and therefore concluded that the decision of the syndicate to award new programme only to NBA accredited institutions would ensure academic quality benchmarks envisaged under the University Act 2015 and the same was in tune with the APH and the sub committee submitted Ext.R2(e) report accordingly. The syndicate, in the meeting held on 24.06.2020, as per Ext.R2(f) minutes decided to adopt a criteria for granting affiliation to new courses/programmes in colleges without W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 30 NBA accreditation. The University further stated that in Ext.R2(f) minutes, the Syndicate has used the expressions "programme/course" in tune with the AICTE regulations as well as its APH. Alternatively it is also stated that the meaning of the expressions used by the University in its norms cannot have the same meaning as the words and expressions defined by AICTE in its regulations and APH; it has been using the words Programmes/courses, as was being used by NBA, which is an agency under the AICTE; referring to the communications between NBA and the Principal of TKM college of Engineering in Ext.R2(g) letter dated 16.05.2017 and Ext.R2(h) letter of NBA to the Principal, College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram, it is stated that NBA awarded accreditation status to those colleges in the "undergraduate program in Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering", as against the distinction made in the definition of "programme" and "course" in the Regulations and APH. According to the University, it used the word programme to mean the specific branch of learning in Engineering and not to mean the field of Technical education as understood by AICTE. It is stated that as per para 2.5.2 of the APH, the Council shall decide granting of approval only after confirming that the applicant has fulfilled all the norms and standards specified in APH; the Council has not visited the institution due to the outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic; approval is granted without confirming whether the applicants fulfilled the requirements and therefore approval has been granted to those without NBA accreditation; absence of Statutes would not preclude the University from fixing the norms for affiliation; in the light of the judgment in 2018 KHC 6863, the W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 31 University and State Government are free to take their decision on the question of NOC.
2.4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 12.07.2020, stating that NBA accreditation is not necessary for emerging courses. Intention behind para 2.15.4(b) of APH is that additional courses can be granted in lieu of increase in intake, provided, total strength is not exceeding the total intake. As per para 2.15.4(c) of APH, instead of full division of 60 seats two courses with an intake of 30 each can be granted in the same level; NBA accreditation is not necessary for starting emerging course as additional course within the total intake capacity; it is further stated that Ext.R2(b) affidavit pertains to reduction in intake/closure of programme and that NOC from University/State Government under clause 11 therein, is necessary only in such circumstances. It is stated that for additional courses, affidavit in format no.8 alone is required and that Ext.R2(b) format is not necessary. It is stated that if at all there is any violation it is for the AICTE to take action and not for the University; University cannot fix any higher norms; syndicate does not have any authority to fix norms; as per Ext.P10 notification issued by the University on 12.03.2020, calling for applications for affiliation, it was stated that the process of affiliation would be based on the norms and standards specified in the APH; it was stipulated after AICTE granted affiliation; the University has not notified any norms or guidelines after the APH 2020-2021 was issued; under Clause 4.9, NOC is required only when it is required under APH; the petitioner is entitled to be granted affiliation in tune with the approval W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 32 granted and the total intake does not exceed 300.
2.5. The University filed an additional counter affidavit dated 17.07.2020 stating that the regional committee of AICTE has not consulted with the University before granting approval in the year 2020-21, though it used to consult on earlier occasions and is bound to consult with it under Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act.
2.6. The petitioner filed an additional reply affidavit dated 19.07.2020. It is stated that the University or the State Government has not prepared any perspective plan under Section 61 of the University Act; no sub-committee was constituted for the same apart from the one constituted on 17.06.2020 for examining the request for affiliation and to revise the norms. It is pointed out that the Chairman of the committee constituted on 17.06.2020 was Dr.Lebba; whereas the Chairman of the Sub Committee which submitted the report in Ext.R2(e) was one Dr.Radhakrishna Pillai and Dr.Lebba has expressed his dissenting note and the syndicate fixed some other criteria in Ext.R2(f) and the said decision is not based on the recommendation of the sub committee constituted on 17.06.2020; in case there was a report of the sub committee, the University ought not have circulated the decision taken on 04.02.2020, as per Ext.P6 order on 10.06.2020; the AICTE never consults any University before granting approval to start new institution or additional courses; agencies mentioned in Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act is not universities; those agencies are appellate committees, scrutiny committee, association of Indian Universities etc; regional office at Thiruvananthapuram is not a statutory body; office in Thiruvananthapuram has nothing to do with approval; W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 33 the University which initially fixed the condition of NBA accreditation, has incorporated other conditions; the institutions which are granted affiliation do not have 50% pass; it is stated that the pass percentage in MES College Kuttipuram is only 36.55% ; in Adi Sankara College it is only 46.95%; Sree Buddha College of Engineering has got only 49%; Toc.H Institute of Science and Technology, Rajadhani Institute of Engineering College and Technology and College of Engineering and Technology are having pass percentage of 47.48%, 34.61% and 37% respectively. AICTE has granted approval to the courses in emerging areas in tune with its perspective plan; the action of the University is in violation of Article 254 of the Constitution. The petitioner asserts that its intake is 50% for the current year and its grading is good/excellent per Exts.P11 and P12; the colleges which are already granted affiliation do not fulfill the new criterion; the AICTE has granted approval in emerging areas only to one third of the total of 149 colleges.
2.7. In the statement filed by the learned Government Pleader it is stated that there were only 15 Engineering Colleges in the state in the year 1997 with an intake of 4844 students. Engineering education in the State was opened upto to private self financing sector since 2000. For the last one and half decades private self financing institutions were indiscriminately sanctioned in the State without any proper study of the need for such institutions. At present there are 149 Engineering Colleges in the State with a total annual intake capacity of 47,420 students of which 3,430 are in Government Engineering Colleges, 1,844 are in 3 Government aided Engineering Colleges, 80 are in 1 Agricultural University, 120 W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 34 are in 5 Colleges under the Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, 40 are in 1 Kerala Fisheries University, 6819 in 25 Government controlled self financing Engineering Colleges and the remaining 35,087 are in 105 private self financing Engineering Colleges. Apart from that there are Engineering Institutions in the State. Annual intake of UG Engineering Colleges in the State amounts to almost 4% of the all India intake. It is stated that due to mushrooming of self financing engineering colleges unhealthy competition among them and the poor infrastructure and faculty in most of the self financing and engineering colleges in the State resulted in serious dent in the quality of Engineering education and approximately 80% of those graduates from such institutions are not employable; large section of Engineering graduates are under-employed and majority of them are seeking employment in sectors not related to engineering; the demand for undergraduate courses in Engineering in the private self-financing sector is on a steep decline for the last decade as evident from the approved intake and the vacancies in private self financing colleges; vacant seats in such colleges were 19,468 in 2015-16; 20,038 in 2016-17 and 22,819 in 2017-18; except in almost 20 self financing engineering colleges rate of admission is below 10%, based on the statistics collected from the Commissioner for Entrance Examination who allots candidates against 50% of the seats in private self financing colleges; . pointing out the admission rate in the petitioner college from Annexures I to III it is stated that the petitioner institution is totally discarded by public as there is no public demand in core Engineering subject; whereas in certain private self financing W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 35 Colleges good academic standard is maintained. It is submitted that study conducted by academic experts in the engineering field reported to the Government that the low rate of admission in colleges like the petitioner institution make such institutions financially unviable and consequently they further compromise on faculty and infrastructure which in turn undermine the already depleted standards of education in such institutions; no such experiments shall be permitted in such institutions by sanctioning new courses. It is stated that the Government had issued Anenxure IV order dated 22.06.2019 in that back ground. The University had as per Annexure V order dated 10.07.2020 sanctioned new courses in 23 colleges which satisfied the conditions in Annexure V. It is further stated that under section 10(1)(k) of the Act the AICTE shall grant permission for new courses in consultation with the agency concerned. A proper study should have been conducted on the requirement of the courses in consultation with the State Government and affiliating University or Board, which are the agencies referred to in Section 10(1)(k). The provisions contained in the AICTE Regulations as well as the Approval Process Handbook prescribe NBA accreditation as a condition for grant of additional courses in existing institutions. According to the Government, there cannot be any objection in sanctioning new courses in institutions which have good academic records and therefore the decision of the University is accepted; the AICTE has to conduct survey in various fields of technical education, collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the needed growth and development in technical education and it shall grant W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 36 permission to new courses in consultation with the agencies concerned. According to the Government, the agencies referred to in Section 10(1)(k) are the State Government and the affiliating University/Board.
2.8. After the hearing was over, the learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE filed a statement on behalf of the AICTE. It is stated that NOC is mandatory only for starting a new course, as per page 231 of the APH; affidavit no.8 is required for additional course as provided in Clause 17.7 of the APH - page 196 of APH, in the format given in form no.8 at page 219 of the APH; for closure of course NOC is required from the University/State Government before 30 th April; due to Covid 19 pandemic the council in its meeting held on 27.04.2020 decided that an affidavit with regard to submission of NOC for closure of the course from the State Government would be obtained from the institution as a condition precedent for processing of application for approval of additional courses and the institutes have submitted affidavits that they would submit the same; NOC mentioned in clause 11 in Ext.R2(b) is applicable only for reduction in intake or closure of course; the AICTE has taken care by way of Clause 7.4 of the APH by insisting that 60% of the courses should have NBA accreditation within the next 3 years; Director of Technical Education was a member of the Regional Committee; so far AICTE has not received any objection from the University or the Director of Technical Education regarding the procedure followed in grant of approval.
3. WP(C) No.12338 of 2020 3.1. The petitioner has been running a Women's college since the year 2010- W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 37
11. The initial intake of 300 was reduced to 226 in 5 courses, as a penalty. It is stated that approval for conversion of the College as a co-education institution was received in 2019-20; as there are only 85 students in the College after conversion, the petitioner submitted application for approval for starting emerging courses of B.Tech in Artificial Intelligence as well as in Block Chain. Approval was granted as per Ext.P2 on 09.06.2020 along with Extension of Approval for the ongoing courses in Civil Engineering with an intake of 30, (in the place of 21 in 2019-20), Electronics and Communication Engineering with an intake of 21, Computer Science and Engineering with an intake of 30 (in the place of 21 in 2019-20), Mechanical Engineering with an intake of 21 and Naval Architecture and Ship Building Engineering with an intake of 42. Approval has been granted to Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning and Block chain with an intake of 30 each. Even though Ext.P4 application was submitted for affiliation for which inspection fee was already remitted on 18.05.2020, University did not take any positive steps. Petitioner challenges the order dated 10.06.2020 issued by the University fixing the norms for affiliation. According to the petitioner, when the AICTE has granted approval, a further evaluation by a sub-committee and imposing of further restriction for affiliation is beyond authority. It is also urged that University is arbitrarily enabling some institutions in granting affiliation with political motives and the criteria like 50% of the students actual intake and pass percentage in some existing subjects are adopted with such motives. According to the petitioner, University can only look into the infrastructure, faculties and other facilities for the W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 38 proper conduct of the courses.
3.2. In answer to the common counter affidavit filed by the University, the petitioner has filed reply affidavit producing academic audit report for the year 2019-20, according to which, it has got the rating "good/excellent" in various stages. It is stated that wherever there was fair and poor rating that has been improved. It is the further contention that criteria fixed by the University in Ext.R2(f) on 24.06.2020 after filing of the Writ Petition, are not satisfied by the Colleges which are already granted affiliation. According to the petitioner, petitioner institution is on a better footing than those colleges. It is their further contention that the reason for dearth of students in the previous years was that the students were joining courses in colleges outside the State, in emerging fields. It is also stated that new courses in emerging area are having larger demand when the students are unable to go outside the State due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also stated that out of the 149 colleges, only 1/3 colleges are granted approval by AICTE for the emerging courses. In case the University is not granting affiliation, the opportunity of students would be lost which will affect the society also.
4. WP(C) No.12345 of 2020:
As per Ext.P2 order dated 09.06.2020, AICTE granted extension of approval to the petitioner College for the Undergraduate courses in Civil Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering with an intake of 30 each, Aeronautical Engineering with an intake of 60 and approval for 2 new undergraduate courses in Robotics and W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 39 Automation and Artificial Intelligence with an intake of 60 each. Petitioner challenges the order dated 10.06.2020 of the University. According to the petitioner, NBA accreditation is not necessary for the new courses. Ext.P2 would show that there was no reduction in intake from that of last year.
5. WP(C) No.12565 of 2020 The petitioner Trust has been running an Engineering College from 2010-11 onwards. Based on petitioner's application, AICTE issued Ext.P2 on 09.06.2020 granting extension of approval for the Undergraduate courses in Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering with an intake of 60 each, Mechatronics with an intake of 30 each and approval for starting new Undergraduate courses in Computer Science and Engineering as well as Food Technology with an intake of 60 each. Ext.P2 would also show that petitioner's application for closure of Undergraduate courses in Computer Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, Automobile is pending consideration due to non submission of NOC's from University/Board/State Government.
6. WP(C) No.12347 of 2020 Petitioner college started B.Tech degree courses in the academic year 2002-
03. In view of the low turn out of students in certain branches, the petitioner submitted application to withdraw affiliation for Applied Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering, which was having an intake of 60 seats and accordingly the said course was closed. On the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner, the AICTE granted Ext.P2 approval for starting B.Tech degree W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 40 course in Artificial Intelligence on 15.6.2020 along with extension of approval for other courses. Though the petitioner submitted application for affiliation on 28.2.2020 and remitted the fee on 19.05.2020, the University did not process the same. At the same time, NOC was granted for closure of B.Tech in Applied Electronics and Instrumentation on 01.06.2020 as per Ext.P4 letter. It is stated that the petitioner would have got NBA accreditation this year itself, but for the lock down. It is also its case that NBA accreditation is not mandatory for emerging courses as per Approval Process Handbook. It is stated that a sub committee was proposed to take a decision for evaluating the colleges for granting affiliation but no such sub committee is necessary for evaluating any aspects for getting affiliation for additional courses when AICTE has approved the courses. It is stated that several of the Government colleges and IHRD colleges which are granted affiliation are not having NBA accreditation. Even without NBA accreditation, the University has granted affiliation to 21 colleges for starting additional courses, without conducting any inspection. It is also their case that certain colleges have been discriminated. According to the petitioner, the dearth of students or reduction in pass percentage is not on account of any fault of the college. The University is only called upon to verify whether there is sufficient infrastructure, faculties, and other facilities for the proper conduct of the course. The denial of affiliation for additional courses in emerging areas is arbitrary. Along with the reply affidavit petitioner has produced Ext.P7 order of the Admission Supervisory Committee which would show that there were 168 W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 41 students out of the total intake of 300. Ext.P8 academic audit report for the year 2019-20 is produced to show that the institution is having excellent/good rating.
7. WP(C) No.12659 of 2020 7.1. Petitioner Trust which started an Engineering College in 2011-12 was granted extension of approval as per Ext.P2 on 15.06.2020 for the Undergraduate courses in Electronics and Communication with intake of 30, Electrical and Electronics Engineering with intake of 30, Computer Science and Engineering with intake of 60, Civil Engineering with intake of 60 and Mechanical Engineering with intake of 60 and approval for starting new course in Robotics and Automation with an intake of 60. In this case also, affiliation is not granted. The petitioner has stated that NBA accreditation or NOC from the State Government are arbitrary conditions which cannot be insisted by the University for affiliation. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order dated 10.06.2020 fixing norms for granting affiliation. It is stated that NBA Accreditation or NOC is not required for new courses.
7.2. In the reply affidavit petitioner asserted that there is no perspective plan prepared by the State Government or the University. It is stated that different norms are adopted for granting affiliation. For several of the Colleges which are granted affiliation did not have the 50% pass. It is also asserted that the revised norms in Ext.R2(f) are not fixed on the basis of any sub-committee report. Approval for emerging courses is granted by the AICTE in tune with their perspective plan and the University cannot fix any new criteria for the emerging W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 42 courses. It is stated that the academic report for 2019-20 had been excellent/good. It is stated that emerging courses are granted in substitution of intake.
8. WP(C) No.12709 of 2020 The AICTE on 13.06.2020 issued Ext.P2 granting Extension of Approval for Undergraduate courses in Civil Engineering with an intake of 60, Mechanical Engineering with an intake of 90, Electrical and Electronics Engineering with an intake of 30, Computer Science and Engineering with an intake of 60; Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical and Electronics Engineering with an intake of 60 each and approval for staring new Undergraduate courses in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Auto-mobile Engineering and Architecture with an intake of 60 each. Ext.P2 would show that the intake sanctioned for the ongoing undergraduate courses in 2019-20 was also the same. Petitioner challenges the order dated 10.03.2020 of the University. Contentions in the counter affidavit and reply affidavit are more or less similar.
9. WP(C) No.12865 of 2020 The petitioner Trust has been running the Mahaguru Institute of Technology- erstwhile Sri Vellapally Natesan College of Engineering. It is stated that the institution is having ISO recognition and accreditation by the NAAC. It is stated that upto 2018-19 the intake in the college was more than 50% and because of students strike there occurred shortage last year. It is stated that there is no nexus behind the stipulation of norms by the University or the Government for the purpose of affiliation. It is also pointed out that in case the College had sought W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 43 affiliation for the entire intake for the ongoing courses, the University would have given the same without any objection. Therefore, there is no purpose to be achieved in limiting or restricting the additional course on the ground of stipulated norms. It is stated that the College is having a strength of 300 seats in the undergraduate level. Request for closure of the course in Power Systems and Engineering is already submitted before the University whereby the intake capacity is reduced to 240. It is stated that the College will be able to function with the available infrastructure on grant of the additional course limiting the maximum intake to 300. As per Ext.P3 dated 15.06.2020 Extension of Approval is granted for the Undergraduate courses in Mechanical Engineering (Production), Electronics and Communication Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering with an intake of 30 each, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering and Civil Engineering with an intake of 60 seats each. Approval is granted for the new course in the emerging area in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning with an intake of 30 seats. It is stated that the course is granted in accordance with para. 2.15.4 of the APH 2020-21. It is stated that in the academic year 2019-20, the University had decided to grant affiliation only to innovative and integrated programmes seeing 50% of the sanctioned seats were left vacant in the conventional programmes. It was also stipulated that NBA accreditation and more than 30% of the sanctioned strength along with satisfactory academic performance should be the criteria. It is stated that the clarification issued by the AICTE on 24.2.2020 for accreditation by NBA cannot be insisted. It W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 44 is the further contention that intake of 30% or less is not at all relevant with the innovative programmes in emerging areas. It is also stated that as the average pass percentage in the petitioner College is more than that in the colleges which were granted affiliation already, there cannot be any discrimination. It is the further contention that NOC is necessary only for closure of the Colleges and even for starting new Colleges what is required is the views of the State Government. The Government had on 22.06.2019 (Ext.P6) fixed the norms for issuing NOC. It is stated that the Government does not have any authority to issue such norms and an NOC is not necessary from the Government, when the AICTE is granted approval. Referring to the judgment in W.A.No.1487/2019 it is stated that there is no basis for the order issued by the Government. The petitioner challenges the order Ext.P6 issued by the State Government on 22.06.2019 as the same is in violation of the APH of 2019-20. It is also challenging Ext.P5 decision of the Syndicate taken on 10.06.2020.
10. W.P.(C) No. 12933 of 2020 Petitioner College has been offering Undergraduate courses in Engineering in Civil, Mechanical and Computer Science and Engineering with an intake of 60 each and Electronics and Communication Engineering with an intake of 30. Extension of approval was granted for all those courses as per Ext.P6 order dated 15.06.2020 and approval for new courses in Food Technology with an intake of 60 and Biomedical Engineering with an intake of 30 for the year 2020-21. Approval was also granted for closure of the Undergraduate course in Electrical and W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 45 Electronic Engineering. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for affiliation on 10.03.2020 and remitted inspection fee on 20.05.2020, on direction by the University. The contention of the petitioner is that even on grant of the additional courses the total intake will not exceed 300, on closure of one course in view of para. 2.15.4 (a) and (b) of APH and for that new course can be granted without NBA accreditation.
11. WP(C) No.12946 of 2020 11.1 Mangalam College of Engineering has been running 5 Undergraduate Engineering courses with a total intake of 480 seats. It has got accreditation with NAAC. Based on application of petitioner, AICTE granted extension of approval for the undergraduate courses in Computer Science and Engineering with 120 seats, Electronics and Communication Engineering with 60 seats, Electrical and Electronics Engineering with 30 seats (against 60 of 2019-20), Mechanical Engineering with 90 seats (against 120 for last year), Civil Engineering with 90 seats (against 120 for last year). Approval was granted for 2 Undergraduate courses in Chemical Engineering with 60 seats and Artificial Intelligence with 30 seats. Petitioner submitted that the order dated 10.06.2020 relates to new programmes only and the denial of affiliation to the petitioner college is illegal. Petitioner challenges the orders issued by the University on 17.01.2020, 10.06.2020 and the order dated 22.06.2019.
11.2. In the reply affidavit the petitioner stated that the petitioner has already closed one course of 60 intake and reduced the total intake. According to W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 46 the petitioner, limitation to 5 courses is applicable to new institutions and application for additional courses can be 5. It is also stated that on closure of one course of 60, two courses of 30 intake can be given; petitioner is seeking additional course in lieu of the reduced intake. Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have raised objection if any before the last date of submission; during the academic years 2017-18 to 2020-2021, a total of 150 intake was reduced and closed one course of 60 intake. It is alleged that respondents 1 and 2 are diluting the norms fixed by them and the petitioner does not require NBA accreditation.
12. WP(C) No.13134 of 2020 12.1. The petitioner is running `Royal College of Engineering and Technology' since the year 2003. On 15.6.2020 the AICTE granted Ext.P2 extension of approval for the courses in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering and civil Engineering with an intake of 60 each and approval for new courses in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science and also Intelligent Automation and Robotics with intake of 60 each. As per Ext.P3 approval is granted for closure of 2 undergraduate courses. Though application was submitted for affiliation on 09.03.2020 and the fee was remitted on 22.05.2020, the University did not process the application. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order dated 10.06.2020 fixing the norms for affiliation. According to the petitioner, AICTE has exempted NBA accreditation for sanctioning courses in emerging areas.
12.2. The contention of the respondent University is identical as in other W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 47 cases.
13. WP(C) No.13141 of 2020 13.1 The Kerala Muslim Educational Association (KMEA) is running the KMEA Engineering College from 2002 onwards. The AICTE as per Ext.P1 order on 15.06.2020 granted extension of approval for the Undergraduate courses in Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering with 90 seats each, Computer Science and Engineering with 60 seats, Electronics and Communication Engineering with 30 seats and Electrical and Electronics Engineering with 30 seats and approval for starting new courses in Robotics and Automation and Safety and Fire Engineering with an approved intake of 30 seats each. Closure of one Undergraduate course was also approved. The petitioner submitted application for affiliation before the University on 20.06.2020 remitting the prescribed fee. But the University is insisting approval from the State Government and NBA accreditation. The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.06.2020.
13.2. In the counter affidavit it is stated that since the petitioner has not surrendered any seats, it is not eligible under para 2.15.4(a) or (b)of APH.
14. WP(C) No.13252 of 2020 The College has been functioning since 2009-10 with B.Tech and M.Tech programmes. The approved intake of B.Tech programme in the college was 360 seats. As per Ext.P2, Extension of Approval was granted on 15.06.2020I, for 5 Undergraduate courses with 60 intake each and one with 30; approval was granted to one new course in Biomedical and Robotic Engineering. It is stated that one W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 48 division was cancelled and on account of reduction of 30 seats in Mechanical Engineering, there was a gap of 30 seats against which application was submitted for a new course. It is stated that the AICTE had as per Ext.P1 dated 26.02.2020, issued a clarification stating that the institutions running courses in Engineering and Technology can open new courses by closing existing courses/divisions or using NBA clause only in emerging area. The petitioner thereupon submitted application for additional course in Bio-Medical and Robotic Engineering with an intake of 30 seats. As per Ext.P2 the AICTE granted Extension of Approval for the ongoing courses in Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechatronics, Computer Science and Engineering, Auto-mobile Engineering with an intake of 60 seats each and Electronics and Communication Engineering with an intake of 30 seats. Along with that approval was granted in the Undergraduate courses in Biomedical and Robotic Engineering with an intake of 30 seats. The 2nd respondent has not processed the application for affiliation. Since the web portal was not opened the petitioner could not remit inspection/affiliation fee. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 decision of the Syndicate taken in the meeting convened on 10.06.2020 stipulating norms for granting affiliation and for a direction to the University to grant affiliation to the emerging courses without insisting NBA accreditation or NOC from the State Government.
15. WP(C) No.13337 of 2020 15.1. The SNGIST college run by the petitioner was started in the year 2003. W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 49 It has been offering 4 B.Tech courses with 60 seats. The AICTE granted Ext.P2 approval on 15.6.2020 for starting new course in Artificial Intelligence with an intake of 60 seats and extension of approval for the 4 courses. Approval is granted for closure of one Undergraduate course. Though application for affiliation was submitted on 09.03.2020, the 2nd respondent University has not processed the same despite repeated requests and payment of the requisite fee on 21.05.2020. However, the University issued Ext.P5 order granting extension of affiliation for the ongoing courses. It is stated that the AICTE had issued Ext.P1 clarification on 26.02.2020 to the effect that institutions running courses in Engineering and Technology can open new courses by closing existing divisions/courses only in emerging areas. In case the institutions fail to meet AICTE norms (as defined in APH 2020-21) for getting approval for new courses or increase intake in emerging area courses, the approval status of 2019-20 will be retained. According to the petitioners, the University cannot insist NBA accreditation in view of the clarification Ext.P1. The petitioner is challenging the decision of the Syndicate dated 10.06.2020.
15.2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University it is stated that Ext.P2 approval is obtained by the petitioner without complying with the procedure in Ext.P1. The affiliation can be granted only if the petitioner satisfies the norms fixed by the University. It is also stated that the University has not granted sanction to reduce one course to the petitioner's institution. The petitioner institution does not have NBA accreditation to any course. It is also the case of the W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 50 University that affiliation of additional course or new course is not automatic on reduction of another course. It is also their contention that NBA accreditation is a mandatory requirement to get affiliation. It is stated that University has not granted sanction for reduction of one course. According to the University, NOC from the University is mandatory as specified in the Approval Process Handbook. It is stated that the University can fix higher norms to ensure quality of education, pass percentage for granting affiliation.
16. W.P. 13457 of 2020 Petitioner College has been offering Undergraduate courses in Civil, Mechanical and Computer Science and Engineering with an intake of 60 each and in Electrical and Electronics and Electronics and Communication Engineering with 30 seats each. Based on application submitted by petitioner, AICTE issued Ext.P5 on 09.03.2020 granting approval for a new course in Data Science with an intake of 30 and extension of approval for the other courses. The contention of the petitioner is that NOC from Government or accreditation by NBA is not necessary for the new courses in 2020-21, as per clause 2.15.4(a) and (b). As the total intake was only 240, the petitioner is entitled to a new course without exceeding the total intake of 300 as provided in Appendix 3. It is also urged that the University cannot fix any criteria contrary to those fixed by AICTE and that the University can fix higher qualifying norms only in respect of factors directly connected to the maintenance of standard of education and not for the purpose of affiliation for additional course. It is urged that NOC is required under Clause 4.9(d) only in W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 51 cases where it is required in APH and there is no such provision in APH. It is also their contention that the University cannot pick and choose in granting affiliation. While challenging Ext.P6 order dated 10.06.2020, the petitioner points out that those norms are applicable only for new programmes and not courses and seeks a direction to University to grant affiliation dehors Ext.P6. Contention of the petitioner is that AICTE has taken a conscious decision in 2020-2021 to do away with accreditation with NBA and therefore it cannot be insisted.
17. WP(C) No.13558 of 2020 The college started B.Tech courses in the year 2003. It is stated that there were 6 courses with an intake capacity of more than 360 seats. On the basis of its application AICTE, as per Ext.P2 on 9.6.2020 granted extension of approval for Undergraduate courses in Electronics and Communication Engineering with 30 seats, Mechanical Engineering with 30 seats, Civil Engineering with 60 seats, Computer Science and Engineering with 30 seats, Electrical and Electronics Engineering with 30 seats and approval for new course in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning with 30 seats. Even though application was submitted for affiliation on 10.03.2020 and fees was remitted, the University has not processed the application. At the same time, extension of affiliation was granted to other courses as per Ext.P6. Petitioner challenges the order dated 10.06.2020.
17.2. Contents of counter affidavit and reply affidavit are more or less similar.
W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 52
18. WP(C) No.13743 of 2020 The petitioner-MET S School of Engineering College started in 2001. It has been offering Undergraduate courses in Biotechnology, Computer Science and Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Civil Engineering. As per Ext.P1 dated 15.06.2020, it got extension of approval from AICTE for the undergraduate courses in Biotechnology with intake 30(instead of 60last year); Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science and Engineering with an intake of 30 each (as against 90 each last year); Civil Engineering with an intake of 30(as against 60 last Year); and approval for new undergraduate courses in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science and Robotics and Automation with an intake of 30 each. Ext.P1 would also show that in closure application in respect of Undergraduate courses in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and Electronics and Communication Engineering approval has been granted and also that approval has been granted for vocational courses in undergraduate courses of refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Welding and Fabrication, Webdesign and Mobile application and Artificial Intelligence and Robotics are also granted for the year 2020-21. Petitioner is denied affiliation for the New courses in B.Tech and M.Tech and challenges the order dated 22.06.2019 of the Government and orders dated 17.01.2020 and 10.06.2020 of the University.
19. W.P(C).No.11949 of 2020 19.1. The petitioner institution is aggrieved by denial of affiliation to a new programme ie. for starting Post Graduate Business Course MBA. The petitioner W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 53 college has been offering 5 streams of Undergraduate Engineering courses with a total approved intake of 240 students. Based on application dated 20.02.2019 the AICTE as per Ext.P3 order dt.30.4.2019 granted extension of approval for the academic year 2019-20 for the 5 existing Engineering courses as well as Postgraduate course in Business Administration (MBA) with an intake of 60 students. The petitioner had also submitted application for affiliation with the University. It is stated that the University conducted an inspection of the college on 20.03.2019 and though no deficiencies were noted in the Affiliation Application/Report of Deficiency Ext.P4, University did not grant affiliation to the new courses when it granted affiliation to the ongoing courses as per Ext.P6 order dated 15.5.2019. Without issuing any orders on its application, the University unnecessarily forwarded it to the State Government for its approval. Government issued a general order Ext.P7 on 22.06.2019 fixing 3 criteria for issuing NOC for commencing new UG/PG courses ie. (1) the programmes in the colleges should have NBA accreditation; (2) admission in the previous years should be more than 50% of their sanctioned strength and (3) the courses sought to be started should be innovative and should have the approval of the AICTE. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was fulfilling all the criteria. As per Ext.P9 letter dated 04.01.2020 the Government rejected the application for commencement of MBA course on the ground that it did not have AICTE approval and did not meet the criteria set out in the Government Order dated 22.06.2019. The petitioner points out that both the reasons stated are factually incorrect, as it was having approval W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 54 from AICTE and it was not necessary for the University to forward the application to the State Government or for the State Government to issue NOC as there is no provision under the University Act, 2015 which insists production of NOC for grant of affiliation to start PG courses. Once the AICTE, which is the supreme authority, has granted approval, neither the University nor the State Government has any power to dilute the same unless and until they get the approval set aside in a due process known to law; therefore the University ought to have granted affiliation on the basis of the approval already granted by the AICTE. The petitioner had approached this Court in W.P(c).No.1635/2020 when the University refused to pass orders on the application and based on the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that it was under consideration of the University, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition as per Ext.P10 judgment dated 09.03.2020, directing to take a decision and to communicate the same within two weeks. Despite the judgment, the University did not pass any orders. The petitioner points out that it has already received the prospectus in respect of MBA course approved by the Admission Supervisory Committee as per Ext.P12 proceedings. It is also stated that the petitioner college received a communication from the University by e-mail dated 03.04.2020 (Ext.P13 e-mail) from the Convener (MBA Programme) calling for suggestion from the college to revise the syllabus of MBA for the academic year 2020-21. It is stated that the Acting Director of the petitioner college had forwarded the revised syllabus as per letter dt.14.04.2020. The AICTE has as per Ext.P15 order dated 30.04.2020 granted extension of approval for W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 55 commencement of MBA course. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P16 application for affiliation and there is a zero deficiency report Ext.P17, the University did not pass any orders on the same. The University has as per Ext.P18 decision dated 10.06.2020 formulated new norms for grant of affiliation to new programmes insisting NBA accreditation for at least one of the existing programmes. In the case of PG programmes the concerned UG Programmes should have NBA accreditation; (2) the average annual intake for the previous 3 years should be more than 50% of the sanctioned intake; (3) the proposed programme should have AICTE approval and NOC from the Government and (4) the proposed programme should have industry demand/employment potential. Petitioner challenges Ext.P18 order dated 10.06.2020 of the University to the extent it insists NBA accreditation to one of the programmes and NOC from Government for the new programme and seeks a direction. Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order dated 22.06.2019 of the Government also and seeks a direction to the University to grant affiliation to the new programme without insisting NBA accreditation or NOC from Government and for a direction to the Vice Chancellor to issue orders of affiliation in tune with Ext.P15 approval.
19.2. The petitioner submits that insisting NOC from the Government and NBA accreditation for at least one of the programmes is arbitrary and it goes against the AICTE regulations. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is no provision which insists NOC from the Government under the AICTE regulations as well as the 2015 Act and in the light of the judgment in K.V.M College of W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 56 Nursing v. State of Kerala [2017 (3) KHC 63], NOC from the Government is not required for affiliation by the University. It is also stated that in the absence of any statutes framed for the University, the conditions fixed are unsustainable and without authority; the University does not have any authority to deny affiliation once approval is granted and the University cannot be permitted to collaterally attack the approval granted by the competent body as per a central enactment; the only area where the University can lay down any condition is regarding the faculties or seats and it does not have any authority to insist on any further condition than that is insisted by the AICTE. Affiliation cannot be denied on the basis of policy decisions.
19.3. In the counter affidavit the University has stated that production of no objection certificate from the University before the scrutiny committee is a mandatory requirement for granting approval of new programme as per the provisions contained in para 17.3 of the APH. The University has not issued a no objection certificate to the petitioner institution to start MBA programme. It was stated that the petitioner was required to file an affidavit before the AICTE stating that it will produce NOC from the University for commencing new programme. According to the University, it is entitled to prescribe higher norms to grant affiliation to new programmes. According to the University, the application submitted by the petitioner along with the list of facilities before the AICTE in the year 2019 cannot have any relevance for the affiliation in the year 2020. The petitioner should have obtained NOC from the University before submitting the W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 57 application before the AICTE for affiliation to start a new programme. Since the petitioner does not satisfy the condition mentioned in Ext.P18 order, it is not entitled to get affiliation. It is stated that as per clause 4.9 of the AICTE regulations, NOC from the University is necessary for commencement of a new programme.
19.4. Producing Ext.P16, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the college started functioning in the academic year 2015-16. The total students admitted in the year 2015 was 104 and the total number of students appeared for final examination (S8) in May, 2019 was 100 and the number of students passed out in June, 2019 was 51 and the pass percentage is 51%.
19.5. Additional counter affidavit filed in W.P(c).No.11778/2020 is adopted in this Writ Petition also. It is stated therein that the AICTE has not consulted the University before granting approval to new programme to the college as provided under Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act. It is also stated that on earlier occasions, the committee used to consult the University in the matter, but in 2020-21 there was no such consultation.
20. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the University, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE. The main contentions urged by the petitioners are (1) university has transgressed into the area occupied by the AICTE by the central enactment (2)once the AICTE grants approval the University cannot deny affiliation except in respect of infrastructure or faculties (3) in case W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 58 University had any objection, it should have been raised before the AICTE immediately on receipt of application within the time stipulated (4) syndicate has no authority to fix any norms for affiliation, which are to be prescribed in the statute (5) University has no authority to prescribe any standard higher to that fixed by the AICTE (6) Government has no authority to lay down conditions for issuing NOC (7) there cannot be any collateral challenge to the approval granted by the AICTE (8) there is no ceiling for the total number of courses provided the total intake in all cases is 300. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments in Jaya Gokulam Education Trust v. Commissioner, Secretary to Govt. Higher Education, State of Kerala & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 231], Rungta Engineering College v. Chattisgrah Swami Vivekananda Technical University [2015 (11) SCC 291], K.V.M College of Nursing v. State of Kerala [2017 (3) KHC 63], Fr. Thomas Malvettath V All India Council for Technical Education:2018(3)KHC 924, the judgment dated 05.06.2017 in WP(C) No.22511/2016, the judgment dated 22.08.2017 in W.A.1939/2017, the judgment in W.A.No.1487 of 2019, etc. in support of their contention that the University is bound to grant affiliation, once approval is granted by the AICTE. Sri.Krishnamoorthy also relied on the judgments in W.A.Nos.738 of 2018, 862 of 2018 in support of his contention that it is for the Vice Chancellor to issue orders in the absence of Statute. Relying on the judgments in State of T.N & Anr v. Adhiyaman Education & Research Institute & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 104], State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya: (2006) 9 W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 59 SCC 1, Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P.: (2013) 2 SCC 617, Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education : (2013) 3 SCC 385, etc, Sri.B.G Harindranath, the learned Counsel appearing in one of the writ petitions argued that the University transgressed into the area occupied by the AICTE. The judgments in Ismail Shaikh Gulam Abbas Kothari V State of Maharashtra: 1997 Bombay LR 508, Pankaj Bhargava V Mahinder Nath: (1991)1 SCC 556, Jantia Hill Truck Owners Assn V Shailang Area Coal Dealer & Truck Owner Assn:(2009)8 SCC 492, Cochin College V Ajith Kumar & others: 2014 KHC 650, judgment dated 23.09.2014 in W.A.1645 of 2010, were relied on, in support of his contention that there cannot be any collateral challenge.
21. Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned Standing Counsel for the University relied on the judgment dated 02.08.2019 in W.P.(C).No.16479 of 2019 and connected cases, State of T.N and another V S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and others: (2004) 4 SCC 513, Assn. of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education: (2013) 8 SCC 271, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar V Sangham Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet and others : 2018 KHC 6863, in support of the action of the University in denying affiliation. The judgment in Orissa State (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills: (2003) 10 SCC 421 was relied on in support of the decision taken by the Syndicate in the absence of statutes. Sri.Krishnamoorthy pointed out that the judgment in Assn. of Management's case (supra) is doubted and referred to larger W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 60 bench.
22. First of all it is necessary to examine whether the syndicate has any authority to prescribe the norms for affiliation when it is to be prescribed by statute as provided in Section 63(2) of the University Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions argued that as long as there is no Statute made for the University, the syndicate or sub committee does not have any authority to fix the norms and deny affiliation based on such norms. The contention of the University is that it has got plenary powers and until Statutes are issued the syndicate is competent to take decisions. In the judgment in Orissa State (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills: (2003) 10 SCC 421 relied on by the learned Standing Counsel, the prosecution under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was challenged by a manufacturing Company on the ground that the area was not one notified under any Rules. Apex Court found that when the State Government was empowered to declare any area within the State as an air pollution control area under Section 19 of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, as prescribed in the rules and in case the manner is not prescribed under the rules, there is no obligation or requirement to follow any, except what is provided in Section 19 and that merely because of the absence of rules, the State would not be divested of its powers to notify in the Official Gazette any area declaring it to be an air pollution control area. Section 61(4) as well as Section 63 (1) and (2) of the University Act 2015, provide that rules and procedure for affiliation, continuation of affiliation as W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 61 well as affiliation for additional course on application by a college or institution shall be as prescribed in the Statutes. Admittedly, no statute is made. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that it is for the Vice Chancellor to take action in the absence of statutes and not the syndicate. Therefore, it is necessary to have a look at Section 14(6) of the Act which read as follows:
14. (6): Where any matter is required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations but no Statutes or Regulations have been made in that behalf, the Vice-Chancellor shall, for the time being,regulate the matter by issuing such directions as the Vice-Chancellor thinks necessary, and shall, as soon as may be, submit them before the Board of Governors or other authority or body concerned for approval.
Even under Section 14(6), Vice Chancellor has to submit the order before the Governing body or such other body for approval. It cannot be said that syndicate is not a body envisaged under Section 14(6) of the Act. The powers and functions of the syndicate are given in Section 30 of the University Act, 2015. Clause (xiv) of Section 30(2), relied on by the University to issue norms, read as follows:
S.30. Powers, functions and duties of the Syndicate--
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the executive powers of the University, including the general superintendence and control over the institutions of the University, shall be vested in the Syndicate.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Committee shall have the following powers, namely:--
xxxxxx
(xiv) to arrange for and direct the investigation into the affairs of affiliated colleges, to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency, for ensuring academic and administrative resources, infrastructural facility, academic performance, performance of teachers of these colleges and in the case of private colleges ensure payment of adequate salaries and service conditions to the members of the staff and in case of disregard of such instructions, to modify the conditions of affiliation or take such steps as it deems proper in that behalf.
23. The argument of Sri. Krishnamoorthy that the syndicate has issued the norms in violation of the judgment in W.A.Nos.738 of 2018, 862 of 2018 and W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 62 connected cases is unsustainable because in those cases this Court has not considered the authority of the syndicate vis a vis Vice Chancellor. Those judgments were rendered when the University did not entertain the applications on the ground that there is no Statute. When the action of Vice Chancellor under Section 14 requires approval of either the governing body or such other body and the power of the syndicate under Section 30(2)(iv) extends to matters relating to affiliation also, it cannot be said that syndicate did not have any authority to fix the norms for affiliation.
24. The norms challenged in almost all the cases are those issued by the University on 10.06.2020, by which the conditions for affiliation of new "programme" were stipulated as (1) should have NBA accreditation (2) average annual intake shall be more than 50% of the sanctioned intake for the last 3 years (3) NOC from state Government and (4) proposed programme should have industry demand/employment potential. The syndicate modified those norms on 24.06.2020 and fixed new conditions to be fulfilled by the colleges for affiliation of new courses/programmes, apparently, taking note of the contentions raised in these Writ Petitions with respect to the definition of programme and course.
25. Regarding the norms issued on 10.06.2020, though the University employed the word 'programme' it is seen that almost all the institutions except one or two have not also understood the difference between `programmes' and `course', in tune with definition given by AICTE, as evident from the pleadings. Therefore, the said difference alone would not make the petitioner institutions W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 63 eligible for affiliation. Though the order dated 10.06.2020 laid down the norms fixed for affiliation of the 'programme', as in the previous orders, all those concerned have understood the same as those applicable to the courses. As pointed out by Sri.Elvin Peter, even the NBA, which is a statutory agency constituted under Section 10(u) of the Act, has in Exts.R2(g) and (h) granted accreditation to the programmes in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, etc in the place of 'courses' . Therefore, it cannot be said that the norms fixed in the order dated 10.06.2020 are not applicable for the courses
26. Now it is also necessary to have a look at the provisions contained in the AICTE Act, Regulations and the APH. The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 ('the Act" for short) was enacted to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education ('the Council' for short ) with a view to the proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for incidental matters. As per Section 10(k) of the Act, in order to ensure coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards, one of the duties of the Council is to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned. Under Clause (u) of Section 10, the Council has to set up a National Board of Accreditation (`NBA' for W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 64 short) to periodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to make recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of the institution or the programme. In exercise of the powers conferred on the Council under Section 23 read with Section 10 and 11 of the Act, the Council has made 'The AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2020' ("Regulations" for short). Clause 1.1.(l) makes the Regulations 2020 applicable for the following applications among others mentioned in sub-clause (a) to (z) and (aa):
(a) setting up new technical institution;
(b) extension of approval xxxxxx
(f) to start new programme/level in the existing institution
(l) increase in intake/Additional Course(s) xxx xx
(n) closure of the institution
(q) conversion of courses into allied vocational courses
(x) extended EoA (z)introduction of Open and Distance learning Courses/Extension of Approval of the Courses/Increase in Approved Intake in the courses/introduction of new courses/closure of courses in Open and Distance learning mode (aa) introduction of Vocational Education Course/ Extension of Approval of the Courses/Increase in Approved Intake in the courses/introduction of new courses/closure of Vocational courses the EoA extension of approval of courses , submitted by the institutions offering/proposing to offer technical programmes.
27. As per Clause 3.1(b) of the Regulations, approval from AICTE is mandatory for any existing technical institution either to conduct/increase/reduce the intake in the existing courses/ Programmes or introduce new programmes/Courses at any level in regular mode. As per sub-clause (c) of Clause 3.1, approval from the AICTE as well as the affiliating University is necessary for a Technical institution to participate in the counselling and admission process or to W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 65 admit students. As per sub-clause (d) and (e) of Clause 3.1, the affiliating University or the State Government, as the case may be, shall not admit any student in the absence of approval of AICTE. Clause 4 relates to generic conditions for approval. Clause 4.4 provides that in order to maintain quality of education, 60% of the eligible courses in any technical institution shall be accredited in the next three years or else EoA would not be granted. It also provides that appropriate action would be taken against institutions with admissions consistently meagre. Under clause 5.5, the Council has to publish, Approval Process Handbook (APH) detailing all the documents to be attached to the application; the Technical Education Regulatory (TER) charges to be remitted, the norms and standards, the requirement and procedure by which the applications are processed for grant of approval of the new/existing institutions. Clause 4.9 deals with the requirements for the new/existing institution/deemed to be Universities conducting Technical Programmes. As per Clause 4.9.a, all the Technical Institutions shall fulfill requisite norms as specified in the APH. Clause 4.9.b relates to documents showing ownership of land, etc; 4.9.c relates to construction of built up area; Clause 4.9.d reads as follows:
"4.9.d: NOC from affiliating University/ Board/ State Government/ UT shall be required, as applicable, for such applications as specified in the Approval Process Handbook."
28. Under Clause 4.14 the institutions shall have to fulfill all facilities such as infrastructure, Faculty and other requirements to offer regular courses as per the norms specified in the APH for the total approved intake and all such institutions shall create such infrastructure and other facilities within 2 years to W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 66 fulfill the norms. Clause 5 deals with submission of applications. Under Clause 5.6 existing institutions have to submit online applications for the cases listed in Clause 1.2 of the Regulations, using their unique user ID, remitting prescribed TER charges as specified in the APH and they have to upload documents in the web-portal/submit to the scrutiny/re-scrutiny committee/Expert Visit Committee, as applicable, as specified in the APH. The applicants have to submit/upload an affidavit in the format as specified in the APH setting the Council at liberty to take action against it if the information furnished in the application is found to be false. Applications received after the cut off date mentioned in the public notice shall not be processed. Clause 6 relates to the processing of applications and grant of approval. Under Clause 6.1 the applications shall be processed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Handbook. Clause 6.2 which relates to the procedure for setting up new Technical Institution reads as follows:
6.2. For setting up new Technical Institution a. The State Government/UT and the Affiliating University/Board shall forward their views on the applications received for setting up new institutions submitted under Clause 1.2.a of the regulations to the concerned Regional Office, not later than one week from the last date of submission of application as notified. In the absence of receipt of views from the State Government/UT and the Affiliating University/Board, the Council shall proceed for further processing.
Therefore, the opportunity for the State Government and University to submit their views is available only when the application is for setting up new institutions. None of the petitioners herein have applied for setting up new institution. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the University ought to have raised objection if any, within the time prescribed in Clause 6.2 or when applications W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 67 were received for approval, is unsustainable.
29. Clause 6.2.k provides that new technical institutions granted letter of Approval and existing institutions granted approval for introduction of new courses, divisions, programmes, variation in intake capacity shall comply with appointment of Faculty and Principal/Director as the case may be, as per the policy of the Council and institutions except minority institutions, shall appoint Faculty and Principal/Director and other technical staff as per the method and procedure of the affiliating University/State Government and information about the appointment shall be uploaded in the web Portal of the AICTE. As per sub-clause l, Expert Visit Committee may be conducted to verify the fulfillment of the norms as specified in the APH, any time before the first batch of students have passed out. Clause 6.3 deals with processing of applications of the existing institutions. Sub- clause (a) provides that for applications submitted under Clause 1.2, the Council shall grant approval only after confirming that the applicant has fulfilled all the norms and standards through the procedure as specified in the APH. In all these cases, except in one, the petitioners have stated that they are granted approval for additional courses. Clause 6.3(f) and (g) which are relevant, read as follows:
"6.3(f): Institutions shall be eligible for new course(s)/ expansion of existing course(s), equal to the number of valid NBA accredited course(s), limited to a maximum of FOUR within the definition of Division/Programme/ level.
Increase in intake/additional course in undergraduate Degree/Post Graduate Degree level in Engineering and Technology shall be permissible only in EMERGING AREAS."
6.3(g): Institutions having an "Approved Intake" less than a Division size in any of the course(s) as prescribed by the Council may apply for intake of full division size themselves and shall maintain Faculty: student ratio accordingly, without NBA accreditation/ NOC from affiliating University/ Board/ State Government/ UT, subject to "Zero Deficiency" based on self-disclosure on AICTE web-portal. However, this is not W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 68 applicable in case of institutions under penal action.
As per Clause 2.9 of the Regulation, "Approved intake" means the maximum number of students that can be admitted in a course (excluding supernumerary seats) as approved by the Council. Under Clause 2.21, 'course' means one of the branches of learning in a programme such as Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, etc. As per sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.22 `division' means a batch of maximum of 60 students in Diploma/Undergraduate courses in Engineering and Technology/Hotel Management/Catering Technology/Post Graduate Courses in MCA/PGCM/MBA Programme, excluding supernumerary seats, if any. Therefore, under Clause 6.3(f), the new courses or expansion of existing courses would be permitted in an institution only if it has got NBA accreditation and number of such courses/size of expansion permissible would be upto the number of NBA accredited courses subject to a ceiling of 4 division. Increase in intake/additional courses can be permitted in undergraduate and post graduate courses only in Emerging areas. The aforesaid provision refers to new course in the first part where NBA accreditation is made mandatory; whereas nothing is stated for granting additional courses. While it is stipulated that additional courses should be only in emerging areas it is not clear whether the new course cannot be an additional course or vice versa. It is necessary to have a look at the corresponding provision in APH, ie. para. 2.15, which deals with increase in intake/additional course(s). Para. 2.15.1 provides that the existing institutions shall expand its activities by the addition of new/additional courses/Divisions, provided, they have W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 69 a valid NBA, for the reasons (a) increased demand in certain domains as per the industrial need for technical personnel (b) to increase the utilisation of infrastructure available at the technical institutions (c) ensure quality of Technical Education being imparted. Therefore, as per para. 2.5.1 of APH, the activities of the college can be expanded either by adding new course or additional courses and it is mandatory to have NBA accreditation for both new and additional courses. Though Section 10(k) of the Act refers to introduction of new course and regulations 6.3 as well as several provisions in APH refer to new courses as well as additional course, there is no definition for either of it. It is relevant to note that in all the orders by which the petitioners have been granted approval in 2020-21, the AICTE has specifically instructed that those are new courses and shall be only in emerging areas. Nowhere it is stated as additional courses.
30. At any rate, Clause 6.3 (f) of the regulations read with para.2.5.1 makes it clear that NBA accreditation is necessary for granting both. Under Clause 6.3.(g) of the Regulation, NBA accreditation or NOC from the affiliating University is not necessary for applying for intake of full division size, for institutions where the approved intake in any of the courses is less than division size ( 60), subject to zero deficiency on self disclosure on AICTE web-portal. That would also indicate that NBA accreditation is necessary for all other kind of expansion. Para. 2.15.2 deals with requirement and eligibility. Under clause (a) thereof, accreditation is mandatory for existing courses; under clause (b) institutions awaiting the results of the visit for accreditation are also eligible; but W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 70 they have to produce valid NBA certificate at the time of scrutiny. As per sub- clause c, increase in intake and additional course is permitted only in emerging areas. As per clause d, such institutions shall apply for increase in intake/additional course along with additional documents as per Appendix 17 of the APH; institutions shall have zero deficiency based on self disclosure as per the deficiency report generated through web portal. Para 2.15.5 again provides that the number of new course/expansion of existing courses that would be permitted, would be equal to the number of valid NBA accredited course subject to a maximum of 4 within the definition of division/programme/level on condition that the maximum of two divisions alone can be added in the valid NBA accredited undergraduate course provided that the total number of divisions after expansion per course shall not exceed the maximum intake allowed as specified in Appendix 3 of the APH. All the provisions in Clause b to h of 2.15.3 would show that NBA accreditation is mandatory for new courses as well as additional courses and even for that there is an upper limit for the maximum intake. It also provides that the NBA accreditation can be utilised for increase in intake or introduction of new course only once in 6 years.
31. In several of the Colleges the number of ongoing courses itself is 5 and more than 5. But the maximum intake is maintained at 300. According to the University, as per the provisions contained in the APH, the maximum number of courses permissible is 5 and maximum total intake is 300 in an institution. The University has not granted affiliation to colleges having more than 5 courses. But W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 71 the case of some of the colleges is that if maximum intake is 300, there can be any number of courses. It is also their contention that number of courses is limited to 5 in new institutions alone. In this context para 2.15.4(a) and (b) of the APH and Clause 6.3.(i) and (j) of the regulations are relevant, which read as follows:
6.3(i): The existing institutions having total "Approved Intake" equal to/less than the "Maximum Intake Allowed"/ Institutions not eligible to apply for NBA accreditation, shall be permitted to increase (without NBA accreditation) in the same level in the same programme (Diploma/Under Graduate/MCA/Management) upto the "Maximum Intake Allowed" in each programme as that of a new technical institution, as per the Approval Process Handbook, subject to 'Zero Deficiency" based on self-disclosure on AICTE web- portal.
6.3(j) The existing Institutions having total "Approved Intake" exceeding the "Maximum Intake Allowed" seeking for approval for Increase in Intake/ Additional Course(s) (without NBA accreditation) in the same Level in the same Programme (Diploma/ Under Graduate/ MCA/ Management) shall have to apply for the Closure of Course(s) as per the Procedure and shall apply for increase in Intake/ Additional Course(s) in lieu of the same, without exceeding the total "Approved Intake" as well as the number of courses/Divisions as specified in Appendix 3 of the Approval Process Handbook, subject to "Zero Deficiency" based on Self Disclosure on AICTE Web-Portal. Increase in Intake/ Additional Course in Under Graduate Degree in Engineering and Technology shall be permissible only in EMERGING AREAS.
The corresponding provisions in the APH are para 2.15.4 and clause (a) and (b) thereof, which read as follows:
2.15.4 For an Institution, at least two batches of students (three batches for Management Programme) shall have graduated for a Course to be eligible for NBA accreditation.
a. The existing Institutions having total "Approved Intake" equal to/ less than the "Maximum Intake Allowed"/ Institutions not eligible to apply for NBA accreditation, shall be permitted to increase (without NBA accreditation) in the same Level in the same Programme (Diploma/ Under Graduate/ MCA/ Management) upto the "Maximum Intake Allowed" in each Programme as that of a new Technical Institution, as per Appendix 3 of the Approval Process Handbook, subject to "Zero Deficiency" based on Self-Disclosure on AICTE Web- Portal."
b. The existing Institutions having total "Approved Intake" exceeding the "Maximum Intake Allowed" seeking for approval for Increase in Intake/ Additional Course(s) (without NBA accreditation) in the same Level in the same Programme (Diploma/ Under Graduate/ MCA/ Management) shall have to apply for the Closure of Course(s) as per the Procedure and shall apply for increase in Intake/ Additional Course(s) in lieu of the same, without exceeding the total "Approved Intake" as well as the number of courses/Division as specified in Appendix 3 of the Approval Process Handbook, subject to "Zero Deficiency" based on Self Disclosure on AICTE Web-Portal. Increase in Intake/ Additional Course in Under Graduate Degree in Engineering and W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 72 Technology shall be permissible only in EMERGING AREAS.
32. It is also necessary to have a look at Appendix 3 of APH, which provides for norms for intake and number of course/Divisions in a New Technical Institution. Para. 3.2 deals with Undergraduate level.
Sl.no. Programme Intake per Maximum number of Under Graduate Degree
Division Course(s)/Division(s) allowed in a Technical
Institution
Course(s)/ Maximum Intake allowed
Division(s)
Engineering and 60 5 300
Technology
x x x x x
For other programmes a MAXIMUM OF THREE DIVISIONS PER COURSE is permissible, without exceeding the "Maximum Intake Allowed."
33. Therefore going by Appendix 3, read with para. 2.15.4(a) and (b) the Maximum Intake Allowed for Engineering Technology Programme in a Technical Institution is 300; maximum number of courses is 5 and maximum intake per Division is 60. The upper limit prescribed in Appendix 3 is made applicable in the cases coming under 2.15.4(a) and (b).
34. Clause 6.3.i as well as Para. 2.15.4a relate to institutions where approved intake is equal to the maximum intake allowed, institutions having less than the maximum intake allowed and institutions which are not eligible for NBA accreditation. For such institutions, permission can be granted for increase in the same level in a programme upto the maximum intake without NBA accreditation; application for the same should be as per Appendix 3. One fails to understand how any increase can be effected in an institution having 'approved intake' equal to W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 73 'maximum intake allowed', upto the 'maximum intake allowed' in the same programme. At any rate, what is permitted is for increase in intake to the extent of difference between approved intake and the maximum intake of 300 in the same level in the same programme and the same is permissible without NBA accreditation.
35. Under clause 6.3.j the institution where the approved intake is in excess of total intake allowed, can apply for closure of the course and thereafter apply for increase in intake/additional course in lieu of such closure. In that event also, total approved intake/additional course/division shall not exceed the total approved intake of 300, number of course(5)/division(6) as specified in appendix 3 of APH ie. this facility is available without NBA accreditation. Para. 2.15.4 (b) provides for the same.
36. From clauses (a) and (b) of 2.15.4 it is clear that increase in intake as well as number of courses shall not exceed the maximum provided in Appendix 3. In both (a) and (b) increase provided is in the programme and same level. For institutions where the total approved intake exceeds the maximum intake allowed, increase in intake/additional courses in lieu of closure can be permitted even without NBA accreditation, in accordance with Appendix 3 and such addition can only be in emerging areas. But in other cases (covered by sub-clause a) NBA accreditation is necessary except for institutions which did not become eligible for the same on completion of course by 2 consecutive batches. Para 2.15.(c) provides that in lieu of one course with 60 intake, two courses with 30 intake can be W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 74 permitted. In this provision no ceiling is given as given in clause (a) or (b). NBA accreditation is also not provided. It therefore means after reduction in intake in one course another course can be granted in lieu of reduction. However, that can be applied only to an institution which has not become eligible for NBA accreditation, as Clause 15.4 starts with eligibility for accreditation.
37. It is also pertinent to note that para.2.15.5 provides for the procedure. Under clause (a) thereof, scrutiny committee shall verify the additional document as per Appendix 17 of APH. Clause (b) provides for an appeal for submitting NBA certificate if it was not issued at the time of scrutiny. On par with clause 6.g of the Regulations, para. 2.15.6 of APH permits institutions with intake less than division size to apply for full division size in any of the courses, without NBA accreditation or NOC from the affiliating University or State Government.
38. The arguments of Sri.Jawad as well as Sri.Saji Isaac are to the effect that the clause 2.15.4 (a) or (b) cannot be interpreted in isolation; but all the provisions in 2.15 have to be read together and in that event what is intended is that ceiling is only on maximum intake of 300 and not on the number of courses. It was also argued by all the Counsel that NBA accreditation is not required for additional courses and, at any rate, for courses in emerging areas. However, both those provisions are not worded properly for comprehension by a person of normal prudence.
39. A reading of the entire provisions in 2.15 would show that NBA accreditation is necessary except where it is not specifically excluded. Moreover, W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 75 Annexure 14 of the APH also states that accreditation is mandatory for increase in intake/starting new course. Appendix 17 provides for the documents to be submitted or uploaded for various purposes including "increase in intake/additional course(s)." Appendix 17.3 provides as follows:
17.3: Additional documents to be submitted at the time of Scrutiny Committee for approval of an existing institution applied for change of site/ location/ conversion of women's institution into Co-ed Institution/Conversion of Diploma level into Degree level and vice-versa/to start new programme/level in the existing institutions. • All Documents as specified in Appendix 16.1 of the Approval Process Handbook (not applicable for the conversion of Degree level into diploma level). • No objection certificate from concerned State Government/ UT in the format (not applicable for the existing institution to start new programme(s)/level(s) • No objection certificate from affiliating University/board in the format.
40. As per para.17.3, no objection certificate from University is necessary for processing application for new programmes. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.(c).No.11949 of 2020 was required to produce NOC from affiliating University as required in format 2.
41. In the case of other petitioners, the relevant provision would be 17.7 which provides for additional documents to be submitted before scrutiny Committee for approval of Increase in Intake/Additional Course(s)/Introduction of Integrated/Dual Degree Course/Institutions having total "Approved Intake" less than the "Maximum Intake Allowed"/Introduction of Fellow Programme in Management/Extended EoA, as applicable. Para.17.7 read as follows:
1. An Affidavit on a Non-Judicial Stamp Paper/ e-stamp paper of Rs.100/-, duly sworn before a First Class Judicial Magistrate or Notary or an Oath Commissioner (Not applicable for extended EoA)
2. In case of increase in Intake/Additional Course(s) valid NBA accreditation certificates shall be beyond 10th April of current academic year.W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 76
3. Xxx
4. xxx
5. No objection certificate from affiliating University for introduction of Integrated/Dual Degree Course(s)/Institutions having total "Approved Intake" less than the "Maximum Intake Allowed" in the format.
xx
6.
7. Resolution of the Trust/Society/Company approving the Institution for starting additional course(s)/Division(s) in existing Programme and allocation of Land/Building/funds for the "
proposed activities duly signed by the Chairman/Secretary in the format .
From Appendix 17.7 it is seen that the additional documents to be submitted for approval of increase in intake as well as for additional course would include an Affidavit, valid NBA accreditation certificate of current academic year and No objection certificate from affiliating University in the format is necessary for institutions having approved intake less than maximum intake in format.
42. However, NOC is required for starting new courses as per clause ix of format 2. As per the statement of the learned Standing Counsel of the AICTE also, NOC is required for new courses. But the regulations or the APH do not define new course or additional course. But in the orders granting approval to the petitioners, the courses for which approval is given are stated to be in "new courses" with instruction that it should be in emerging areas only. But the petitioners' grievance is that affiliation is denied to the additional courses. Therefore, it is necessary to get NOC from the University for the new courses as well as for institutions with approved intake less than the maximum intake allowed. None of the petitioners have got NOC from the University as prescribed W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 77 in Appendix 17.7 or NBA accreditation as required in the APH, which is necessary under Clause 2.15.4. The number of courses is also 5 and above in most of the cases. The action of the University in ensuring that the colleges have fulfilled the requirements in the provisions in the clause 6.3(f) and 2.15.4(a) and
(b) of APH cannot be said to be illegal. The denial of affiliation on the basis of the norms or for non complaince with the provisions in the regulations or in the APH cannot be said to be a collateral attack to the order of approval.
43. Now that the syndicate has taken a decision on 24.06.2020 fixing/revising the norms issued on 10.06.2020, specifically making it applicable to the programmes as well as courses. That decision is not under challenge in any of these Writ Petitions. The requirement of NOC from Government is no longer a requirement. Now the question to be determined is whether the University can fix any such condition as done in Ext. R2(f) (produced in W.P.(C) 11778 of 2020).
44. It is seen from Ext.R2(f) that the deletion of the requirement of NOC from the Government has been done correctly. But regarding the other conditions, though it is stated that the said norms are for those not having NBA accreditation, the University is supposed to adopt a uniform yardstick in the matter of affiliation. If at all any norms are relaxed that can only be after issuing an order incorporating the revised norms. At any rate, one set of Colleges cannot be subjected to onerous conditions.
45. In the common judgment in W.P.(C)No.16479 of 2019, I had upheld W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 78 the denial of affiliation on more or less similar norms. That judgment is not varied so far. However, I find that the difference between `programme' and `course' was not noticed in it. But that alone would not make the petitioners in these Writ Petitions eligible for affiliation. At any rate, I will consider whether the definitions would make any difference in these Writ Petitions.
46. The conditions to be fulfilled for those colleges without NBA accreditation are (1) institution should have more than 50% pass for the outgoing students at the time of application for affiliation (ii) the institution should have most recent academic audit overall score of "GOOD" and it should have 3 years' average intake of more than 50% sanctioned intake. The conditions fixed by the University in the year 2019-20 were (1) programmes should be innovative (2) student intake for the last 3 years should be more than 30% of the sanctioned intake and academic performance should be satisfactory. The only substantial difference in the present norms is regarding pass percentage and enhancement in percentage of intake. The norms fixed on 24.06.2020 are for the institutions without NBA accreditation.
47. In this context it is relevant to note that Ext.R2(a) proforma of application for accreditation by NBA would show that the percentage of admission in the courses for 3 years' period is a factor relevant for NBA accreditation. The contention of the University is that they had fixed only those conditions fixed by AICTE in its APH. It is also their contention that they can fix such conditions without lowering the standard set by the AICTE, relying on the 3 Judge Bench W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 79 judgment of the Apex Court in State of T.N and another V S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and others: (2004) 4 SCC 513. There the Tamil Nadu Government fixed separate minimum marks in the related subjects in the qualifying examination as eligibility to be considered for admission to Engineering Colleges; whereas AICTE prescribed only aggregate 60% marks in 3 subjects together. The contention relying on the judgment in Adhiyaman Educational Research Institute's case (supra) that the State has no authority to tinker with the norms fixed by AICTE for the purpose of ensuring uniformity with extended access of educational opportunity, was repelled following the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Preeti Srivastava (Dr) V State of M.P: (1999) 7 SCC 120 and it was held as follows:
10. xxxxTherefore, it is difficult to subscribe to the view that once they are qualified under the criteria fixed by AICTE they should be admitted even if they fall short of the criteria prescribed by the State. The scope of the relative entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution has to be understood in the manner as stated in Dr Preeti Srivastava case and, therefore, we need not further elaborate in this case or consider arguments to the contrary such as on application of occupied theory no power could be exercised under Entry 25 of List III as they would not arise for consideration.
xxxxxx
12. One other argument is further advanced before us that the criteria fixed by AICTE were to be adopted by the respective colleges and once such prescription had been made, it was not open to the Government to prescribe further standards particularly when they had established the institutions in exercise of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. However, we do not think this argument can be sustained in any manner. Prescription of standards in education is always accepted to be an appropriate exercise of power by the bodies recognising the colleges or granting affiliation, like AICTE or university. If in exercise of such power the prescription had been made, it cannot be said that the whole matter has been foreclosed.
48. Though Sri.B.G.Harindranath relied on the judgment in State of Maharashtra V Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya: (2006) 9 W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 80 SCC 1, another 3 Judge Bench decision and argued that the University does not have any authority to prescribe any norms or even to look into the compliance of norms fixed by the AICTE, there the matter was relating to colleges governed by National Council for Teachers Education Act and regulations; whereas S.V.Pradeep's case was with respect to Engineering Colleges. There is much difference between the provisions contained in NCTE Act and in AICT Act, though both are Central Acts within the entry 65 of List I. Moreover, in the light of the judgment of the 5 Judge bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680, when there are two judgments of co-equal benches the judgment rendered on earlier point of time will hold the field.
49. In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P.: (2013) 2 SCC 617, while considering the question relating to denial of affiliation by University, after recognition was given to a College by the NCTE, the Apex Court held that the Department of the State concerned and the affiliating university cannot lay down any guideline or policy which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body and that their policy has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. It was held that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. imparting of education properly and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and infrastructure for betterment of the educational system. In the present case in the order dated 10.06.2020, the University had only insisted the conditions prescribed by the AICTE and those W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 81 norms in conformity with the standard prescribed by the AICTE.
50. In Rungta Engg. College v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University: (2015) 11 SCC 291 the affiliation was denied on the basis of certain shortcomings, which the University could not substantiate before the Apex Court after it had called for a report. That judgment is also distinguished in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar v. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet and Others. Therefore, the said judgment would also not be applicable in this case, especially in the light of the judgment in S.V.Pradeep's case also.
51. In the judgment in Assn. of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education: (2013) 8 SCC 271 relied on by Sri.Elvin Peter it was held that the autonomy of the University is not taken away by the AICTE. In that case the question considered was whether AICTE had control and supervision over the Private Colleges and whether approval from AICTE was required for the Private Colleges affiliated to a University, conducting MCA and MBA courses. It was found that AICTE is not intended to be controlling or supervising authority over the University merely because the University is also imparting courses of "technical education"; following the judgment in Bharathidasan University V All India Council for Technical Education: (2001) 8 SCC 676 it was held that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing guidance. The judgments in Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute's case and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust's case were held inapplicable. In the present case it cannot be W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 82 said that the University has transgressed into the area occupied by the central enactment.
52. In the additional counter affidavit the University stated that the AICTE or the regional committee did not consult it before approval was granted, as required in Section 10(k). Though it was vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there cannot be any collateral challenge, relying on various judgments, in view of the contentions raised by some of the petitioners, I find it necessary to examine whether the University is to be consulted before granting approval. Section 10(k) which relates to the duties of the AICTE reads as follows:
"grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned" But according to Sri.Krishnamoorthy, 'consultation with agencies' envisaged in Section 10(k) would not include the State Government and University. But I find that the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the findings of the Apex Court in Adhyaman's case as well as Jaya Gokulam's case. In para. 22 of the judgment in Jayagokulam (supra) it was found as follows:
" As pointed out in T.N. case there were enough provisions in the Central Act for consultation by the Council of AICTE with various agencies, including the State Governments and the universities concerned. The State-Level Committee and the Central Regional Committees contained various experts and State representatives. In case of difference of opinion as between the various consultees, AICTE would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the State Governments and the universities. No doubt the question of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered by the Central Act but in T.N. case it was held that the University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by AICTE.W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 83
Similarly, it was argued on behalf of some of the petitioners that the objections, if any, for the University or State Government ought to have been communicated to the AICTE on receipt of its application within the time permitted under the Regulations. But under the Regulation 2020, the only provision for the State Government and University to submit their views is under Clause 6.2 when the application is for setting up new institutions. None of the petitioners herein have applied for setting up new institution.
53. In the common judgment dated 02.08.2019 in W.P.(C)No.16479 of 2019, I have found that the denial of affiliation was on valid grounds. I have already found that the factual circumstances which arose and the regulations considered in Jayagokulam Trust's case were different. There University denied affiliation for starting new Engineering College for want of permission from the Government. The State Government did not grant permission on the ground that there was no requirement of new Engineering colleges. The Apex Court found that the only provision which requires the involvement of Government is under Statute 9(7) of the Kerala University First Statute and that provision only required the University to ascertain the "views" of the State Government before granting affiliation and that cannot be characterized as approval and that in case the Statute required any such approval, that would be repugnant to Section 10(k) of the central Act. In that case, the Apex court found that there were other provisions available for resolving the difference of opinion with consultees like State Government, University etc. by the Task force. However, such provisions are not seen available W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 84 in the Regulations 2020 or the APH 2020-2021. There is no task force also. Similarly, I have also found that the judgments in St. Josephs Hospital Trust v. Kerala University of Health Sciences: 2012 (4) KLT 444 or W.A.No.1485/2019, State of Kerala vs. KMCT Polytechnic College, P.N.N.M. Ayurveda Medical College vs. Kerala University of Health Sciences : 2018 (1) KLT 572, St.Joseph's Hospital Trust vs. Kerala University of Health Sciences : 2012 (4) KLT 444, 2002 (2) KLT 267 would not be applicable to the factual circumstances of the case. In these cases also, it is seen that the AICTE has granted approval without insisting on the requirements they have prescribed in para. 2.15.4(a) and (b) as well as para. 17.7 of the Approval Process Handbook. In the order dated 10.06.2020, except for the requirement of NOC from State Government, other conditions fixed were in tune with the parameters fixed by AICTE in the APH. It cannot be said that those conditions are in conflict with the regulations or APH as insisted by it or that the University has transgressed into the area occupied by AICTE. However, I am of the view that much of the confusion could have been avoided in case the AICTE had drafted the provisions in the APH with a little more care, clarity and responsibility.
54. In the judgment in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar v. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet and Others: 2018 KHC 6863, the Apex Court considered a case where the College had challenged the affiliation Regulations of the University, based on which NOC was denied for starting a Pharmacy College. The Apex Court considered the question whether the W.P(C).NO.11778/2020 & C/CASES 85 University has got any authority to deny NOC or whether the University is bound to issue NOC for opening a Pharmacy college and thereby to promote the mushroom growth of institutions. The University stated that most of the seats were remaining vacant. After considering the provisions contained in the affiliation Regulations of the University as well as those in AICTE Regulations and also the provisions contained in the State Act, it was found that there is no repugnancy between the two. In para. 21 it was observed as follows: