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.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.12314 OF 2020(L)
PETITIONERS:
1 TOMS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
MATTAKARA P. O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA - 686564,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR. TOM T. JOSEPH.
2 THIRUNILAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST
MATTAKARA P. O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA - 686564,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,
MR. TOM T. JOSEPH.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE
SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE
SHRI.ABI BENNY AREECKAL
SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2 THE REGISTRAR
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET
CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016.
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET
CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 2
4 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
EXAMINATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
5 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION (J) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
6 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI -
110070, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH
R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.R.REESHA
R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA
R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R6 BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
R5 BY SPECIAL G.P SRI.M.A.ASIF,
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, UGC S.C
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-
07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).13563/2020(U), THE COURT ON 17-08-2020
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.13563 OF 2020(U)
PETITIONER:
ICCS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL DR.NIRMAL RAJA K.,
MUPLIYAM, THRISSUR - 680 312.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
SRI.ALEX ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695016,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2 THE REGISTRAR,
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 016.
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET
CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695016.
4 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
O/O. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION,
HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
5 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION (J) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
6 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI - 110 070
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 4
R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
R1, R5 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M.A.ASIF
R6 BY ADV. SHRI.SAJITH KUMAR V., SC, ALL INDIA
COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION - AICTE
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, UGC S.C
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-
07-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).12314/2020(L), THE COURT ON 17-08-2020
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 5
P.V.ASHA, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos. 12314 & 13563 of 2020
------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2020b.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners in both 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. Petitioners seek affiliation based on extension of approval granted to them by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for commencing additional courses in continuation of the approval granted to them in 2019-20. According to the petitioners, the University has no authority to insist any further condition once approval is granted by the AICTE. Both the petitioners had approached this Court when affiliation was denied to them in the last academic year.
2. W.P(c).No.12314 of 2020 2.1. The petitioner college was granted Ext.P2 approval by the AICTE on 30.04.2019 for an additional new course in B.Tech in Aeronautical Engineering with an intake of 60. However, while granting extension of affiliation, as per Ext.P3 for the undergraduate courses -B.Tech in Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering for W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 6 the academic year 2019-2020 with an intake of 60 each, University did not grant affiliation to the additional course of B.Tech in Aeronautical Engineering. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P(C).No.18319/2019. The University had filed a statement therein to the effect that it had decided to grant affiliation only to the institutions which satisfied the conditions: (1) it is having NBA accreditation (2) intake of students for the last 3 academic years was more than 30% of the sanctioned intake and academic performance was satisfactory. It was also stated that the University had not issued NOC to the petitioner. This Court in Ext.P5 judgment dated 02.08.2019 found that the rejection was on valid grounds, accepting the contention of the University that it had not issued NOC. A Review Petition filed in March, 2020, against the judgment was disposed of on 10.08.2020 clarifying that the said judgment would not stand in the way of considering the claim of the petitioners for affiliation in subsequent years in accordance with law.
2.2. In the meanwhile on 11.02.2020, the petitioner filed an application for affiliation of the very same course for the year 2020-21. On 15.06.2020, AICTE granted Ext.P15 extension of approval to the petitioner College for 5 undergraduate courses including Aeronautical Engineering for the year 2020-21. As per Exts.P12 and P13, affiliation inspection fee was remitted on 18.06.2020. The petitioner submits that though no deficiency is reported, University has been denying affiliation on irrelevant grounds. Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order dated 22.06.2019, by which the Government issued norms for issuing NOC and Exts.P7 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 7 and P14 orders issued on 17.01.2020 and 10.06.2020 by which the University fixed norms for granting affiliation. Government issued a general order Ext.P6 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 intake and (3) the courses sought to be started should be innovative and should have the approval of AICTE. The petitioner has alleged that NOC from the Government is not required for starting additional courses and the order passed by the Government is without authority and contrary to the well settled law on the point. The petitioner claims that once the AICTE granted extension of approval, the University cannot impose any restriction much less unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner to run the educational institution and to start the course in the academic year 2020-21. In Ext.P7 order dated 17.01.2020, it was stated that based on the suggestion of the Vice Chancellor to frame a policy to start new UG/PG courses by colleges affiliated to University, the Academic Council after discussion recommended the following norms for according affiliation to new UG/PG course in the colleges:(1) at least one of the existing programmes should be NBA accredited; (2) average intake in the College for the previous three years should be more than 50% of the sanctioned intake and (3) proposed programme should have AICTE approval and NOC from Government at the time of application. The proposed programme should have industry demand/employment W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 8 potential. Thereafter, revised norms were issued as per Ext.P14 order dated 10.6.2020 based on the decision of the syndicate. In that order it was stated that the recommendations of the Academic Council was placed before the 11 th meeting of the syndicate and syndicate after deliberation resolved to fix the following norms : (1) at least one of the existing programmes should be NBA accredited. In the case of PG programmes, the UG programme 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) proposed programme should have industry demand/employment potential. The petitioner challenges these norms on the ground that the University does not have any authority to impose such conditions when the AICTE has granted extension of approval/approval. The petitioner also complains that even after remitting the inspection fee of Rs.1 lakh, the respondent University did not take any action to inspect the infrastructural facilities in the college.
2.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the conditions fixed by the University are with respect to programmes and not courses. Therefore, affiliation cannot be denied based on those norms. Going by the definition of `programme' as well as `course' in AICTE Regulation as well as Approval Process Handbook (APH), `course' is a particular branch of study in a `programme' and thus undergraduate course in Aeronautical Engineering is a W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 9 branch of study in Engineering and Technology programme. Petitioner's application was for affiliation of a course. It is also contended that NOC from the Government or University is not required for granting affiliation for an additional course for which AICTE has granted approval.
2.4. On the other hand, the contention of the University in its statement as well as in the counter affidavit is that in view of Ext.P5 interparte judgment, the petitioner cannot be heard to raise such contentions against the University, as petitioner's claim is for affiliation on the basis of the very same approval, which is extended by AICTE. In the statement filed on behalf of the University, it was stated that considering the number of seats remaining vacant in the Colleges and lowering of the academic standards in the engineering sector, this Court had already upheld the action of the University in not granting affiliation. University stated that on account of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic it was not possible to conduct any inspection of the college for checking the infrastructure and other requirements. At the same time, being a regulatory body, the University has to be vigilant to prevent further dropping of academic standards of engineering branch and therefore to safeguard the interest of the society particularly, the student community, it has fixed the norms for affiliation. It is stated that NBA accredited Engineering degrees are valid in 20 nations. It is stated that in order to see that the academic standard of the Graduate, Post Graduate and Research Programmes of the Engineering Science, Technology and Management is improved, University W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 10 has gone for NBA instead of NAAC.
2.5. In the counter affidavit it is stated that production of NOC from the affiliating University is mandatory for application for approval from AICTE and the petitioner has not obtained the same. It is stated that NBA accreditation is one of the requirements for grant of additional courses/increase in intake, under the provisions contained in paras.2.15, 2.15(1), 2.15(2), 2.15(3) of the Approval Process Handbook and therefore as the petitioner College does not have NBA accreditation, it is not eligible for approval or affiliation for starting the course. It is stated that in order to ensure that additional courses are granted only to deserving institutions, the University had constituted a sub-committee to examine the matter. The Sub Committee had, after considering the report on Annual Employability Survey 2019 submitted by an agency appointed by the Government of India and the NASSCOM-McKiensy report Perspective 2020 and after examining the functioning of NBA, found that accreditation of an institution by NBA should be an important criteria for selection. It had also found that the academic audit of the affiliated institutions conducted by external auditors is also relevant. The Sub Committee had concluded that institutions which have undergone the process of NBA accreditation were getting higher rating in the academic audit and the decision of the syndicate to award new programme only to NBA accredited institutions would ensure academic quality benchmarks as envisaged in the University Act, 2015. The decision to award new courses only to W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 11 such institutions was in tune with APH issued by the AICTE, according to which, NBA accreditation is needed for new courses. It is stated that after examining the list of Colleges where AICTE granted approval without NBA accreditation and on the basis of the report of the sub committee, the syndicate as per Ext.R1(c) decided to approve the same as a criterion for granting affiliation to additional courses. It is their further case that the definitions given in AICTE regulations, its handbook etc. cannot be relied on to understand the meaning of expression used by the University in its norms. According to the respondents, the University wants to see that the quality and standard of the education in the technical field are enhanced and the interest of the student community is protected. It is stated that in view of Ext.P5 judgment, the approval granted by AICTE will not confer any right on the petitioner institute to claim NOC from the University and the University has the power to consider the issue whether to grant NOC or not on the basis of the norms framed by it. It is stated that on the basis of Ext.P8 regulation produced by the petitioner itself the petitioner is not entitled to NOC from the 1 st respondent University or the AICTE for B.Tech in Aeronautical Engineering. From regulation 4.9 of the AICTE Regulations (Ext.P8), NOC from the 1 st respondent University is mandatory for any technical institution seeking approval from the AICTE as specified in the Approval Process Handbook (APH). As per paragraph 2.1 and sub paragraphs 1 to 3 thereof NBA accreditation is mandatory for getting approval from AICTE for additional courses. The petitioner does not have NBA W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 12 accreditation. In Ext.P7 the University laid down the norms to the effect that for affiliating or starting new programme/new course at least one of the existing programmes in the petitioner's institution should have NBA accreditation and in the case of PG programme the Undergraduate concerned should have NBA accreditation and should have AICTE approval and it should have NOC from the Government. It is stated that the requirement of producing NOC from the Government has been given a go-bye. It is stated that Ext.P13 zero deficiency report is a report generated by the petitioner itself and not issued by the University. The University had in its meeting held on 20.03.2020 decided to appoint a sub committee to look into the issue regarding new programme/course, in order to see that only deserving technical institutions should be granted NOC; the sub- committee after examining the Annual Employability Survey 2019 prepared by an agency appointed by the Government of India, the performance of duties and functioning of NBA, etc. furnished report. It was decided that NBA accreditation should be an important criterion for selection. The sub-Committee found that the institutions with NBA accreditation are getting higher rating in the academic audit and therefore the decision of the syndicate to award new programme only to NBA accredited institutions will ensure academic quality benchmarks envisaged in the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015. It is stated that the finding of the sub-committee was in tune with the provisions in Approval Process Handbook issued by the AICTE. The syndicate after examining the report of the W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 13 Sub-committee and taking note of the fact that the AICTE granted approval to several colleges without NBA accreditation, in its meeting held on 24.06.2020, resolved to adopt a criteria for granting affiliation to the new courses/programmes, in Colleges without NBA accreditation, in order to ensure the quality of teaching- learning process, i.e (1) the institution should have more than 50% pass for the outgoing students at the time of application for affiliation (2) the institution should have most recent academic audit overall score of GOOD and (3) the institution should have 3 years' average intake of more than 50% sanctioned strength. It is pointed out that the syndicate has used the expressions `programme/course' in Ext.R1(c) minutes; the meaning of the expressions "programme" and "course" used by the University cannot be understood in the manner in which those words and expressions are defined by AICTE in its regulations or APH. Pointing out Ext.R1(d) and (e) letters dated 16.05.2017 and 19.01.2018 of the NBA, it is stated that NBA had also employed the expression programme while awarding accreditation status to an aided College to its undergraduate 'programme' in Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. It is stated that the University was following the nomenclature adopted by the NBA and it was using the word programme as a specific branch of learning in Engineering and not to mean the field of Technical Engineering. It is further stated that the expert committee of AICTE could not visit the petitioner institution before issuing Ext.P15, due to COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and apparently Ext.P15 was issued on the last date W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 14 fixed for considering grant of approval without verifying the fulfillment of requirements, provided in the APH 2.9.2, for starting a new course; AICTE had therefore required all the institutions to file an affidavit in Rs.100/- Stamp paper with a specific undertaking that the institution which applied for approval without NOC of the University concerned shall submit the same before 30.06.2020. It is stated that Ext.P15 approval is subject to production of NOC by the University. It is further stated that NOC for starting a new course can be granted only in accordance with Clause 6(3)(a) of the Regulations; as per Clause 6.3(a), the AICTE shall grant approval after confirming that the applicant has fulfilled all the norms and standards through the procedure prescribed in the Approval Process Handbook (APH). Under Regulation 6(3)(f), an institution shall be eligible for new courses equal to the number of NBA accredited courses upto a maximum of 4. As per paragraph 2.15 of the APH, an institution shall be entitled to get approval for starting additional course only if it has NBA accreditation. It is further stated that the University would consider the question of grant of NOC to the eligible institutions as per Ext.R1(c).
2.6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the petitioner has obtained Ext.P21 NOC from the University on 13.02.2019 for closure of B.Tech course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering with an intake of 60 and thereafter it applied for approval of additional course and that the only condition in para 2.15.4(a) of the APH is that the total intake shall not exceed the maximum W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 15 intake allowed. The petitioner points out that as per Exts.P22 and P23 scrutiny committee reports of 2019, as against the columns "NOC from concerned State Government and NOC from concerned University" it was mentioned "Not Applicable". According to the petitioner, as per the APH for 2019-20, NOC was necessary only for starting additional programme and not for additional course. It is stated that clause 17.7 of the APH for 2020-21 does not require NOC from the University or State for additional courses and the denial of affiliation on that ground is illegal. The petitioner stated that NBA accreditation is also not necessary in view of para 2.15.4(a). Therefore, according to the petitioner, going by Appendix 3, NBA accreditation is not necessary to start a course in Aeronautical Engineering under Engineering and Technology programme. Since approval was already granted in 2019-20, no further affidavit is necessary as alleged by the respondents. It is also the contention that the words and expressions to be used are as defined by the AICTE and it is for the University to move the AICTE in case there is any defect. Further contention of the petitioner is that the University cannot invoke its decision of 24.06.2020, fixing norms for affiliation of courses/programmes on the petitioner institution unless it is issued in the form of an order or made known to the public.
2.7. The respondent University has filed an additional counter affidavit dated 17.07.2020 stating that the AICTE or its regional Council has not consulted with the University before granting approval in 2020-21, despite its requirement W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 16 under Section 10(k) of AICTE Act.
2.8. 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 to private self financing sector since 2000. For the last one and a 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 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 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 17 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 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 18 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 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.
2.9. 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 19 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. W.P.(C) No.13563/2020 3.1. Petitioner College got its name changed from Sree Ernakulathappan College of Engineering and Management as ICCS College of Engineering and Management in 2020, as per Ext.P1 NOC on 21.03.2020. In 2019-20, the College was granted Ext.P2 approval on 30.04.2019 for starting additional courses in Food Technology and in Chemical Engineering with an intake of 60 each. The University had not granted affiliation on the ground that intake in the College was only 59 as against the sanctioned intake of 240 in 2016-17; 6 against 240 in 2017- 18 and 0 against 180 in 2018-19; the pass percentage was 11, 10 and 8 for S2, S4 and S6 respectively and also on the ground that there was no NOC from the University. Though the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.17087 of W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 20 2019, challenging the rejection of its application for affiliation, the same was dismissed as per common judgment dated 02.08.2019 (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.12314 of 2020). The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application for extension of affiliation and affiliation of the two additional courses before the University on 10.03.2020. Thereafter, it remitted inspection fee on 20.05.2020. The AICTE, as per Ext.P16 order dated 15.06.2020 granted extension of approval to all the 5 undergraduate courses with intake of 60 each.
3.2. The respondent University has filed counter affidavit in similar lines as in W.P.(C) No.12314 of 2020.
3.3 The Government has also filed a statement producing the details regarding the actual intake in the College during the previous year.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments in Jaya Gokul 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 transgressed into the area occupied by the AICTE. Relying on the judgment dated 02.01.2018 in W.P.(C) W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 21 No. 26206 of 2016 and the judgment in Haria v. The State of Rajasthan: AIR 1951 SC 467 Sri.Santhosh Mathew, the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the resolution passed by the syndicate fixing norms cannot be invoked against the petitioners unless it is issued in the form of an order.
5. 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.
6. 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 22 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 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 23 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.
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.
7. The University in its order dated 10.06.2020, fixed the conditions for affiliation of new "programme" 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 the State Government and (4) proposed programme should have W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 24 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.
8. Regarding the norms issued on 10.06.2020, though the University employed the word 'programme', it is seen that the petitioners also had not also understood the difference between `programmes' and `course', in tune with definition given by AICTE, till they filed the Review Petitions against Ext.P5 judgment, as is admitted in the pleadings there. Therefore, the said difference alone would not make the petitioner institutions 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.R1(d) and (e) 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.
9. 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 25 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 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 Sections 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 applications extension of approval, increase in intake/Additional course . As per Clause 3.1(b) of the Regulations, approval from AICTE is mandatory for any existing technical W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 26 institution either to conduct/increase/reduce the intake in the existing courses/ Programmes or to 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 admit students. As per sub-clauses (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. 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." 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 27 shall create such infrastructure and other facilities within 2 years to fulfill the norms. 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 as well as University to submit their views is available only when the application is for setting up new institutions. Petitioners herein have not applied for setting up new institution. It is relevant to note that the provision contained in the 2020 Regulations and the Regulation which were in force at the time approval was granted to the petitioners in 2019 are more or less similar.
10. 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 28 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. 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 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 29 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 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 30 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 the order granting approval to petitioners, the courses additionally sanctioned were described as new course.
11. 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 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, W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 31 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.
12. 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. 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.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 32 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 Technology shall be permissible only in EMERGING AREAS.
13. 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 33 permissible, without exceeding the "Maximum Intake Allowed."
14. 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).
15. 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 '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.
16. 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 34 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.
17. 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 permitted. In this provision no ceiling is given as given in clause (a) or (b). NBA accreditation is also not provided. It therefore means that 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.
18. 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 35 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.
19. Though Sri.Santhosh Mathew argued that increase is intended for additional courses also, as the word "increase" is not qualified and that increase in additional courses subject to maximum intake allowed is also intended by para.2.15.4(a), especially when increase is provided upto the maximum intake allowed in the same programme, I am unable to accept the same, when the said provision mentions only intake, which is qualified by approved, maximum allowed, etc. only and the word 'course' is conspicuously absent in 2.15.4(a). However, both those provisions are not worded properly for comprehension by a person of normal prudence.
20. A reading of the entire provisions in 2.15 would show that NBA accreditation is necessary except where it is not specifically excluded. Moreover, 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)." In the case of applications for additional courses, the relevant provision would be 17.7. It provides for additional documents to be W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 36 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.
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 by institutions having total approved intake less than maximum intake as well as for additional course would include an Affidavit, valid NBA accreditation certificate of current academic year. No objection certificate from affiliating University in the format is necessary for institutions having approved intake less than maximum intake.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 37
21. NOC is required for starting new courses as per clause ix of format 2. But the regulations or the APH do not define new course or additional course. In the orders granting approval to the petitioners, the courses for which approval was given were stated to be "new 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. Petitioners have not got NOC from the University as prescribed in clause 9 of format 2 referred to in Appendix 17.7 or NBA accreditation as required in the APH, which is necessary under Clause 2.15.4(a). 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.
22. Now 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 these Writ Petitions. The requirement of NOC from Government is no longer a requirement.
23. In the common judgment in W.P.(C)No.16479 of 2019, I had upheld the denial of affiliation on more or less similar norms. However, the difference between `programme' and `course' was not brought to the notice of this court in that judgment. In the order in R.P.No.369/2020 in W.P(c).No.18319/2019 and in R.P.No.497 of 2020 in W.P(C).No.17087/2019, it is clarified that Ext.P5 judgment would not stand in the way of considering further applications on merits. I will W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 38 therefore consider whether the definitions would make any difference in these Writ Petitions.
24. 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 University had fixed more or less similar norms in the year 2019-20. 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.
25. 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 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 39 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.
Though a subsequent judgment of a 3 Judge Bench of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra V Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya: (2006) 9 SCC 1, reiterated the proposition in Adhiyaman's case and Jayagokulam Trust's case, 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 40 respect to Engineering Colleges and AICTE Regulations. There is much difference between the provisions contained in NCTE Act and in AICTE 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.
26. 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 norms in conformity with the standard prescribed by the AICTE.
27. In Rungta Engg. College v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University: (2015) 11 SCC 291 the affiliation was denied on the basis of W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 41 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 3 Judge Bench judgment in S.V.Pradeep's case also.
28. 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 Gokulam Educational Trust's case were held inapplicable. In the present case it cannot be said that the University has transgressed into the area occupied by the central W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 42 enactment.
29. Arguments were advanced to the effect 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 2019 or 2020, the only provision for the State Government and University to submit their views is when the application is for setting up new institutions. Such a procedure is not provided in the case of any other application.
30. The factual circumstances which arose and the regulations considered in Jayagokulam Trust's case relied on by the petitioners 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 under which University was only required to ascertain the "views" of the State Government before granting affiliation and that it cannot be characterized as approval. It was held 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 W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 43 force. However, such provisions are not seen available in the Regulations 18 or 2020 or the APH 2020-2021. There is no task force also. Similarly, 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, etc. would not be applicable to the factual circumstances of the case. In these cases also, it is seen that the University has only been insisting on the requirements prescribed by AICTE 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 the 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.
31. 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.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 44 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:
" xxx The mushroom growth of educational institutionscannot be permitted. The observation made by the High Court that unfit institution will automatically shut down the courses is not the judicious approach warranted in such matters. It is not only that the requirement of the locality should exist but it has to be ensured that only the standard educational institutions should come up and once they come up, they should be able to survive. A large number of Institutions are not to be opened up to die an unnatural death on the principle of survival of the fittest and due to non - availability of teachers / students. Standard of education cannot be compromised and sacrificed by permitting institutions to come up in a reckless manner without there being any requirement for them at a particular place. There is a need to strengthen the existing system of education not to make it weak by further complicating the issues by wholly unwarranted approach as the one adopted by the High Court. It cannot be left at the choice of the institution to open the course whenever or wherever they desire. The High Court has also erred in observing that the seats remaining vacant could not be the relevant criteria for refusal of NOC.
The contention of the college relying on the judgment in Adhiyaman's case, Jayagokulam Trust case, Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya's case, Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai's case, was repelled and it was observed that even in those judgments it was held that provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges like the engineering colleges and the conditions for grant and continuation of such affiliation by the University shall, however, remain operative but the conditions for affiliation will have to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 45 in respect of the matter entrusted to it under S.10 of the AICTE/Central Act. In para.26 of the judgment it was held as follows:
26. xxxxA large number of institutions have already been permitted to function in the State by the Central Bodies. It is painful to note that at several places mushroom growth of the institutions had been permitted by such bodies in an illegal manner. In case there is no check or balance and the power is exercised in an unbridled reckless manner, the sufferer is going to be the standard of education. At the same time, there is a necessity of good institutions with new technology, but at the same time mushroom growth of the substandard institutions cannot be permitted. There has to be a requirement of educational institutions in the locality and that is one of the main considerations.
32. In the present case, the statement filed by the learned Government Pleader gives a picture of the deplorable condition of various Engineering Colleges furnishing the actual intake, pass percentage, etc. Therefore, this Court would reiterate the following observations in the common judgment dated 02.08.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 16479 of 2019 and connected cases:
"It is also relevant to note that the alarming number of writ petitions coming up before this court complaining the lack of infra-structure in professional colleges on account of which large number of students are seeking transfer or re-allocation to other colleges would show that the anxiety expressed by the Division Benches of this court in 2011 and 2012 were not misplaced. It is high time the AICTE and other regulatory bodies are to take remedial action to protect the student community and to strictly adhere to the regulations which are in force. "
33. As far as the order dated 22.06.2019 issued by the Government is concerned, NOC would be required only in cases where it is prescribed by the AICTE. University itself has found that there is no requirement of NOC from the Government for starting additional courses, when new norms are determined on 24.06.2020. Moreover, it is required under the regulations of AICTE or APH, for starting new courses or new programmes in existing institution; that being so, in W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 46 the absence of any provision of law which insists an NOC from the Government for affiliation of additional courses/new programmes in existing colleges, the order passed by the Government is unwarranted. It shall therefore stand set aside.
34. By way of Ext.R1(c) dated 24.06.2020 which specifically mentions courses also, the provisions relating to requirement of NOC from the Government has already been deleted; requirement of NBA Accreditation is seen modified with pass percentage and academic excellence. Though the said decision is not under challenge in these Writ Petitions, it is necessary to determine whether the University can invoke the criteria fixed for affiliation by way of the decision in Ext.R1(c) without issuing it as an order. In the judgment in W.P.(C.).No.26206 of 2016, relied on by Sri. Santhosh Mathew, this Court interfered with the contract awarded to the 2nd lowest tenderer, on the basis of a Government order giving preference to Society, on the ground that the Government order was neither published in the gazette nor mentioned in the notification inviting tender. In the judgment in Harla v. State of Rajastan, relied on therein, it was held that the law by which a subject was being punished should have been made known to him, by exercising due diligence and that the mere passing of a resolution without anything more, shall not affect the life of those who are unaware of it and that for a law to come into being, it should be published. According to the learned Counsel for the University, the decisions of the syndicate are not published and it is not necessary that it should be published. But in this case ,it is relevant to note that the norms W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 47 fixed by the syndicate are in the area which required to be covered by the Statutes as provided in Section 63(2) of the University Act. Statutes are to be framed and published in the gazette. In the absence of Statute, it would be the minimum requirement that the decisions relating to affiliation are issued at least in the form of an order and is made known to those concerned, in order to have transparency in the procedure. Therefore, I find force in the contention of Sri.Santhosh Mathew. It is necessary for the University to publish the norms at least by issuing it in the form of an order, making all those concerned aware of it. If at all any norms are relaxed that can only be after issuing an order incorporating the revised norms.
35. In W.P.(C) No. 11778 of 2020 and connected cases petitioners had pointed out that some of the Colleges which are already granted affiliation based on NBA accreditation in a single course, were having pass percentage much below
50. Therefore, the University has already been directed to examine whether insisting of pass percentage of 50 for the whole institution would be more onerous than insisting NBA accreditation in one course and see that one section of colleges is not subjected to discrimination by adopting different yardsticks for the purpose of affiliation.
36. In this context, it is also relevant to note that Annexure I of the APH deals with recommended short and Medium Term Perceptive for Engineering Education in India by the Committee to provide National Perspective Plan. Recommendation no.4 therein reads as follows:
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 48 "Traditional Engineering disciplines such as Mechanical, Electrical, civil and Electronics Engineering capacity utilization around 40% as opposed to Computer Science and Engineering, Aerospace engineering, Mechatronics, being in the high 60%. This is clear pointer that the demand lies in emerging technologies as opposed to traditional Engineering. We recommend that no additional seats are approved in Traditional Engineering areas, but institutions need to be encouraged to convert current capacity in traditional disciplines to emerging new technologies."
37. In Annexure 14 of the APH which deals with -"Initiatives of AICTE to improve quality of Technical Education" clause 7 is: "Mandatory Accreditation" (Accreditation has been made compulsory for increase of intake/starting of new courses). As per Clause 8, Perspective Plan is: "Based on Committee's report, two years' holiday for new Engineering Institutions and Pharmacy Institutions and additional seats, except for changing to EMERGING AREAS.
38. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are ordered as follows:
(i) Order passed by the Government on 22.06.2019 is set aside;
(ii) in view of the decision of the syndicate on 24.06.2020 in Ext.R1(c), revising the norms stipulated in the order dated 10.06.2020, specifically stating its applicability to programmes as well as courses, it is not necessary to go into the validity of order dated 17.01.2020 or the order dated 10.06.2020;
(iii) however the norms fixed in Ext.R1(c) decision require reconsideration; there shall be a direction to the University to take a decision afresh on the question of affiliation of the new/additional courses/programme taking note of the recommendation in Annexure I and clause 7 of Annexure 14 of the Approval Process Handbook, as well as the clarification letter issued by the AICTE on 26.02.2020 also, as expeditiously as possible and to pass an order W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 49 incorporating the decision;
(iv) University shall thereafter pass orders on the applications submitted for affiliation; in the event of rejection they shall be informed of the reasons thereof;
(v) In case affiliation is denied to any of the petitioners for want of NOC from the Government alone, the University shall issue orders granting affiliation;
(vi) In case affiliation is denied for the only reason that NOC was not issued prior to submission of application for approval, the University shall pass orders on the applications submitted/to be submitted for NOC on merits and issue NOC, in case there is no legal impediment, and pass orders on affiliation without any further delay; in case applications for closure are pending that shall also be finalised.
These Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/rkc W.P(C).No.12314/2020 & 13563/2020 50 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12314/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT
VISITING COMMITTEE OF AICTE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL DATED 30.4.2019
GRANTED BY THE AICTE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION
GRANTED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER COLLEGE FOR
THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-20 ON 15.5.2019 BY
AICTE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTION TEAM TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.8.2019 IN
W.P.(C) NO.18319 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT)
NO.1039/2019/H.EDN. DATED 22.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER
NO.100/2020/KTU DATED 17.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION (GRANT OF APPROVALS FOR
TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS) REGULATIONS 2020.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE
1ST PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR OF 1ST
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY ON 11.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
TO THE REGISTRAR OF 1ST RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P10 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
TO THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P10 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 51
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFILIATION APPLICATION
REPORT DOWNLOADED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
FORM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR OF 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY
EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF AFFILIATION FEE AND
INSPECTION FEE.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFILIATION APPLICATION
DEFICIENCY REPORT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
COLLEGE DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER
NO.842/2020/KTU DATED 10.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL
GRANTED BY AICTE ON 15.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ACADEMIC CALENDAR
ISSUED BY THE AICTE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR
2020-21.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.7.2018
IN WA 1381 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.7.2008
IN W.P.(C) NO.18774 OF 2008.
EXHIBIT P19 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER FOR CONDUCTING B.TECH
(AERONAUTICAL) ENGINEERING COURSE.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
AICTE APPROVAL HANDBOOK FOR THE YEAR 2019-
20.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE
DATED 13.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AICTE
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR THE YEAR 2019-20.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AICTE RE
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR THE YEAR 2019-20.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 52
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
AICTE APPROVAL HANDBOOK FOR THE YEAR 2019-
20.
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
AICTE APPROVAL HANDBOOK FOR THE YEAR 2019-
20.
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AICTE
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR THE YEAR 2020-21.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PRIVATE
SELFFINANCING COLLEGES IN WHICH THERE WAS
NO APPLICANT ALLOTTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION FOR WANT OF
STUDENTS OPTING FOR SUCH COLLEGES DURING
2018-19.
ANNEXURE-II TRUE COPY OF THE ACTUAL ALLOTMENT MADE BY
THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
DURING 2018-19.
ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT DETAILS OF THE
COLLEGES IN WHICH ALLOTMENTS WERE MADE BY
THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
DURING 2019-20.
ANNEXURE-IV TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(Rt.)No.1039/2019/HEDN
DATED 22.06.2019.
ANNEXURE-V TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.978/2020/KTU DATED
10.07.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
APPROVAL PROCESS HANDBOOK.
EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
DATED 20.3.2020 OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
SYNDICATE.
EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
DATED 24.6.2020 OF THE SYNDICATE OF THE
UNIVERSITY.
EXT.R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.26- 23/2010-
NBA DATED 16.5.2017 SENT BY THE NATIONAL
BOARD OF ACCREDITATION TO THE PRINCIPAL,
THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING, KOLLAM.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 53
EXT.R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.26-25- 2010-
NBA DATED 19.1.2018 SENT BY THE NATIONAL
BOARD OF ACCREDITATION TO THE PRINCIPAL,
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, TRIVANDRUM.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 54
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13563/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF
THE PETITIONER COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL DATED
30/04/2019 GRANTED TO PETITIONER COLLEGE BY
AICTE FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-20.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/05/2019
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF 1ST RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION
ORDER NO.KTU/A/456/2015 DATED 15/05/2019.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02/08/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.1039/2019/H.EDN. DATED 22/06/2019.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.100/2020/KTU
DATED 17/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE AICTE (GRANT OF
APPROVALS FOR TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS)
REGULATIONS 2020 NOTIFIED ON 04/02/2020.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/03/2020
(WITHOUT ENCLOSURE) BY THE PETITIONER
COLLEGE SUBMITTED TO THE REGISTRAR OF 1ST
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER COLLEGE RECEIVED ON 29/06/2020
BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P10 THE AFFILIATION APPLICATION REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AFFILIATION
FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY FOR
ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-21 AS DOWNLOADED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 55
EXHIBIT P11 A COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR OF 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY ON
20/05/2020.
EXHIBIT P12 THE AFFILIATION APPLICATION DEFICIENCY
REPORT OF THE PETITIONER COLLEGE DOWNLOADED
FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.842/2020/KTU
DATED 10/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DEFICIENCY
REPORT OF THE PETITIONER COLLEGE SHOWING
NIL DEFICIENCY.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE RE--
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OF THE AICTE IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONER COLLEGE FOR ACADEMIC YEAR
2020-21.
EXHIBIT P16 A COPY OF THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL GRANTED
BY AICTE ON 15/06/2020 TO THE PETITIONER
COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P17 A COPY OF THE REVISED ACADEMIC CALENDAR
ISSUED BY THE AICTE.
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON INTERIM ORDER
DATED 29/06/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO0.12314/2020
& CONNECTED CASES.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PRIVATE
SELFFINANCING COLLEGES IN WHICH THERE WAS
NO APPLICANT ALLOTTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION FOR WANT OF
STUDENTS OPTING FOR SUCH COLLEGES DURING
2018-19.
ANNEXURE-II TRUE COPY OF THE ACTUAL ALLOTMENT MADE BY
THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
DURING 2018-19.
ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT DETAILS OF THE
COLLEGES IN WHICH ALLOTMENTS WERE MADE BY
THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
DURING 2019-20.
W.P(C).No.12314/2020 &
13563/2020 56
ANNEXURE-IV TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(Rt.)No.1039/2019/HEDN
DATED 22.06.2019.
ANNEXURE-V TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.978/2020/KTU DATED
10.07.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
APPROVAL PROCESS HANDBOOK ISSUED BY AICTE.
EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE SUB-COMMITTEE DATED 20.3.2020.
EXT.R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE SYNDICATE DATED 24.6.2020.
EXT.R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO.26-
23/2010-NBA DATED 16.5.2017 SENT BY THE NBA
ACCREDITATION TO PRINCIPAL, THANGAL KUNJU
MUSALIAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM.
EXT.R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO.26-25-
2010-NBA DATED 19.1.2018 SENT BY THE
NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION TO THE
PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
TRIVANDRUM.