Apj Abdul Kalam Technological University & Anr. vs Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology & Ors.

Technological University Act, 2015: s.14(6) – Whether High Court was correct in holding that in the absence of the Statutes, recourse was available only to the Vice Chancellor under s.14(6) – Held: s.14(6) says that in the absence of the Statute, it is the ViceChancellor who has the power to regulate any matter which is required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations – It cannot be interpreted to mean that the Syndicate itself will be powerless in the absence of the Statutes and that the Vice Chancellor will have the power – In any case, the language of s.14(6) is such that the Vice Chancellor may first regulate the matter by issuing directions and thereafter submit the same “as soon as may be” for the approval of the Board of Governors or other authority or body concerned – By virtue of s.30(2)(iii), the Syndicate can be taken to be the “other authority” referred to in s.14(6) – Therefore, it was not necessary for the Vice Chancellor to fall back upon s.14(6) on the ground that there were no Statutes at that time – High Court erred in holding that in the absence of the Statutes, recourse was available only to the Vice Chancellor under s.14(6), overlooking for a moment that the power under s.30(2)(iii) would not become otiose due to the absence of the Statutes.

APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015: Role of appellant-University vis-a-vis AICTE – Enhancement of norms and standards for admission as prescribed by AICTE – Held: While it is not open to the Universities to dilute the norms and standards prescribed by AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe enhanced norms – Universities.

Universities: Power of Universities to incorporate any additional conditions for affiliation – Case laws discussed. AICTE – Development in AICTE after 2012 – After the advent of AICTE Regulations, 2012, the applications for extension of approvals are processed by AICTE only online, merely on the basis of the self-disclosure made by the colleges in their online applications – Though AICTE has reserved to itself the power to conduct inspections and take penal action against colleges for false declarations, such penal action does not serve any purpose for the students who get admitted to colleges which have necessary infrastructure only on paper and not on site – The Regulations of the AICTE are silent as to how the students will get compensated, when penal action is taken against colleges which host false information online in their applications.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Section 63(2) deals with the grant of affiliation or recognition for additional courses to an affiliated college or recognized institution. This provision does not deal with the laying down of norms and standards. Section 30(1) vests upon the Syndicate, the executive powers of the University, including the general superintendence and control over the institutions of the University. The source of power for the Syndicate to prescribe norms and standards for affiliation, is Section 30(2). Section 30(2) begins with the words “subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes”. So, if there is something in the Act or the Statutes which regulates or controls the power of the Syndicate, then the Syndicate may be bound by such prescription. But if there is nothing in the Act/Statutes or if there are no Statutes at all, then it cannot be said that the power itself is unavailable. The power of the Syndicate to propose norms and standards flows out of the Act and not out of the University Statutes. Therefore, the absence of Statutes, till they were made for the first time on 07.08.2020, did not mean that the power under Section 30(2) could not have been exercised. [Paras 28, 34][749-E-F; 751-G-H; 752-C-E]

1.2 Section 42 of the Act which speaks about the issue of Statutes and the matters for which provisions may be made in the Statutes, makes it clear that “the conditions and procedures for affiliation of Colleges and for withdrawing the affiliation of colleges”, is one of the matters that could be provided for in the Statutes. Therefore, the Statutes can provide for the conditions and procedure for affiliation. The absence of the Statutes (till 07.08.2020) would only mean the absence of Statute-stipulated conditions and procedure for affiliation, but not the absence of the very power of the Syndicate flowing out of Section 30(2)(iii). Therefore, it was not necessary for the Vice Chancellor to fall back upon Section 14(6) on the ground that there were no Statutes at that time. [Para 35][752-F-H]

OF MGMT. & ENGG. TECH.

1.3 Section 14(6) says that in the absence of a Statute, it is the Vice Chancellor who has the power to regulate any matter which is required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations. It cannot be interpreted to mean that the Syndicate itself will be powerless in the absence of the Statutes and that the Vice Chancellor will have the power. In any case, the language of Section 14(6) is such that the Vice Chancellor may first regulate the matter by issuing directions and thereafter submit the same “as soon as may be” for the approval of the Board of Governors or other authority or body concerned. By virtue of Section 30(2)(iii), the Syndicate can be taken to be the “other authority” referred to in Section 14(6). If that is done, it can be seen that it was the Syndicate, chaired by the Vice Chancellor which took the impugned decisions in its meetings and hence the prescription of norms by the Syndicate, chaired by the Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be ultra vires the Act. [Para 36][753-A-D]

1.4 When the Statutes have not prescribed any conditions for affiliation but have left it to the Syndicate to take care of matters relating to affiliation, the function of the Syndicate to lay down norms and standards by virtue of the powers conferred by Section 30(2), is made free of any fetters. Therefore, the norms prescribed by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 24.06.2020 under the Chairmanship of the Vice Chancellor could not have been taken exception to. After all, the norms which the Colleges have objected to, merely seek to ensure that at least 50% of the outgoing students had passed their respective courses and that the Institution should have the most recent academic audit overall score of “Good”, apart from having an actual intake of more than 50% of the sanctioned intake in the preceding three years on an average. The High Court was in error in holding on the first issue that the resolutions passed by the Syndicate prescribing norms and standards for the grant of affiliation for additional courses, are ultra vires the Act. [Paras 38, 39, 40][754-B-C; C-D-; E-F]

2. The law is now fairly well settled that while it is not open to the Universities to dilute the norms and standards prescribed by AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe enhanced norms. [Para 47][756-G-H]

3.1 After the advent of AICTE Regulations, 2012, the applications for extension of approvals are processed by AICTE only online, merely on the basis of the self-disclosure made by the colleges in their online applications. If all infrastructural facilities as prescribed by AICTE are found to be available on paper (whether available at site or not), the AICTE grants extension of approval. Chapter II of the Approval Process Handbook for 2020-21 makes it clear that the extension of approval will be based on self-disclosure. Paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit of the AICTE contains an extract of Clause 2.15.4(b) of APH 2020-21, which confirms that the assessment is based on self-disclosure on AICTE web portal. [Paras 56, 57] [760-D-E; G-H]

3.2 Though AICTE has reserved to itself the power to conduct inspections and take penal action against colleges for false declarations, such penal action does not mean anything and does not serve any purpose for the students who get admitted to colleges which have necessary infrastructure only on paper and not on site. The Regulations of the AICTE are silent as to how the students will get compensated, when penal action is taken against colleges which host false information online in their applications to AICTE. Ultimately, it is the universities which are obliged to issue degrees and whose reputation is inextricably intertwined with the fate and performance of the students, that may have to face the music and hence their role cannot be belittled. Today, even the universities are being ranked according to the quality of standards maintained by them. [Para 58][761-A-C]

Modern Dental College & Research Centre and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. (2016) 7 SCC 353:[2016] 3 SCR 579 – followed

Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8 SCC 676:[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253; Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (2013) 8 SCC OF MGMT. & ENGG. TECH.

271:[2013] 6 SCR 1054; State of T.N. and Another v. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others (2004) 4 SCC 513: [2004] 2 SCR 1218; Visveswaraiah Technological University and Another v. Krishnendu Halder and Others (2011) 4 SCC 606: [2011] 2 SCR 1007;

Mahatma Gandhi University and Another v. Jikku Paul and Others. (2011) 15 SCC 242 – relied on

Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and Another (2000)

5 SCC 231: [2000] 2 SCR 1234; Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College v. State of Bihar and Others (2009) 16 SCC 309 – distinguished.

Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai and Another v. Chattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University and Another (2015) 11 SCC 291 : [2014] 12 SCR 796 – Not correct law

R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and Others AIR 1964 SC 1823: 1964 SCR 368; State of A.P. v. K.

Purushotham Reddy and others (2003) 9 SCC 564: [2003] 2 SCR 832; Osmania University Teachers’ Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (1987) 4 SCC 671: [1987] 3 SCR 949; Bharati

Vidyapeeth (deemed university) and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2004) 11 SCC 755: [2004]

2 SCR 775; State of T.N. and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others (1995)

4 SCC 104: [1995] 2 SCR 1075 – referred to