Telangana Education Act, 1982 – s.20 – Respondent-College applied to the appellant-University for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) to start the D.Pharma course in their college during the academic year 2018-2019 – University declined NOC on the ground that as per the Government’s policy and perspective plan, NOC was not to be granted for new institutions and new courses – Challenged by respondent – High Court allowed the writ petition – On appeal, held: s.20 deals with permission for the establishment of educational institutions – s.20(1) provides that competent authority shall conduct survey to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction as to how many institutions are operating in the area and whether there is any further requirement of opening educational institutions/new courses in existing colleges – s.20(3) provides that any educational agency applying for permission u/s.20(2) shall before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned that there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality – In case there are already large number of institutions imparting education in the area, the competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC, for permitting an institution to come up in the area – s.20 intends to prevent the mushroom growth of the institutions/courses – There is already a paucity of well-qualified teachers in a large number of institutions and the available seats in Pharmacy course in the Hyderabad city are remaining vacant every year in spite of the reduction in number of seats – Thus, in the instant case when 30 institutions in Hyderabad city are already running Pharmacy course, the refusal to grant NOC by the University was wholly justified – Policy decision of the State Government cannot be said to be illegal – High Court erred in holding that the University was bound to issue NOC – AICTE Act, 1987 – ss.2(g), 23(1) r/w ss.10 and 11. All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approvals for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 4.18 – If repugnant to Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of 2017 Regulations – Held: Regulation 4.18 cannot be said to be repugnant to Regulations
5.2 and 5.3 of the 2017 Regulations – Jawaharlal Nehru Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, 2017.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 deals with permission for the establishment of educational institutions. Section 20(1) provides that competent authority shall conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction. Section 20(3) provides that any educational agency applying for permission under section 20(2) shall before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned that there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality. The survey is conducted so as to identify the educational needs of the locality viz., as to how many institutions are operating in the area and whether there is any further requirement of opening educational institutions/new courses in existing colleges. In case there are already a large number of institutions imparting education in the area the competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC, for permitting an institution to come up in the area. [Para 12][110-H; 111-A; 112-G-H; 113-A]
1.2 The provisions contained in Section 20 of the 1982 Act are wholesome and intend not only to cater to the educational needs of the area but also prevent the mushroom growth of the institutions/courses. In case institutions are permitted to run each and every course that may affect the very standard of education and may ultimately result in sub-standard education. There is already a paucity of well-qualified teachers in a large number of institutions and the available seats in Pharmacy course in the Hyderabad city are remaining vacant every year in spite of the reduction in a number of seats. It had not been possible to fill up the available vacancies due to non-availability of students. Thus, it is apparent that when 30 institutions in Hyderabad city are already running Pharmacy course, the refusal to grant NOC by the University was wholly justified. [Para 13][113-B-D]
1.3 Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of Jawaharlal Nehru Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, 2017 provide that a new college proposing to offer technical education with the University affiliation shall first seek a NOC from the University before applying to AICTE/PCI/any other statutory body. Regulation 5.3 provides that the permission for starting of new programmes in the existing colleges shall be considered by the University as per the priority/policy of the State Government if any. The High Court erred in law in holding that it was not permissible for the State Government to frame such a policy and the University was bound to issue NOC. [Paras 14, 16][113-D-E; 115-G-H]
1.4 The Government of Telangana vide its communication to the All India Council of Technical Education Regulations (AICTE) had expressed serious concern at the proliferation and establishment of technical institutions and the unprecedented expansion in the intake in all the courses offered by all the technical institutions coming within the purview of AICTE. Data was given in the tabular form including that of the Pharmacy. It was pointed out that in the year 2015-16 sanctioned intake in Pharmacy was 11490, seats remained vacant were 4035, in academic session 2016-17 sanctioned intake was 9226, seats vacant were 1892. [Para 17][116-A-C]
2. The AICTE Act, 1987 defines technical education in section 2(g) to mean programmes of education inter alia in Pharmacy also. There is no provision in the said Act to the contrary to curtail the power of the State as well as of University. The AICTE has framed the Regulations under the Act of 1987 in the exercise of the power conferred under section 23(1) read with sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 1987 called the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approvals for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016. Regulation 4.18 provides that the State Government/UT Administration and the Affiliating University/Board, as the case may be, shall forward their views along with the perspective plan of the State and then the application shall be processed for grant of approval. Regulation 4.18 cannot be said to be repugnant to Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of the University, and there is no repugnancy in AICTE Act and Section
20 of the Act of 1982. [Paras 18, 19][116-D-F; 117-C]
3. The decision taken by the State Government as apparent from facts reflected in perspective plan is based on a survey and supported by the data. Considering the fact that seats are going abegging. Even in 2017-18 in the Pharmacy course, data has been given that among 56 colleges affiliated to the University, 30 were in the city of Hyderabad and out of total 1630 seats, 173 had remained vacant. Thus, it is apparent that a large number of seats remained vacant. Not more than 30 seats can be allotted to one institution. The mushroom growth of educational institutions cannot be permitted. 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. The decision of State had been taken in an objective manner and the same is based on the consideration of data and could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever. The policy decision of the State Government cannot be said to be illegal and on that basis, the University has taken the decision in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 1982. In the instant case, the matter was about the proposed location and affiliation, out of 36 Pharmacy colleges in the State of Telangana and 30 are located in Hyderabad city alone which are more than adequate in number. Thus, rightly decision has been taken not to start another new course at the proposed location at Hyderabad city. [Paras 21, 27 and 30][119-D, H; 120-A; 127-B-C] Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society (2005) 3 SCC 212 : [2005] 2 SCR 302 – relied on.
State of T.N v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104 : [1995] 2 SCR 1075 ; Jaya Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Higher Education Department,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (2000) 5 SCC 231 : [2000] 2 SCR 1234 ; State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
(2006) 9 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 638 ; Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Education & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 3 SCC 15 : [1996] 2 SCR 422 ; Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekananda Technical University (2015) 11 SCC 291 : [2014] 12 SCR 796 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.