B.K. Somasekhara, J.@mdashThese matters involving common questions of facts and law are heard together and being disposed of with this common judgment.
2. Notwithstanding each case seeking reliefs by the petitioners, W.P. No. 19652/96 being the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) involving same important questions the determination of which having bearing on the results of the other cases, is being taken up initially. With the representation of several advocates for the parties on both the sides, the stipulated grounds in the respective cases in the form of contentions, counter-contentions, and the rejoinders were, with all learning, presented by Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Satyanarayana Prasad, Mr. B. Sudhakar Reddy, Mr. R. Subhash Reddy and Mr. Raghunandan for the petitioners and Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao for 1st respondent, Mr. K. Ramakantha Reddy, Mr. I. Dakshinamurthy, Mr. B. Nalini Kumar, Mr. C.Malla Reddy, Mr. A Gopal Rao, Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, Mr. V. Rajagopal, Mr.P. Kamalakar, Mr. M. Subramanyam Kurella, Mr. Innayya Reddy, Mr. K. Ramakanth Reddy, G.P. for Higher Education, Mr. T.S. Harinath and the learned Advocate General.
3. Having heard the learned Advocates above, and with the pleadings and the material papers forming the basis of these cases, we have proposed to consider and determine the following questions:
1. Whether the petition (W.P.No. 19652/96) involves public interest (PIL) and maintainable as PIL?
2. (a) Whether the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (in short, AICTEA) is constitutionally valid?
(b) Whether it conflicts with the provisions of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act 3 of 1956), (in short UGC Act)?
(c) Whether it conflicts with Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 (in short, APU Act)?
3. (a) Whether All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes) Regulations, 1994 (in short, the Regulations) are framed by the Council with the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of AICTEA?
(b) (i) Whether the Council has powers to frame regulations?
(ii) If so, whether they have force of law?
(c) Whether they are inconsistent or repugnant to any of the provisions of AICTEA?
(d) In particular, whether the Regulation No. 4 conflicts with the object and purpose of AICTEA?
(e) Whether the Regulations are repugnant to the autonomy of Universities under the A.P. Universities Act. If so, to what extent?
4. Whether the approval of the Council under AICTEA is necessary
(i) for starting new technical institutions;
(ii) introduction of new courses or programmes by all the institutions, colleges and authorities including the Universities?
5. Whether the Council has powers to provide the guidelines for the admission of students to the technical institutions and universities imparting technical education? If so, whether they are binding on such institutions and Universities?
6. (a) Whether the Council has powers to frame regulations?
(b) If so, whether they have force of law
(c) Whether they are inconsistent or repugnant to any of the provisions of AICTEA?
7. Whether the approval of the Council is necessary,
(a)to start,
(i) Technical Institutions?
(ii) University Technical Department?
(b) to introduce any course or programme
(i) by any Technical Institution
(ii) by Universities or deemed Universities
(iii) by University Department, or
(iv) by the College
(v) by the Government
(vi) by any agency or College
(c) to continue to admit students for degree or diploma course or programmes by any
(i) Technical Institution
(ii) University
(iii) deemed University
(iv) University Department
(v) Government
(vi) any agency or the College
(d) To increase or vary the approval regarding the intake capacity of seats;
8. (a) Whether the approval of the Council is necessary as a condition
precedent for affiliation of Technical Institutions, Colleges or Institutions by the University?
(b) If so, whether it is mandatory or compulsory for the Universities to accord affiliation wherever the approval is accorded by the Council?
(c) If not, when and under what circumstances the affiliation can be refused by the University in such cases.
9. (a) Whether the Government can refuse to recognise such institutions
or colleges in spite of approval by the Council and affiliation by the University? (b) If so, when and under what circumstances, the refusal can be made?
10. (a) Whether the approval supra by the Council can be withdrawn? (b) If so, under what circumstances and how?
11. Whether the Technical Institutions, Universities, Deemed Universities or the Colleges
(a) not at all applying for approval required under Regulation 4 uptil now,
(b) applying after regulations and before cut off dates
(c) applying after cut off dates
(d) applying after the writ petitions and after appeals
can be either accorded approval by the Council or affiliated by the University or recognised by the Government.
12. What order or directions to be issued in each of the Writ Petitions and Appeals?
4. The petitioner in the PIL (W.P.19652/96) claiming to be a public spirited citizen and a social worker and the Secretary of Deccan Development Organisation, interested in proper maintenance of orderliness in the society complains that any amount of irregularities are taking place in Educational Institutions in Andhra Pradesh, the events in the recent past reflecting the falling standards in the educational institutions and the role of higher-ups managing the educational system, having learnt that many Technical Institutions imparting MBA course in the State do not possess technical approval from the Council for technical education and that they are acting in violation of Reg.No. 4 of the Regulations and allotting students to such institutions and affiliating them without the approval of the Council and that most of the Colleges and Institutions have managed with the University authorities and the educational authorities and got their names included in the prospectus issued by the 1st respondent, Osmania University, as if they are entitled to conduct MBA course for the year 1996-97. He has also complained that the institutions at respondents 6 to 29, having no approval from the Council, admitted students for the year 1995-96 who have completed one year of course, their fate being in jeopardy. Therefore, he has sought for the intervention of this Court to take stock of the situation and restrain the admission of students into MBA Course for the year 1996-97 into such institutions having no approval of the Council.
5. Respondent No. 1 the Osmania University, Hyderabad, Respondent Nos. 2, 6 to 9, the constituents of Osmania University, Respondents 4 and 5 the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad and the Commissioner of Technical Education, Hyderabad respectively, have taken common objections and grounds by filing common affidavit. They have also submitted the written arguments. They have contended that the petition is frivolous and not maintainable as a PIL, University is not a Technical Institute within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the AICTEA, is not required to obtain approval of the Council for any of the purposes under the provisions of the AICTEA, Section 10(k) of the Act is directly not mandatory, Reg. No. 4 of the Regulations is inconsistent with Section 10(k) of the Act being beyond the scope of the main provisions of the Act and therefore invalid, the provisions of AICTEA are only directory and can also be relaxed, such an approval either u/s 10(k) of the AICTEA or Regulation No. 4 of the Regulations and any other guideline including the admission of students to MBA course to maintain the uniformity in the standards in the technical education touching upon the powers of the University to affiliate the colleges and the institutions offends the autonomy of the University enjoined under the provisions of the Universities Act and therefore to that extent void and not binding on the University, the matter is pertaining to selection, allotment and admission of students falling within the Entry No. 25 of List III of the Schedule of the Constitution or outside the scope of Entry 66 of List I and therefore the Regulations framed by the Council u/s 23 of the AICTEA are beyond the scope of the ambit of Entry 66 of List I and therefore not binding on the University, the Univerecity having followed the norms and the standards prescribed for the technical education in the Technical Department of the University and the colleges under the UGC Act is not expected to obtain approval of the Council for the same purpose or to accord or reject the affiliation of such colleges and institutions within its autonomous powers as per the statutes, laws and regulations of the University, the UGC Act making no such regulations in regard to the Universities the AICTEA either under its provisions or by framing regulations cannot subject the Universities to its control, that the Council itself has violated its norms and conditions while approving such colleges or institutions not upto the standards prescribed by the Council and not approving such colleges or institutions maintaining expected standards and at any rate neither the provisions of the AICTEA nor the Regulations framed thereunder can be taken by the Universities except as guidelines and not as a mandate. It is complained that the Council which is required u/s 10(1)(k) of the Act to consult the University before granting approval has never done it, thereby acting as a superpower rendering the University irrelevant and making it a non-entity in its own area and the jurisdiction conferred on it by a valid State law, that by imposing the condition in Reg.No. 4 to seek the approval of the Council to admit the students to the Colleges of the University has practically taken over the academic programmes and activities of the University, the Council claiming that it has laid down certain norms and standards in respect of the Management courses has not communicated them to the university for regulating either admissions to such courses or acting in any particular manner with respect to matters covered by the Central Act and therefore it is not open to anybody to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for adjudication of hypothetical questions and that the petition is misconceived and without any substance and therefore liable to be dismissed.
6. The AICTE (The Council), the 3rd respondent has supported the petitioner in regard to the allegations and the contentions. It has joined issues with the respondent No. 1 by denying its contentions by maintaining the validity of the AICTEA, the Regulations framed thereunder and the powers of the Council vested in it under the provisions of the Act. It is contended that the approval of the Council is necessary for any technical institution including the University to start technical institutions and University technical department and to introduce any course or programme, to continue to admit students for degree or diploma course or programmes, to increase or vary the approval regarding the intake capacity of the seats by virtue of Section 10(k) of the Act and Reg. No. 4, that the Regulations have been framed by the Council by virtue of the powers u/s 23 of the Act wherein the Act being the Central Act and the Regulations framed thereunder would prevail over all other Acts and Regulations by the State, Universities, etc., and any provisions therein which are repugnant to them are void and inoperative. It is denied that the norms and conditions laid down by the Council are not communicated to the Universities and all the concerned in regard to technical institutions including the State Government by addressing letter and therefore it was to the knowledge of the respondent No. 1 and others to seek approval of the Council as required therein. It was clearly intimated therein that no admissions shall be made without the approval of AICTE and a schedule was issued to them to apply for approval indicating the procedure and the time limit to seek such approvals. In spite of this the respondent No. 1 issued the Prospectus for admissions of the students in certain institutions for which no approval had been accorded by the Council and affiliations to such colleges or institutions were being given without such approval. In regard to the applications made and pending by certain colleges or institutions, some of them have been considered and approved, some of them are pending consideration and being processed and some of them have been rejected for valid grounds. An interim order is also passed in W.A. No. 1117/96 by this Court in regard to the admission of the students to the institutions and to allot candidates for the colleges regarding which approval is accorded by the Council and to the institutions to approach the Council seeking approval and the Council requires some time to consider such applications for approval. Regarding the applications received late, they can be considered only for the year 1997-98. Therefore the interim order of the Court in the appeal dated 16-10-1996 is sought to be set aside. In regard to the approval granted to certain institutions in a particular manner as alleged in the additional counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent, the circumstances under which they were to be done by virtue of the orders of the Court in certain proceeding''s, the Council has offered explanation by filing additional counter-affidavit and as a whole the writ petition is sought to be dismissed as against the Council.
7. The respondents 10,11,15 and 16 by filing a common counter-affidavit have pointed out that the Council has accorded approval to them for previous years and have applied for the extension of the approval for subsequent year ending with the academic year of 1995-96 which they have received subsequently and therefore the grievance of the petitioner about such approval in regard to these institutions does not exist and the writ petition may be dismissed against them.
8. The respondent No. 12 claims to be a Muslim minority educational institution recognised by the Government of A.P. and affiliated to the respondent No. 1 University. It started the MBA course regarding which the 1st respondent accorded permission in the year 1988 to have the course for two years. Having satisfied with the fulfillment of all the requirements to run the course by this respondent, the University has been extending affiliation every year thereafter. It has also satisfied the norms and standards fixed by AICTE and complied with the conditions imposed by the Council as detailed in paras 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit" and its admission of the students in MBA course is only in accordance with the conditions of the University and the Council and that it is also willing to comply with all such conditions and directions of the Council. There are no irregularities in such admissions by this respondent. After the AICTEA was passed, the Regulations were framed on 31-10-1994 and so far the existing colleges have not been advised by any of the authorities to seek prior approval of the Council. It is contended that the Act and the Regulations have no application to the existing colleges and the courses which were commenced prior to the framing of the Regulations and the Act. Although no such prior approval of the Council is required in regard to this respondent, by way of abundant caution, it applied to the Council for approval in July, 1996 to continue the course and it is pending. As this respondent commenced the course in MBA since the year 1988 as above and continued it, the allegation of the petitioner about the non-obtaining of the approval of the Council for such course or admission of students is devoid of any merits. However, this respondent expressing the willingness to make up any deficiency, if found, has sought to dismiss the petition.
9. The 13th respondent pleading that it is a reputed college imparting education exclusively for the women for the last four decades fully aided by the Government of A.P., having sufficient building and infrastructure etc., affiliated by the University, having advised that the approval of the Council is a must for continuing the MBA Courses has made an application fulfilling all the requirements has sought for the directions to the Council to grant approval as prayed.
10. The 4th respondent has pleaded that it is imparting MBA courses for the last four years with the approval of the Osmania University and the Council and admitting students allotted by the University and even the extension of the approval for the year 1996-97 having been granted by the Council, the allegations in the petition against this respondent is devoid of any merit and seeks the dismissal of the writ petition.
11. The 17th respondent has contended that the petitioner has no locus standi and the writ petition is misconceived, liable to be dismissed in limine. It has pleaded that as a Christian minority institution duly recognised by the Government and affiliated by the University, it has started MBA course since the year 1991-92 and with the approval of the Council has continued the MBA course and awarded degrees to the students for two years and therefore, there is no merit in the petition as against this respondent and has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. The 19th respondent claiming to have started MBA course from the academic year 1991-92 with the permission of the Osmania University with the intake of 30 students when instructed to approach the Council applied on 15-7-1991 for approval and in spite of the reminders and personally approaching the Chairman of the Council and in spite of the compliance of all the requirements, it is complained that there is no response from the Council and therefore seeks appropriate orders enabling the college to continue with the course for this academic year and directions to the Council to dispose of the application for approval.
13. The respondent No. 21 claiming to be a reputed college for women having all facilities and the infrastructure imparting education for MBA course ana other courses introduced MBA course from the academic year 1994-95 obtained approval from the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education and having been asked to obtain the approval of the Council, it applied on 17-6-1996 fulfilling the norms stipulated by the Council, has also furnished the particulars as called for, has continued the course for the academic year 1996-97 with the allotment of 42 students by the University and the Council has not disposed of the application for approval and therefore seeks directions to the Council to grant the approval.
14. The 23rd respondent claiming to have maintained discipline and standard right from the inception i.e., 1970 and having all the facilities and having the permission of the State Government to start the post-graduate course in MBA from the year 1994-95 has applied for the approval of the Council on 22-10-1996 in obedience to the Orders of the High Court in W.A. No. 1117/96 and has also personally approached the Chairman of the Council who has expressed the inability to sanction the approval within the stipulated period and therefore seeks direction to the Council for grant of approval.
15. The 24th respondent claiming to be a reputed institution imparting education having all the facilities and infrastructure running several colleges securing 90% results every year since 1960 and having complied with all the stipulations of the Council commenced the MBA course during the year 1995-96, affiliated by the University has also obtained approval from the A.P. State Council for Higher Education. Having been informed to obtain the approval from the Council, it has made an application on 30-4-1996, has also approached the Council personally, have learnt that the Council has accepted in principle to approve in due course of time and therefore seeks directions to the Council for grant of approval.
16. The 25th respondent submitted proposals for starting the MBA course and moved the A.P. State Council for approval and an inspection has been made by the verification commission of the State Council and the Government has informed the AICTE recommending the proposal to start the PG course in MBA in the College of this respondent with the intake of 30 seats and the respondent No. 1 also accorded sanction for admission of students for MBA course for the year 1995-96 with the intake capacity of 30 + 10 students and 40 candidates were also allotted by the 1st respondent. It is pleaded that this respondent has addressed a letter to the Council to accord permission for the academic year 1995-96 complying with the conditions as proposed and the Council has sought for certain information which was furnished and that the Council has not communicated the orders of approval to this respondent.
17. The 29th respondent contends that the writ petition does not disclose any valid or substantial grounds and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. It applied to the Council for approval on 5-12-1995. The deficiencies pointed out by the 3rd respondent in the letter dated 3-10-1996 were also complied with. The Council was also personally approached in this regard. This respondent has undertaken to obtain the approval of the Council and therefore has sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
18. The respondents 18,20,22,26,27 and 28 have not entered appearance.
19. In W.P. No. 18883/96, the petitioner is a Post Graduate College for Women started by one Villa Mary Education Society registered under Public Societies Registration Act running MBA course since 1991, a minority institution applied for affiliation for the academic year 1994-95 with the respondent No. 1, Osmania University which recommended to the State Council for Higher Education and the Council (AICTE), after inspection by the State Council it recommended for affiliation and in spite of the petitioner complying with all requirements, no approval is accorded by AICTE and inspite of the other institutions not obtaining the approval from the Council, they are allowed to make admissions whereas the petitioner is not able to admit the students for want of approval by the AICTE. For this year also, the petitioner approached the Council to grant approval in April 96 and in spite of the petitioner complying with all the requirements including the deficiencies pointed out in the letter of the Council dt.19-2-1996, the AICTE has not sent the expert committee and in spite of the personal approach and letters dt.11-7-1996,16-7-1996 and 20-7-1996 no inspection is made nor the formalities are completed to grant the approval. It is complained that the AICTE has granted approval to some of the institutions which do not have even basic minimum requirements whereas no such approval is yet accorded to the petitioner. Although the other institutions had admitted the students even without the approval that has been ratified subsequently. For want of approval by the AICTE the 1st respondent-University is not allotting students to the petitioner. The petitioner having invested huge money and made all the preparations for running the college and the course and for appointment of the staff is put to difficulty due to the conduct of the AICTE in not granting the approval. Therefore, the petitioner has sought an order or direction declaring the action of the AICTE and the other respondents in the petition in not causing inspection as required u/s 11 of the Act and in not granting the approval u/s 10(k) of the Act as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and as discriminatory and to direct the AICTE to forthwith comply with all the statutory duties under the Act and to grant approval to the petitioner for starting the MBA course for the academic year 1996-97.
20. It appears that no counter-affidavit is filed by anybody except the Osmania University. It is contended that the grant of affiliation is neither a matter of course nor gratis and not a fundamental right. The petitioner having not obtained the approval of the AICTE and the recognition from the statutory bodies cannot expect the University to allot the students. Even for similar colleges or institutions having no affiliation of Universities students are not allotted. The petitioner does not stand in the same position as other colleges to which students are allotted. The inspection report has disclosed that the petitioner does not have suitable accommodation, the infrastructure and the required facilities and did not comply with various conditions prescribed for the purpose. The recommendation of the Government to the University to allow the petitioner to start MBA course in the supplementary batch in 1996-97 has been rejected by the Standing Committee for want of approval by the AICTE and the affiliation by the University. The petition is sought to be dismissed as having no merit.
21. In W.P. No. 17850/96 the petitioner is a College run by one Wanaparthy Education Society which started the Degree courses in B.Sc., in 1993 and started MBA Course with the permission of 1st respondent University but its application for starting MBA course was rejected, but the permission was granted for the colleges not having UG courses. The petitioner applied for permission to the AICTE (Council) for permission to start MBA Course on 31-1-1995, an expert committee was sent to the petitioner for inspection which visited the college on 21-8-1995 and the State Council also inspected the college on 6-10-1995 and the respondent No. 1-University recommended to the Council for granting permission to the petitioner to start PG course of MBA with an intake capacity of 30 seats for the academic year 1996-97 and it was also recommended by the State Government and as per the directions of the respondent No. 1 and the State Government, the petitioner complied with all the conditions. The matter of approval to the petitioner by the AICTE is pending since 1996. The deficiencies pointed out by the AICTE on 14-5-1996 were also fulfilled. After an inspection by the expert committee of the AICTE and the task force, the petitioner was informed to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs FDR which was complied with but so far no approval by the AICTE is accorded to the petitioner. In the meanwhile the 1st respondent-University issued newspaper notification calling for applications from the eligible candidates for allotting the candidates to the colleges and the names of 27 colleges as detailed in para 6 of the petition were notified having no approval, but this petitioner was not included nor the AICTE granted approval whereas other colleges and institutions are accorded approval. If students are not allotted to this petitioner for the academic year 1996-97 it will heavily and irreparably (suffer) and therefore seeks the direction to the respondent No. 1 University to allot 30 candidates to the petitioner without insisting the approval from the AICTE for starting MBA course for the academic year 1996-97 and to declare the action of the R.1 University in not including the name of the petitioner college for allotment of candidates on the ground of non-approval by the AICTE while allotting candidates to the colleges which are not having approval, as arbitrary, highly discriminatory and illegal. It appears that no counter is filed by anybody in this writ petition.
22. The petitioner in W.P.No. 20752/96 claiming to be an education society filed the writ petition against the AICTE, (R.1) the Government of A.P. (R.2), and the Commissioner and Director of Technical Education (R.3), A.P. State Council (R.4) and the Convenor, EAMCET, 1996 (R3) in this case, proposed to start an Engineering College in the name of ''Swami Ramananda Thirtha Institute of Science and Technology'' at Nalgonda, acquired the land and infrastructure to start the College from the academic year 1996-97. In response to the advertisement of AICTE it applied on 29-12-1995 seeking permission to start the Engineering College. Since AICTE is the only competent authority to grant the approval by virtue of Section 10(k) of the Act 52 of 1987 to start any Educational Institution dealing in technical education in the country the provisions of A,P. Education Act cannot be made applicable for such institutions and therefore the obligation to obtain permission of the Government u/s 20 of the said Act has become unnecessary and the provision has become inoperative and void. After the inspection satisfying the compliance of the requirements by the petitioner, the AICTE has permitted the petitioner in its proceedings dt. 23-5-1996 to establish the engineering college with intake of 140 students i.e., 60 for Mechanical Engineering Course, 40 for Chemical Engineering Course and 40 for Computer Science and Engineering Course, communicating such an order to the Government in May ''96. It is complained that the matter is kept pending by the Government without including the petitioner in the list of colleges for allotment of candidates by the University for the academic year 1996-97 and thereby prevented the petitioner from starting the college. Such an inaction on the part of the Government is said to be illegal, arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice. It is contended that it is obligatory for the authorities to allot the students to the college of the petitioner for the academic year 1996-97. When a committee of AICTE including the representative of the Government had inspected the petitioner''s college, and submitted the report and when the Government has also recommended in favour of the petitioner, a second committee constituted by the Government for the same purpose which has not taken any steps is said to be illegal, arbitrary and violates the fundamental'' rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is complained that in similar circumstances the Government has permitted the other colleges in other parts of the State to start the college for the academic year 1996-97 whereas for no reasons the petitioner is prevented from starting the college. Under the circusmtances, it is pleaded that when the entrance examination is already over and counselling is started for allotment of students if the petitioner is not allotted the candidates, it would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of respondents 2 to 5 supra in not permitting the petitioner for starting a technical institution and to direct them to allow the petitioner to start the college forthwith and to allot the candidates for making admissions as per the intake capacity and further to hold that the permission contemplated for starting educational institutions u/s 20 of Education Act of 1922 is inoperative and unenforceable against the petitioner.
23. In this case, while supporting the petitioner on material facts, and admitting that approval was granted to the petitioner to start the Engineering College for the academic year 1996-97 with 140 intake capacity of the seats subject to the fulfillment of the specific conditions as follows, the 1st respondent filed the counter:
"The Management should start conducting first and second year classes of the Institute at their permanent site from the academic year 1997-98. However, AICTE vide their letter No. F.733-50-1/ET/96 dated 22-11-1996, based on the recommendation of the State Government vide their letter No. 565/EC.II/96 dated 9-10-1996 in the light of the Clause 10(k) of the AICTE Act did not recommend the petitioners college for admitting students for the academic year 1996-97."
24. The respondents 2 to 5 in this petition filed a common counter-affidavit. It is contended that AICTE (Council) has granted approval to the petitioner although the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions imposed by the Council in its communication dt.23-9-1996 and although it does not possess the requisite infrastructure and did not fulfill the deficiencies pointed out by respondents 2 and 3. They deny the communication from the petitioner regarding the fulfillment of the specific conditions and therefore it was not viable to start the college for the academic year 1996-97. Therefore, the petitioner was not rightly included in the list of institutions in which candidates are to be admitted. It is also contended that the Council has not given its final approval to the petitioner. The other allegations and the contentions of the petitioner are denied. It is pleaded that the Government is not acting independently and operating the powers conferred u/s 20 of the A.P. Education Act and on the instructions of AICTE. The matter of approval relating to the petitioner based on the report of the three-man committee on the compliance of the deficiencies pointed but by the Council is under active consideration of the Government and till the decision is taken, the petitioner is not entitled to seek allotment of candidates and make the respondents responsible for any losses or injury consequently. The petition having no merit is sought to be dismissed.
25. The respondents 4 and 5 in this petition by filing separate counter-affidavit apart from the common counter-affidavit have justified in not including the petitioner in the list of colleges for allotment of candidates for the reasons stated above. When the name of the petitioner was not in the list, the respondent No. 5 could not have allotted the candidates. The process of allotment is a time bound programme and schedule regarding which allotment was started on 23-9-1996 and the petitioner having not fulfilled the conditions within the stipulated period is guilty of laches in approaching the Court belatedly and therefore the petition is sought to be rejected.
26. It appears that subsequently in its communication dt.22-11-1996, the AICTE has accorded approval to the petitioner for the year 1996-97.
27. In W.P. No. 21557/96, the three institutions claiming to be conducting MBA course affiliated to Osmania University having the approval of the AICTE have assailed the impugned circular No. 2485/D/307/II/96 dated 26-9-1996 that no admissions shall be made into MBA course for the year 1996-97 in view of the interim order of stay by this Court in W.A. SR. No. 100806/86 dt.19-9-1996. It is pointed out that the University had published the prospectus for admission to MBA course for 1996-97 after conducting a common admission programme by setting up counselling and it was set for 19-9-1996, but W.P. 19652/96 was filed in the meanwhile alleging that certain colleges were being allotted seats with but the required approval by the Council. The petitioner is not a party to the said writ petition nor there was any direction to the University not to allot any students to the petitioner-institutes. It is pleaded that the petitioners are the institutions set up in the year 1989 investing lot of money, infrastructure etc., and on the building having all the facilities and in spite of obtaining the approval of the AICTE, they are prevented from admitting the students by the University in the impugned circular which is said to be arbitrary and illegal and therefore have sought for a writ of mandamus to declare the circular as such. No counter-affidavit appears to have been filed by the respondents in this writ petition.
28. W.A. No. 1117/96 is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 19652/96 questioning the issue of notice by the learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 24270/96 dt.20-9-1996, without issuing any interim order. This Writ appeal is disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court with certain directions in, its order dt.16-10-1996 subject to the result of the Writ Petition.
29. W.A. No. 1285/96 filed by the Registrar, Osmania University against the order in W.P. M.P. No. 21993/96 in W.P. No. 17850/96, W.A. No. 1286/96 filed by the Registrar, Osmania University against the order in W.P.M.P. No. 23314/96 in W.P. No. 18883/96, W.A. No. 1319/96 filed by the State of A.P. and the Commissioner and Director of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh and the W.A. No. 1376/96 filed against the same order by the AICTE and the Convenor, EAMCET, 1996 in W.P.No. 20752/96 have assailed the following common order passed by the learned single Judge dt.28-10-1996.
"The University will select the students at the rate of 30 candidates per each Institution and set apart them for allotment to the petitioners colleges. The petitioners Colleges will again approach the Council for approval within a period of one week from today and on filing such applications, the Council is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three weeks thereafter. In case the applications are already pending before the Council, the Council shall dispose of the same as directed above. If the Council grants approval, the students set apart for these institutions will be taken into the petitioner Colleges for admission. But in case no approval is granted within one month from today, the University will allot those students to other Colleges if necessary by increasing seats by obtaining any permission, if required, pending further orders."
Since the main matters are taken up, the decision of which will dispose of these Writ Appeals, concerning the interim orders, there may not be any need to record either the grounds or the contentions or counter-contentions therein.
30. Since most of the writ petitions and the writ appeals involve the question of approval by the AICTE, it may be pertinent to record the latest information furnished by the Council in its memo filed, on 19-11-1996, in W.P. No. 19652/96 as directed by this Full Bench, which is as follows:-
1. Institutes not applying for approval of the Council: Respondent Nos. 6 to 9.
2. Institutes having approval by the Council conditionally: Respondents 10, 11, 14 to 18, 20 and 27.
3. Institutes applying after 31-12-1995 for approval to be considered for 1997-98 only:
1. Respondent No. 12 - applied on 9-7-1996
2. Respondent No. 13 - applied on 24-7-1996
3. Respondent No. 19 - applied on 28-10-1996
4. Respondent No. 23 - application not received
5. Respondent No. 24 - applied on 15-5-1996
4. Applications of the Institutes under process:
Respondent Nos. 21, 22, 26, 28 and 29.
5. Application for approval rejected:
Respondent No. 25.
31. Notwithstanding the resistance to the W.P. No. 19652/96 as above and the inter and intra controversial strategies of the parties to these cases, it is not denied that the petitioner Mr. Sambasiva Rao is a social worker and a citizen respecting the law having no personal interest in the cause or has any acrimony or vindictivity in espousing the cause of the public in regard to the technical education to be imparted to the students, the hope and soul of the society and public at large and the future generation to fulfill the aspirations of the people of India, that is Bharath, within their expectations under the Constitution spelt out in its preamble. Except aspersing the insinuation of frivolity in the petition nothing of the kind is established against the petitioner. On the other hand, the cross and cris-cross hurlings of the wordy missiles in regard to management and mismanagement of the institutions and the agencies by exposing each other, has confirmed the genuineness and the merit in the petition being a PIL. The prologue of the episode leading to this PIL projected in para 2 of the affidavit of the petitioner about the failing standards in the educational institutions and the mismanagement of the higher-ups in regard to educational system in various ways, the elaboration of inner agony of a public spirited citizen has found an illustration in para 3 of the affidavit that MBA course is offered by various institutions in the State and most of them have no approvals from the AICTE under the AICTE Act and Reg.No. 4 of the Regulations is not being obeyed with number of illustrations in regard to several institutions from respondents 6 to 27 managing to have such courses without the approval of the Council, thereby compelling the petitioner to seek the redressal of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We have least doubt that this is a most bona fide and genuine PIL which has invoked the conscience of this Court to know, to probe and to set right such mismanagement and misconduct by all the persons and the agencies concerned with such technical education in general and with reference to the programmes of research and training in management in particular. Thus, the interest of the public which is being examined in the background of such controversies this PIL cannot but deserve its maintainability for a proper decision.
32. Strictly speaking, the constitutional validity of AICTE Act is not challenged on the anvil of the vires or ultra vires. But the legislative competence of the Parliament to make such law similar to certain items of the subject under UGC Act, A.P. Universities Act, and other similar State laws of Andhra Pradesh is seriously questioned in view of Articles 246 - 254 and Schedule VII, Lists I to III of the Constitution of India. In particular, the 1st respondent/Osmania University has made a scathing tirade against such a law and the Regulations as making inroads into the autonomy of the University and has called the Council as a super power trying to subordinate the University in the various matters of its own governance. The attack being too severe and the arguments advanced in this regard being too persistent, we are concerned and amazed at the attitude of the University about the outcome of the consequences. But we have proposed to evaluate the strategy before concluding on such a conduct.
33. The UGC Act, 1956 (Act 3 of 1956) was brought into force on 5-11-1956. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in
"The University Grants Commission Act was enacted by the Parliament in 1956 to provide for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose to establish a University Grants Commission. Chapter III deals with the powers and functions of the Commission. Section 12 empowers the Commission to take, in consultation with the Universities and other concerned bodies, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and for determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research .in the Universities. Section 12A is relevant for our purposes. Clause (a) in Sub-section (1) defines the expression ''affiliation''. It reads:
"''Affiliation'' together with its grammatical variations, includes in relation to a college, recognition or (of) such college, association of such college with, and admission of such college to the privileges of a University."
Clause (b) defines the expression ''college'' in the following words:
"''College'' means any institution whether known as such or by any other name which provides for a course of study for obtaining any qualification from a University and which in accordance with the rules and regulations of such University is recognised as competent to provide for such course of study and present students undergoing such course of study for the examination for the award of such qualification."
Sub-section (2) empowers the Commission inter alia to regulate the fee chargeable in constituent and affiliated colleges, if such a course is found to be necessary to ensure that "no candidate secures admission to such course of study by reason of economic power and thereby prevents a more meritorious candidate from securing admission to such course of study". It would be appropriate to set out Sub-section (2) in its entirety. It reads:
"Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of section if, having regard to,
(a) the nature of any course of study for obtaining any qualification from any University.
(b) the types of activities in which persons obtaining such qualifications are likely to be engaged on the basis of such qualification,
(c) the minimum standards which a person possessing such qualification should be able to maintain in his work relating to such activities and the consequent need for ensuring, so far as may be, that no candidate secures admission to such course of study by reason of economic power and thereby prevents a more meritorious candidates from securing admission to such course of study, and
(d) all other relevant factors,
the Commission is satisfied that it is necessary so as to do in the public interest, it may, after consultation with the University or Universities concerned specify the regulations the matters in respect of which fees may be charged, and the scale of fees in accordance with which fees shall -be charged in respect of those matters on and from such date as may be specified in the regulations in this behalf, by any college providing for such course of study from or in relation to any student in connection with his admission to and prosecution of such course of study:
Provided that different matters and different scales of fees may be so specified in relation to different Universities or different classes of ; colleges or different areas."
Sub-section (3) then says that where regulations of the nature referred , to in Sub-section (2) have been made, no college shall levy or charge fees in excess of what is specified. Sub-section (4) provides the consequence of violation by any college of such regulations. Sub-section (5) says that violation shall also mean disaffiliation. Section 14 prescribes the consequences of failure of Universities to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. It includes withholding of funds. Sub-section (1) of Section 22 which occurs in Ch.IV declares that "the right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University u/s 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees." Sub-section (2) emphatically declares that "save as provided in Sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer or grant or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant any degree." Subsection (3) defines the expression ''degree''. It means "any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, by (be) specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the official gazette". Section 23 prohibits the use of the word ''University'' in the name of any institution other than a University established or incorporated under an enactment or a deemed University. Section 24 provides for penalties for violation of Secs. 22 and 23. Section 25 confers the rule making power upon the Central Government while Section 26 confers the regulation making power upon the Commission."
(Para 154 at pages 2238 and 2239).
34. The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Act 52 of 1987), (AICTE Act) took its birth on 23-12-1987. W Unnikrishnan''s case (1 supra), as in UGC Act, the contents and the implications of this Act also to be read as herein:
"This Act has been made by the Parliament for the establishment of the ''All India Council for Technical Education'' with a view to the proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, promotion of qualitative improvement of such education and other allied matters. Section 3 of the Act provides for the establishment of the Council while Section 10 specifies the functions of the Council. Apart from directing generally that the Council shall take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring co-ordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards, the Act specifically empowers the Council, inter alia, to "(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees; (k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned, and (n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education". It is true, there is no express provision in the Act which says that no engineering college or any other college or institution imparting technical education shall be established except with the permission of the Council. But this may be for the reason that such a power Was intended to be exercised by the Council itself if it thinks necessary to do so. We are of the opinion that the vast powers conferred upon the Council by Section 10, including those specified above, do extend to and entitle it to issue an order to the above effect. It can also say that even in the existing institutions, no new course, faculty or class shall be opened except with its approval. It can also pass appropriate directions to the existing institutions as well for achieving the purposes of the Act. Such an order may indeed be necessary for a proper discharge of the wide-ranging functions conferred upon the Council." (Stress imported). (Para 156 at page 2240).
35. It is to be noted from the material papers that the Council has framed the terms and conditions and undertakings to be given by the technical institutions and the management and published them and communicated them to all the agencies including the UGC, Universities, and the State Governments in the country which was denied at the inception but conceded later. In fact the respondent No. 1-University, as can be gathered from the affidavit of tis Officer and the material papers, went on insisting the pre-approval of the Council and rejecting affiliations for want of such approval of the Council.
36. The AICTE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the AICTE Act, made the regulations called All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approval for starting new Technical Institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes) Regulations, 1994 (in short the Regulations). They came into force on 31-10-1994. There are hardly 12 Regulations and the schedule and Regulation No. 8, Sub-clause No. 15 under the Regulations. They are: (1) Short title and commencement, (2) Applicability, (3) Definitions, (4) Requirement of grant of approval, (5) Forms for applications, (6) Conditions for grant of approval, (7) Submission of applications, (8) Scrutiny of applications, (9) Committees, (10) Interpretation, (11) Power to relax, and (12) Withdrawal of approval. As the very nomenclature of the Regulations are impregnated therein, the purpose of them are well defined in clear terms. In effect, the University has more grievance about these Regulations than AICTE Act itself and its main attack is against these Regulations. Their implications and the legal effect may be dealt with at, appropriate stage.
37. The State Council which is respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 18883/96, referred to in the cases, is the subject of the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education Act, 1988 (State Council Act) under which the State Council was constituted as per the recommendation of the National Education Policy, 1986 for state level planning and co-ordination of Higher Education and as recommended by the UGC as a need for an effective machinery for promotion and co-ordination of higher education at the State level and co-ordination of state level programmes with those of the UG Commission and this Act 16/88 was enacted to provide for the constitution of a State Council to advise the Government in matters relating to higher education in the State and to oversee its development with perspective planning and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The State Council is constituted u/s 3, its composition with full time members, ex-officio members, other members is according to Section 4, Sections 5 - 10 are regarding terms and conditions of service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and members, meetings of the Council, vacancies amongst members or defect in constitution not to invalidate Acts or proceedings of the Council, temporary association of members with the Council, Staff of the Council and the authentication of orders and other instruments of the Council. The powers and functions of the Council are incorporated in Section 11(1) as follows:-
"It shall be the general duty of the council to co-ordinate and determine standards in institutions of higher education or research and scientific technical institutions in accordance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission from time to time." (stress imported).
According to Sub-clause (2), the functions of the Council includes Planning and Co-ordination, academic functions, and advisory functions. Section 12 concerns special provisions with regards to Intermediate examination, and Sections 13 - 15 the fund, release of grants and annual financial statement, Section 16 annual report, and Section 17 accounts and audit. The State Council, in its functions shall be guided by the directions of the Government u/s 18, it will furnish the returns and information to the Government u/s 19, the Government will hold inspections or enquiries through the State Council u/s 20. The ......orders passed and the decision taken by the State Council under the Act is
subject to revision by the Government u/s 21. The Government makes the rules u/s 22, the State Council may make Regulations u/s 23 and the Government may pass an order to remove the difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of the Act u/s 24.
38. The Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991 (Act 4 of 1991) (Universities Act), came into force on 22nd January 1991. It extends to the whole State of Andhra Pradesh. The State Government may, by notification, establish a University and specify the name, area of operation and headquarters, and amend the schedule for the purpose of including the University, specify the university area and the headquarters and alter the university area of any other university u/s 3(1) of the Act. The following universities established under the State Acts or Provincial Acts had been in existence when this Act came into force:
1. The Andhra University established under The Andhra University Act, 1925
2. The Kakatiya University established under The Kakatiya University Act, 1976
3. Sri Krishna Devaraya University established under Krishna Devaraya University Act, 1981
4. The Nagarjuna University established under the Nagarjuna University Act, 1976
5. The Osmania University established under Osmania University Act, 1959
6. The Venkateswara University established under the Venkateswara University Act, 1954.
These Universities are deemed to have been established and incorporated under this Act u/s 3 of the Act with the same names with the respective University areas and headquarters specified in the Schedule. Consequently, by virtue of Section 57(1) of the Act, all the above Acts under which the respective Universities were constituted, came to be repealed subject to savings under Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of the provision. Respondent No. 1-Osmania University is at S.No. 5 in the Schedule. Therefore, except that the Osmania University has its existence by virtue of deemed constitution u/s 4 of the Act as one of the Universities in the State of Andhra Pradesh, it has lost its identity by virtue of the Osmania Universities Act, 1959. Surprisingly, through the brochure issued by the University through the Asst. Registrar, Legal Cell, Osmania University, with the title ''Osmania University'' being sold at a price of Rs. 3/-, it is still (being) seeking the identity under the repealed Osmania University Act by calling it ''Osmania University Act, 1991''. We take serious exception in this regard to caution such persons and the University of the consequences of such a conduct misleading the students and others. It also bears out the attitude of the University not to lose its identity under a repealed Act and an enactment of 1991 which is not in existence. We hope this to be rectified soon not to leave scope for further action. In other words, the 1st respondent/University should be taken to be a University within the meaning of Section 2(24) of Universities Act and functioning within such a statutory operation.
39. The Osmania University has an area comprising the districts of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Mahabubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda and Nizamabad and its headquarters is comprised to Hyderabad and it may extend to any place within a continuous area of 10 miles around it. Likewise other districts and the area in columns 3 and 4 of the Schedule concern other Universities. Such a university area as indicated in column No. 3 of the Schedule is defined u/s 2(25) and the headquarters in Col.No. 4 of the Schedule means the university campus defined u/s 2(26) of the Act. The University college as per Section 2(27) of the Act means a college located in the University campus which is established or maintained by the University and provides courses of study qualifying students for university examinations in accordance with the regulations prescribed and includes a college so located, and established or maintained by the University immediately before the commencement of this Act. The Colleges at respondents 6 to 9 in W.P. No. 19652/96 are such colleges.
40. The powers, functions and objects of every University under the Act are enumerated under Sub-clauses (1) to (25) of Section5 among whom the relevant clauses are:
1. to provide for instruction and training in such branches of learning as it may think;
2. to make provision for research extension programme and for the advancement of dissemination of knowledge;
5. to create posts of professors, readers, lecturers, and any other teaching post required by the University and to appoint persons therefor;
12. To erect equip, and maintain laboratories, libraries and museums;
14. To inspect affiliated and recognised colleges and institutions and to take measures to ensure that proper standards of instructions are maintained in them;
16. To establish, maintain and manage research departments and institutions;
17. To make special provision for the spread of higher education among educationally backward classes of citizens;
18. To make special provision for colleges and institutions for women students;
19. To establish research institutions in any part of the University area whether within or outside the university campus;
20. To fix fees and to demand and receive such fees and other charges as may be prescribed;
23. To co-operate with other universities, educational institutions and authorities in such manner and for such purposes as the university may determine;
24. Generally to do all such other acts and things whether incidental to the powers aforesaid or not, as and when necessary or desirable to further the objects of the university as a residential teaching and affiliating university to cultivate and promote arts, fine arts, sciences, professional studies, technology and other branches of learning and to promote the interests of its students.
41. The Government has the right to cause inspection into the affairs of the University and serve a copy of the inspection report (for) in regard to the teaching or other work conducted or done by the University and to seek explanation for non-compliance and to issue appropriate directions to the University seeking compliance. The Governor of Andhra Pradesh shall be the Vice-Chancellor of the University u/s 10 of the Act and exercises the powers and duties vested in him by or under the provisions of the Act. The Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Government u/s 11(1) from out of the panel recommended by the Search Committee and shall be removed in accordance with the procedure under Sub-clause 2 of Section 11 of the Act. The powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor are enumerated Under Section13 of the Act from Sub-clauses (1) to (8) and in particular as per Clause (4) it shall be his duty to see that the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations are duly observed and he may exercise all powers necessary for this purpose. In other words, the Vice-Chancellor has the general power of supervision and control of the University for its proper functioning through its Registrar and the officers and the Staff. The Authorities of the Universities as per Section 17 are (1) The Board of Management, (2) The Academic Senate, (3) The Faculties, (4) The Board of Studies and (5) such other bodies as the Statutes may declare to be the. Authorities of the Universities whose constitution is detailed in Secs. 18 - 27 of the Act in addition to Planning and Monitoring Board u/s 28 of the Act. The University has an Academic Senate consisting of the persons enumerated under Clause (1), (2) and (3) under the provisions of Section 24 - 29 of the Act. The teaching and admission of student to the colleges of the University or affiliated or recognised colleges or institutions and admission to university courses in addition to the course of study and the curricula are enumerated in Ch.VI and Secs. 36 and 37 of the Act. Chapter VII deals with appointment of teachers from Secs. 39 to 44, Ch. VII in regard to University funds from Secs. 45 to 50 and Ch.IX deals with Statutes, Ordinance and Regulations from Secs. 51 to 55 of the Act. The Board of Management has the power to make Statutes, in regard to the matters under sub-ds.(a) to (j) regarding which assent of the Chancellor is necessary. (Secs. 51 and 52). The Board of Management has power to make ordinances (Section 53) in consultation with the Academic Senate under certain circumstances regarding the matters enumerated under Sub-clause (a) to (1) of the Section. Out of them, sub-cl(a) concerns the levy of fee, (b) fees to be charged for admission to the examinations, degrees and diplomas of the University. The Academic Senate has the power to make regulations u/s 55 of the Act for the following matters:
(a) the encouragement of co-operation and reciprocity among colleges;
(b) the admission of students of university or prescribing the examination to be recognised as equivalent to University examinations;
(c) the university courses and examinations and the conditions on which students shall be admitted to examinations for the degrees, diplomas, certificates and titles of the University;
(d) the grant of exemptions.
Chapter X comprise the miscellaneous provisions, Section 56, the power to remove difficulties and Section 57 the repeal section.
42. Broadly stated, the powers, functions and the duties of the University and its authorities which are relevant in these cases are recorded above. A bird''s eye view of the above laws, both made by the Parliament and the State Assembly of Andhra Pradesh may bear identity of the subject-matter in certain matters enumerated above. It is in this area the University and the Government of Andhra Pradesh have questioned the powers of the Council under the AICTE Act and its Regulations to enter into the powers of the Government and the University.
43. Undoubtedly, UGC Act and the AICTE Act are the laws made by the Parliament whereas the State Council Act and the Universities Act are made by the State Legislature. Except the Andhra University Act, 1925 which was in force when the Constitution came into force, all the remaining Acts in regard several Universities supra were brought out after the Constitution coming into force. Therefore, in so far as Andhra University Act is concerned, it was the law deemed to be in force by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution. All the four enactments patently were enacted only after the inception of the Constitution. According to seriatim and priority, UGC Act in 1956, AICTE Act in 1987, State Council Act in 1988 and Universities Act in 1991 came into existence. The Regulations framed by the Council u/s 23 of the AICTE Act cannot be but the part and parcel of the main Act itself and has to be read along with that. Entry 66 of List I i.e., the Union List of VII Schedule of the Constitution reads:
"66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions."
This entry has remained unchanged since the inception of the Constitution. Before the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976 which came into force with effect from 3-1-1977, Entry 11 in List II i.e., the State List was to read:
"11. Education including Universities subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III."
(para 9
44. Entry 25 of List III i.e., the Concurrent List prior to the said Constitution amendment to read:
"25. Vocational and technical training of labour"
After the amendment it reads:
"25. Education, including technical education, medical education and Universities subject to the provisions of Entry 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; Vocational and Technical Training of labour" (Para 11 of
45. The Constitutional provisions dealing with the scope of the powers of the Union and the State legislatures on the subject in question may be summarised as follows:
"The subject ''co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions'' has always remained as special preserve of the Parliament. This was so even before the 42nd amendment since, Entry 11 of List II even then was subject among others to Entry 66 of List I. After the said amendment the Constitutional position on that score has not undergone any change. All that has happened is that Entry 11 was taken out from List II and amalgamated with Entry 25 of List III. However, even the new Entry 25 of List III is also subject to the provisions among others of Entry 66 of List I. It cannot therefore be doubted that the legislation with regard to co-ordination and determination of standard? in education for higher education or research and technical institutions has always been the preserve of the Parliament. (Para 12 of
46. The distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and State legislatures underlined in Arts.246, 248, 254 in Part II of Chapter I is summarised by the Supreme Court-
"the effect of these Articles as has emerged through the judicial decisions so far is while Article 246 states the obvious, that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I and has also the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III, the State Legislature has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II subject, of course, to Parliament''s power to make laws on matters enumerated in List I and III.
(Para 13 of Adhiyaman Edit. Res. Ins. case 2 supra).
Therefore, the legislative competence of the Parliament in regard to UGC Act and AICTE Act in regard to the subject under the Entries supra cannot be questioned and should be taken to have been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Adiyaman Education case (2 supra). The Regulations made by the AICTE u/s 23 of the Act being subordinate legislation as indicated in Adhiyaman''s case (2 supra) being part of the Act, cannot but have the same-constitutional and the legal status as the Act has. Thus, the constitutional validity of AICTE Act is established on. such grounds. The constitutional validity and the vires of the Act is also impliedly upheld by the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan''s case (1 supra), as having been not violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 6 and 21 of the Constitution in so far as the parties who are the societies, institutions and the colleges seeking approval of the Council, recognition by the Government and affiliation by the University are concerned. Because, although a person or body of persons has right to establish educational institution in the country, such a right is not an absolute one subject and it is subject to such law as may be made by the State in the interest of the general public. The activity and the right to establish an educational institution can neither be a trade nor business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) and commercialisation of education cannot be and should not be permitted directly or indirectly. Establishing educational institutions can by no stretch of imagination be treated as practising any profession. Therefore, approving the dictum in
47. The State Government and the University appear to think that the AICTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder are repugnant to the provisions of the UGC Act, the State Council Act and the Universities Act, as it is intended to seek and deal with several matters of technical education and the education which are within their region and autonomy. In Adiaymaris case (2 supra), the Supreme Court having examined the relevant provisions viz., Section 2(g) to (i), Section 3(1), Ch.III and in particular Sections 10, 11, 22 and 23 of the AICTE Act made these clear observations in authritetive expressions-
"The aforesaid provisions of the Act including its preamble make it abundantly clear that the Council has been established under the Act for co-ordinated and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is also required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system. The Council is further to evolve suitable performance appraisal system incorporating such norms and mechanisms in enforcing their accountability. It is also required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to withhold or discontinue grants and to derecognise the institutions where norms and standards laid down by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed. This duty and responsibility cast on the Council implies that the norms and standards to be set should be such as would prevent a lopsided or an isolated development of technical education in the country. For this purpose, the norms and standards to be prescribed for the technical education have to be such as would on the one hand ensure development of technical educational system in all parts of the country uniformly: that there will be a co-ordination in the technical education and the education imparted in various parts of the country and will be capable of being integrated in one system: that there will be sufficient number of technically educated individuals and that their growth would be in a planned manner: and that all institutions in the country are in a position to properly maintain the norms and standards that may be prescribed by the Council. The norms and standards have, therefore, to be reasonable and ideal and at the same time, adaptable, attainable and maintainable by institutions throughout the country to ensure both quantitative and qualitative growth of the technically qualified personnel to meet the needs of the country. Since the standards have to be laid down on a national level, they have necessarily to be uniform throughout the country without which the co-ordinated and integrated development of the technical education all over the country will not be possible which will defeat one of the main objects of the statute. This Country, as is well known, consists of regions and population which are at different levels of progress and development or to put it differently, at differing levels of backwardness. This is not on account of any physical or intellectual deficiency but for want of opportunities to develop and contribute to the total good of the country. Unnecessarily high norms and standards say for admission to the educational institutions or to pass the examinations, may not only deprive a vast majority of the people of the benefit of the education and the qualification, but would also result in concentrating technical education in the hands of the affluent and elite few and in depriving the country of a large number of otherwise deserving technical personnel. It is necessary to bear this aspect of the norms and standards to be prescribed in mind, for a major debate before us centered around the right of the States to prescribe standards higher than the one laid down by the Council. What is further necessary to remember is that the Council has on it representatives not only of the States but also of the State Universities. They have therefore, a say in the matter of laying down the norms and standards which may be prescribed by the Council for such education from time to time. The Council has further the Regional Committees, at present, at least, in four major geographical zones and the constitution and functions of the Committees are to be prescribed the regulations to be made by the Council. Since the Council has the representation of the States and the professional bodies on it which have also representation from deferent States and regions, they have a say in the constitution and functions of these Committees as well. What is further important to note is that the subject covered by this statute is fairly within the scope of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III. Further, these regulations along with other regulations made by the Council and the rules to be made by the Central Government under the Act are to be laid before Parliament. Hence, on the subjects covered by this statute, the State could not make a law under Entry 11 of List II prior to 42nd Amendment nor can it make a law under Entry 25 of List III after the 42nd Amendment. If there was any such existing law immediately before the commencement of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution, as the Madras University Act, 1923, on the enactment of the present Central Act, the provisions of the said law if repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act would stand impliedly repealed to the extent of repugnancy. Such repugnancy would have to be adjudged on the basis of the tests which are applied for adjudging repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution" (Stress imported) (Para 22, page 118 of Adhiyaman Edn. & Res. Inst. case (2 supra))
The UGC Act, State Council Act and Universities Act have generally tried to cover the same subject matters to maintain certain standards and to regulate the educational system within its role of governance. To that extent if the contention of the Government and the University or the State Council is accepted, the repugnancy in regard to such matters is the other way about, viz., the latter enactments with the provisions therein have created repugnancy with the provisions in the AICTE Act, Strictly speaking, there cannot be any repugnancy between the provisions of the UGC Act and the AICTE Act as their scope and object in the field of education are independent and distinct although they may incidentally cover common subjects to achieve same results. The UGC Act with the objective of making provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities proposing to establish University Grants Commission has the main-function to inquire into the financial needs of the Universities, allocate and disperse the grants to the Universities out of the fund of the Commission etc., or withhold it in regard to a University not declared by the Commission fit to receive such grant has the power and duty to inspect, issue directions and frame Regulations in regard to such questions including the recommendation to affiliate or disaffiliate any College which has failed to maintain the expected standards. On the face of it, the powers and functions of the UGC are recommendatory and regulatory to determine the grants to the Universities and the Colleges to be disbursed or not. Even then on the face of it, it should be taken as general law dealing with such matter for the co-ordination and determination of standards in the Universities with financial control and incidental checking or supervision whereas the AICTE Act is a special Act concerning the co-ordinated and integrated development of the technical educational system at all levels throughout the country to promote qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in technical educational system. It is further to evolve suitable performance appraisal system incorporating such norms and mechanisms in enforcing their accountability. It is required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has powers to withhold or discontinue grants and derecognise the institutions where norms and standards laid down by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed. Such standards are laid down on a National level to be necessarily uniform throughout the country. Therefore, AICTE Act being a special law on particular category of education viz., technical education, overrides the UGC Act being the general law in regard to the imparting education by the Universities in general. At the outset, in view of Generalia specialibus non derogant, that the special law overrides the general law, the AICTE Act prevails over the UGC Act in relation to the common matters covered therein inspite of both the Acts being made by the Parliament within its legislative competence. It is also the law that when there are two laws dealing with the same subject matter, the latter or the latest prevails. Both the above questions were covered and answered as above by ) the Supreme Court in
48. Within the parameters of State Council Act and Universities Act many matters covered by the AICTE Act and in particular the task to maintain certain standards in educational system in general and technical education in particular are stipulated. Both the agencies have efforted most to bring out such matters both in the affidavits and written arguments. Particularly in regard to the applicability of the provisions of the AICTE Act to the University and the constituent colleges or institutions including the admission of students and intake capacity of seats, the repugnancy is highlighted. Such a repugnancy is also manifest between the pre-constitutional law in Andhra University Act, 1925 and the AICTE Act. Undoubtedly, such repugnancies are disclosed between the law made by the Parliament under Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III and the laws made by the State Legislature falling under Entry 25 of List III. Such a repugnancy has been with reference to a matter which is the special preserve of the Parliament. In Adhiyaman Edn. Res. Ins. case ( supra), the Supreme Court detected such repugnancies between the provisions of AICTE Act and Madras University Act, 1923. It was pointed out that ''a comparison of the Central Act and the University Act would show that as far as the institutions imparting technical education are concerned, there is a conflict between and overlapping of the functions of the Council and the University''. It was also pointed out that so far as such matters are concerned, in the case of the institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University Act and the University, but it is the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction. To that extent, after the coming into operation of the Central Act the provisions of the University Act will be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges like the engineering colleges. The same analogy will hold good in regard to the AICTE Act and the Council created under it which will have jurisdiction in the case of the institutes imparting technical education including Management and not the State Council and the University or the Government as the case may be and to that extent after coming into operation of the AICTE Act the provisions of the State Council Act and the Universities Act will be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges and institutions who are parties to these cases imparting education in Management. So, if the Government, the State Council and the University in this case are questioning the conflicting laws due to repugnancy, it is they who should be subordinated and not the Council under the AICTE Act. The attribute to the AICTE as a super power by the University possibly may be a real expression obviously realised. But not in reality in the rule of law as no authority is super or subordinate as it has to function within the statutes as their creatures.
49. That takes us to the Regulations. They are the outcome of the regulation making power of the AICTE (Council) the legal exercise of the subordinate legislation u/s 23 of the Act which reads:
"23 (1) The Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules generally to carry out the purposes of this Act (Stress imported).
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) regulating the meetings of the Council and the procedure for conducting business thereat;
(b) the terms and conditions of service of the officers and employees of the Council;
(c) regulating the meetings of the Executive committee and the procedure for conducting business thereat;
(d) the region for which the Regional Committee be established and the
constitution and functions of such Committee.
The Central Government has power to make rules u/s 22. Every rule and every regulation so made under the Act shall be laid before the Parliament in accordance with Section 24. Therefore, the Central Government makes the Rules as delegated legislation whereas the Council make the Regulations as subordinate legislation. Their efficacy having been a legislative intent and form given by placing before the Parliament have been indicated both in Adhiyanam''s case (2 supra) and Unnikrishna''s case (1 supra). Both the Rules and Regulations are made to carry out the purposes of the Act. However, the Regulations should not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. We are told that no Rules are yet made by the Central Government u/s 22 of the Act. Therefore, no question of inconsistency between the rules and the Regulations can arise. The Regulations thus have all the force of law as subordinate legislation against the whole world except not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and obviously within the constitutional vires. Neither the Colleges and Institutions nor the Government, the University, UGC, the State Council, and any other authority concerned in technical education can escape the operation of such rules and regulations. As the regulations are made by the Council within the power of making regulations u/s 23 of the Act and they have been placed before the Parliament published through the official Gazette in No. F.3014/CCF/ REG.94 dt.31-10-1994, there cannot be any doubt of their being brought out within the powers u/s 23(1) of the Act. The only guise (for) the sparing of the operations of the Regulations is to demonstrate that they are inconsistent or repugnant to any of the provisions of the Act. Such an attempt has been made.
50. The object and purpose of the Act has already been noted as approved by the Supreme Court in Adhiyanam''s case (2 supra) and Unnikrishnan''s case (1 supra). The preamble and the relevant provisions of the Act may be noted with a brief record:
"The Preamble of the Central Act states that it has been enacted to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a view to (i) proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, (ii) promotion of the qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth, (iii) regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and (iv) for matters connected therewith. Sections 2(g), 2(h) and 2(i) of the Central Act definite (sic. defines) "technical education", "technical institution", and ''University'' respectively as follows:
"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(g) ''technical education'' means programmes of education, research and training in engineering, technology, architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other programme or areas as the Central Government may in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare;
(h) ''technical institution'' means an institution, not being a university which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions;
(i) ''University'' means a university defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and includes an institution deemed to be a University u/s 3 of that Act."
Section 3(1) gives power to the Central Government to establish the Council. Since the composition of the Council is important to deal with one of the aspects of an argument, we may cite the relevant provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 which refers to the said composition. It reads as under-
"(4) The Council shall consist of the following members, namely:
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(j) two members of Parliament of whom, one shall be elected by the House of the People and one by the Council of States;
(k) eight members to be appointed by the Central Government by rotation in the alphabetical order to represent the State and the Union territories;
Provided that an appointment under this clause shall made on the recommendation of the Government of the State, or as the case may be, the Union Territory concerned;
(1) four members to be appointed by the Central Government to represent the organisations in the field of industry and commerce;
(m) seven members to be appointed by the Central Government to represent;
(i) xx xx xx
(ii) The Association of Indian Universities."
Suffice it to say that the Council, besides having on it the representatives of the various ministries, of higher educational institutions, professional bodies in the field of technical and management education and organisations in the field of industry and commerce, also has the representatives of the State in the form of the Members of Parliament and the members to be appointed by the Central Government to represent the States and the Union Territories and also of the State Universities. Section 7 further empowers the Council to associate with itself any person whose assistance or advice it may desire in carrying out any of the provisions of the Act.
Chapter III of the Act enumerates the powers and functions of the Council. Section 10 of the said Chapter states that in order to perform its duties and to take all such steps as it may think necessary to ensure the object and perform the functions under the Act, the Council may, among others,
"(b) co-ordinate the development of technical education in the country at all levels;
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(f) promote an effective link between technical education system and other relevant systems including research and development organisations, industry and the community;
(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education, incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability;
(h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of teachers and identify institutions or centers and set up new centres for offering staff development programmes including continuing education of teachers;
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations;
(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees:
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned;
(1) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for the promotion such profession in its field including conduct of examinations and awarding of membership certificates; (m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions;
(n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education;
(o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education;
(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution;
(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses, programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council;
(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to set up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the Council''s responsibilities and to create positions of professional, technical and supporting staff based on requirements;
(s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offering courses in technical education fit to receive grants;
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to make recommendations to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or derecognition of the institution or the programme";
Section 11 provides for inspection to be caused by the Council, of any department or departments of a technical institution or University for the purposes of ascertaining the financial needs of such institutions or a University or standards of teaching, examination and research. It also provides for inspection as well as for. communicating the results of such inspection to such institution and University with a view to recommending to it the action to be taken as a result of such inspection. The executive authority of the institution or University is under an obligation to report to the Council, the action if any which is proposed to be taken by it for the purpose of implementing the recommendations made by the Council, pursuant to the result of the inspection made by it. Section 13 requires the Council to establish, among others, an All India Board of Technical Education and an All India Board of Undergraduate Studies in Engineering and Technology and Postgraduate Education and Research in Engineering and Technology. The Council is also empowered to establish such other Boards of Studies as it may think fit. These Boards of Studies are required to advise the Executive Committee of the Council constituted u/s 12 of the Act on academic matters including on norms and standards, model curricula, model facilities and structure of courses. Section 14 requires the Council to establish four Regional Committees, viz., Northern, Southern, Western and Eastern Regional Committees with their offices at Kanpur, Madras, Bombay and Calcutta respectively. The Council has also the powers to establish other Regional Committees if it thinks fit. These Regional Committees have to advise and assist the Council to look into all aspects of planning, promoting and regulating technical education within the region. Section 20 empowers the Central Government to give directions to the Council from time to time on questions of policy, and the Council is bound by such directions. Sections 22 and 23 give power to the Central Government and the Council to make rules and regulations respectively under the Act which are to be laid before the Parliament. It is not necessary to refer to other provisions of the Act (Stress imported)
(Paras 17 to 21 of Adiyaman Edn. & Res. Instn. case (2 supra))
As the very christening goes, the Regulations of the AICTE are for grant of approval, for starting new technical institutions, introduction of programmes and approval of intake capacity of seats for courses or programmes. The applicability of the Regulations is made to the following proposals under Reg. 2 relating to:
"(a) grant of approval of the Council for establishment of new technical institutions including Universities or University Departments and deemed Universities; and for technical institutions functioning on the date of commencement of these regulations at Degree and Diploma levels;
(b) grant of approval of the Council for introduction of any course or programme in the technical institutions and technical departments of Universities or deemed Universities;
(c) grant of approval of the Council for existing intake capacity of seats and for increase in the annual intake capacity of seats in courses and programmes".
The relevant definitions in Reg. No. 3 are
(g) ''Deemed University'' means any institution of higher education other than a University declared as such u/s 3 of UGC Act 1956 -(Act 3 of 1956);
(j) ''University Technical Department'' means the department of the concerned University conducting technical education courses or programmes;
(k) All other words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the AICTE Act 1987, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the said Act.
These clauses of definitions cannot conflict with the provisions of the Act as they are very much within Act. Regulations 5 to 10 viz., Forms for applications, conditions for grant of approval, submission of applications, scrutiny of the applications, Committees, Interpretation, which are not the subject of challenge and more in the nature of procedural and formal compliances, need not be repeated or recorded verbatim. The relevant regulations for the purpose of the challenge are 4 and 12. However to read down them with Regulation No. 11 for the purpose of interpretation''s per the contentions require the luxury of repetition:
"4. Requirement of grant of approval:
(1) After the commencement of these regulations,-
(a) no new technical institution or University Technical Department, shall be started, or
(b) no course or programme shall be introduced by any technical institution, University including a deemed University or University Department or College; or
(c) no technical institutions, Universities or deemed Universities or University Departments or Colleges shall continue to admit students for Degree or Diploma Courses or programmes;
(d) no approved intake capacity of seats shall be increased or varied; except with the approval of the Council.
(2) Applications for grant of approval under sub-reg. (1) shall be made by any of the following, namely-
(i) Government Institutions, Government aided institutions, deemed Universities and University Departments or Colleges,
(ii) registered Societies/Trusts in respect of professional colleges.
11. Power to relax:
The Council may, for removal of any hardship or such other reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these regulations in respect of any class or category of institutions
12. Withdrawal of approval:
If any technical institution including University, University Department or deemed University or College contravenes any of the provisions of these regulations, the Council may, after making such inquiry as it may consider appropriate and after giving the technical institution concerned an opportunity of being heard, withdraw the approval granted under these regulations".
The unambiguous intendment of Reg. No. 4 unmistakably declared therein are to include technical institutions, university technical department. Universities or deemed universities, university department, the College, the Government, any agency or college to start, to introduce any course or programme, to continue to admit students for degree or diploma course or programme and to increase or vary the approval regarding the intake capacity of the seats for the purpose of approval of the Council.'' They are also included under Reg. No. 12 for the purpose of withdrawal of approval. If we read Reg. Nos. 4 and 12 together, both for granting of approval and withdrawing of the approval in regard to the items (a) to (d) under Sub-clause (1), all such technical institutions, Universities, or deemed Universities, University departments, University technical department and Colleges should be taken as included. These Regulations concern the functions of the Council u/s 10 (g), (k), (m) and (o) of the Act to read:
"10. (g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical institutions and universities imparting technical education, incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability,
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned,
(m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions;
(o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and universities imparting technical education".
Because the Council has to evolve suitable performance appraisal system for technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education, incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability, it has to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses and programmes in consultation with the agency concerned, it has to lay down norms for grant autonomy to technical institutions and provide guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education. The main function of the Council propounded in Section 10(1) is the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring co-ordinated and integrated development of technical and management education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions the Council regulates the items (a) to (u) of Section 10(1) and with the residuary power to perform such other functions as may be prescribed. Only to ensure such functions, Reg. No. 4 has been made. The whole function of the Council emanates from the real object and the purpose of the Act in establishing AICTE for ''the prpper planning and co-ordinated development of technical education system throughout the country for the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and for the regulation and proper maintenance of the norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therein''. (the Preamble of the Act). Reg. No. 4 very much fits into such an avowed objective of the,Act spelt out in the preamble. They are elaborated and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman (2 supra) and Unnikrishnan''s cases (1 supra) Reg. No. 4, and Sub-clauses are the subjects covered by Section 10(k) of the Act, whereas Regulation 4 (c) and (d) appear to be the incidents of Section 10(o) of the Act as providing guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and universities imparting technical education which includes the increase and variation in the intake capacity of the seats. That again has a bearing on evaluation of suitable performance appraisal system incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability u/s 10(g) of the Act because it is the inbuilt capacity of the technical institution in the quality for proper maintenance and norms and standards in the education system which determines the intake capacity of the students of such institutions. The approval to continue to admit students for degree or diploma courses or programmes under Regulation No. 4 (c) is another area covering the technical institutions etc., which are in existence before the Regulations or the Act are already permitted to start, to introduce course or programme and having fixed the intake capacity of seats and therefore having come into existence for a particular academic year or period so that the Council may think of extending the approval for future period also. That is equally applicable regarding the approval to increase or vary the intake capacity of seats. Such approvals are subject to the conditions laid down under Regulation No. 6 (i) to (vii) as follows:
"6. Conditions for grant of approval:
Every application under Sub-regulation (1) of regulation 4 shall be considered subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions, namely:
(i) The financial position of the applicant shall be sound for investment in developed land and in providing related infrastructural and instructional facilities as per the norms and standards laid down by the Council from time to time and for meeting the annual recurring expenditure;
(ii) the courses or programmes shall be conducted as per the asessed technical man power demands;
(iii) the admissions shall be made according to the regulations and directions of the Council for such admissions in the respective technical institution or university;
(iv) the tuition and other fees shall be charged within the overall criteria
as may be laid down by the Council;
(v) the staff shall be recruited as per the norms and standards specified by the Council from time to time;
(vi) the Governing Body in case of private technical institutions shall be as per the norms as specified by the Council;
(vii) any other conditions as may be specified by the Council from time to time".
Not only such conditions are imposed for grant of approval but also for withdrawal of approval under Reg.No. 12 if any one or more are contravened. It is well known that an authority empowered to do an act is also impliedly empowered to undo it. If that is the object of Reg. No. 12, it cannot be inconsistent with either the object and purpose of the Act or Section 10(g), (k), (m), and (o) of the Act. In fact, Reg. No. 12 providing for withdrawal of the approval has incorporated a safeguard to the technical institution etc., as it will have opportunity of being heard when the Council may take a decision after making such enquiry as it may consider appropriate, thereby conforming to the principles of natural justice. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman''s case (2 supra) (in para 22) the Government, the UGC and the University are properly represented in the committees u/s 9 of the act and also Reg. No. 9 and also in the Council itself by virtue of Section 3 Sub-clause (iv) of the Act and the Council takes the decision regarding the approval or withdrawal of the approval in consultation with such agencies in addition to invite any person associated with any of the said committees, thereby to have all the views and materials before taking any such decision. Above all, the Council has power to relax under Reg. No. 11 any of the provisions of the Regulations in respect of any class or category of institutions. In that view of the matter, no regulation imposing any condition or empowering the Council to take a decision in regard to any of the matters therein cannot operate oppressive or causes any hardship in a particular case or class of cases. Thus, there cannot be any repugnancy between the
Regulations and the AICTE Act in any matter covered thereunder nor there is an excess exercise of power by the Council in framing Regulations which are intended to ensure to carry out the purposes of the Act which are not only enshrined in the Act but also confirmed by the Supreme Court in Adhtyaman''s case (2 supra).
51. Both from the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, apparently the approval of the Council for various purposes enumerated in Section 10(k) of the Act and Reg. No. 4 is necessary in regard to technical institutions, University technical department, Universities, or deemed Universities, Colleges, the Government and any agency. It is true that the category of the institutions including the University, Government, UGC etc., are not mentioned in Section 10(k) of the Act. In regard to evolving suitable performance appraisal system, by incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability, technical institutions and universities imparting technical education are included in Section 10(g) of .the Act. For providing guidelines for admission of students, technical institution''s and Universities imparting technical education are included in Section 10(o) of the Act. For ascertaining the financial needs, both technical institution or a University are included by way of inspection u/s 11 of the Act. The Regulations are specifically made applicable to the technical institutions including Universities or University Departments and Deemed Universities under Reg.No. 2. They are also categorically included in Reg. No. 4, Reg. No.6 (iii). It is true that the Government is not categorically included in any of the ! provisions of the Act or regulations. But, as they are made applicable to the technical institutions and the colleges, deemed universities apart from the University etc., imparting technical education, if the Government has established such institutions or the colleges for the purpose of imparting technical education, the Act and the Regulations are bound to apply to them. Not merely reading the individual or independent provisions in the Act and the Regulations yield to such inference, but by reading the entire Act and the Regulations, the intention of the law makers to make them applicable to all the agencies imparting technical education should be gathered. When the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman''s case (2 supra) declared the law that ''so far as the matters covered under the Act and Section 10 of the Act, it is not the University Act or the University, but it is the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction'' (Para 30, page 126), it cannot be imagined that either the University or any other agency can accord approval for itself in regard to such matters covered by the Act and the regulations which will be in contravention of the intendment of law so declared. Judged in that background, all agencies specifically categorised as above should necessarily seek approvel and get it from the Council and there is no escape from it. .
52. The University or its department or the colleges are trying to escape such approvals in view of the definition of ''technical institution'' u/s 2(h) of the Act. The logic sought to be imported therein is that ''technical institution'' is not a ''university'' and therefore not governed by the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. The logic chipping of the wordy contents of the provision truly may not be an ingenuity but an efforted escape to avoid the consequences of law, which deserves examination. For this purpose not only the definition of ''technical institution'' has to be noted, but also the other relevant definitions to throw proper light on the question. They are: Sub-Clause (a) (g), (h), and (i) of Section 2 of the Act, to read:
"2(a) "Commission" means the University Grants Commission established u/s 4 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(g) "technical education" means programmes of education, research and training in engineering technology, architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other programme or areas as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notifications in the Official Gazette, declare;
(h) "technical institution" means an .institution, not being a University. which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions; (Stress imported)
(i) "University" means a University defined under Clause (f) of Section 2 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and includes an institution deemed to be a University u/s 3 of that Act".
The meaning of ''Commission'' and ''University'' cannot be in doubt as one is ; established u/s 4 of the UGC Act and the other is the one defined under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the UGC Act, to mean a University established under the Central Act or Provincial Act or State Act, which includes any such institution as may be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the Regulations made under the Act. ''University'' includes an institution deemed to be a University u/s 3 of the Act. In other words, ''University'' includes a ''Deemed University''. A ''deemed University'' means any institution of higher education other than a University declared u/s 3 of the UGC Act as per Reg.No. 3 (g) of the Regulations. Reg.No. 3(j) defines ''University Technical Department'' to mean the Department of the concerned University conducting Technical Education courses or programmes. Therefore, if all these definitions are read together, there cannot be escape for a University to go out from the definition of ''technical institution'' u/s 2(h) of the Act.
53. The expression in the definition of ''technical institution'' u/s 2(h) viz., "not being a University" is sought to be made use of to exclude it from the technical institution and front the operation of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. It is sought to be read to mean that ''technical institution'' does not include a ''University'' or ''deemed University'' or ''University Department'' or ''College'' or University Technical Department and in that context it was sought to be demonstrated that Reg. No. 4 (1) (a) to (c) are beyond the scope of regulation making power of the Council u/s 23(2) of the Act. Although this question is covered by the questions already decided in this regard, it is being examined again in the present context of the contention relating to the ''technical institution'' ''not being a University'' u/s 2(h) of the Act. A deep examination into the matter reveals that such a contention lacks even an iota of merit. The Act is to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education. It is with a view to proper planning and co-ordinated development of technical education system throughout the country. Such technical education has been enumerated in Section 2(g) of the Act which includes Management (MBA etc.), and such courses or programmes of technical education offered by technical institution or other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, declare as technical education. In other words, any institution which offers courses or programmes of technical education would be a ''technical institution''. The Government, the University or any other agency offering courses or programmes of technical education within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act can never be but ''technical education'' (sic. ''technical . institution''). When the grammatical or dictionary meaning of ''not being'' is not in existence, if read with the meaning of ''being'' as the ''quality or state of having existence, essence of personality (Page 33 of Webster''s Dictionary, page 76 of Penguin English Dictionary Reprint 1992 and page 97 of Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, Fourth Edition, New Edition 1991), the expression ''not being a university'' in Section 2(h) of the Act should be read in the context of such a background stated above and not in its isolation. The definitive clause may not always operate on the totality of the provisions in a piece of legislation. It can supplement and compliment the other provisions of the? Act and the Regulations. The Council by framing the Regulation 3(g) and (j) and also by framing other Regulations has clarified its intention to include the ''University'' and other agencies within the definition of ''technical institution u/s 2(h) of the Act and also imported such a meaning in the expression ''not being a University''. If a literal meaning is drawn out from Section 2(h) of the Act, it may mean that ''technical institution'' is not a ''university'' or that the ''university'' is not a ''technical institution'' and therefore the law did not intend to establish the Council for technical education for the proper planning and coordinated development of technical education system throughout the country as if the university and other institutions or agencies are beyond the country which will only lead to the absurdity and irreconcilable situation to have several compartments to maintain different standards for different students in the country, some educated in the technical institutions other than the university, Government etc., and some students to whom technical education is imparted by the agencies other than the technical institution which is not said to be a University. Such a construction of the provision defeating the very purpose of the object of the Act can never be adopted in interpreting a statute. Even a simple understanding of Section 2(h) of the Act may mean that ''technical institution'' is not a ''university'' and the converse may not be true. Because, a ''technical institution'' is established u/s 3 of the Act whereas a ''University'' or ''deemed University'' is established under the different enactments. Similarly a ''deemed University'' is also a creature of statute so recognised by the UGC and the University and also the Council under the Regulations. Therefore, a technical institution ''not being a university'' offers courses or programmes of technical education, but the University ''not being a technical institution'' within the meaning of ''technical institution'' established u/s 3 of the Act, is a technical institution, if it offers courses or programmes of technical institution within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. If the law makers wanted to exclude the university from the embryo to be delivered out of technical institution, either there should have been the exclusion clause expressly or with necessary implication and on the other hand, by including the University expressly in various provisions of the Act and the Regulations, the law makers have never excluded the University from the embrace of technical institution, particularly to achieve the object of proper planning and co-ordinated development of technical education system throughout the country. If we are guided by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan''s case (1 supra) and Adhiyainan''s case (2 supra) also, we are totally justified in drawing such conclusions. We, without any doubt, propose to declare that all the institutions or agencies of whatever character, either statute or otherwise offering courses or programmes of technical education within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act, should be brought within the meaning of ''technical institution'' u/s 2(h) of the Act or to be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Regulations.
54. The penultimate attempt to escape the Act and the Regulations by the Government and the University has been in calling them guidelines and not a mandate. The university has gone to the extent of saying that having been appraised of the norms and conditions of the Council, such guidelines have been adopted for its technical department and colleges and in that context the approval by the AICTE is unnecessary. The word ''shall'' is used in Section 10 of the Act regarding the duty of the Council to take all steps for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education system throughout the country and maintenance of norms and standards in technical education system, and the use of the word ''may'' in relation to the items in Sub-clause (a) to (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act and the word ''shall'' used in Section 11 regarding inspections, constitution of Committees Under Sections 12 - 14, and the word ''shall'' used in Sections 16 - 20 are all the legislative intent to make the provisions mandatory. Similarly, such expression of the word ''shall'' in Reg. Nos. 4 to 10 also in the normal circumstances should be meant to be mandatory. However, the use of the word ''may'' in Reg. No. 11 the power to relax, and Reg. No. 12 regarding withdrawal of approval connotes the discretion to the Council in such matters. Notwithstanding such use of the word ''shall'' in such provisions, it is only in Reg. No. 4 regarding the approval, the word ''shall'' is sought to be read as ''may. The contention that the use of the word ''shall'' in a statute though generally taken in a mandatory sense, does not necessarily mean that in every case it shall have that effect, that is to say, that unless the words of the statute are punctually followed, the proceeding or the outcome of the proceeding would be invalid, is sought to be supported with the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
"The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the Legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the Legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provision, but also by considering its nature, its design and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other...".
Even putting the provisions of the Act and Regulations to test to the above requirements, the use of the word ''shall'' in several provisions cannot be but mandatory as it is the Council and the Council alone and not the University or any other agency which is placed in-charge of maintaining the standards of technical education throughout the country and the violation of any of such provision by any agency leads to chaos in the technical educational system in the country. The duty of the Council to ensure all such compliance of the agencies for the purpose contemplated under the Act cannot be but mandatory as the result of the failure would leave no other result except the chaos.
55. Apart from the other provisions using the word ''shall'' in the context to intend a mandate therein, Reg. No. 4 is a non-obstante clause as it places | an absolute embargo to start the new technical institution or university technical department, to introduce any course or programme, to continue to admit students for degree or diploma course or programmes, to increase or vary the intake capacity of seats ''except with the approval of the council''. The provision contemplates that no such things can happen or allowed without the approval of the Council. Or in other words, if such things happen without the approval of the Council, the result is that it has not happened at all. The consequence of non-approval by the Council leaves such matters into void. The consequence is that such expression ''shall'' therein and similar provisions should be read as mandatory and not directory as a mere guideline.
56. The last of the missiles or the defences of the University that the provisions of the Act and the Regulations encroaches or offends the ''autonomy'' of the University enjoyed under the Universities Act in its governance remains to be examined. It is true that the autonomy of the University is imbedded into the law under the Universities Act for governance by issuing the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations Under Sections 51 to 55 of the Universities Act by the Board of Management and the Academic Senate. The functions of the University under the Act are already enumerated which are many in relation to imparting education and even to maintain the standards in education, however, limited to the University area and the University campus, as delimited in the schedule. Patently it cannot extend beyond such territorial limits. It applies to each of the Universities established or deemed to have been established u/s 3 and 4 of the Act, whereas the provisions of the Act and the Regulations are exclusively meant for the technical education for whole of the country whether a University takes up such education or not. The autonomy of the University, if understood in regard to all sorts of education, will be restricted to its territorial limits and not the whole country. In that sense its autonomy cannot extend to the functions of the Council. Conversely, the Council dealing with the matters relating to technical education encompasses the whole country inclusive of the University to dilute the concept of autonomy. Presuming that the result is the inroads into the autonomy of the University, the Parliament by making a competent legislation in regard to technical education having overriding effect on the State Law including the Universities Act, the autonomy of the University to that extent should be taken to have been not recognised or demolished to that extent: Even then, the concept of autonomy of a statutory institution like a University is subject to other laws of the country and obviously the constitutional fold. Like any other statutory body or the institution, the University is not above law or rule of law. Its autonomy is restricted and controlled by the rule of law. The University appears to have understood the ''autonomy'' as the ''autocracy''. Within the dictionary, the lexicons and Thesaurus, ''autonomy'' is the right (and condition) of power of self Government, (Left Column, Page 134 of Black''s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991), the state of independence, to mean, to live according to its own laws (Left Column, Page 296 of Bouvier''s Law Dictionary Vol. 1,1914 Edition, and page 27 of Webster''s Dictionary, New Revised and Expanded Edition). On the face of it, it can never be autocracy which is ''the name of an unlimited monarchial Government, a Government at the will of one man unchecked by constitutional restrictions or limitations'' (Left Column, Page 134 of Black''s Law Dictionary supra), a Government where the power of the monarch is unlimited by law (P. 294 of Bouvier''s Law Dictionary supra), absolute Government by one person, country or society and an absolute rule (Page 73, Left Column, Concise Oxford Dictionary, 3rd impression, 1992). The reliance on a ruling of the Supreme Court in
"The 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 that are prescribed by the University for grant and continuance of affiliation will have to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council in respect of matters entrusted to it u/s 10 of the Central Act"
(Para 30, page 127 of Adhiyaman Edn. & Res. Inst. case (2 supra))
57. In regard to the instances wherein the University may prescribe certain standards for admission of students in such institutions, it is noted by the Supreme Court with approval that-
"...It is true that, in practice, it may happen that institutions with higher resources and students and teachers with higher marks and qualifications, respectively, than are prescribed apply and compete for the places, seats or vacancies as the case may be. However, it is equally true that when the vacancies are available for institutions or students or teachers as the case may be, the applicants cannot be denied the same on the ground that they do not fulfil the higher requirements laid down under the State Act, if they are qualified under the Central Act. Similarly, the institutions cannot be de recognised or disaffiliafed on the ground that they do not fulfil the higher requirements under the State Act although they fulfil the requirements under the Central Act. So also, when the power to recognise or derecognise an institution is given to a body created under the Central Act, it alone can exercise the power and on terms and conditions laid down in the Central Act. It will not be open for the body created under the State Act to exercise such power much less on terms and conditions which are inconsistent or repugnant to those which are laid down under the Central Act".
(Para 34, pages 128 and 129 of Adhiyaman Edn. & Res. Inst. case (2 supra)).
That clearly defines the autonomy of the University, not to be autocracy, in relation to the matters covered by the AICTE Act and it is operative in such other areas not covered by the AICTE Act. Therefore, we hold that the powers and functions of the AICTE or the Council under the Act cannot be taken to offend the autonomy of the University. Same thing can be said in relation to the Government or any other agency is concerned, that their area of operation by virtue of any other law including the State Acts cannot be in regard to the matters covered by the AICTE Act.
58. Therefore we conclude that the approval of the Council is necessary as a condition precedent for affiliation of Technical institutions, Colleges or Institutions by the University or recognition by the Government. But at the same time, it may not be mandatory or compulsory for the Universities to accord affiliation wherever the approval is accorded by the Council. The Government is also not automatically bound to recognise such institutions etc., having approval of the Council. But such refusal of affiliation by the University or recognition by the Government shall not be on the matters or the grounds which are already considered and covered by the AICTE Act and for the determination of the Council while according approval. Because, the Government and University etc., are represented in the Committees of the Council and any such matters in relation to affiliation and recognition even after the approval can only be taken up with the Council, however, the decision of the Council in that regard shall be final. At the same time, the affiliation by the University and recognition by the Government can be refused on any other ground in its own law or any other law not covering or concerning the matters according the approval under the AICTE Act. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Supreme Court has put an end to all such controversies leaving no scope for res integra in view of Unnikrishnan''s case (1 supra) and Adhiyamaris case (2 supra).
59. We are given the impression of the authorities concerned with the Osmania University and the AICTE (Council) with their ego and psychophantic deportment have failed in their statutory duties to fulfil the aspirations of the beneficiaries of the technical education and the intention of the Statutes of which they are the integral part. The mismanagement in regard to the courses of management as part of technical education by them as alleged in the PIL is also not far from truth. In particular, the Osmania University attiring itself with the so called autonomy nothing less than autocracy adopting double standards one for itself and the other for others in regard to technical education and the Council which is said to be not diligent or uniform in treatment of the institutions or colleges seeking approval even with the alleged extra influences of higher-ups and the Government joining hands with them are driving the persons and the institutions from pillar to post and are defeating the very purpose of the intendment of their existence. The two limbs of technical education system have exposed each other in such alleged misconduct of which we feel it unnecessary to elaborate from plenty of materials placed before the Court by both of them and other parties. We only remind them of their constitutional and the statutory obligations in regard to imparting technical education and caution them of the serious consequences on their failure to rise to the expectations. We also feel it appropriate to remind of the other agencies involved in imparting technical education not to succumb to such mismanagement and realise the social service motto in such endeavour not to make it a commercialisation for selfish ends which we are somehow able to gather from the controversies presented in these cases. We also caution them of the serious consequences of the failure to deliver the goods.
60. Having declared the law as above, the stage sets in to decide each of the cases. In W.P.No. 19652/96 petitioner has served his purpose in exposing '' the mismanagement of technical education which includes courses in Management (MBA etc.,) regarding which we have examined and cleared all the doubts in (sic and) controversies. That gets disposed of accordingly along with W.A.No. 1117/96 arising therefrom as against an interim order. The respondents 6 to 9 and 23 having not at all applied for any sort of approval for the purpose of technical education cannot dream of performing any such educational activities of technical education. Respondents 10,11,14 to 18 and 27 securing conditional approvals of the Council can be allowed to impart technical education subject to such conditions. Respondent No. 25 whose application for approval is rejected can only apply for approval afresh fulfilling all the norms and conditions of the Council or pursue legal remedies, if so advised. The applications of the respondents 21,22,26,28 and 29 which are under process of the Council are to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time frame. The application of the petitioner in W.P. No.18883/96 pending approval of the Council, also deserves same consideration. The petitioner in W.P.No. 17850/96 gets no relief as the allotment of seats without insisting for approval of the Council is against law declared by us. W.A.No. 1285/96 arising out of an interim order in this writ petition should also get disposed of along with the writ petition as having no merit. The petitioner in W.P.No. 20752/96, having obtained approval from the Council in its proceedings dt. 23-5-1996 not being allowed to start the college due to the inaction of the Government and the University, succeeds and the writ petition has to be allowed granting the relief as claimed. W.P. No. 21557/96 should succeed as the Circular No. 2485/D/307/II/96 dated 26-9-1996 was issued by the University based on an interim order in W. A.(SR) No. 100806 dt. 19-9-1996 which is going to be disposed of in the light of the decision in the W.P.No. 19652/96 by quashing the circular.
61. The only matter remains to be considered is about the applications of respondent Nos. 12, 13, 19 and 24 having been made for approval after 31-12-1995, the cut off date stipulated by the Council for approval regarding the course for 1996-97. The Council has proposed to consider them for 1997-98 only. The respondent No. 12, recognised by the Government and affiliated by the University has been running the MBA course since the year 1988 and the University has been extending the same every year and it appears to have made lot of preparations and the investment in running the college admitting students with an impression that no approval of Council is necessary under the circumstances has however applied during the pendency of these proceedings. Respondent No. 13 imparting education exclusively for women for the last four decades aided by the Government having building and infrastructure affiliated by the University running MBA course has applied for approval of the Council to continue the MBA course as advised by the University claiming to have fulfilled all the requirements of the Council which is also during the pendency of these proceedings. Respondent No. 19 started the MBA course from the academic year 1991-92 with the permission of Osmania University, having been instructed to approach the Council for approval which was applied for on 15-7-1991 having complied with all the requirements, got no response from the Council. The respondent No. 23 having all the facilities since 1970 got the permission of the Government to start the PG course in MBA from the year 1994-95, applied for approval on 22-10-1996 in accordance with the orders of the High Court in W.A.No. 1117/96 and it appears that the Chairman of the Council was also approached in this regard without any success. Respondent No. 24 commenced the MBA course during the year 1995-96 affiliated by the University, obtained approval of the A.P. State Council for Higher Education and having been advised to obtain the approval from the AICTE, made an application on 30-4-1996 for approval and has not got the same till now. Apparently, due to the in-fight between the University and the Council and with the understanding of the law due to such a conflict, these institutions or colleges having commenced, continued or contemplating to establish have made lot of preparations by investing heavily, have become helpless in such a situation. The students and the society at large is at stake due to the conduct of such persons and the agencies like the University and the Council including the Government. Most of them have claimed that they have fulfilled all the terms and conditions imposed by the Council or they are prepared to comply with the same. We have noted that the Council can relax the regulations by virtue of Reg. No. 11. We feel that the Council will be able to consider the applications of these respondents for approval of any kind either prospectively or retrospectively including the ratification by relaxing the regulation if necessary, provided the required standards of technical education in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations can be achieved or improved without detrimental to the real purpose of maintaining the high and equal standards of technical education throughout the country. Possibly, the legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel and equities may also operate in such circumstances to some degree. Therefore, we deem it proper that their applications should also be considered by the Council for approval subject to the conditions stated above.
62. The finale of the scenario reaches in realising the plight and the agony of the students, their parents and the society at large in regard to technical education being imparted by the University through its technical department and the Colleges, respondents 6 to 9 due to the conduct of the University noted as above. To judicially notice, the Osmania University must be imparting\\ technical education since several decades in its own autonomy till the AICTE Act was enacted from 23-12-1987. Notwithstanding the adamant attitude and the psychic or psychophantic realities of the individuals in the Universities,-the temples of learning, their beneficiaries who must be innocent of the consequences should not be allowed to be victimised. Possibly, as has been disclosed, the UGC and the Government might have approved or checked and approved the required standards maintained by the University in imparting technical education. The admission of students till the latest academic year 1996-97 having been done, the education must be in the continuing process. For want of approval of the Council to continue or to admit students or to determine the intake capacity of the seats as per Reg. No. 4 of the Regulations, the whole process of technical education is bound to come to a standstill even assuming that the technical approval of the Council is necessary in certain circumstances. Such a consequence cannot be allowed to happen when this Court is entrusted with the task of dispensing justice ultimately. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 to do complete justice to remedy any situation has been declared by this Court in a latest pronouncement of this Full Bench to be usefully noted;
".....Before parting with the case, we are to reiterate and impress that Article 226 of the Constitution is a storehouse or a reservoir or even a dam of justice, equity and good conscience, which are meant for exercising within the discretionary power of the Court vested in that regard to do justice and complete justice, the whole justice and nothing but the justice and such a forebay of all the contents may consist of any law, rule of law and the rule of human law and human justice and none can restrict such a power"
(W.A.No. 829/96 dated 5-12-1996),
That is what we have proposed to do in regard to the University and respondents 6 to 9 and 23 also leaving open an opportunity to apply at least now to the Council to seek whatever approval which may be necessary in the situation to be considered by the Council as in the case of others indicated above.
63. In the result, we dispose of the Writ Petitions and the Appeals in the following terms:
We find basic merit in the petition, W.P.No. 19625/96 and appreciate it in exposing the ills of the technical education system to lead to proper results in these cases as above. The law declared in this Judgment shall be given effect to by the Council, Government of A.P. and the Universities and all the agencies concerned with technical education, within the meaning of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder.
64. The Council shall act effectively and impartially in accordance with the Act and the Regulations in the light of the observations of this Court herein.
65. The Universities shall not allot students to the technical institutions for technical education course or programmes which have not so far applied nor obtained approval for any purpose u/s 10(k) of the Act and Reg. No. 4 of the Regulations including Respondents 6 to 9,12,13,19,21 to 26, 28 and 29.
66. The Council shall dispose of the applications pending as on today for approval in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations in the light of the observations made in this Judgment, either prospectively or retrospectively, if possible by ratification or by relaxing the regulations under Reg. No. 11, however, strictly on merits including the applications of respondents 12, 13,19, 24 and the petitioner in W.P.No. 18883/96.
67. The institutions or colleges whose applications are rejected by the Council shall be entitled to seek any remedy which is available in law.
68. The Osmania University and Respondents 6 to 9 and 23 shall be entitled to apply to the Council for approval of any kind which may be necessary in the situation, which shall be consideredby the Council in accodance with the provisions of he AICTE Act and the Regulations in the light of the observations made in this Judgment.
69. The Osmania University shall take decision in regard to the affiliation of any such technical institution which has obtained approval of the Council and the Government shall recognise such institutions. All this exercise shall be made by the Council, the Government and the University within one month from today.
70. W.P.No. 19652/96 and W.A.No. 1117/96 are allowed and disposed of accordingly.
71. In W.P.No. 18883/96 the application of the petitioner shall be disposed of by the Council in accordance with the directions of this Court in similar type of applications as above. This Writ petition and W.A.No. 1286/96 shall stand disposed of in these terms.
72. W.P.No. 17850/96 and W.A.No. 1285/96 shall stand dismissed.
73. W.P.No. 20752/96 is allowed and W.A.Nos. 1319/96 and 1376/96 are disposed of accordingly with the writ petition.
74. W.P.No. 21557/96 is allowed and the Circular No. 2485/D/307/II/96 dated 26-9-96 issued by the Registrar, Osmania University, is quashed.
75. There shall be no order as to costs in these matters.
