Pradiptaray, J.@mdashThe petitioners in these writ applications are the 2nd year students of 5 years'' Integrated Master-in-Computer Application Course (hereinafter referred to as the ''M.C.A.'') in private educational institutions, namely; National Institute of Information Science, Bhubaneswar, Sudhir Singh Memorial Institute of Technology, Cuttack; Orissa Academy of Science, 361-A, At - Patrapada, Bhubaneswar. The State Government granted permission to the respective Educational Agencies to establish those private educational institutions to offer five years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course.
2. It appears that several Educational Agencies including the Agencies of the aforesaid four institutions submitted a proposal to the State Government and Utkal University for introducing Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course from the Session 1999-2000. The Board of Studies of Utkal University considered the said proposal and after due consideration recommended introduction of several new courses in different subjects including Five years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course. The proposal of the Board of Studies was placed before the meeting of the Academic Council held on April 29,2000 and the Academic Council approved introduction of the said Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course under the School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science of the University. After introduction of the said Course, the High Power Committee requested the Registrar of the Utkal University to frame guidelines for the purpose of conducting the said M.C.A. Course by private institutions. In pursuance of the said request, the University framed guidelines and sent to the Department of Higher Education, Government of Orissa. On the basis of the guidelines framed by the Utkal University, the Appellate Authority (the Minister-in-charge) accorded permission to four Educational Agencies to open Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course (in short, ''disputed M.C.A. Course'') for 30 students from the Session 2000-2001 and 60 students from the Session 2001 -2002, The said decision of the Appellate Authority was communicated by the Director of Higher Education by his Office Order dated March 19, 2001. After obtaining permission from the State Government the said four Institutions started admitting students and applied to Utkal University for affiliation after depositing the necessary course fee, process fee and part of the academic fee. As the University yet did not take any final decision and was not holding any examination for the said disputed M.C.A. Course, one of the educational institutions, viz. National Institute of Information Science, Bhubaneswar filed O.J.C. No. 11103 of 2001 before this Court. In the said O.J.C., this Court directed the Utkal University to complete formalities for affiliation within a period of fifteen days. In view of the said direction of this Court, the University asked the Institute to fulfil the conditions mentioned in their letter dated November 8, 2001 for the purpose of grant of affiliation. Admittedly, none of the Institutions has got any approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (in short, ''A.I.C.I.E.''). As those Institutes have not got approval of the A.I.C.T.E., the University has not granted affiliation to any of the said Institute. Being aggrieved, the students of the said four Institutions have filed these writ applications for directing the Utkal University to hold examination of Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course for the students of those private Institutions,
3. The Utkal University has filed a counter disclosing the reasons for not granting affiliation to the said Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course conducted by the said Institutions, It has been pointed out by the University that the said disputed M.C.A. Course is not a course approved by the A.I.C.T.E. and under the provisions of the A.I.C.T.E. Act and the guidelines framed thereunder, no private educational institutions can be permitted to conduct any course of education unless such course is approved by the A.I.C.T.E. As the A.I.C.T.E. has not yet approved the said Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course, the University cannot grant affiliation to private institutions to conduct such course, admit students and to appear at examination.
4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Advocate appearing for the University has explained the relevant facts and pointed out that under the provisions of the A.I.C.T.E. Act and the guidelines, University has no right and authority to hold examination for the said disputed course.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners have referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University and Anr., v. All India Council for Technical Education and others AIR 2001 SC 2861 and submitted that the A.I.C.T.E. has no control over the Universities and Universities are free to introduce any course. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Advocate, however, submits that the University is free to conduct a course in its own department or in any of its constituent colleges forming a part of its faculties, but the University has no authority to allow or permit any private educational institution to conduct a technical course not approved and included in the schedule of approved Courses by the A.I.C.T.E. It is pointed out that the decision of the University relates to introduction of Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course in its own department, viz. School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science. The University framed a guideline at the request of the State Government for the purpose of use of the State Government and the said guidelines have nothing to do with the Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course conducted by the University School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science. It is very clear from the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court that A.I.C.T.E. Act and Regulation apply to the Technical Institutions defined in the A.I.C.T.E. Act. So, the Technical Institutions in which the petitioners read, cannot escapethe restriction and prohibition contained in the A.I.C.T.E. Act and the Regulations framed thereunder.
6. It appears that the State Government also ultimately realised that it cannot permit a private institution to conduct a technical course, not approved by the A.I.C.T.E. Accordingly, the State Government constituted a Committee by notification dated November 8, 2000. The said Committee in its meeting held on December 5, 2000, decided to write to the A.I.C.T.E. to include the disputed M.C.A. Course in the list of their approved courses. Admittedly, the A.I.C.T.E. has not yet intimated its decision on the said request of the State of Orissa.
7. It appears that in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause ''j'' and ''o'' of Section 10 read with Section 23 of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, A.I.C.T.E. framed regulations providing guidelines for admission of students to professional colleges. Regulation 4(4) prohibits establishment of any professional college or introduction of any new technical education course or programme without the approval of the Council. The professional college within the meaning of the A.I.C.T.E. Act and Regulations framed thereunder means "any private unaided college imparting technical education and includes a private unaided technical institution". Regulations framed by the A.I.C.T.E. being statutory regulations have the force of statutory law. Accordingly, it is not possible for this Court to direct the University to approve or affiliate the professional institutions unless, the said Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course is accepted by the A.I.C.T.E. as an approved course and the Professional Colleges obtained required permission from the A.I.C.T.E. for conducting the said technical course.
8. As already pointed out, the State Government has already requested the A.I.C.T.E. to approve and include the aforesaid Five Years'' Integrated M.C.A. Course in its list of approved courses.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the provisions of A.I.C.T.E. Act and Regulations framed thereunder, we dispose of the writ petitions by directing the All India Council for Technical Education to consider the request of the State of Orissa and to take a final decision thereon within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Misra, learned Advocate for A I.C.T.E. and supply of copy of the order will be treated as communication to the A.I.C.T.E.
Urgent certified copy of the order be given on proper application.
C.R. Pal, J.
10. I agree.
