GITANJALI TRUST Vs. HEMCHANDRACHARYA NORTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, a charitable Trust running Pharmacy College, has approached this Court seeking a direction on the respondents to annul decision taken by respondent University, reducing the intake of 50% students in the petitioner college for the academic year 2008-2009, and also for the consequential reliefs.

(2.) PETITIONER has stated that All India Council for Technical Education (for brevity "the AICTE") has fixed the intake of the petitioner college for the academic year 2008-2009 at 60 and there is no justification for the University to reduce the intake to 30. Party-in-person appeared for the Trust and submitted that University is acting with ulterior motive so as to harass the petitioner. Petitioner has stated that the Trust has satisfied all the conditions laid down by the AICTE and the deficiencies pointed out by the University are only an eye-wash so as to see that the Trust would not get the benefit of the order passed by AICTE. Petitioner also submitted that proper inspection has not been conducted by the local inspection Committee with prior notice to the Trust. Further, it is stated that after conducting inspection by the Committee on 26. 6. 2009, they came to the residence of the party-in-person and got his signature on the report, and many of the details stated in the report are inserted later on and therefore, no reliance should be placed on the report. Petitioner has submitted that the Trust has invested several lakhs of rupees for providing proper facilities to the students, requisite number of teaching and non-teaching staff have been appointed and the institute has got a well equipped laboratory with adequate water system, furniture etc. and sufficient number of computers have been provided over and above common facilities like canteen, girls' common room, boys' common room, parking facilities etc. but none of these facts were taken into consideration by the inspection committee. Under these circumstances, petitioner has stated that a positive direction be given to the University to permit intake of 60 students as has been granted by AICTE, failing which considerable prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the University referred to the recognition granted by AICTE and submitted that it was a conditional one. Deficiencies pointed by the AICTE vide its letter dated 9. 6. 2008 have not been rectified by the institution. Petitioner college has got facility to accommodate only 30 students. If the deficiencies pointed out by the AICTE are cured and the requirements of the University are complied with, then only permission can be granted for admitting 60 students. Learned counsel submitted that local inspection Committee had visited the premises in the year 2008 and also on 24. 6. 2009. Deficiencies noted by the local inspection Committee have been stated in the report placed before this Court with an affidavit sworn on 20th July, 2009. Learned counsel submitted that it is incumbent upon the petitioner to satisfy all the conditions laid down by the AICTE, and the criterion laid down by the Government as well as the University.