CHIMANBHAI PATEL POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER APPLICATIONS Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by way of the present petition, have challenged the decision of 'No Admission' dated 30.4.2019 taken by the respondent - All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE") (AnnexureA).

(2.) The petitioner No.1 is an educational institution offering Post Graduate courses affiliated to Gujarat Technological University and is managed by the petitioner No.2 Trust. The petitioner No.1 offers the course of Masters in Computer Applications (MCA) at the post graduate level, which course is of six semesters spread over three years. The said institute was opened in the academic year 2001-2002. The respondent AICTE is a statutory body established under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The said Act provides for establishment of All India Council for Technical Education with a view to provide planned and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and regulation of proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for the matters connected therewith. Sec. 10 of the said Act lays down the functions of the Council, which inter alia provides that it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards. In order to discharge its duties in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Act, the AICTE has framed the Regulations for grant of approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes of existing technical institutions. The AICTE has also evolved a Hand Book for approval process, in which detailed procedure as well as the conditions, which the institutes must follow and fulfill are mentioned, in order to seek approval for either starting new technical institutions or for integration of courses/programmes as increase/variation of intake capacity of seats of courses/programmes by the existing technical institutes.

(3.) The respondent Council conducted a surprise visit to the petitioner's institute on 12.10.2017 during which various deficiencies with regard to buildings/built up/ instructional /administrative/amenities area/ faculty etc., were found. The report of the Committee in that regard was uploaded on the portal of the respondent Council and the petitioner Institute was intimated vide the letter dated 17.10.2017 through web portal to appear before the Standing Hearing Committee (SHC) on 1.11.2017 along with supporting documents/evidence with regard to the compliance of the deficiencies found during the surprise visit. However, the petitioner institute did not remain present before the SHC, and therefore, the SHC recommended "No Extension of Approval" (EOA) for the academic year 2018- 2019. It appears that thereafter a speaking order was passed on 20.11.2017 by the competent authority approving the recommendation of the SHC. The petitioner institute having submitted an appeal as per the provisions contained in Approval Process Handbook 2018-19 (APH) against the said decision before the Standing Appellate Committee (SAC), the SAC after considering the documents submitted by the representative of the petitioner institute decided that the institute be granted EOA with 25% reduction in intake for the academic year 2018-19 and further directed the institute to comply with the undertaking in respect of barrier free environment submitted and to satisfy the norms on faculty or principal and submit a report on or before 15.4.2018.