SARASWATHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. GOVT. OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education ("APSCHE" for short) dated 16.01.2013, inviting applications from registered educational societies/affiliated aided and un-aided degree colleges for starting new private un-aided degree colleges (including Hotel management Colleges), U.G. and P.G. Courses for the academic year 2013-14 in the State of Andhra Pradesh, for Madanapalli Mandal in Chittoor District; Kadiri Mandal in Anantapur District; and Huzurabad and Jagityal Mandals in Karimnagar District, is under challenge in this batch of Writ Petitions as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (hereinafter called the "Act"), the A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called the "Rules"), and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioners are all unaided private degree colleges offering under-graduate courses, after having obtained permission from the APSCHE and on being granted affiliation by their respective Universities. It is their case that, after being satisfied with the standards of instructional and infrastructural facilities available at the petitioners-institutions, the affiliating Universities have been extending them affiliation each year; the APSCHE issued notification dated 16.01.2013, for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh, indicating the mandals in each district where new degree colleges were proposed to be established for the academic year 2013-14; the notification, in clear terms, specified that the proposal for starting a new degree college would be considered only where there are no degree colleges in the revenue mandals; contrary thereto, several mandals were notified even though degree colleges were in existence thereat; Section 20 of the Act, and Rule 4 of the Rules, mandate that, if the educational needs of the locality are adequately served, no permission should be granted; and the existing degree colleges, in the subject mandals, are struggling to survive as adequate number of students are not willing to join degree courses, and no college is able to fill-up the seats upto the sanctioned strength. The affidavit gives details of the sanctioned and the admitted strength of various degree colleges in the mandals based on which the petitioners contend that the admitted strength is far in excess of the sanctioned strength, and the subject mandals do not require another degree college to be established thereat. The petitioners further contend that the APSCHE, without examining and identifying the educational needs of the locality and without considering the admissions made in the existing educational institutions, had issued the impugned notification; indiscriminate grant of permission for starting new degree colleges, even though there is no requirement for opening such colleges, would adversely affect the quality of the teaching staff, result in fall in standards in education, and kill the existing institutions; no survey, to assess the needs and demands of the locality, was conducted; the notification does not also specify the needs of the mandals; the decision to invite applications for establishing new colleges is vitiated by non-consideration of relevant factors; there was no assessment of the need of the locality by the APSCHE; increasing educational institutions, in such large numbers, would only result in deterioration in educational standards, leading to unhealthy competition among the institutions forcing them to admit less meritorious students; grant of approval, for establishing a new college, should depend on the seats remaining unfilled in a particular college located in a particular area; students cannot be deprived of their right to have quality education; grant of permission by the respondents would only result in large number of seats remaining vacant, besides lack of sufficient infrastructure and competent faculty; the competent authority cannot, without application of mind, grant permission; the impugned notification is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules; and permitting new colleges to be established would result in the petitioners suffering irreparable loss and injury.

(3.) In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the APSCHE, it is stated that its Governing Council, in co-ordination with senior officials of the Higher Education Department and the Vice-Chancellors of the A.P.State Universities, decides the schedule each year for inviting applications from registered educational societies to establish private un-aided degree colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh; general notifications were being issued upto the year 2005- 2006, inviting applications for grant of permission to establish new degree colleges at various mandals and districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh as per the need survey conducted under Section 20 of the Act; from the academic year 2006-2007 onwards, the APSCHE has been issuing notifications, for establishing new private un-aided decree colleges in certain mandals, as has been identified on a survey being conducted to assess the need for establishing new private un- aided degree colleges, thereby complying with the requirements of the statute; for the academic year 2013-2014 it was resolved by the APSCHE, during its 93rd Council Meeting, to conduct a fresh survey to assess the need for permitting new private un-aided degree colleges, and identify the unserved mandals for the purpose of issuing a notification; a survey was conducted by the APSCHE identifying the places/areas where private un-aided degree colleges could possibly be established; the survey was conducted taking the "mandal" as a unit; the data relating to the number of Junior Colleges, the number of pass-outs (March/April 2012), the number of degree colleges (if any), the sanctioned intake and the number of students admitted in those degree colleges in 2012-2013 were analysed; criteria was prescribed for identifying the notified mandals; suggestions from universities, representations from the local elite, and the views of people's representatives were also taken into consideration in identifying the mandals; the spirit, behind identifying such mandals, was to encourage private managements to establish degree colleges, thereby increasing accessibility to higher education in the hitherto unserved mandals; there are still around 438 mandals in the State without any degree college i.e., around 28% of the total mandals in the State still remain unserved without a degree college; the available data shows that enrolment, in the sanctioned colleges in rural areas, has been very poor in the recent years, when compared to enrolment in colleges located nearby urban areas; and the Committee was of the view that the gradual decline in enthusiasm for establishing new private un-aided degree colleges in remote rural areas could be due to lack of proper resources for the survival of the colleges such as low population with less number of intermediate pass-outs, preference of students to join engineering and other professional colleges which had come up in large numbers, difficulty in providing better infrastructure facilities and faculty by the managements in such remote areas etc. After extracting the relevant recommendations of the Committee it is stated that, on the criteria whereby mandals were identified, a notification was issued on 16.01.2013 inviting applications from registered educational institutions for establishing new private un-aided degree colleges during the academic year 2013-2014; the mandals were notified after a survey was conducted under Section 20 of the Act, and as per Rule 4 of the Rules; for grant of permission to establish new degree colleges, available data was called for from the concerned affiliated universities regarding the manner in which the petitioner colleges, and the other colleges in the said mandals, were functioning and to ascertain the reasons why a large number of seats were lying vacant or were not being filled up; almost all the petitioners were running their colleges admitting students in excess of the sanctioned strength; some of the petitioners were running colleges in two or four leased premises though the rules required them to shift to their own permanent buildings; the deficiencies, in running such colleges, have been pointed out by the concerned affiliating universities; though the petitioners were granted permission more than five years ago, they have not improved their infrastructure facilities, and were found indulging in malpractices; they were intent on avoiding healthy competition; they lack bonafides, and have questioned the notification dated 16.01.2013 with the malafide intention of monopolizing the field of education; as competitors, they do not have the locus standi to question the impugned notification; the Writ Petition has been filed keeping personal interest in mind; and the petitioners are indulging only in profiteering.