ST MARYS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a college of Engineering and Technology established in the year 2001 with the approval of All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'the Council'), 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent has created a facility of permitting 15% of supernumerary seats in each course of study in an Engineering College for the benefit of the students who are Foreign Nationals, persons of Indian origin and children of Indian workers in Gulf Countries (for short 'the PIO quota'), subject to certain conditions. The 1st respondent evolved an independent procedure for this. 12 conditions are stipulated for this purpose. The petitioner submitted an application for availing this benefit. Approval was accorded by the 1st respondent to the petitioner for the academic year 2008-09 for four courses. However, since the approval came at a belated stage, it is stated that the petitioner was not able to avail the benefit thereof.

(2.) As required under the relevant provisions, the petitioner submitted an application on 29.12.2008 for extension of that benefit for the current academic year i.e., 2009-10. Correspondence ensued in this regard. As a matter of fact, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition complaining that no action has been taken thereon. Ultimately, the 1 st respondent issued proceedings dated 15.10.2009 refusing to accord approval by stating two reasons viz., that the built up area available per student does not accord with the stipulated norms and that the result in the final year of concerned course for the past two academic years is less than 75%. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings.

(3.) It is urged that the difference between the available space on the one hand and the prescribed one is very meager and that the percentage of pass of students for the past two academic years has no nexus with the approval prayed for by the petitioner. The ln-charge Chairman and the Member Secretary of the 1st respondent are made as eo nomine parties to the writ petition and mala fides are alleged against them.