CHARROKAM EDUCATIONAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KEEPING in view the similarity and commonality of grievances of the writ petitioners and the homogeneity of the stand and stance put forth and regard being had to the combat put forth by the respondents in each case, the writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of convenience, clarity and plainness, the facts in writ Petition No. 10713/2008 are adumbrated herein.

(2.) THE petitioner, an educational society registered under the provisions of Madhya pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, developed an infrastructure for imparting education in engineering courses and established an Institute of Science and technology jn accordance with the norms fixed by Alt India Council of Technical education (AICTE), and eventually on satisfying the infrastructural necessities and other requisite criteria, submitted an application to the AICTE, the respondent No. 4 herein, to accord approval which was done as per communication dated 13-8-2008 with certain stipulations. The said authority granted approval with the intake capacity of 240 students. The said letter of approval was addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary, manpower Planning Department, government of Madhya Pradesh. The state Government has enacted M. P. Niji Vyavsayik shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for brevity 'the 2007 Act' ). In exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the aforesaid Act, the State Government has framed a set of rules called Admission Rules, 2008 (for short '2008 Rules') which pertain to the eligibility of admission, manner of admission and allocation of seats in private Unaided Professional Educational Institutions (including the reservation of seats for foreign and Non-Resident Indian candidates ).

(3.) AS pleaded, for the academic session 2008-09 the respondent commenced the counselling with effect from 20-8-2008. The first respondent issued an order on 20-8-2008, Annexure-P-4, stating, inter alia, that all the institutions which had been accorded approval by AICTE before the actual commencement of counselling would be included in the counselling for the academic session 2008-09. Because of the said decision taken by the State Government, number of institutions were included for counselling but the petitioner's grievance is that though it is similarly placed, yet it was not included. Due to non-inclusion, the petitioner approached the authorities but nothing fruitful ensued as a consequence of which the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court for issue of a command to the respondent to allow the petitioner to admit the students for the academic year 2008-09.