Indira Charitable Trust v State of Kerala and APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University; Sree Ernakulathappan College of Engineering and Management v APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University; Tomas College of Engineering for Startups v APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).NO.16479 OF 2019(H)** ## **PETITIONER:** **THE CHAIRMAN, INDIRA CHARITABLE TRUST, RAJADHANI BUILDINGS, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 023** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.P.M.SANEER SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001** **2 A P J ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM - 695 016** **BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SPL GP SRI.M.A.ASIF , SRI.MUHAMMED FAZIL.M.P ,GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).17087/2019(I), WP(C).18319/2019(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941** **WP(C).No.17087 OF 2019(I)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SREE ERNAKULATHAPPAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT (SETCEM)** **REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, DR. NIRMAL RAJA K, INCHAKUNDU P.O., MUPLIYAM, THRISSUR - 680 312** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN SRI.ALEX ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY(KTU) REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 016** - **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (KTU), CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 016** - **3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001** - **4 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001** - **5 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001** - **6 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE)** 3 **4TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING, JANPATH, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001** **BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SPL GP SRI.M.A.ASIF , SRI.MUHAMMED FAZIL.M.P ,GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).16479/2019(H), WP(C).18319/2019(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).NO.18319 OF 2019(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** **THE CHAIRMAN TOMAS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING FOR STARTUPS, MATTAKARA (P.O), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 564** **BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (KTU), CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 016, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR** - **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY(KTU), CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 016** - **3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, SPL GP SRI.M.A.ASIF , SRI.MUHAMMED FAZIL.M.P ,GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).16479/2019(H), WP(C).17087/2019(I), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **P.V.ASHA, J.** ## **---------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.16479, 17087 & 18319 of 2019 ---------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of August, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** All these Writ Petitions relate to the denial of affiliation to Postgraduate and Undergraduate programes by the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') to the existing affiliated colleges. 2. In WP(C) No.16479/2019 the petitioner is running an Engineering college with various programmes of Engineering. It is stated that the college is having National Board of Accreditation (NBA) as per Ext.P1 order. An application was submitted before the University for permission to start M.Tech programme in Structural Engineering. Petitioner had applied for NOC before the Government as per Ext.P2 letter. Petitioner had also submitted application for approval before the AICTE and for affiliation before the University. AICTE granted approval as per Ext.P4 order. ## W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [12 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** The University conducted an inspection through the expert verification committee on 25.04.2019. According to the petitioner no deficiencies were noted. But when the University granted affiliation for the existing courses as per Ext.P6 order nothing was stated regarding the new P.G. programme. While so Government rejected its application for NOC as per Ext.P8 letter dated 05.06.2019 on the ground that the programme is not innovative and that the deadline for granting affiliation for that year was over. The petitioner points out that in view of various judgments of this Court, NOC of the Government is not necessary for the purpose of affiliation. It is pointed out that no deficiencies were found in Ext.P9 Affiliation Application Deficiency Report furnished by the expert committee which conducted the inspection. 3. The petitioner therefore submits that the refusal on the part of the University to grant affiliation is illegal and politically motivated. It is pointed out that the college has satisfied the conditions under section 60(2) of the University Act. ## W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [12 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** It is also pointed out that as per section 61(4) the Rules and Procedure for affiliation shall be as prescribed in the statute. There are no such statutes for the University, which deal with new courses in existing colleges. It is stated that the Vice Chancellor has also not issued any ad-hoc order in lieu of statutes, in exercise of his power under section 14(6) of the Act. It is also stated that no agreement is executed with the Government for seat sharing. 4. The learned Standing Counsel has filed a statement on behalf of the University. It is stated that the syndicate in its meeting held on 14.05.2019 had taken a decision to grant affiliation only to innovative and integrated programes seeing that 50% of the sanctioned seats are left vacant in the conventional programmes. It was also decided that permission would be granted to start new U.G. programmes only to those institutions having NBA accreditation status and also the students intake for the last three academic years should be more than 30% of the sanctioned intake and there shall be ## W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [12 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** satisfactory academic performance. In respect of the petitioner's institution it is stated that as against the sanctioned intake of 72, the actual intake for the year 2016-17 was only 17 which comes to 23% and as against the actual intake for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 was only 15 by which the percentage reduced to 21%. It is therefore pointed out that the intake of the college was less than 30%. It is also pointed out that M.Tech programme in Structural Engineering is conducted in 13 colleges which are having a total intake of 240 out of which only 170 is occupied, leaving 30% of the seats unoccupied. It is stated that the petitioner college was given affiliation in the year 2015-16 for starting 4 UG programmes. But in 2019-20 there is only a single U.G. programme with an intake of 18. It is also stated that the petitioner institute has not obtained NOC from the University before applying for approval from AICTE, for starting new courses. It is also stated that in the absence of statute, the Vice Chancellor is vested with powers to regulate matters, by issuing executive instructions. W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [12 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 5. In WP(C) No.18319/2019 the petitioner college submitted application to start B.Tech programme in Aeronautical Engineering. AICTE granted approval as per Ext.P5 letter dated 30.4.2019. The University had rejected its application as per Ext.P1 letter dated 14.02.2019 on the ground that the college had only 30% admission and on the ground that the college is not accredited to NAAC and that the course required huge investment. It is stated that thereafter it submitted Ext.P2 representation and the University conducted an inspection on 07.05.2019. Though Government had issued an order granting NOC to certain colleges to start new courses, petitioner's college is not included in it. Petitioner's application was rejected as seen from the Website. 6. According to the petitioner once the AICTE has granted approval, the University does not have any authority to deny affiliation and University cannot have a policy which is different from that of AICTE. The contention of the petitioner is that the alleged decision of the syndicate not to grant affiliation on ## W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the basis of intake/accreditation etc, will not hold good for denying affiliation as the University does not have any authority to nullify the effect of the approval granted by the AICTE and that University ought to have considered its application on merits in accordance with section 63 (2) of the Act, when the 1[st] statute is not yet framed as provided in section 43 of the Act. 7. The respondent University has filed a counter affidavit in this case. It is stated that affiliation would be granted only to innovative programmes and integrated programmes as more than 50% of the seats are left vacant in the conventional programmes. The other conditions fixed are that the student intake for the last 3 academic years should be more than 30% of the sanctioned intake and the academic performance should be satisfactory and that from 2019-20 onwards one institution would be given one UG programme and one PG programme. It has explained the fall in intake stating that the actual intake for the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 was 57, 31 and 18 respectively as against ## W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the sanctioned intake of 300 (for 5 programmes) whereby the percentage of intake came down as 19%, 10% and 6% respectively. It is also stated that the pass percentage was 31 for S1, 26 for S2 and 61 for S5 in 2018 December. It was 39 for S2, 28 for S4 and 42 for S6 in 2018 April. It is stated that University had received several complaints from students regarding lack of infrastructure in the college and poor conduct of the college. It is stated that after conducting an enquiry university has granted permission to students for institutional transfer in 2[nd] and 4[th] semester and branch change in 2[nd] semester in relaxation of rules and that the University was compelled to sanction an additional batch in Chemical Engineering in Amal Jyothi College of Engineering. It is stated that allowing a new course to such a college will not be of any advantage to the academic community. It is stated that the petitioner had not obtained NOC from the University before submitting application before AICTE for approval for starting the new courses. It is stated that the university has decided to inspect such 44 colleges W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :12: including Toms Engineering College, taking note of its poor performance. As per clause 16.4 of the Approval Process Handbook, a no objection certificate from the State Government and no objection from affiliating University is mandatory for submitting application for starting new programmes and the NOC should be made available at the time of scrutiny. Therefore it is pointed out that in such cases University cannot be compelled to grant affiliation. It is also pointed out that the AICTE has granted approval without looking into the fulfillment of the mandatory requirement. It is also pointed out that under section 30(2)(XIV) of chapter IV of the University Act, the syndicate has power to arrange or direct investigation into the affairs of affiliated colleges to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency, in order to ensure academic and administrative resources, infrastructural facilities, academic performance etc and also to modify the conditions of affiliation as it deems fit. It is also pointed out that under section 14(6) of Chapter III of the University Act, the Vice Chancellor is W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** empowered to issue directions as he deems fit in respect of matters which are not regulated by statutes or regulations when no statutory regulation is made. Therefore it is pointed out that the Vice Chancellor is competent to issue orders in respect of affiliation of colleges. 8. In WP(C) No.17087/2019 the petitioner – Sree Ernakulathappan College of Engineering and Management had submitted application for affiliation for two additional courses. It is stated that the petitioner college was conducting 5 programmes in B.Tech with the approval of AICTE and affiliation of the University. In the place of Electronics and Communication Engineering and Electronics and Electrical Engineering the petitioner college had applied for starting new courses in B.Tech Food Technology and B.Tech Chemical Engineering. The AICTE granted approval on 30.04.2019. The petitioner got Ext.P2 affiliation application report on the basis of inspection conducted by expert visiting committee on 30.04.2019 and points out that the only deficiency noted was with respect to toilet ## W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :14: facility, pointing out that it cannot be used by physically challenged students. Petitioner points out that the said deficiency is already cured. Petitioner college is not included in the list of colleges to which Government issued NOC in Ext.P5 order on 14.05.2019. By Ext.P8 letter dated 07.06.2019 the University informed that the syndicate resolved to grant affiliation to existing courses only. 9. In the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel it is stated that the intake in the college was only 59 against sanctioned intake of 240 (4 programmes) in 2016-17 which was only 25%; 6 against 240 (4 programmes) in 2017-18 which was only 2.5% and 0% against 180 (4 programmes) coming to 0% in 2018-19. The pass percentage was 11 for S2; 10 for S4 and 8 for S6. It is also stated that the College did not get an NOC from University before it applied to AICTE. 10. According to the petitioners, the University cannot deny affiliation or fix the intake when the AICTE which is the regulatory body has granted approval and fixed the intake after conducting inspection. It is W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** pointed out that if at all the University or the Government is having any objection as against the approval granted by the AICTE, University or Government ought to have raised those objections before the AICTE within a period of 21 days of the application submitted by the college and in case those objections were not considered the remedy for the University or Government would be to seek its remedy from the appropriate forum by challenging the orders of the AICTE. Relying on the judgments of this Court in _**W.A.No.1485/2019**_ , _**State of Kerala and Ors. vs. KMCT Polytechnic College (W.A.No.1239/2017 and connected cases dated 22.08.2017)**_ , _**Mampara**_ **P.N.N.M Ayurveda Medical College vs. Kerala University of Health Sciences : 2018 (1) KLT 572, St.Joseph's Hospital Trust vs. Kerala University of Health Sciences : 2012 (4) KLT 444,** _**Jaya Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala:**_ **2002 (2) KLT 267,** etc, Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the rejection of the applications submitted W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** by the petitioners is illegal. 11. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the University, the AICTE Regulations have undergone amendment and University has got every authority to determine whether affiliation should be granted or not and also to decide what can be the intake if at all it is decided to grant permission. According to the University, it has got the responsibility to see that courses and colleges are not allowed without any restrictions and it is necessary to consider the actual intake for a particular course in the college as well as the pass percentage for each programme. 12. Clause 1.2(e) of the AICTE (Grant of Approval for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2018 provides that the application submitted for starting new programmes/levels in the existing institutions would be governed by the regulations. Petitioners in all these writ petitions wanted to start new courses covered by regulation 1.2(e). As per regulation 2.6 the norms and procedure for processing of application for approval are to be published in the Approval Process W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Handbook (KPH). Regulation 3.1(b) provides that the existing institutions including self financing shall conduct/increase/reduce the intake of existing courses/programmes or introduce new programmes only after obtaining approval of the Council. Regulation 5.3 provides that the documents to be attached to the application, the charges to be remitted, norms and standard requirements and procedure by which applications are processed for grant of approval of the institutions are to be published by the council in the Approval Process Handbook. Regulation 6 provides for the procedure for processing the application. As per regulation 6.2(a) the State Government and the affiliating University shall forward their views on the applications received under clause 1.2(e) of the Regulations to the Regional Office within one week from the last date of submission of application. It also provides that in the absence of receipt of views from the State Government or affiliating University the Council shall proceed for further processing. Clause 6.2(b) provides for the processing of application by ## W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the scrutiny committee formed by the Regional Officer as provided in the Approval Process Hand Book for issue of letter of intent and the applicant has to present all the documents as provided in the scrutiny schedule. Under clause (d) the expert visit committee shall physically verify the availability of infrastructural facilities, after the scrutiny committee places its recommendations before the regional committee and thereafter before the executive committee for approval. Clause 6.3 deals with the existing institutions. It is stated that the processing of application submitted by existing institutions would be based on self disclosure and only after the applicant fulfills all the norms and standards prescribed in APH the council shall grant approval. In the event of any information which is found to be false council can initiate penal action. In the case of existing institutions also the application shall be processed by a scrutiny/re-scrutiny committee based on the documents submitted by the applicant and the applications shall be processed by the expert visit committee to verity the availability of the facilities W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :19: in the institution. 13. In all these cases the contention of the University is that it has denied affiliation seeing that demand for the courses applied for is negligible and large number of seats were lying vacant in these colleges after the admissions were made in the last 2-3 years. Therefore according to them, even if the AICTE has granted approval, the University is competent to consider the requirements in the locality and it can also look into the results in the courses which are being conducted in the colleges. If there is no need and the college is not producing results it would not be necessary to grant affiliation merely because the AICTE has granted approval. 14. The question to be considered is whether the University has authority to raise such objection when the AICTE has granted approval. According to the University, the AICTE granted approval without following the provisions in the Regulations and approval granted without submitting an application along with all requisite documents cannot be relied on. ## W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** It is pointed out that before applying for approval NOC of the University was not obtained. 15. In _**St.Josephs Hospital Trust v. Kerala University of Health Sciences: 2012 (4) KLT 444**_ **,** the Division Bench of this court was considering cases in which affiliation/consent of affiliation was denied on condition that the college has to obtain NOC from government; it has to produce the agreement executed with government for seat sharing, etc, on the basis of a circular issued by Government. It is pertinent to note that in Para 41 of the judgment this court observed that the AICTE Regulations 2010 did not insist that the application should be accompanied with an NOC of the State Government. It is evident from the following observations of the Division Bench that the issue which arose for consideration was entirely different in that case: _xxx_ _“Section 5 of the Act deals with the objects of the University. No doubt, it has a laudable object to regulate academic standards of affiliated colleges or institutions. But, it is inconceivable as to how the Government which is a different Body from the University can assume any authority to issue the impugned Circular seeking support under S.5(iii) of the Act which relates to regulation of academic standards. Likewise, S.5 (xii) of the Act, no doubt,_ W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :21: _also is intended to declare that one of the objects of the University is to promote equitable distribution of facilities in education, health and allied sciences. The laudable object which the University is expected to achieve, cannot form the legal basis for the Government of a State to issue the impugned Circular. Likewise, S.6 of the Act speaks about powers and functions by the University. No doubt, it includes controlling and regulating admission of students in affiliated colleges, inter alia, and also monitoring and evaluating the academic performance of affiliated colleges. But here, we are not called upon to sit in judgment over the exercise of any power by the University. We are essentially called upon to decide upon the authority of the Government to dictate to the University that it need not give affiliation, unless and until certain conditions are satisfied, which include the obtaining of No Objection Certificate from it. We would think that no support can be drawn by the Government with reference to the powers and fufunctions of the University under S.6 of the Act._ _Xxxx_ _We would think that we can dispose of these cases on the basis that there is no authority with the State Government to insist upon the petitioners producing No Objection Certificate from the State for the grant of affiliation in a case where there is approval from the AICTE. Under the 2010 Regulations made by the AICTE, there is no requirement in respect of the M. Pharm Course that application for AICTE approval must be accompanied by NOC of the State Government. No doubt, the State Government's views are to be ascertained. There can be, no doubt, that in Jaya Gokul's case, the Apex Court has held that even if there is a law made by the State by which it claims authority to seek its approval for establishing technical institutions, such a law would be repugnant to the AICTE Act and void to that extent. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to refer to Clause 9(7) of the Kerala University First Statute which required that the University must ascertain the views of the Government. Considering the matter further, the Apex Court also held that the said provision only means that the University must obtain the views of the Government._ _Xxxx_ _xxxx This is not a case where the State is seeking that its permission be obtained so that the local needs are addressed as was the position in Government of A.P. & Anr. v. J.B. Educational_ W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :22: _Society & Anr. etc. (AIR 2005 SC 2014). In the said Judgment, it is clear that the Court took the view that the general survey contemplated under S.10 of the AICTE Act does not pertain to the educational needs of any particular area in a State and it is the State which alone would be competent where the institution should be established, having regard to the need. It was in regard to the said aspect alone that the Apex Court took the view that there was legislative competence for the State. The purpose of insisting on NOC, it is plain, is to compel compel the educational institutions to agree for seat sharing and fee regulation. Even without pronouncing on the permissibility of those conditions, in view of the obstacle faced by the petitioners that Art.19(1)(g) is inapplicable to the petitioners as such, and that Art.30 also does not confer a fundamental right to affiliation, we would think that there cannot be power with the State to interdict the University against grant of affiliation without obtaining its NOC. Call it a No Objection Certificate or approval or permission, all these concepts involve the State Government being in a position to prohibit the University from taking an independent decision in a matter where approval was obtained from the AICTE._ 16. It is also relevant to note that even in the year 2012, this court was anxious of the deplorable fall in standard of education as seen from para 47 of the judgment, relevant portion of which read as follows: _“47. xxx Undoubtedly, we share the anxiety of the Division Bench that there is a deplorable fall in the standards of education in Engineering Colleges in the State. We would, in this regard, notice that the powers of the University include the power to prescribe conditions for recognition of institutions for conducting research or other programmes of the University and to grant recognition to institutions satisfying the conditions and to withdraw such recognition (S.6 Clause (ix) of the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, 2010). S.6(xx) deals with the power to_ W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** _monitor and evaluate.xxxxxxx We would think that there are ample powers with the University to deal with the problem of fall in standards which we would expect the University to adopt all possible measures in accordance with law, so that the alarming fall in standards is arrested. xxx._ **==> picture [397 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** follows: _It shall be the duty of the Council to take all steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under the Act, the Council may grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in constitution with the agencies concerned."_ 18. The All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2018 are framed by the AICTE under Section 23 read with Section 10 and 11 of the AICTE Act 1987. As per regulation 1.2(e), the 2018 regulations are applicable for applications for starting new programmes in the existing institutions as well as for extension of approval to the existing institutions. Under Regulation 3.1(b), new programmes can be introduced or conducted in existing institutions including self financing institutions only with the approval of AICTE. Under Regulation 5.3, the Council ## W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :24: has to publish Approval Process Hand Book detailing the documents to be attached to the application, the Technical Education Regulatory (TER) Charges to be remitted, the norms and standards, requirements and the procedure by which the applications are processed for grant of approval of the new/ existing institutions. Under Regulation 6.1 the application received shall be processed as per the norms and procedures prescribed in the Approval Process Handbook as notified by the Council from time to time in addition to the existing Central, State and local laws. Clause 6.3(b) provides that applications submitted under clause 1.2(e) shall be processed by a scrutiny/re-scrutiny committee based on the documents submitted by the applicant. If the documents are found in order the same shall be processes further by an Expert Visit Committee to verify the availability of the facilities in the applicant institutions. 19. Clause 16.4 of the APH provides for the additional document to be produced by the existing institutions which have applied for approval of new W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** programmes, according to which it has to produce no objection certificate from the State Government in format 1 and the affiliating university in format 2. Format 1 and 2 are given in Appendix. 20. In this case the University submits that they have not issued any NOC and the AICTE has granted approval based on incomplete application contrary to the provisions contained in the Regulations read with APH. 21. It appears that a provision as contained in Clause 8.8 is not available in the Regulations 2018. Clause 6.2 provides for submission of the views of the State Government and University and it also provides if it is not received the Council can proceed. There is no procedure provided involving a central task force. 22. After analysing the provisions contained in statute 9 of the Kerala University First Statute, the apex court held that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and even if there was one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. Statute 9 dealt with affiliation. W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :26: Statute 9(7) provided that the syndicate can decide on the question of affiliation after considering the report of the commission and after making local inquiry if any and after conducting such other enquiry and after ascertaining the views of the Government also. It was held that views of Government cannot be equated as approval of Govt and even if approval was required under the statute that would have been repugnant to central enactment. At any rate paragrpg 24 of the judgment would show that AICTE had given conditional approval after considering the recommendations made by the Central Regional Committee, State Level Committee, Central Task Force as per the provisions of AICTE Regulations, observation of expert committee, recommendations made by the Central Regional Committee, State Level Committee, Central Task Force as per the provisions of AICTE Regulations. But in this case no such materials are available. The fact that the University has not issued any NOC would mean that petitioners have submitted applications without producing the relevant documents. Regulation 6 also W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** provide that the University or State shall submit its views on application for the new programmes. There is no provision for a decision by the Task Force as was available in 1996 when Jayagokul Trust submitted application. 23. The judgment in KMCT Polytechnic's case relied on by the learned Senior Counsel will not apply to the factual circumstances of this case because it was a case where the State Government had taken a policy decision not to sanction any new self financing colleges or courses and thereafter addressed the AICTE informing its decision and requested to ascertain the views of government before the AICTE grants approval. Moreover after considering the provisions contained in Regulation 4.18 of the 2016 Regulations the Division Bench of this court, in para 22 therein observed that the central council had called for the views of the Government and that the State government did not respond. It was a case where a new polytechnic was to be started. In the place of that provision, Clause 6.2 of 2018 Regulations provide that the views shall be W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** forwarded within one week of the last date fixed for submission of applications. However that provision is applicable only in a case where application is for starting a new institution. 24. The factual circumstances leading to the ## judgment in _**PNNM Ayurveda Medical College's**_ case also are different. In none of these cases there was any contention that the regulations were not followed. Moreover the provisions contained in 2018 Regulations which are applicable in the present case are also different from those in the judgments relied on. 25. The judgment in W.A.No.1485 of 2019 would also not apply because that was a case where the University refused to consider the application on the ground that they did not invite applications. 26. None of the petitioners have a case that they obtained NOC or even applied for NOC from the university or that NOC was produced along with their application for approval from AICTE. 27. In all these cases petitioners submitted application without producing NOC from the University, W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :29: which is mandatory as per the AICTE Regulations itself. The alarming number of writ petitions coming up before this court in which large number of students are seeking transfer or re-allocation to other colleges would show the deplorable fall in standards about which the Division Benches of this court had expressed its anxiety in 2011 and 2012 in the judgment in _**St.Josephs's College**_ is aggravating. It is high time the AICTE and other regulatory bodies are to take remedial action to protect the student community and to strictly adhere to the regulations which are in force. In these cases the University has denied affiliation on valid grounds which cannot be said to be inconsistent with any of the provisions covered by the AICTE Act or Regulations. In the circumstances stated above, I do not find any illegality in the action of the University. The writ petitions are dismissed. **P.V.ASHA JUDGE** rkc W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :30: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16479/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-11-2018 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION WITH ANNEXURE** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6-2-2019 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28-32019 FOR RS.1,00,000/-.** **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-4-2019 ISSUED BY THE A.I.C.T.E.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-4-2019** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-5-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20-5-2019 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-6-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFILIATION APPLICATION DEFICIENCY REPORT OF THE APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY** W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :31: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17087/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| |---|---| ||**30.04.2019 GRANTING THE APPROVAL ISSUED**| ||**BY AICTE.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF**| ||**AFFILIATION APPLICATION REPORT DATED**| ||**22.05.2015**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**09.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF**| ||**THE UNIVERSITY**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**09.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| ||**14.05.2019**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| ||**15.05.2019**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**27.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**07.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P 9**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED**| ||**13.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT**| ||**UNIVERSITY**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**26.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.178/2016**| ||**DATED 22.08.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE**| ||**PRESS REPORT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY**| ||**NEWSPAPER DATED 07.06.2019.**| W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :32: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18319/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER N.KTU/AF/865/2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2019 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.03.2019 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION TO THE PETITIONER FROM 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2019 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION TO THE PETITIONER FROM 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.2019 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF EXTENSION OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE AICTE TO THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE DATED 03.04.2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION TO THE PETITIONER FROM 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.05.2019 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER (MS) NO.131/2019/HEDN DATED 14.05.2019 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.KTU/A/456/2015 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.05.2019 EXHIBIT P9 A COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR KTU IN WPC NO.15043/2019 DATED 01.06.2019** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANN.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE HAND BOOK PUBLISHED BY AICTE FOR THE YEAR 20192010 ANN.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE** W.P.(C) Nos.16479/19, 17087/19&18319/19 :33: **A.P.J ABDUL KALA, TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT.** **ANN.R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ACT, 17 OF 2018 OF THE A.P.J. ABDUL KALA, TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018**