UKF College of Engineering & Technology v. State of Kerala and others (WP(C) Nos. 17933 & 16184 of 2021)

**WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 29TH ASWINA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 16184 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** UKF COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR), PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691302. BY ADVS. PRAVEEN K. JOY T.A.JOY E.S.SANEEJ M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN M.K.SAMYUKTHA N.ABHILASH DEEPU RAJAGOPAL ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023. 3 STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023. 4 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI110070.REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **2** 5 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM-695016. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN SAJITH KUMAR V., SC ELVIN PETER P.J., SC **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).17933/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 29TH ASWINA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 17933 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** UKF COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM - 691302, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, AMRITHA BASANTH, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.DR.PRASOBH K.PRABHA, RESIDING AT LOVELY HAVEN, CHURCH NAGAR, FIRST STREET CN-122A, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM - 683 572. BY ADVS. PRAVEEN K. JOY E.S.SANEEJ M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN M.K.SAMYUKTHA N.ABHILASH DEEPU RAJAGOPAL SANDRA S.KUMAR ANILKUMAR P. SWAPNA C.P T.A.JOY ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023. 3 STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023. 4 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110 070, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **4** 5 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM - 695 016. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN SAJITH KUMAR V., SC ELVIN PETER P.J., SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).16184/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **5** ## **JUDGMENT** The UKF College of Engineering and Technology, the petitioner herein, has been conducting an Engineering College in the self-financing sector since the year 2009. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the official respondents in granting No Objection Certificate (NOC) for starting Diploma level courses in the College. Since common issues are involved, both these writ petitioners are taken up together and are disposed of by a common judgment. For ease and clarity, the pleadings and Exhibits in W.P.(C) No.17933/2021 shall be referred to in this judgment. 2. The facts of the case as borne out from the pleadings and records are as under: The petitioner states that they are an institution conducting Degree Level Engineering courses after obtaining affiliation from the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, the 5th respondent herein. It is contended that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) invited applications for granting additional Diploma courses in Engineering College premises. After conducting an inspection, the AICTE granted an order of approval for conducting courses in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Robotic Process **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **6** Automation and Renewable Energy for the academic year 2021-2022. As per the Approval Process Handbook issued by the AICTE, the applicant institution is required to obtain NOC from the State Government. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submitted a request for issuance of NOC before the 2nd respondent. The request was however rejected by Exhibit P8 order. The reason stated in Exhibit P8 is that the policy of the Government is not to grant NOC to Private Self-financing Institutions for starting new courses in the academic year 2021-2022. The petitioner contends that the stand taken by the 2nd respondent is clearly arbitrary and is violative of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 3. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C)No.16184 of 2021 seeking to quash Ext.P8 and for directions to the respondents 2 and 3 to grant approval/affiliation to the Diploma Courses sanctioned to the petitioner’s College by the AICTE and for incidental reliefs. 4. The petitioner sought for an interim order seeking directions to include petitioner’s college for centralized allotment for Diploma Courses provisionally and the same was rejected by this Court vide interim order dated 10.8.2021. The petitioner preferred W.A.No.1060/2021 and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court. Paragraph Nos.14 to 17 are extracted below for easy reference:- 14. At this juncture, at best, we can only direct the Registrar, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, to cause inspection of the **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **7** abovesaid institutions, as expeditiously as possible, bearing in mind the time schedule already prescribed for allotment of the students. Inspection be caused and reports be submitted to the Director of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram, as expeditiously as possible. 15. Mr. Elvin Peter P. J., learned counsel for the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, shall instruct the said University, to explore the possibility of conducting the inspection on 16.08.2021 or 17.08.2021, as the case may be. 16. If on receipt of inspection reports from the University, the Director of Technical University, Thiruvananthapuram, is satisfied that the courses are conducted at two different places, without causing hindrance to the continuance of B. Tech Degree Engineering course as stated supra, appropriate orders be passed. 17. I. A. No. 1 of 2021 in W. A. No. 1062 of 2021 is allowed. APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, represented by its Registrar, CET Campus, Trivandrum – 695 016, is impleaded as additional 5th respondent in W. A. No. 1062 of 2021. 5. In compliance with the directions so issued, the 5th respondent conducted an inspection and placed its report before the 2nd respondent. Relying on the report of the University, the 2nd respondent proceeded to reject the application on the ground that the conduct of the proposed diploma courses may overlap with the smooth functioning of the B.Tech Courses. The said order is under challenge in W.P.(C) 17933/2021. The petitioner has also sought for the issuance of directions to the 2nd respondent to reconsider and **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **8** take appropriate action to conduct diploma courses in the college. 6. I have heard Sri. Praveen K Joy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the AICTE, Sri Elvin Peter the learned standing counsel appearing for the University, and Sri. Ramanand, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 7. Sri. Praveen K Joy, the learned counsel would rely on the extension of approval issued by the AICTE and it is submitted that by the said order, the petitioner has been permitted to conduct Diploma courses in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Robotic Process Automation and Renewal Energy with an intake of 60 seats each. It is contended that once the AICTE has granted approval, the State or its instrumentalities cannot take a stand that it is against their policy to grant approval and would clearly offend the provisions of the Central Act. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in the **State of Kerala and Ors. v. KMCT Polytechnic College, Mampara** [MANU/KE/1255/2017], to contend that the State has no authority to withhold permission to start new Diploma courses. Reliance is also placed on a judgment dated 26.8.2020 in W.P.(C) No.17630/2020 of this Court to bring home his point that the application for NOC cannot be denied on the ground of any policy decision of the Government. 8. Sri. Ramanand, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that it was pursuant to the orders issued by the Division Bench that the University had conducted an inspection and forwarded the report to the DTE. **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **9** The report clearly reveals that there is sharing of infrastructure. Based on the said report rejection order was issued. It was also contended that the AICTE Handbook clearly states that the NOC of the affiliating University/Board is a necessary requisite. 9. Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the AICTE submitted that the AICTE has considered all relevant aspects while issuing extension of approval. 10. Sri. Elvin Peter, the learned standing counsel appearing for the affiliating University, submitted that sanctioning of diploma courses is within the exclusive domain of the Government and the DTE. The University has nothing to do with the same. However, it is contended that if the intention of the petitioner is to use the facilities earmarked for the students pursuing the engineering Course for the proposed new courses, then the permission of the University needs to be obtained. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the assent from the affiliating University cannot be insisted as the order passed by this Court holding so has been confirmed by the Division Bench and directions have also been issued to the University to conduct an inspection. According to the learned counsel, affiliation for conducting engineering courses was granted after a detailed inspection by the University for ascertaining whether the amenities and infrastructural facilities and staff in the college were sufficient to impart education as per the norms fixed by the examining body. Though Universities **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **10** cannot dilute standards prescribed by the AICTE, the power of Universities to prescribe enhanced norms and standards has been upheld by the Apex Court. It is contended that it would be the students who would suffer if the facilities in the College are below par. The learned counsel would also point out that it is doubtful whether a site inspection was carried out by the AICTE before granting an extension of approval and relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in **A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University v. Jai Bharath College of Mngt. & Engg. Technology** , [(2021) 2 SCC 564], it is submitted that the Apex Court had severely deprecated the AICTE for granting approval without conducting a proper physical inspection of the college and purely based on self-disclosure. The learned counsel would urge that ultimately, it is the universities that are obliged to issue degrees and whose reputation is inextricably intertwined with the fate and performance of the students and hence their role cannot be belittled. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced. 12. Two questions arise for consideration in this case. The first question is whether the State can have a policy decision not to permit private self-financing institutions from starting diploma courses. The next question is whether an institution affiliated with the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University is required to obtain approval/NOC from the Director of Technical Education before commencing new courses and whether the DTE is required to obtain the views of the University while considering the said request. **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **11** 13. In so far as the first issue is concerned, the question is no longer res integra. In **State of Kerala v. M.G.M. College of Arts and Science** [2017 (3) KLT 779], the question which arose for consideration was concerning a policy decision taken by the State Government that no new colleges and courses would be allowed in the self-financing sector in the higher education field in the State. Paragraph Nos.4 to 10 are extracted below for convenience. “4. First, we may refer to the source of power of the State to take such a decision. It is too late in the day now to contend that right to education is not a part of fundamental rights, for, at last Article 21A of the Constitution has been brought in, but in a limited sense only. Notwithstanding that, can anyone consider life and liberty dehors education? Can anyone consider trade, commerce and business without education? Can anyone consider a livelihood without education? That being the foundation, then the right to provide education would also form a part thereof. If that be so, then that can only be taken away by law and not by mere executive fiat. Therefore, one must look for the source of authority so far as the Government order aforesaid is concerned. 5. We are not dealing with higher education given by technical institutions. We are dealing with Arts and Science Colleges in general. The establishment of such colleges is regulated by various State University Acts and one of them is Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (the 'Act', for short) enacted by the Kerala State legislature. This is an enactment pursuant to Entry 25 List III of the Constitution, in relation to Education and Universities. If we refer to the scheme of the Act, the Act clearly provides that no college or institution can impart any education for the purpose of grant of degree except upon due **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **12** affiliation granted by a University within the jurisdiction of which, such institution falls. 6. For grant of affiliation, there are statutes framed under the Act by virtue of Section 35. The statutes concerning the Mahatma Gandhi University are known as Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 (the 'First Statutes', for short). Chapter 23 of the First Statutes deals with affiliation of colleges. If we refer to this chapter, we would see that any institution that requires affiliation, would have to first set up the institution, then make an application to the University for grant of affiliation. The University, after scrutinizing the application, may call for further information and then, may appoint a commission to inspect the new college, after physical verification, and submit a report. Clause 9 of the Statutes in Chapter 23 reads as follows: "9. Grant of Affiliation: (1) The University may appoint a Commission to inspect the proposed site of a new college or to make a physical verification of the facilities that may exist for starting the new college/course, if the application is considered favourably by the University. The Commission shall inspect the suitability of the proposed site, verify the title deeds as regards the proprietary right of the management over the land (and buildings, if any) offered, building accommodation provided, if any, assets of the Management, constitution of the registered body and all other relevant matters. Further action on the application shall be taken on receipt of the report of the Commission. (2) The grant of affiliation shall depend upon the fulfillment by the Management of all the conditions for the satisfactory establishment and maintenance of the proposed **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **13** institution/courses of studies and on the reports on inspection by the commission or commissions which the University may appoint for the purpose. (3) Unless all the conditions are fulfilled, before the commencement of the academic year, no new college/or additional courses shall be permitted to be started during that year. (4) Educational agency/Management, the Principal or any other person or persons on their behalf shall neither demand nor accept donations from candidates for appointment to the staff and from students for admission to the college. (5) The management shall be prepared to abide by such conditions and instructions as regards staff, equipment, library, reading room, playgrounds, hostels etc., as the University may, from time to time, impose or issue in relation to the college. (6) The educational agency/Management shall give an undertaking to the University to carry out faithfully, the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations and the directions issued by the University, from time to time, in so far as they are related to the college. The undertaking shall be endorsed by the Principal of the College. (7) After considering the report of the Commission and the report of the local enquiry, if any, and after making such further enquiry as it may deem necessary, the Syndicate shall decide, after ascertaining the views of the Government also, whether the affiliation be granted or refused, either in whole or part. In case affiliation is granted, the fact shall be reported to the Senate at **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **14** its next meeting." 7. If we refer to the scheme as contained in the Statutes and then to Clause 9(7), we will find that Government's interference is only at the end. Why we have referred to the scheme is that an institution decides to set up a college. Having taken that decision, they create the infrastructure, both in terms of building and in terms of manpower. They then apply to the University for affiliation. University conducts rounds of enquiries and inspections. When it finds everything in order and the condition right for grant of affiliation, it has, at that stage, to "ascertain the views of the Government". Can it be expected of the Government to advice the University to refuse grant affiliation. We think not unless there are some cogent deficiencies in the institution, for, it will be travesty of justice to give the power to the Government, at this stage, where a person may have invested crores of rupees, spent several years in establishing an institution, in recruiting people, construction of building, only to be told no by the Government. Surely, that is not the power of the Government as contemplated under Clause 9(7) of the Statutes. The power is for the Government to recommend proper compliance of the Statutes, and in so far as improvement of infrastructure is concerned, it is for the University to see, whether the standards are met. Now, once the University approves of the standards that are to be met, in our view, the Government would have no say to advice the University to reject affiliation. If it does, it would be arbitrary unless good reason is shown by the State. 8. Now, we come to the facts of the present case where, after the institutions were set up and inspections were conducted and change of Government, suddenly the Government order was issued on 22.08.2016 putting a complete ban on self-financing colleges. All **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **15** colleges that had already been set up and were awaiting affiliation thus, virtually became redundant. All investments went down the drain. Rightly, the learned single Judge has disapproved of such a policy decision. 9. Once power has been conferred on the authorities under the University Statute and the Statutes as such, the Government cannot override the discretion of the University, because such a policy makes the entire statute dealing with affiliation redundant. This takes away the right of parties to establish institutions even in the unaided sector. Surely, this right is not exercised by the Government in terms of Clause 9(7) of the Statutes. A policy decision of this nature cannot be valid, even otherwise. 10. Even otherwise, for, it affects the fundamental rights of parties to receive education and to impart education. Education, as noticed in the beginning, is an integral part of life and liberty. Such a right can be restricted not by a policy decision, but only by a law and law means law made by the competent legislature and not by an executive fiat. Further, a policy decision like this fetters future discretion. Such fetters cannot be put. This policy puts a complete embargo for all times that no such self financing institution can be allowed to be established. Such policy restricting future discretion is not reasonable, in any manner. (emphasis supplied) 14. After holding that the fundamental rights of parties to receive education and to impart education cannot be restricted by a policy decision, but only by a law enacted by a competent legislature and not by executive fiat, it was unequivocally held that such policy restricting future discretion is **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **16** arbitrary and cannot withstand the test of reasonableness. 15. In **State of Kerala v KMCT Polytechnic College Mampara** MANU/KE/1255/2017, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the embargo placed by the State Government by a policy decision in not granting sanction for commencing new unaided colleges in the self-financing sector. After considering the conspectus of the enactments as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court it was held that the right to establish an educational institution like the polytechnic is no more the prerogative of the State nor a privilege to be conferred by the statute, for this matter has been settled by the Apex court in **TMA Pai Foundation and Ors. V. State of Karnataka and Ors.** [(2002) 8 SCC 481] wherein it was held that setting up of educational institutions come within the expression ‘occupation’ as contemplated under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and it is part of a fundamental right. It was further held that a fundamental right cannot be abrogated by a State much less by a simple policy decision. It was also held that any policy of the State in such matters would be repugnant to the authority of the Central Council under the Central Act and would be void. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the policy decision taken by the State to interdict self-financing institutions from commencing new courses in the State cannot stand legal scrutiny and cannot be sustained. 16. The next question is whether an institution affiliated with the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University is required to obtain approval/NOC from **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **17** the Director of Technical Education before commencing new courses and whether the DTE is required to obtain the views of the University before granting such approval/recognition. 17. Ext.P1 would reveal that the institution is running B.Tech courses in various disciplines after obtaining affiliation from APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. Ext.P1 would also reveal that the AICTE has granted an extension of approval for the conduct of 3 Diploma level courses in Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning, Automation and Robotics and Civil and Environmental Engineering with an intake of 60 seats each. Now if the Approval Process Handbook issued by the AICTE is perused, it can be seen that paragraph 2.9 provides for the procedure to start a new Programme/ Level in the existing Institutions. It says that to start a new Programme/ Level, the applicant shall apply on AICTE Web-Portal along with the Extension of Approval for the existing Programme(s) and Course(s) with the additional documents as per Appendix 17 of the Approval Process Handbook. In Appendix 17, paragraph 17.3 states that a Non-Objection Certificate from affiliating University/Board in Format No.2 has to be submitted. Format No.2 contains various information that is to be supplied and the same has to be signed by the Registrar/Director of the affiliating University/Board. 18. At this juncture, it needs to be mentioned that the AICTE has not prohibited the sharing of laboratory resources. Appendix 4 of the Approval Process Handbook, 2021-22 deals with ‘Norms for Land and Built-up Area **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **18** requirements of the Technical Institutions’. It details the manner in which resources are to be shared between Diploma and Degree level courses. Furthermore, Clause 2.14.1 provides that existing Institutions shall expand their activities by addition of new/additional Course(s)/Divisions to, among other reasons, increase the utilization of Infrastructure available in the Technical Institutions, adhering to requirements of approved student intake. In other words, AICTE encourages the institution to maximize the utilization of existing resources. Clause 2.9.1 of the handbook while enumerating requirements and eligibility of existing institutions seeking affiliation for a new course, provides for a combined built-up area and emphasises that common facilities are to cater to the requirements of the total approved intake of students. 19. Insofar as sanctioning of Diploma courses are concerned, the same is within the exclusive domain of the Government. It is the Director of Technical Education, who acts as the affiliating Board. The 5th respondent University cannot claim that they have anything to do with the grant of approval for Diploma courses. 20. The records would reveal that it was after obtaining extension of approval from the AICTE that the petitioner had applied for approval/NOC from the Board. However, their request was rejected on the sole ground that the State has taken a policy decision not to grant affiliation for private selffinancing institutions. This Court has already held that the said policy of the **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **19** State cannot be sustained under law. 21. For all practical purposes, this ought to have been the end of the matter but for the contentions advanced by the University that their concurrence is also required as the new diploma level courses are proposed to be conducted in a college affiliated with the University. It is the contention of the University that they need to be satisfied that the conduct of new courses would not be detrimental to the interest of the students pursuing the Engineering course. This contention is put forward by the University based on the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, and the First Statute of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University (hereinafter referred to as “the First Statute” for the sake of brevity) which came into force on 7.8.2020. 22. In this context, it would be relevant to note that it was with a view to regulate technical education in the State that the State of Kerala enacted the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the University Act”). Section 5 of the Act deals with the objects of the University. It says that the University is bound to ensure the academic standards of all colleges and institutions and to improve the learning skills of students and improve the academic standards of the students who join the colleges affiliated with the University. Section 8 of the University Act provides for the power and functions. It says that the University shall among other things have powers and functions to lay down the norms and standards for the **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **20** establishment, maintenance, administration, supervision and recognition of colleges and centres maintained by the University, to withdraw affiliation of colleges obtained in violation of Statutes of the University, to confer academic autonomy to affiliated colleges, institutions or a department of the affiliated colleges or institutions or a department maintained by the University, to provide for the inspection of affiliated colleges etc. 23. The First Statute of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University (hereinafter referred to as “the First Statute” for the sake of brevity) came into force on 7.8.2020. The statute provides for conditions and procedures for affiliation of colleges and for withdrawing the affiliation of colleges. Chapter VI clause (3) of the First Statute says that approval of the Government and the AICTE is to be produced if any affiliated institution requires to commence new courses, to modify existing courses, increase or decrease seats etc. Clause (5) of Chapter VI specifically interdicts the institution from commencing new courses in the affiliated college without the permission of the affiliating University. In view of the above provisions to which the petitioner is bound as an affiliated institution, they cannot be heard to contend that they are entitled to commence new courses in the institution without the concurrence of the University. 24. Sri. Praveen, the learned counsel submitted that the AICTE Act falls under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and when the Approval Process Handbook does not envisage the institution to get **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **21** assent from the University for starting Diploma Level courses, the University statute which falls under Entry 25 of List III cannot be relied upon to abridge the Central Statute. The contention forcefully advanced by the learned counsel does not impress me. As held by the Apex Court in **APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and another v. Jai Bharat College of Management and Engineering Technology and Ors.** [(2021) 2 SCC 564], while it is not open to the Universities to dilute the norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe enhanced norms. It was further held by relying on **Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.** [(2001) 8 SCC 676] that AICTE is not a superpower with a devastating role undermining the status, authority and autonomous functioning of the Universities in areas and spheres assigned to them. 25. It is in this context that the objection raised by the University in commencing new courses in the affiliated institutions assume significance. It is undisputed that the University had granted affiliation after a detailed inspection by a team of officers for ascertaining as to whether the amenities, infrastructural facilities and faculty were sufficient to impart good education as per the norms fixed by the University for the students pursuing B.Tech degree. Before permitting the commencement of new courses, it is the duty of the University as per the provisions of the Act and the Statute to ensure that the students pursuing the Engineering course are not put to a disadvantage by **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **22** sharing the infrastructural resources with the proposed new course. The University is obliged to issue degrees and its reputation is inextricably intertwined with the fate and performance of the students. In that view of the matter, their role cannot be underemphasised. The Universities are ranked according to the quality of education and the standards maintained by them on parameters such as a) teaching, learning and resources, b) Research and professional practice; c) Graduation outcomes; d) Outreach and inclusivity and Peer perception. The 5th respondent University is therefore bound to ensure that the students who are pursuing their Engineering Degree in the institution are not affected by the additional burden placed by the Institution by admitting new students. If the institution has earmarked separate buildings, infrastructure, workshops, libraries and labs for their students of the new course without the facilities of the Engineering Students being affected, the University cannot possibly contend that approval cannot be granted. 26. I find that it was by Ext.P14 order dated 31.8.2021 in W.P(C) No.17933/2021 that the request for approval for commencing new Diploma courses was rejected by the 2nd respondent. The only reason stated is that an adverse report was submitted by the University. Furthermore, Ext.P14 order does not reveal that the 2nd respondent had heard the petitioner before passing such an order. This is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent is bound to reconsider the request made by the petitioner and take a decision with notice to the petitioner as well as the University. While **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **23** taking a decision, the 2nd respondent would be entitled to peruse the inspection report submitted by the University and their views. If the petitioner is in possession of the necessary infrastructure in the form of separate buildings, workshops, labs, libraries and other amenities to provide good quality education to the students pursuing the degree level as well as diploma level courses, then neither the University nor the DTE can stand in the way of the petitioner conducting the said courses. On the other hand, if the petitioner is not in possession of the necessary infrastructure mentioned above and the faculty to pursue both the courses simultaneously without causing a strain on the resources of the Engineering students, the affiliating University will be well justified in refusing the grant of assent to the DTE. It is for the DTE to consider the matter in all its perspectives and take a decision with the interest and welfare of the students in mind and without affecting the right of the petitioner to impart education and in strict compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. Before taking a decision the DTE shall also inspect the institution and its premises. 27. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, I dispose of these Writ Petitions by issuing the following directions. a) Exhibit P9 order in W.P.(C) No.16184 of 2021 and Exhibit P 14 order in W.P.(C) No.17933 of 2021 are set aside. b) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application for NOC/Approval afresh. Before taking a decision, the 2nd respondent shall inspect the petitioner institution, take note of the report **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **24** of the committee constituted by the 5th respondent and take a decision as directed above. c) If the DTE is satisfied that the petitioner is having the infrastructure and the amenities to conduct both the courses simultaneously, it is for the said authority to grant approval without being restricted by any policy decision taken by the State Government. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the report from the University as directed above. Before passing orders, the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent shall be heard. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ps **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021 25** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16184/2021** PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.L1/14874/20/DTE DATED 2-2-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ORDER DATED 28-6-2021 IN WP(C)NO.12559/2021 & 12595/2021 OF THIS HON.COURT. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.4.21 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30-72021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.SOUTH-WEST/19319056338/2021/EDA DATED 15-7-2021 ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20-72021 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE. - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACADEMIC CALENDAR 2021-22 OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION DATED 12-7-2021. - Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO POLYTECHNIC COLLEGES ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-I ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L1/18540/21/DTE DATED 28-7-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.173/2016 H.EDN.DEPT.DATED 22-8-2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. - Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/08/2021. - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ACADEMIC CALENDAR 2021-22. **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **26** Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WA 1060/2021 DATED 13/08/2021. RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021 27** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17933/2021** PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS : - Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 02/02/2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/04/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/06/2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF EXTENSION OF APPROVAL DATED 15/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION. - Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/07/2021 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ACADEMIC CALENDAR 2021-22 OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION. - Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO POLYTECHNIC COLLEGES OF 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/07/2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/08/2021 IN WA 1060/2021 AND CONNECTED CASE. - Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ACADEMIC CALENDAR DATED 13/08/2021 ISSUED BY ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION. - Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/08/2021 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING SEPARATE ENTRANCE FOR DIPLOMA COURSE IN THE PETITION'S COLLEGE. **WP(C)Nos.17933 & 16184 OF 2021** **28** Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27/08/2021 IN WPC NO.16184/2021. Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/08/2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-10-2021 IN WPC NO.15358/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-10-2021 IN WPC NO.17341/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT (S) ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.08.2021. ANNEXURE R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KTU/ASST10(ADMN)3594/2021 DATED 18.08.2021 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT REGISTRAR TO THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ALONG WITH THE REPORT.