W.P.(C) Nos. 8094/2014, 9429/2014, 8193/2014 and 604/2015. Case: 1. Aditya Sanwal & Ors., 2. Ashutosh Chamoli & Ors., 3. Palak Gupta, 4. Sarapremashish Butola & Ors. Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C) Nos. 8094/2014, 9429/2014, 8193/2014 and 604/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. N. K. Bhatnagar and Ms. Astha, Mr. Deepak Vohra and Mr. Vipin Malik, Mr. K. Anand Singh and Mr. Lauv Kumar, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Tushkar Mehta, ASG with Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC and Ms. Arti Bansal, Mr. Anil Soni for AICTE in all matters., Mr. V. Sudeer and Mr... |
| Judges | Vibhu Bakhru, J. |
| Issue | Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1998 - Section 4(1); National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985; Constitution of India - Articles 245, 226 |
| Judgement Date | March 23, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
-
These petitions have been preferred by some of the students who were pursuing B.Tech. Programme with Guru Premsukh Memorial College of Engineering (hereafter ''GPMCE''), which was affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (hereafter ''the University''). The accreditation granted to GPMCE by All India Council for Technical Education (hereafter ''AICTE'') was withdrawn and, therefore, the petitioners along with other students were required to be shifted to other accredited institutions. By an office order dated 19.11.2014 (hereafter the ''impugned order'') issued by the University, the students studying in second, third and fourth year at GPMCE have been directed to be shifted to Mahavir Swami Institution of Technology (hereafter ''MSIT''), an institution located in the State of Haryana. The petitioners are aggrieved by this action of the University. According to the petitioners, campus of MSIT is located at a remote place, which is not easily accessible. The petitioners also assert that the infrastructure facilities available at MSIT are inadequate. The petitioners further contend that the impugned order is contrary to the mandatory provisions of All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010 (hereafter ''the AICTE Regulations'').
-
The relevant facts are briefly outlined as under:-
2.1 By an order dated 24.06.2014, AICTE withdrew the accreditation granted to GPMCE - an Institute affiliated to the University - in view of several deficiencies pointed out by an expert committee. GPMCE filed a writ petition (being W.P.(C) No.4007/2014) before this Court challenging the said order of withdrawal of accreditation, which was dismissed by an order dated 15.09.2014. A Letters Patent Appeal (being LPA No.665/2014) filed by GPMCE challenging the said order dated 15.09.2014 also met the same fate and was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 07.11.2014.
2.2 Thereafter, a committee was constituted by the University for deliberating on the modalities for reallocation of affected students (hereafter ''the Committee''). In a meeting held on 17.11.2014, the Committee approved and accepted MSIT''s proposal to transfer all students of GPMCE to MSIT. The University, thereafter, issued the impugned order, inter alia, directing shifting of the students to MSIT. The relevant extract of the impugned order is quoted below:-
"1. Reallocation of students.
All the existing students of B.Tech.programme on the rolls of Guru Premsukh Memorial College of Engineering and studying in 2nd, 3rd and 4th years at present i.e. during the Academic Session 2014-15 are shifted to Mahavir Swami Institute of Technology, Sonepat with immediate effect. There shall be no additional financial burden in terms of fee etc on affected students.
-
Absorption of Faculty.
The faculty members currently working with Guru Premsukh Memorial College of Engineering shall be absorbed by Mahavir Swami Institute of Technology subject to their fulfillment of all eligibility conditions as prescribed by AICTE provided that the concerned faculty members express in writing their willingness to be absorbed by Mahavir Swami Institute of Technology."
Submissions
-
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended as under:
3.1 That the impugned order is in violation of Regulation 4.31 of the AICTE Regulations. It was urged that vacant seats were available in other AICTE approved institutions affiliated with the University, which were located nearby and yet, the students of GPMCE were shifted to MSIT.
3.2 That the impugned order is also in violation of the third proviso to Article 1.2 of Chapter IV of All India Council for Technical Education Approval Process Handbook, which mandates that the students be redistributed to other Institutions in the jurisdiction of the affiliating University. It was urged that ''redistribution'' does not entail shifting of the students to one particular institution/college.
3.3 That on 24.06.2014 - the date on which the order de-recognizing GPMCE was passed - MSIT was not affiliated to the University for the second, third and fourth year; MSIT was granted affiliation by the University, for Academic Year 2013-14 (i.e. for 2nd Year students), Academic Year 2012-13 (i.e. for 3rd Year students) and Academic Year 2011-12 (i.e. for 4th Year students) with retrospective effect. It is contended that the University did not have the power to grant retrospective affiliation to an Institute. Further, even the affiliation granted by the University was provisional in view of Clause 4 of Ordinance 1 of the University governing ''Procedure for Considering Proposals for Affiliation of Colleges and Institutions''.
3.4 That the exercise of power by a State university beyond the territorial limits of the State is contrary to Article 245 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners relied upon the observations made by a Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 756/2011 captioned as ''State of Haryana v. Global Educational & Social Trust & Ors.''
3.5 That the reasons recorded by the Committee in its minutes dated 17.11.2014 for rejecting the proposal of Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, New Delhi was contrary to the letter dated 14.10.2014 written by the said Institute to the University for accommodating all students even if the students may not be in a position to pay the fee to the said institute for that session.
3.6 That the requisite standards and infrastructural facilities of MSIT were not inspected/confirmed by the University before approving the proposal of MSIT as the necessary inspection was conducted on 28.11.2014, that is, much after the impugned order was passed.
3.7 That vacant seats of MSIT, which was affiliated with Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, Haryana (hereafter ''DCRUST''), could not be considered as the University was obliged to transfer the students to its affiliated colleges/institutions.
3.8 That there was sufficient precedent as to the manner in which students of de-recognized institutes were to be re-allocated; It was contended that the University had re-allocated the students of DPC Institute of Management Dwarka, New Delhi in August-September, 2014 and Bhagwan Mahaveer College of Education, Jagdishpur, Sonipat in October, 2014, to other affiliated colleges on the basis of their preference and merit in the first year.
3.9 That the students have the right of choice; to choose an institution for studying while considering various factors such as Institute's reputation, Institute's year of establishment, placement options to be provided by the Institute, Institute's affiliations & approvals, infrastructural facilities available with the institute, distance and travel time, means of transport, safety issues in the nearby area, etc. and the students cannot be forced to choose and shift to a particular college.
-
The learned ASG, appearing for the University contended that Regulation 4.31 of the NCTE Regulations could not be read literally. He submitted that the University retained the discretionary power to transfer the students en masse to any institution, as it may consider appropriate in the given facts.
-
The learned ASG submitted that the University had decided to transfer the students of GPMCE to MSIT for several reasons. First of all, other colleges had declined admission to the students. This contention was, subsequently, withdrawn. Secondly, there were hardly any seats available in other colleges and the exercise to redistribute the students to other colleges would be time consuming. Thirdly, MSIT had agreed to absorb the teaching faculty and other staff of GPMCE and the University felt that this would be most beneficial to the said faculty/staff as they would be rendered jobless consequent to the withdrawal of recognition by AICTE. Fourthly, the same would ensure a smooth transfer of students from GPMCE to MSIT with minimal disruption. Fifthly, MSIT had agreed to accept the students without any additional burden of fees for the current year and transferring the students to other colleges would subject them to additional financial burden.
-
He contended that the decision of the University was not subject to judicial review unless the same was perverse or arbitrary; and as the impugned order was supported by...
To continue reading
Request your trial