1995 (3) TMI 466 - SC - Indian Laws

Private-colleges Act and Rules, including Rule 11, do not apply to professional and technical institutions like engineering colleges

P. KASILINGAM & ORS Versus PSG. COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY & ORS

SC affirmed the High Court's decision that the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and its Rules do not extend to professional and ... Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 to private engineering colleges - definitions of 'private college' and 'college' in the Act and Rules - challenged the power of the College to advertise on All India Basis and call applications for filling up vacancies in faculty positions in various departments - Validity of the resolution passed by the Governing Body of the College asserted that the professional and technical colleges, like the College, are not included within the purview of the Act and the Rules - Rules do not cover such professional colleges - HELD THAT:- It is nodoubt true that in view of clause (3) of Section 1 the Act applies to all private colleges. The expression 'college' is, however, not defined in the Act. The expression 'private college' is defined in Clause (8) of Section 2 which can, in the absence of any indication of a contrary intention, cover all colleges including professional and technical colleges. An indication about such an intention is, however, given in Rules wherein the expression 'college' has been defined in Rule 2(b) to mean and include Arts and Science College, Teachers Training College, Physical Education College, Oriental College, School of Institute of Social Work and Music College. While enumerating the various types of colleges in Rule 2(b) the Rule making authority has deliberately reframed from including professional and technical colleges in the said definition. It has been urged that in Rule 2(b) the expression 'means and includes' has been used which indicates that the definition is inclusive in nature and also covers categories which are not expressly mentioned therein. We are unable to agree. A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature by using the word 'means' or the word 'includes'. Sometimes the words means and include's are used. The use of the word indicate that 'definition is a hardand- fast definition and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression that is put down in definition.' As noticed earlier the Grant-in-Aid Code contains provisions which, in many respects, cover the same field as is covered by the Act and the Rules. The Director of Technical Education has been entrusted with the functions of proper implementation of those provisions. There is nothing to show that the said arrangement was not working satisfactorily so as to be replaced by the system sought to be introduced by the Act and the Rules. Rule 2(d), on the other hand, gives an indication that there was no intention to disturb the existing arrangement regarding private engineering colleges because in that Rule the expression ’Director' is defined top mean the Director of Collegiate Education The Director of Technical Education is not included in the said definition indicating that the institutions which are under the control of Directorate of College Education only are to be covered by the Act and the Rules and technical educational institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu which am controlled by the Director of Technical Education arc not so covered. In the absence of the Rules the Act cannot be enforced. If it is held that Rules do not apply to technical educational institutions the provisions of the Act cannot be enforced in respect of such institutions. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that professional and technical educational institutions are excluded from the ambit of the Act and the High Court has rightly taken the said view. Since we agree with the view of the High Court that professional and technical educational institutions are not covered by the Act and the Rules, we do not consider it necessary to to into the question whether the provisions of the Act fall within the ambit of Entry 25 of List III and do not relate to Entry 66 of List I. Once it is found that on a proper construction the Act and the Rules do no apply to professional and technical educational institutions then none of the provisions of the Rules, including Rule 11, can be said to apply to professional and technical educational institutions and it is not Possible to say that some of the provisions of the Rules we applicable while others do not apply to such institutions. We do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 to private engineering colleges.2. Interpretation of the definitions of 'private college' and 'college' in the Act and Rules.3. The role of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the State Government in regulating technical education.4. The principle of 'communis error facit jus' in interpreting the Act and Rules.5. The impact of prior judgments and the principle of res judicata.Summary of Judgment:1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976:The Supreme Court examined whether private engineering colleges fall under the ambit of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act) and the Rules made under the Act. The High Court had previously held that the Act and the Rules do not apply to the College, and this judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court.2. Interpretation of Definitions:The Act defines 'private college' in Section 2(8) as a college maintained by an educational agency and approved by or affiliated to a university. However, the Rules define 'college' in Rule 2(b) to include only Arts and Science Colleges, Teachers Training Colleges, Physical Education Colleges, Oriental Colleges, Schools of Social Work, and Music Colleges, excluding professional and technical colleges. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the definition in the Rules is exhaustive and not inclusive, thereby excluding professional and technical colleges from the Act's purview.3. Role of AICTE and State Government:The AICTE, established by a Government resolution in 1945 and later by the AICTE Act, 1987, oversees the coordinated development of technical education. The State Government, through the Directorate of Technical Education, regulates private engineering colleges. The Grant-in-Aid Code issued by the Director of Technical Education also governs these institutions. The Supreme Court noted that the existing regulatory framework for technical education was functioning satisfactorily and did not need to be replaced by the Act and the Rules.4. Principle of 'Communis Error Facit Jus':The High Court had observed that both the Central and State Governments had consistently interpreted the Act and the Rules as not applying to professional institutions. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, invoking the principle of 'communis error facit jus,' which means common error makes law.5. Prior Judgments and Res Judicata:The Supreme Court addressed the contention that a prior judgment in Writ Petition No. 2756 of 1976 operated as res judicata. The High Court had rejected this argument, noting that the earlier judgment did not preclude the College from challenging the applicability of the Act and the Rules. The Supreme Court agreed with this view.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, and the Rules made under it do not apply to professional and technical educational institutions. The Court emphasized that the existing regulatory framework for technical education, governed by the AICTE and the Directorate of Technical Education, remains in force.