TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, after the coming into force of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, the State Government retained power to grant, refuse, withdraw, or derecognise permission to start and continue a technical institution. (ii) Whether the State University retained power to grant, refuse, continue, or withdraw affiliation of a technical institution when the Central Act had occupied the field of standards, approval, and regulation of technical education.
Issue (i): Whether, after the coming into force of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, the State Government retained power to grant, refuse, withdraw, or derecognise permission to start and continue a technical institution.
Analysis: Entry 66 of List I vests in Parliament the power to coordinate and determine standards in institutions for higher education and technical education. The Central Act was enacted to ensure coordinated development of technical education, qualitative improvement, uniform norms, and proper maintenance of standards throughout the country. The Act empowers the Council to lay down norms, grant approval for starting new technical institutions, inspect institutions, and take steps connected with recognition and derecognition. In that scheme, State legislation or executive action that permits the State Government to impose standards inconsistent with, higher than, or repugnant to the Central norms in matters covered by the Central Act cannot stand. Where the Central statute governs the field, the State cannot withdraw permission or derecognise an institution on grounds inconsistent with the Central Act.
Conclusion: The State Government had no jurisdiction to withdraw or derecognise the technical institution on grounds repugnant to the Central Act.
Issue (ii): Whether the State University retained power to grant, refuse, continue, or withdraw affiliation of a technical institution when the Central Act had occupied the field of standards, approval, and regulation of technical education.
Analysis: The University Act continued to operate only to the extent that its provisions were consistent with the Central Act. In matters entrusted to the Council under the Central Act, such as norms and standards, approval of new technical institutions, curricula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment, examinations, admission guidelines, and inspection, the University's power to regulate affiliation had to conform to the Central norms. Any university condition or disaffiliation decision that conflicted with the Central Act or relied on standards not sanctioned by it was unenforceable. The Court held that the University could not act independently in a manner that frustrates the uniform national scheme under the Central Act.
Conclusion: The University's power to disaffiliate or refuse affiliation was subordinate to the Central Act and could not be exercised on inconsistent grounds.
Final Conclusion: The Central Act prevailed over inconsistent State enactments and subordinate measures in the field of technical education, and the impugned State action and University action were invalid to the extent of inconsistency. The appeals were dismissed and the respondents' position was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where Parliament has legislated under Entry 66 of List I to secure national coordination and uniform standards in technical education, State law or State action inconsistent with that central regime is void to the extent of repugnancy, and State authorities cannot impose higher or conflicting standards for recognition, permission, or affiliation of technical institutions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
