1989 (11) TMI 328 - HC - Indian Laws

State Government Cannot Interfere with AICTE's Authority Over Technical Education

Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institutions Versus The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

The court held that after the enactment of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, the State Government could not withdraw permission ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the State Government could withdraw the permission granted to start a private Engineering College after the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 came into force.2. Whether the University of Madras could cancel or withhold affiliation to the college based on non-fulfillment of conditions imposed by the State Government and the University.3. The validity of the appointment of a High Power Committee by the State Government.4. The implications of the Central Act on the powers of the State Government and the University.5. The enforceability of specific conditions imposed by the University for affiliation.6. The protection of students' interests in light of the legal disputes.Detailed Analysis:1. Withdrawal of Permission by State Government after AICTE Act, 1987:The court held that after the enactment of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Central Act 52 of 1987), the State Government had no power to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner to start a private Engineering College. The court observed, 'after the Central Act 52 of 1987 came into force, the duty is imposed only on the AICTE for recognizing or derecognizing any technical institution in the country and it is not open to the State Government or the University to give approval or disapproval to any technical institution.'2. Cancellation or Withholding of Affiliation by University:The court found that the University could not cancel or withhold affiliation on grounds related to coordination and determination of standards, as these fell under the purview of the AICTE. The court stated, 'the University could take action under Statute 44(A) in Chapter XXVI of Volume 1 of the Calendar of the University of Madras on the ground that one of the conditions imposed by the University for grant of affiliation viz., the petitioner should obtain the concurrence of the AICTE, New Delhi for the College was not fulfilled.'3. Validity of High Power Committee:The court held that the appointment of the High Power Committee by the State Government was illegal and unconstitutional after the Central Act came into force. It was observed that 'the only course open to the State Government is to refer the matter to the All India Council for Technical Education and ask them to follow the provisions of the Central Act.'4. Implications of the Central Act on State Government and University Powers:The court extensively discussed the constitutional provisions and the legislative competence of the Parliament and State Legislatures. It concluded that 'the Central Act will prevail over the provisions of the Madras University Act as well as the Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations made under the said Act' concerning coordination and determination of standards in technical education.5. Enforceability of Specific Conditions Imposed by University:The court examined the enforceability of condition No. 18 imposed by the University, which required the petitioner to obtain the concurrence of the AICTE. The court accepted the arguments against its enforceability, noting that 'Condition No. 18 was never treated as an essential condition for grant of affiliation by the University' and 'the said condition is not enforced against any other institution.'6. Protection of Students' Interests:The court acknowledged the need to protect the interests of students who had already been admitted to the college. However, it noted that it could not issue directions for transferring students to other colleges based on reports from the High Power Committee or the High Court Committee, as these were not conclusive. The court stated, 'it is for the All India Council to decide whether the required conditions are fulfilled. Unless there is a report before us by the All India Council for Technical Education that the college in question has not satisfied the norms and conditions or maintained the required standards, we cannot hold that the college is functioning illegally or unlawfully and direct the second respondent to transfer the students to other colleges.'Conclusion:The court allowed W.A. No. 793 of 1989, quashing the resolutions passed by the Syndicate of Madras University and dismissing W.A. Nos. 797 and 821 of 1989. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction to decide on the recognition or de-recognition of technical institutions rested solely with the AICTE after the Central Act came into force. The court also provided directions to protect the interests of students, ensuring they could obtain transfer certificates if they chose to leave the petitioner college.