Technical education standards law bars State and university action on affiliation; transfer certificates ordered for eligible students.

Parliament's enactment under Entry 66 of List I on standards in technical education excluded parallel State and university action on approval, recognition, withdrawal of permission, or cancellation of affiliation in that field. The High Court held that the State Government and the University lacked jurisdiction to withdraw affiliation on grounds touching co-ordination and standards, and that Statute 44A could not sustain resolutions unsupported by an independent valid basis. It also held that student protection could be limited to issuance of transfer certificates for eligible students, while compulsory transfer to other colleges was declined. The University's refusal of affiliation was set aside and the State's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 came into force, the State Government and the University could withdraw permission and affiliation granted to a technical institution on grounds touching co-ordination and determination of standards; (ii) whether the University could invoke Statute 44A of Chapter XXVI of its Laws and sustain the impugned resolutions withdrawing provisional affiliation; and (iii) whether relief could be granted directing transfer of students or otherwise protecting the institution pending action by the All India Council for Technical Education.

Issue (i): Whether, after the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 came into force, the State Government and the University could withdraw permission and affiliation granted to a technical institution on grounds touching co-ordination and determination of standards.

Analysis: The Central Act was held to fall within Entry 66 of List I, dealing with co-ordination and determination of standards in technical education. Once Parliament occupied that field, the State Government's executive power and the University's statutory power could not be exercised to approve, disapprove, recognise, derecognise, or withdraw affiliation on matters that directly impinged on standards. The Court applied the principles of legislative supremacy under Article 246, repugnancy and exclusion of State power where Parliament has exclusive competence, and held that the Central Act governed both institutions existing before and after its commencement.

Conclusion: The State Government and the University had no jurisdiction to withdraw permission or affiliation on grounds falling within the Central Act's field; that power vested in the All India Council for Technical Education.

Issue (ii): Whether the University could invoke Statute 44A of Chapter XXVI of its Laws and sustain the impugned resolutions withdrawing provisional affiliation.

Analysis: The Court held that the statutory scheme for affiliation could not be used to defeat the Central Act. Condition No. 18 was not enforceable in the facts, and the University's resolutions did not disclose a specific sustainable ground independent of the High Power Committee report. The University could not supplement the recorded reasons by fresh grounds before Court. Statute 44A could not validate action taken on a field withdrawn from the University's competence, and the impugned resolutions were unsupported.

Conclusion: Statute 44A could not be validly invoked on the facts, and the University's resolutions were quashed.

Issue (iii): Whether relief could be granted directing transfer of students or otherwise protecting the institution pending action by the All India Council for Technical Education.

Analysis: The Court declined to direct transfer of students to other colleges merely on the basis of reports from the State Committee or the High Court Committee, since the competence to decide compliance with technical standards lay with the All India Council for Technical Education. At the same time, the Court protected students by directing issuance of transfer certificates to those not in arrears of fees, and by recording that accommodating such students elsewhere would be open. The later applications seeking broader relief were rejected on merits.

Conclusion: No direction for compulsory transfer to other colleges was granted, but transfer certificates were directed to be issued to eligible students.

Final Conclusion: The appeal against the University succeeded and the University's refusal of affiliation was set aside, while the State's challenge failed; the Court also limited student-related relief to issuance of transfer certificates and declined a broader transfer direction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Parliament has enacted a law within Entry 66 of List I governing standards in technical education, State authorities and universities cannot exercise parallel power to approve, disapprove, withdraw permission, or cancel affiliation on matters that trench upon that exclusive field.

---