# IIMT College of Polytechnic, G.B. Nagar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1351
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-07-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 26033 of 2015
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iimt-college-of-polytechnic-g-b-nagar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43317
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-affiliationrefusal by Technical Education Boardputting condition contrary to recognition
granted
by
AICTE-held-totally
unfair,
arbitrary-quashed.
Held: Para-26
The aforesaid affiliation was granted by
the
Board
without
ascertaining
or
adjudging the quality of its education as
at that time no student had been
admitted or had passed out. Therefore,
when the Board had granted affiliation
for running the above diploma courses
without
examining
the
quality
of
education imparted by the institute, any
condition to adjudge its quality on the
basis of passed out students at the time
of extension of affiliation is totally
unfair, arbitrary and is in contradiction
to its own method of granting affiliation
at the initial stage.
Case Law discussed:
(2013) 3 SCC 385

## Text

3 All] IIMT College of Polytechnic, G.B. Nagar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1351
candidature would have been rejected. He
was applying for a member of armed force
who would, upon recruitment, be posted as a
constable. As a member of CRPF, he would
be entrusted with responsible duties and
would be inducted in armed forces. The
employer thus had every right to enquire
about his full antecedents and be informed
about any criminal case pending against
such a candidate. Quite apart from his action
of not making true and full disclosure,
holding back most material information from
the prospective employer of his involvement
in such criminal case would have debarred
him from securing the employment."
15.
The factum of petitioner having
been subsequently acquitted in the criminal
case is not of much relevance in the facts of
the present case, inasmuch as the limited
scrutiny, which was available on part of the
employer, was to examine the continuance of
petitioner for employment in a public office.
The fact that he had submitted a false
declaration about no criminal case pending
against
him,
was
itself
a
material
circumstance. As already observed above, no
stigma was attached. Protection of Article
311 of the Constitution of India or the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ram Kumar (supra) and other
judgments relied upon, taking similar view,
have thus no applicability to the facts of the
present case. There is no illegality in the
orders impugned passed by the authorities,
which may require any interference.
16. The writ petition, consequently,
fails, and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
Writ-C No. 26033 of 2015
IIMT College of Polytechnic, G.B. Nagar
& Anr.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.K. Singh, Sri Ritesh Upadhyay
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-affiliationrefusal by Technical Education Boardputting condition contrary to recognition
granted
by
AICTE-held-totally
unfair,
arbitrary-quashed.
Held: Para-26
The aforesaid affiliation was granted by
the
Board
without
ascertaining
or
adjudging the quality of its education as
at that time no student had been
admitted or had passed out. Therefore,
when the Board had granted affiliation
for running the above diploma courses
without
examining
the
quality
of
education imparted by the institute, any
condition to adjudge its quality on the
basis of passed out students at the time
of extension of affiliation is totally
unfair, arbitrary and is in contradiction
to its own method of granting affiliation
at the initial stage.
Case Law discussed:
(2013) 3 SCC 385
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)
1.
Under challenge is basically the
order dated 13.5.2015 of the Secretary of
the Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad (Technical
Education Board), U.P., Lucknow (in short
'Board') and the resolution No.7 dated
22.8.2012 of the Board and consequently
one of the prayer is for a direction to
consider the application of the petitioners
for granting affiliation to three years full
1352
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
time diploma course in Civil Engineering
and Mechanical Engineering (Production)
in the second shift.
2. The Secretary of the Board by the
impugned order has refused to grant
affiliation to the second shift of the above
two courses to the petitioner-institute due to
the resolution No.7 dated 22.8.2012 of the
Board by which it was resolved that before
considering the grant of affiliation to the
second shift diploma courses of the technical
institutes it must be ensured that the institute
has completed three years of affiliation and
that its first batch has passed out.
3. The IIMT College of Polytechnic,
Greater NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as
the petitioner-institute) is a private
unaided polytechnic imparting three years
diploma courses in Civil Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering (Maintenance),
Mechanical
Engineering
(Production),
Electrical Engineering and Electronics &
Communication Engineering with effect
from the session 2012-13.
4. The petitioner-institute has the
approval for imparting education in the
above diploma courses from All India
Council for Technical Education (in short
"AICTE") vide letter dated 10.7.2012.
The Board also accorded affiliation to the
above institute vide office order dated
14.9.2012 from the session 2012-13 to the
extent of 60 students per discipline in first
shift.
5. The petitioner-institute sought for
approval of AICTE for enhancement of
60 seats each from the session 2013-14 in
Civil
Engineering
and
Mechanical
Engineering (Production) in the second
shift. AICTE accorded its approval for the
session 2013
- 14 vide letter dated
15.5.2013, for the session 2014 - 15 vide
order dated 28.3.2014 and for the session
2015 - 16 vide letter dated 7.4.2015.
However, the Board failed to process the
papers for grant of affiliation on its basis
for the session 2013 - 14; for the session
2014 - 15 the affiliation was refused at the
fag end on 15.4.2014 and finally for the
session 2015 - 16 vide the impugned
order dated 13.5.2015 on the basis of the
resolution of the Board dated 22.8.2012.
6. I have heard Sri G. K. Singh,
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ritesh
Upadhyay,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents. Both of them agreed
for final disposal of the petition on the
pleadings on record.
7. The one and the only one
submission of the counsel for the
petitioner is that once AICTE has granted
approval to the petitioner-institute for
running the second shift in the above two
diploma courses with the intake of 60
students each, the Board has no authority
of law to refuse affiliation. The Board
cannot impose condition inconsistent with
the AICTE norms and any condition in
conflict of it would be ineffective and
bad.
8. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand, contends that the decision to
refuse affiliation by the Board has been
taken on the basis of the earlier resolution
of the Board for the reason that no batch
of the petitioner-institute had passed out
as yet on account of which it is not
possible to assess the quality of teaching
and of students of the said institute which
is sine qua non for grant of affiliation.
The affiliation is not a matter of right to
any institute.
3 All] IIMT College of Polytechnic, G.B. Nagar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1353
9. The controversy in short is
whether the petitioner-institute has been
rightly refused affiliation for the session
2014-15 for the second shift of the above
two diploma courses.
10.
The All India Counsel for
Technical Education Act, 1987 ('Act' for
short) was enacted and AICTE was
established with the view to co-ordinate the
development of the technical education
throughout the country and for maintenance
of norms and standards in technical
education system and the matters connected
thereto. The Act vide Section 10 provides for
functions of the AICTE and one of the
functions enumerated therein vide subsection (k) is grant of approval for starting
new
technical
institutions
and
for
introduction of new courses or programmes
in consultation with the agencies concerned.
The relevant part of Section 10 of the
AICTE, 1987 reads as under:
"10. Functions of the Council. - It
shall be the duty of the Counsel to take all
such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
co-ordinated and integrated development
of technical education and maintenance of
standards and for the purposes of
performing its functions under this Act,
the Counsel may -
(a)......
..........
..........
(j).......
(k) grant approval for starting new
technical institutions and for introduction
of new courses or programmes in
consultation
with
the
agencies
concerned."
11. In view of the above provision,
the AICTE is vested with the power to
grant approval for starting technical
institutions and for the introduction of
new courses therein. It means that no
technical institute can start functioning or
commence education in new courses or
programmes without the approval of
AICTE. The approval of AICTE for
starting new technical institutions or for
introducing new courses or programmes
is in a way like granting recognition to the
technical institutions and to courses run
by such institutions. This is in order to
have a uniform standard of the technical
education system in the country.
12. In the State of U.P. there is a State
enactment known as the Pravidhik Shiksha
Adhiniyam, 1962 (in short 'Adhiniyam')
which provides for establishment of Board
of Technical Education for dealing with the
matters connected with technical education.
The functioning of the said Board is
enumerated in Section 12 of the Adhiniyam
and, inter alia, includes to affiliate
institutions and prescribe courses of study
and instructions leading to examinations
conducted
by
it
and
to
conduct
examinations for awarding certificates and
diplomas. In other words, the Board of
Technical Education, U.P. is an examining
body like a University, for the diploma
courses connected with technical education.
13. It may be pertinent to note that
the AICTE under the Act is not vested
with any power to hold and conduct the
examinations of such courses and for
imparting certificates thereof. The said
function has been conferred upon the
University or to special authorities such as
the Board.
14. The aforesaid Adhiniyam vide
Section 2 (a) defines 'affiliated institution'
to mean the institution affiliated to the
Board in respect of any course or courses
1354
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of study in accordance with the provisions
of the Adhiniyam or the regulations made
thereunder.
15. A plain reading of the provisions of
the Act and Adhiniyam would reveal that
both the Central and the State enactments
operate in a different field. The primary
function of the Act is to bring about coordinated & integrated development and
promotion of quality improvement in a
planned manner in the technical education
system and matter connected therewith by
setting and regulating norms and standards
thereof. At the same time, the Adhiniyam
aims to establish examining body for the
technical education and do provide method
and norms of conducting examinations and
awarding certificates thereof for which
purpose the Board has been empowered to
affiliate institutions and to prescribe courses
and programmes of studies and instructions.
16. In view of the above, an institute
interested in imparting education in
technical field is first required to seek
recognition/ approval of AICTE for
starting a technical institute and for
introduction
of
new
courses
and
programmes therein. It is only after an
institution is granted approval to start a
technical institute or to introduce a new
course or programme that it becomes
mandatory upon it to seek affiliation with
an examining body such as Board.
Therefore, recognition by the AICTE and
affiliation by the Board are both sine qua
non for running a technical institution.
17. In Parashvanath Charitable Trust
and others Vs. All India Counsel for
Technical Education and others (2013) 3
SCC 385 the Apex Court considered the
object of the Act, functioning of the
AICTE and role of the AICTE viz-a-viz
the
Universities
and
the
State
Government. It was observed that the
University (examining body) could not
impose any condition inconsistent with
the Act or its regulations or the conditions
prescribed by AICTE. Therefore, there is
no requirement for obtaining the approval
of the State Government and any
condition of the State Government or the
University requiring such approval would
be repugnant to the Act. The department
concerned of the State Government and
the affiliating University (in the present
case the Board) cannot lay down any
guideline or policy in conflict with the
Central statute or the standards laid down
by the Central body i.e. AICTE.
18. There is no controversy with
regard to the legal preposition as laid
down by the Supreme Court in the above
decision but the controversy in the present
case is slightly different i.e. whether the
Board/State has rightly refused to grant
affiliation to the petitioner-institute in the
above two courses of technical education
in the second shift.
19. No law or any authoritative
decision of the Court lays down that once
recognition/approval has been granted to
an institute to commence any diploma
course, then
the
affiliation to the
examining body/University would be
automatic or is a natural consequence.
The
affiliation
follows
the
approval/recognition of the AICTE and
for affiliation there may be different set of
norms and unless the same are fulfilled
the affiliation may not be possible but
such norms could not run contrary to the
ones set out by the AICTE.
20. Learned counsel for the
petitioner is at a loss to demonstrate that
3 All] IIMT College of Polytechnic, G.B. Nagar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1355
the above resolution of the Board is in
conflict with any guideline or norm laid
down by the AICTE.
21.
In the instant case, one of the
norm for affiliation laid down by the Board
which is coming in the way of the
petitioner-institute is the resolution No.7 of
the Board dated 22.8.2012 which provides
that before granting affiliation to the second
shift of any diploma course of technical
education to an institute it must be ensured
that the institute has completed three years
of affiliation and that one batch has passed
out the said diploma course.
22. The aforesaid resolution of the
Board is simply a resolution which has
been adopted in one of its meeting. It has
not been made public. It has not been
published. It has not been notified. There
is nothing on record to establish that it has
been notified in any manner and made
known to the public. The people and the
public at large cannot be said to be aware
of it.
23. In view of the above, such a
resolution which remains within the four
corners of the meeting room of the Board
cannot have any public application.
24. The aforesaid resolution imposes
the condition that the institution seeking
affiliation to any course for the second
shift must have completed at least three
years of affiliation and that a batch of
students must have passed out from the
institute so as to adjudge its quality.
25. The petitioner-institute was
granted affiliation in all the five diploma
courses with the intake of 60 students
each in the first shift w.e.f. 2012-13
session vide letter dated 14.9.2012. The
said affiliation is intact and is continuing.
The petitioner-institute has not violated
any norm which may give an occasion to
de-affiliate it.
26.
The aforesaid affiliation was
granted by the Board without ascertaining or
adjudging the quality of its education as at
that time no student had been admitted or
had passed out. Therefore, when the Board
had granted affiliation for running the above
diploma courses without examining the
quality of education imparted by the institute,
any condition to adjudge its quality on the
basis of passed out students at the time of
extension of affiliation is totally unfair,
arbitrary and is in contradiction to its own
method of granting affiliation at the initial
stage.
27.
The availability of proper
infrastructure, good faculty and the capacity
of the institute to impart technical education
to additional students and to run the second
shift per see are relevant factors for the grant
of affiliation to additional seat or second shift
in above two diploma courses but the past
performance is not material and a relevant
criteria for the purpose. The petitioner
institute is not said to be lacking in any of
above aspects.
28. It is not the case of anyone that
the petitioner-institute failed to fulfil any
other condition of affiliation or that it is
lacking any infrastructure or otherwise on
account of which affiliation cannot be
granted.
29. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, in my opinion, the
Board
is
not justified
in
refusing
affiliation to the petitioner-institute in the
above two diploma courses in the second
shift for the session 2015-16 onwards on
1356
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the basis of the resolution dated 22.8.2012
which is held to be arbitrary having no
legal sanctity attached to it.
30.
Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 13.5.2015 (Annexure 12-A) is quashed
and the respondent No.2 is directed to
reconsider the matter of grant of affiliation to
the second shifts in the above two diploma
courses to the petitioner-institute for the
additional 60 seats each from the session
2015-16 onwards as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before it.
31. The writ petition is allowed as
above.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29670 of
2015
Smt. Saroj
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri M.L. Rai
Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri Surendra Tiwari
Cr.P.C-Section 439-Bail-offence u/s 498A, 306 IPC-applicant being mother in law
of deceased-no allegation of ill treatment
or dowry demand-the deceased in her
statement-never complained any sort of
ill
treatment against her-burn injury
explained to be accidental-considering
detention period already undergone-no
possibility of early hearing-application
allowed with condition to cooperate in
Trail with personal appearance on every
dates-without any attempt to alter the
prosecution witness.
Held: Para-6
After perusing the record in the light of the
submissions made at the bar and after
taking an overall view of all the facts and
circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence, the period of detention already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood
of
early
conclusion of trial and also the absence of
any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence,
this Court is of the view that the applicant
may be enlarged on bail.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)
1. Sri Surendra Tiwari Advocate has
filed Parcha on behalf of the complainant
which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Surendra Tiwari counsel for
the complainant and learned A.G.A.
3. Perused the record.
4. Submission of the counsel is that
the applicant is the mother in law of the
deceased and she never indulged in any
kind of ill treatment and demand of
dowry. What has been emphasized by the
counsel is that there is a statement of the
deceased also which was recorded in her
injured condition and has been also
recorded in the mobile video by the
Investigating Officer. The attention was
drawn to the statement of deceased Smt.
Anshika Garg alias Manju which has been
annexed as Annexure-2 to the application.
It was stated therein by the deceased that
accidentally the kerosene bottle which
was placed in the kitchen fell down and