# APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 13 S.C.R. 732
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-12-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4016 of 2020
- **Bench:** S. A. Bobde, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/apj-abdul-kalam-technological-university-anr-v-jai-bharath-college-of-34372
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015:
Purpose of enactment - Held: To regulate technical education in
the State of Kerala.
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015: s.30(2)
- Power of Syndicate to lay down norms for grant of affiliation for
additional courses - Held: The source of power for the Syndicate
to prescribe norms and standards for affiliation is s.30(2) - s.30(2)
begins with the words "subject to the provisions of the Act and the
Statutes" - So, if there is something in the Act or the Statutes which
regulates or controls the power of the Syndicate, then the Syndicate
may be bound by such prescription - But if there is nothing in the
Act/Statutes or if there are no Statutes at all, then it cannot be said
that the power itself is unavailable - Therefore, the absence of
Statutes, till they were made for the first time on 07.08.2020, did not
mean that the power under s.30(2) could not be exercised - The
absence of the Statutes (till 07.08.2020) would only mean the
absence of Statute-stipulated conditions and procedure for
affiliation, but not the absence of the very power of the Syndicate
flowing out of s.30(2)(iii) - Thus, when the Statutes have not
prescribed any conditions for affiliation but have left it to the
Syndicate to take care of matters relating to affiliation, the function
of the Syndicate to lay down norms and standards by virtue of the
powers conferred by s.30(2), is made free of any fetters - High
Court was in error in holding that the resolutions passed by the
Syndicate prescribing norms and standards for the grant of
affiliation for additional courses were ultra vires the Act -
Universities - Education/Educational Institutions.APJ Abdul Kalam
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 732
732
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
733
Technological University Act, 2015: s.14(6) - Whether High Court
was correct in holding that in the absence of the Statutes, recourse
was available only to the Vice Chancellor under s.14(6) - Held:
s.14(6) says that in the absence of the Statute, it is the ViceChancellor who has the power to regulate any matter which is
required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations - It cannot be
interpreted to mean that the Syndicate itself will be powerless in the
absence of the Statutes and that the Vice Chancellor will have the
power - In any case, the language of s.14(6) is such that the Vice
Chancellor may first regulate the matter by issuing directions and
thereafter submit the same "as soon as may be" for the approval of
the Board of Governors or other authority or body concerned - By
virtue of s.30(2)(iii), the Syndicate can be taken to be the "other
authority" referred to in s.14(6) - Therefore, it was not necessary
for the Vice Chancellor to fall back upon s.14(6) on the ground
that there were no Statutes at that time - High Court erred in holding
that in the absence of the Statutes, recourse was available only to
the Vice Chancellor under s.14(6), overlooking for a moment that
the power under s.30(2)(iii) would not become otiose due to the
absence of the Statutes.
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015: Role
of appellant-University vis-a-vis AICTE - Enhancement of norms
and standards for admission as prescribed by AICTE - Held: While
it is not open to the Universities to dilute the norms and standards
prescribed by AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe
enhanced norms - Universities.
Universities: Power of Universities to incorporate any
additional conditions for affiliation - Case laws discussed.
AICTE - Development in AICTE after 2012 - After the advent
of AICTE Regulations, 2012, the applications for extension of
approvals are processed by AICTE only online, merely on the basis
of the self-disclosure made by the colleges in their online
applications - Though AICTE has reserved to itself the power to
conduct inspections and take penal action against colleges for false
declarations, such penal action does not serve any purpose for the
students who get admitted to

## Text

_Characters 0–39,996 of 69,022. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39996 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY &
ANR.
v.
JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4016 of 2020)
DECEMBER 10, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND V.
RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015:
Purpose of enactment - Held: To regulate technical education in
the State of Kerala.
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015: s.30(2)
- Power of Syndicate to lay down norms for grant of affiliation for
additional courses - Held: The source of power for the Syndicate
to prescribe norms and standards for affiliation is s.30(2) - s.30(2)
begins with the words "subject to the provisions of the Act and the
Statutes" - So, if there is something in the Act or the Statutes which
regulates or controls the power of the Syndicate, then the Syndicate
may be bound by such prescription - But if there is nothing in the
Act/Statutes or if there are no Statutes at all, then it cannot be said
that the power itself is unavailable - Therefore, the absence of
Statutes, till they were made for the first time on 07.08.2020, did not
mean that the power under s.30(2) could not be exercised - The
absence of the Statutes (till 07.08.2020) would only mean the
absence of Statute-stipulated conditions and procedure for
affiliation, but not the absence of the very power of the Syndicate
flowing out of s.30(2)(iii) - Thus, when the Statutes have not
prescribed any conditions for affiliation but have left it to the
Syndicate to take care of matters relating to affiliation, the function
of the Syndicate to lay down norms and standards by virtue of the
powers conferred by s.30(2), is made free of any fetters - High
Court was in error in holding that the resolutions passed by the
Syndicate prescribing norms and standards for the grant of
affiliation for additional courses were ultra vires the Act -
Universities - Education/Educational Institutions.APJ Abdul Kalam
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 732
732
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
733
Technological University Act, 2015: s.14(6) - Whether High Court
was correct in holding that in the absence of the Statutes, recourse
was available only to the Vice Chancellor under s.14(6) - Held:
s.14(6) says that in the absence of the Statute, it is the ViceChancellor who has the power to regulate any matter which is
required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations - It cannot be
interpreted to mean that the Syndicate itself will be powerless in the
absence of the Statutes and that the Vice Chancellor will have the
power - In any case, the language of s.14(6) is such that the Vice
Chancellor may first regulate the matter by issuing directions and
thereafter submit the same "as soon as may be" for the approval of
the Board of Governors or other authority or body concerned - By
virtue of s.30(2)(iii), the Syndicate can be taken to be the "other
authority" referred to in s.14(6) - Therefore, it was not necessary
for the Vice Chancellor to fall back upon s.14(6) on the ground
that there were no Statutes at that time - High Court erred in holding
that in the absence of the Statutes, recourse was available only to
the Vice Chancellor under s.14(6), overlooking for a moment that
the power under s.30(2)(iii) would not become otiose due to the
absence of the Statutes.
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015: Role
of appellant-University vis-a-vis AICTE - Enhancement of norms
and standards for admission as prescribed by AICTE - Held: While
it is not open to the Universities to dilute the norms and standards
prescribed by AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe
enhanced norms - Universities.
Universities: Power of Universities to incorporate any
additional conditions for affiliation - Case laws discussed.
AICTE - Development in AICTE after 2012 - After the advent
of AICTE Regulations, 2012, the applications for extension of
approvals are processed by AICTE only online, merely on the basis
of the self-disclosure made by the colleges in their online
applications - Though AICTE has reserved to itself the power to
conduct inspections and take penal action against colleges for false
declarations, such penal action does not serve any purpose for the
students who get admitted to colleges which have necessary
infrastructure only on paper and not on site - The Regulations of
the AICTE are silent as to how the students will get compensated,
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE
OF MGMT. & ENGG. TECH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
when penal action is taken against colleges which host false
information online in their applications.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 63(2) deals with the grant of affiliation
or recognition for additional courses to an affiliated college or
recognized institution. This provision does not deal with the laying
down of norms and standards. Section 30(1) vests upon the
Syndicate, the executive powers of the University, including the
general superintendence and control over the institutions of the
University. The source of power for the Syndicate to prescribe
norms and standards for affiliation, is Section 30(2). Section 30(2)
begins with the words "subject to the provisions of the Act and
the Statutes". So, if there is something in the Act or the Statutes
which regulates or controls the power of the Syndicate, then the
Syndicate may be bound by such prescription. But if there is
nothing in the Act/Statutes or if there are no Statutes at all, then
it cannot be said that the power itself is unavailable. The power
of the Syndicate to propose norms and standards flows out of the
Act and not out of the University Statutes. Therefore, the absence
of Statutes, till they were made for the first time on 07.08.2020,
did not mean that the power under Section 30(2) could not have
been exercised. [Paras 28, 34][749-E-F; 751-G-H; 752-C-E]
1.2 Section 42 of the Act which speaks about the issue of
Statutes and the matters for which provisions may be made in the
Statutes, makes it clear that "the conditions and procedures for
affiliation of Colleges and for withdrawing the affiliation of
colleges", is one of the matters that could be provided for in the
Statutes. Therefore, the Statutes can provide for the conditions
and procedure for affiliation. The absence of the Statutes (till
07.08.2020) would only mean the absence of Statute-stipulated
conditions and procedure for affiliation, but not the absence of
the very power of the Syndicate flowing out of Section 30(2)(iii).
Therefore, it was not necessary for the Vice Chancellor to fall
back upon Section 14(6) on the ground that there were no Statutes
at that time. [Para 35][752-F-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
735
1.3 Section 14(6) says that in the absence of a Statute, it is
the Vice Chancellor who has the power to regulate any matter
which is required to be regulated by Statutes or Regulations. It
cannot be interpreted to mean that the Syndicate itself will be
powerless in the absence of the Statutes and that the Vice
Chancellor will have the power. In any case, the language of
Section 14(6) is such that the Vice Chancellor may first regulate
the matter by issuing directions and thereafter submit the same
"as soon as may be" for the approval of the Board of Governors
or other authority or body concerned. By virtue of Section
30(2)(iii), the Syndicate can be taken to be the "other authority"
referred to in Section 14(6). If that is done, it can be seen that it
was the Syndicate, chaired by the Vice Chancellor which took the
impugned decisions in its meetings and hence the prescription
of norms by the Syndicate, chaired by the Vice Chancellor cannot
be said to be ultra vires the Act. [Para 36][753-A-D]
1.4 When the Statutes have not prescribed any conditions
for affiliation but have left it to the Syndicate to take care of
matters relating to affiliation, the function of the Syndicate to lay
down norms and standards by virtue of the powers conferred by
Section 30(2), is made free of any fetters. Therefore, the norms
prescribed by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 24.06.2020
under the Chairmanship of the Vice Chancellor could not have
been taken exception to. After all, the norms which the Colleges
have objected to, merely seek to ensure that at least 50% of the
outgoing students had passed their respective courses and that
the Institution should have the most recent academic audit overall
score of "Good", apart from having an actual intake of more than
50% of the sanctioned intake in the preceding three years on an
average. The High Court was in error in holding on the first issue
that the resolutions passed by the Syndicate prescribing norms
and standards for the grant of affiliation for additional courses,
are ultra vires the Act. [Paras 38, 39, 40][754-B-C; C-D-; E-F]
2. The law is now fairly well settled that while it is not open
to the Universities to dilute the norms and standards prescribed
by AICTE, it is always open to the Universities to prescribe
enhanced norms. [Para 47][756-G-H]
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE
OF MGMT. & ENGG. TECH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
3.1 After the advent of AICTE Regulations, 2012, the
applications for extension of approvals are processed by AICTE
only online, merely on the basis of the self-disclosure made by
the colleges in their online applications. If all infrastructural
facilities as prescribed by AICTE are found to be available on
paper (whether available at site or not), the AICTE grants
extension of approval. Chapter II of the Approval Process
Handbook for 2020-21 makes it clear that the extension of
approval will be based on self-disclosure. Paragraph 13 of the
counter affidavit of the AICTE contains an extract of Clause
2.15.4(b) of APH 2020-21, which confirms that the assessment is
based on self-disclosure on AICTE web portal. [Paras 56, 57]
[760-D-E; G-H]
3.2 Though AICTE has reserved to itself the power to
conduct inspections and take penal action against colleges for
false declarations, such penal action does not mean anything and
does not serve any purpose for the students who get admitted to
colleges which have necessary infrastructure only on paper and
not on site. The Regulations of the AICTE are silent as to how
the students will get compensated, when penal action is taken
against colleges which host false information online in their
applications to AICTE. Ultimately, it is the universities which
are obliged to issue degrees and whose reputation is inextricably
intertwined with the fate and performance of the students, that
may have to face the music and hence their role cannot be
belittled. Today, even the universities are being ranked
according to the quality of standards maintained by them.
[Para 58][761-A-C]
Modern Dental College & Research Centre and Others
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. (2016) 7 SCC
353:[2016] 3 SCR 579 - followed
Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India
Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8
SCC 676:[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253; Association of
Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council
for Technical Education and Others (2013) 8 SCC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
737
271:[2013] 6 SCR 1054; State of T.N. and Another v.
S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others (2004) 4 SCC 513:
[2004] 2 SCR 1218; Visveswaraiah Technological
University and Another v. Krishnendu Halder and
Others (2011) 4 SCC 606: [2011] 2 SCR 1007;
Mahatma Gandhi University and Another v. Jikku Paul
and Others. (2011) 15 SCC 242 - relied on
Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner &
Secretary to Government Higher Education Department,
Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and Another (2000)
5 SCC 231: [2000] 2 SCR 1234; Mata Gujri Memorial
Medical College v. State of Bihar and Others (2009) 16
SCC 309 - distinguished.
Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai and Another v.
Chattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University
and Another (2015) 11 SCC 291 : [2014] 12 SCR 796
- Not correct law
R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and Others AIR 1964
SC 1823: 1964 SCR 368; State of A.P. v. K.
Purushotham Reddy and others (2003) 9 SCC 564:
[2003] 2 SCR 832; Osmania University Teachers'
Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
(1987) 4 SCC 671: [1987] 3 SCR 949; Bharati
Vidyapeeth (deemed university) and Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Another (2004) 11 SCC 755: [2004]
2 SCR 775; State of T.N. and Another v. Adhiyaman
Educational and Research Institute and Others (1995)
4 SCC 104: [1995] 2 SCR 1075 - referred to
Case Law Reference
1964 SCR 368
referred to
Para 45
[2003] 2 SCR 832
referred to
Para 46
[1987] 3 SCR 949
referred to
Para 46
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253 relied on
Para 47
[2013] 6 SCR 1054
relied on
Para 47
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE
OF MGMT. & ENGG. TECH.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
[2004] 2 SCR 1218
relied on
Para 48
[2011] 2 SCR 1007
relied on
Para 48
(2011) 15 SCC 242
relied on
Para 49
[2016] 3 SCR 579
followed
Para 49
[2004] 2 SCR 775
referred to
Para 49
[2000] 2 SCR 1234
distinguished
Para 50
(2009) 16 SCC 309
distinguished
Para 50
[2014] 12 SCR 796
not correct law Para 50
[1995] 2 SCR 1075
referred to
Para 53
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4016
of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.09.2020 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No. 1073 of 2020.
Chander Uday Singh, P.S. Narasimha, C. Arayama Sundaram,
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Advs., P.V. Dinesh, Mukund P. Unny, T.P.
Sindhu, Bineesh K., Ashwini Singh, S.Krishnamoorthy, K.V. Mohan, Anil
Soni, Harish Pandey, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, G.
Prakash, Harish Shankar Vaidyanathan, Ravi Panwar and Kaushik Laik,
Advs., for appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of the
Kerala High Court directing the Vice Chancellor of the University to
reconsider the application for affiliation of a new B.Tech course,
submitted by the first respondent, which is a self- financing Engineering
College, solely on the basis of the extension of approval granted by the
All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as
"AICTE"), the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, which is a
State University and its Vice Chancellor have come up with this appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant-University, Mr. S. Krishnamoorthy, learned
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
Counsel appearing for the first respondent-College, Ms. Priyanka
Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-State
and Mr. Anil Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondentAICTE. We have also heard Mr. C. Arayama Sundaram, Mr. Gopal
Sankaranarayanan and Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the applicants seeking intervention/impleadment and
vacation of stay.
4. It appears that despite the mushroom growth of the selffinancing Engineering Institutions in the neighbouring States, the State
of Kerala had only 15 Engineering Colleges with an annual intake of
only 4844 students till the year 1997. But in the past more than two
decades, there was a spurt in the growth of self- financing Engineering
Institutions in the State. The position as on date is that there are 149
Engineering Colleges in the State of Kerala with a total annual permitted
intake of 47,420 seats.
5. In addition, there are also six Central Government Engineering
Institutions in the State.
6. Therefore, with a view to regulate technical education in the
State, the State of Kerala enacted the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the University Act").
Some of the Objects of the University as indicated in Section 5 of the
Act are as follows:-
"xxxx
(b) to improve the academic standards of the graduate,
postgraduate and research programmes in engineering sciences,
technology and management.
(c) to ensure the academic standards of all colleges and institutions
affiliated to the University.
xxxxx
(k) to substantially increase enrolment in Postgraduate education
and research programmes in the colleges and institutions with the
aim of promoting engineering research, development and
innovation;
(l) to support the establishment of Centres of excellence for
multidisciplinary applied research in specific thematic areas;
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF
MGMT. & ENGG. TECH. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
(m) to improve the learning skills of the students by constantly
and continuously improving and upgrading the academic quality
and standards of faculty;
(n) to introduce and sustain innovative systematic quality
improvement programmes in the field of technical education."
7. The powers and functions of the University enlisted in Section
8 include the following:
"xxxxxxx
(iii) to lay down the norms and standards for the establishment,
maintenance, administration, supervision and recognition of colleges
and centres maintained by the University.
(iv) to affiliate to itself institutions as constituent colleges or
autonomous colleges or regular colleges or colleges with academic
autonomy in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the
Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations and to withdraw affiliation
of colleges obtained in violation of Statutes of the University.;
(v) to confer academic autonomy to affiliated colleges, institutions
or a department of the affiliated colleges or institutions or a
department maintained by the University.
xxxxxxxx
(vii) to hold examinations and to confer degrees, postgraduate
degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions to
persons who, -
(a) shall have pursued a prescribed course of study in the
University or any college or institutions thereunder and shall
have passed the prescribed examinations of the University
unless exempted therefrom in the manner prescribed; or
(b) shall have carried on research satisfactorily under conditions
as may be prescribed and which has been duly evaluated;
xxxxxxxx
(xiv) to provide for the inspection of affiliated colleges and to
issue such directions as the University may deem fit;
xxxxxxxx
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
741
(xviii) to recommend to the Government to take over, in the public
interest, the management of colleges or institutions where
irregularities or dereliction of criminal nature by the management
of such college or institution are prima facie evident to the
committee of enquiry appointed by the University."
8. Sections 60 to 66 provide for affiliation and recognition,
procedure for permission, continuation of affiliation, withdrawal of
affiliation etc. Section 60 of the Act, which prescribes the conditions
subject to which affiliation can be granted by the University, reads as
follows:
60. Affiliation and recognition.- (1) The University can affiliate
any of the Engineering Colleges or Institutions imparting education
in technology owned by Government of Kerala or Government
controlled societies, Private aided and Private unaided selffinancing educational agencies, which, before the date of
commencement of this Act remained affiliated to the different
Universities, except Deemed Universities in the State of Kerala,
provided they meet the criteria prescribed under this Act,
Ordinances and Statutes for affiliation, including but not
confined to availability of faculty, administrative machinery,
infrastructure (buildings, laboratories etc.) which will be
laid down by the University from time to time under the
provisions of this Act. Such colleges meeting the specified
criteria can be affiliated to the University as (i) regular colleges
or (ii) autonomous colleges (iii) colleges with academic autonomy
or (iv) institutions. The affiliation of such institutions to other
Universities in the State except Deemed Universities, shall stand
transferred to the University on and from the date of
commencement of this Act, subject to the conditions that the
affiliation of these colleges or institutions in respect of the students
admitted to Engineering courses shall continue till those batches
of students complete their courses, the examinations of all such
students shall be conducted by the Universities to which they were
attached, degrees, postgraduate degrees or diplomas or other
distinctions shall be awarded by such Universities:
Provided that the institutions in the technological branch maintained
by other Universities of the State as their departments or their
respective constituent colleges or the engineering colleges or
teaching institutions under the deemed universities and the National
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF
MGMT. & ENGG. TECH. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
Institutes established by the Central Government shall not come
under the jurisdiction of the University.
(2) The Educational Agency applying for affiliation or recognition
and whose college or institution has been granted affiliation or
recognition, shall give and comply with the following undertaking:-
(i) that the provisions of this Act, or any other Acts passed by
the State Legislature related to Engineering field in the State,
rules made thereunder and Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations,
standing orders and directions of the University shall be
observed;
(ii) that there shall be a separate Governing Body or Managing
Council for an affiliated college or group of colleges receiving
financial assistance from the Government or the University;
(iii) that the number of students admitted for courses of study
shall not exceed the limits prescribed from time to time, by the
University, the Government, Central or State Councils or
authorities in the concerned discipline as the case may be;
(iv) that there shall be suitable and adequate physical facilities
such as building, laboratories, libraries, equipments required
for teaching and research, hostel and other infrastructure
facilities as the case may be, prescribed by Statutes, Ordinances
and Regulations;
(v) that the financial resources of the college or institution shall
be such as to make due provision for its continued maintenance
and working;
(vi) that the strength and qualifications of teaching and nonteaching staff of the affiliated colleges and the emoluments
and the terms and conditions of service of the staff of affiliated
colleges shall be such as may be prescribed by the University
and which shall be sufficient to make due provision for courses
of study, teaching or training or research, efficiently;
(vii) that the services of all teaching and non-teaching employees
and the facilities of the college to be affiliated shall be made
available for conducting examinations and for promoting other
activities of the University;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
743
(viii) that the directions and orders issued by the Chancellor,
Vice-Chancellor and other officers of the University in exercise
of the powers conferred on them under the provisions of this
Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations or any other Acts
passed by the State Legislature in this regard, shall be complied
with;
(ix) that, there shall be no transfer of the management or
ownership of the college without previous sanction of the
University;
(x) that the college or institution shall not be closed without
previous sanction of the University;
(xi) that in the event of disaffiliation or de-recognition or closure
of the college or institution, all the assets of the college or
institution including building and equipment which have been
constructed or created out of the amount paid as a grant-in-aid
by the Government or the University Grants Commission shall
vest in the Government.
9. While section 60 extracted above, lays down in detail, the criteria
for and the conditions subject to which, affiliation can be granted to an
institution, Section 63 of the University Act indicates the procedure for
continuation of affiliation. It reads as follows:
63. Continuation of affiliation. - (1) The affiliated college or
recognised institution may apply for continuation of affiliation or
recognition for the courses of study for which affiliation or
recognition was granted ordinarily six months prior to the date of
expiry of such affiliation or recognition. The University shall follow
the procedure prescribed in Statutes, for grant of continuation of
affiliation.
(2) The affiliated college or recognised institution may apply
for affiliation or recognition for additional courses of study
and the same shall be considered by the University following
the procedures or rules prescribed in this regard in the
Statutes.
(3) An affiliated college with at least six years standing as an
affiliated college may apply for permanent affiliation in the manner
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF
MGMT. & ENGG. TECH. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
as may be prescribed in the Statutes and the University shall
consider such applications in such manner as may be prescribed.
10. The first respondent is a self-financing Institution which was
earlier offering B.Tech courses in five disciplines with an annual permitted
intake of 60 students in each of the disciplines. After closing the course
in one particular discipline, the first respondent applied in February/March2020 seeking approval of the AICTE for starting a new course in
"Artificial Intelligence and Data Science" with a permitted annual
intake of 60 students, from the Academic Year 2020-21. The application
was in accordance with the AICTE Approval Process Handbook 202021, issued in terms of the AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical
Institutions) Regulations, 2020.
11. On 13.06.2020, AICTE granted approval to the first respondent,
for starting the newly proposed course, even while granting extension of
approval for the existing courses.
12. Simultaneously with the submission of the application to the
AICTE, the first respondent also submitted an application for affiliation
to the appellant-University, in February/March 2020. The first respondent
also paid the Inspection Fee/Affiliation Fee.
13. But even before the first respondent took a decision to start a
new course, something happened in the State of Kerala. A study
conducted by a group of academic experts seems to have revealed that
there was a steady decline in the actual intake of students in self-financing
engineering colleges. As against the permitted intake of 58,165 students
for the academic year 2015-16, only 37,007 students got admitted leaving
19,468 seats vacant. The number of vacant seats rose to 20,038 in the
academic year 2016-17 and to 22,819 in the academic year 2017-18.
14. Therefore, based on the study conducted by the group of
academic experts, the Government issued an order in G.O. (Rt) No.1039/
2019/HEDN dated 22.06.2019. It was directed by this Order that
permission for starting new courses in Engineering shall be granted only
if three conditions are satisfied namely: (i) that the college should have
NBA accreditation; (ii) that the admission of students in the previous
academic years should have been more than 50% of the sanctioned
intake; and (iii) that the new course should be innovative.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
745
15. Following the said Government order, the Syndicate of the
appellant-University resolved in its meeting held on 04.02.2020 to fix the
following norms for the grant of affiliation to new programs based on
the recommendation of the Academic Council: (i) that at least one of the
existing programs should have NBA accreditation; (ii) that the average
annual intake of the institution for the previous three years should be
more than 50% of the sanctioned intake; (iii) that the proposed programme
should have AICTE approval and NOC from State Government; and
(iv) that the proposed programme should have industry demand/
employment potential.
16. Thereafter, a sub-committee was constituted for the purpose
of recommending affiliation for new courses or programmes for the
affiliated colleges who have submitted applications for starting new
programmes. This sub-committee resolved in its meeting held on
20.03.2020 to suggest the following criteria for the consideration of the
Syndicate of the University:-
1. The sub-committee examined all the 50 proposals received till
19-03-2020 from various colleges for granting affiliation to new
programs/additional intakes. Upon scrutiny of each application in
line with the criteria suggested by the Syndicate as cited above,
21 institutions are found to be eligible. The details of these 21
institutions and programs/courses applied are attached as
Annexure 1. Accordingly, the sub-committee recommends that
the proposals from these 21 institutions for starting new programs/
additional intake be favourably considered by the Syndicate for
issuing NOC for granting affiliation.
2. The sub-committee recommends that the applications for BVoC
courses be considered by the Syndicate for appropriate policy
decisions.
3. The sub-committee recommends that the applications for BVoC
courses be considered by the Syndicate/refer the matter to the
Director of Technical Education for appropriate policy decisions.
4. The sub-committee identified two case wherein the institutions
are having NBA accreditation but with percentage intake less
than 50. These two cases are referred to the Syndicate for
appropriate decisions.
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF
MGMT. & ENGG. TECH. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
5. The sub-committee recommends that for the courses listed in
Annexure 1 detailed syllabus and curriculum are to be framed in
a time bound manner well before the commencement of the
courses.
17. Finding that the Government Order G.O. (Rt) No.1039, dated
22.06.2019 and the resolution of the Syndicate dated 04.02.2020 has led
to an unfavourable climate with the sub-committee not recommending
the grant of affiliation for their proposed new course, the first respondentCollege filed a writ petition in Writ Petition (C) No.12709 of 2020 before
the High Court of Kerala. It appears that the writ petition was filed on
23.06.2020, seeking the following reliefs namely: (i) to set aside the
Government Order dated 22.06.2019; (ii) to direct the University to grant
affiliation for the newly proposed course for the academic year 202021; (iii) to quash the resolution of the Syndicate dated 04.02.2020, as
communicated by the Order of the Registrar of the University dated
10.06.2020; (iv) to direct the University to consider the application for
affiliation of the proposed course, without insisting on NBA accreditation
and without insisting on NOC from State Government; and (v) to grant
affiliation for the newly proposed course without insisting on any criteria
based upon the report of the sub-committee.
18. By sheer coincidence, the 13th meeting of the Syndicate of
the appellant-University was held on 24.06.2020, the day following the
date on which the first respondent College filed the writ petition before
the High Court. This Syndicate meeting was chaired by the Vice
Chancellor of the University. It was attended by a total of nine persons,
of which one was the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department
of the Government of Kerala, and another was the Director of Technical
Education. The rest were academicians. In this meeting, the Syndicate
examined the list of colleges which had applied for new courses/
programmes, without any NBA accreditation. Finding that even colleges
which did not have NBA accreditation had been granted approval by
AICTE, the Syndicate resolved in its meeting held on 24.06.2020 that
affiliation can be granted even to colleges without NBA accreditation,
subject to the satisfaction of the following criteria: (i) that the Institution
should have more than 50% pass for the outgoing students at the time of
application for affiliation; (ii) that the Institution should have most recent
academic audit overall score of "Good"; and (iii) that the Institution
should have three years average intake of more than 50% of the
sanctioned intake.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
747
19. Though the first respondent filed the writ petition on 23.06.2020
challenging the order of the University dated 10.06.2020 and though the
earlier Syndicate Resolution dated 04.02.2020 (on which the order of
the Registrar dated 10.06.2020 was based) stood modified by the next
Syndicate Resolution dated 24.06.2020, the first respondent did not seek
any amendment of the prayer. The net result was that one of the orders
(of the University) impugned in the writ petition stood amended, by the
time the writ petition was heard, but the amendment was not under
challenge.
 20. The writ petition filed by the first respondent challenging the
denial of affiliation for starting a new B.Tech course in Artificial
Intelligence and Data Science, was taken up along with similar writ
petitions filed by other colleges (including those filed by the Colleges,
which have now come up with applications for intervention/impleadment
and for vacation of interim order) and all of them were disposed of by a
learned Judge of the High Court by a Judgment dated 06.08.2020. By
the said Judgment, the learned Judge held: (i) that in view of the
requirements of Section 14 of the University Act read with Section
30(2)(xiv), the Syndicate cannot be said to be lacking in authority for
fixing the norms for affiliation; (ii) that the norms fixed by the Syndicate
in its resolution dated 04.02.2020 as communicated by the Order of the
Registrar dated 10.06.2020 would be applicable to both programmes
and courses; (iii) that in view of the resolution of the Syndicate dated
24.06.2020, NOC from the State Government and NBA accreditation
are no longer necessary; (iv) that as a consequence, the State
Government Order dated 22.06.2019 was liable to be set aside; and (v)
that the University may have to reconsider one portion of its decision
dated 24.06.2020, after taking note of the recommendation contained in
Annexure 1 and Clause 7 of Annexure 14 of the Approval Process
Handbook and a clarification issued by AICTE. Annexure 1 of the
Approval Process Handbook contained a recommendation to discourage
the creation of additional seats in traditional disciplines, but to encourage
conversion of current capacity in traditional disciplines to emerging new
technologies. Clause 7 of Annexure 14 made accreditation mandatory
for increase in intake/starting new courses.
21. Not satisfied with the partial relief granted and the directions
issued by the learned Judge, the first respondent filed a writ appeal in
Writ Appeal No.1073 of 2020 before the Division Bench of the High
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECH. UNIVERSITY v. JAI BHARATH COLLEGE OF
MGMT. & ENGG. TECH. [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
Court. The other Colleges who were writ petitioners, also filed separate
writ appeals.
22. By the common Judgment dated 08.09.2020 impugned in this
appeal, the Division Bench partially allowed the writ appeals, holding: (i)
that the Syndicate did not have the power to take the decisions dated
04.02.2020 (as communicated on 10.06.2020) and 24.06.2020, as there
was no University Statute in force on that date and that in the absence
of the Statute, the Vice-Chancellor alone had the power under section
14(6) of the Act to make any recommendation to the Board of Governors
in the matter of affiliation; and (ii) that the University cannot go beyond
AICTE Regulations.
23. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of the
Kerala High Court, the University has come up with the above appeal.
It is stated across the Bar that the appellant-University has filed similar
appeals against the very same impugned Judgment and those appeals
are yet to be numbered.
24. Though the learned Single Judge dealt with several issues, the
focus of the Division Bench was mainly on two issues namely: (i) the
power of the Syndicate to lay down norms for the grant of affiliation;
and (ii) the very power of the University to go beyond the AICTE
Regulations.
25. On the first issue revolving around the power of the Syndicate,
the High Court held that under Section 63(2) of the State University Act,
an application for affiliation or recognition for additional courses of study
made by a College which already holds affiliation, should be considered
by the University following the procedure prescribed in the Statutes.
Admittedly the first University Statute was issued only on 07.08.2020.
Therefore the Division Bench of the High Court held that on the date on
which the applications for affiliation for additional courses of study were
made by the Colleges and processed by the University, there was no
Statute of the University. Hence the Division Bench concluded that the
only option available in such circumstances where there was no Statute,
was for the Vice Chancellor to take recourse to the power available
under Section 14(6) of the University Act. But this power, in the opinion
of the High Court, has to be exercised by the Vice Chancellor with the
approval of the Board of Governors. As this was not done, the Division
Bench remanded the matter back to the Vice Chancellor to follow the
course of action available under Section 14(6).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
749
26. It is relevant to note at this stage that the power of the Syndicate
to lay down norms and standards for affiliation, which it did as per its
Resolutions, was upheld by the learned Single Judge, on a reading of
Section 30(2)(xiv) of the Act. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge
was delivered on 06.08.2020, upholding the power of the Syndicate, even
in the absence of the Statutes of the University, to lay down norms for
affiliation for additional courses. However, on the very next day namely
07.08.2020, the First Statutes of the University were also issued.
27. Therefore, when the colleges filed writ appeals and argued
about the procedure to be followed under Section 14(6) in the absence
of the Statutes, the appellant-University relied upon the Statutes issued
on 07.08.2020 and the power of ratification. Statute No.93 was brought
to the notice of the Division Bench to show that all matters relating to
affiliation fell within the scope of the powers of the Syndicate. But the
Division Bench not only rejected the argument of ratification, but also
rejected the reliance placed upon Statute No.93 on the ground that the
power under Statute No.93 may relate only to the grant of affiliation of
a teaching course or any subject in a teaching course, conducted in any
of the colleges which are not affiliated.
 28. But we do not think that the view taken by the Division Bench
both with regard to the prescription contained in Section 63(2) and with
regard to the powers of the Vice Chancellor under Section 14(6), is in
sync with the scheme of the University Act. Section 63(2) which we
have already extracted in paragraph 9 above, actually deals with the
grant of affiliation or recognition for additional courses to an affiliated
college or recognized institution. This provision does not deal with the
laying down of norms and standards. The Division Bench overlooked
the fact that what was in issue before the Court was a Resolution passed
by the Syndicate, first on 04.02.2020 as communicated by the Order of
the Registrar dated 10.06.2020 and then on 24.06.2020. In other words
what was in question in the writ petitions filed by the Colleges, was not
merely the individual act of grant or denial of affiliation for additional
courses. The challenge was to the norms fixed by the Syndicate in its
meetings dated 04.02.2020 and 24.06.2020 for the grant of affiliation for
additional courses.