# ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 6 S.C.R. 1054
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-04-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1145 of 2004
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, V. Gopala Gowda
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/association-of-management-of-private-colleges-v-all-india-council-for-technical-29217
- **Pages:** 70

## Headnote

C
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
ss.2(h), 10, 11, 12 and 13- Technical education imparted by
Universities and their affiliated colleges - Status of the
affiliated colleges - Purview of definition of "technical
institution" - Role of A/GTE - Held: The role of the inspection
D conferred upon the A/GTE vis-a-vis Universities is limited to
the purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms and
standards in the technical education system so as to conform
to the standard laid down by it with no further or direct control
over such Universities or scope for any direct action except
E bringing it to the notice of UGC - Role of A/GTE vis-a-vis
Universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of
providing guidance and has no authority empowering it to
issue or enforce any sanctions by itself - Colleges affiliated
to University/Universities are part of them and the exclusion
F of University in the definition of technical institution as defined
in s.2(h) of the A/GTE Act must be extended to the affiliated
colleges also -
Provisions of AICTE Act are to be
implemented through UGC as Universities and its affiliated
colleges are all governed by provisions of the said Act u/s.12A
of the UGC Act read with Rules Regulations framed by the
G UGC in exercise of its power ulss.25 and 26 of the said Act -
Autonomy of the University is recognized and the object and
intendment of the Parliament in excluding the Universities
from the definition of technical institution as defined uls.2(h)
H
1054
--t
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1055
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU.
of the A/GTE Act makes this explicitly clear- The powers and
A
functions conferred for controlling and regulating the
universities and its affiliated colleges has been explicitly
conferred upon the UGC - University Grants Commission Act,
1956- s.12A rlw ss.25 and 26.
B
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
s.2(g) -
Technical education -
Course in Computer
Applications at post graduation level (MCA) - Contention
raised on behalf of the A/GTE that technical education
includes MCA - Held: Stands to its reasoning and logic in
C
view of the nature of MCA course imparted to the students at
post graduation level by the institutions, constituent colleges
and affiliated colleges to the Universities - Meanings of the
words 'technology' and 'engineering' as per the dictionaries
clearly show that MCA also comes within the definition of
technology - The same is technical education and therefore,
D
comes within the definition of technical education but for its
proper conduct of courses and regulation, the role of A/GTE
must be advisory and for the same, a note shall be given to
the UGC for its implementation by it but not the A/GTE
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
s.2(g) - Course in Management at post-graduate level (MBA)
- If 'technical education' uls.2(g) of the A/GTE Act - Nonproduction of any material by the A/GTE to show that MBA
course is technical education - Held: MBA course is not a
technical course within definition of the A/GTE Act - Reasons
assigned for MCA course being 'technical education' does not
hold for MBA course - Approval from the A/GTE not required
for obtaining permission and running MBA course by the
appellant colleges.
A/I India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987- s.24
- A/GTE Regulations - Amended regulation introduced by
A/GTE in exercise of its power u/s. 10(k) of the A/GTE Act -
However, amended Regulation not placed before the
Parliament as mandatorily required as per s.24 of the A/GTE
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Act - Effect - Held: If the Statute prescribes a particular
procedure to do an act in a particular way, that act must be
done in that manner, otherwise it is not at all done - Nonplacing of the amended Regulations on the floor of the
Houses of the Parliament as required u/s.24 of the A/GTE Act
B vitiated the amended Regulations in law - Administrative Law.
Writ pe

## Text

_Characters 0–39,777 of 137,615. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39777 for what follows._

(2013] 6 S.C.R. 1054
A
ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE
COLLEGES
v.
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION &
ORS.
s
(Civil Appeal No. 1145 of 2004)
APRIL 25, 2013
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]
C
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
ss.2(h), 10, 11, 12 and 13- Technical education imparted by
Universities and their affiliated colleges - Status of the
affiliated colleges - Purview of definition of "technical
institution" - Role of A/GTE - Held: The role of the inspection
D conferred upon the A/GTE vis-a-vis Universities is limited to
the purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms and
standards in the technical education system so as to conform
to the standard laid down by it with no further or direct control
over such Universities or scope for any direct action except
E bringing it to the notice of UGC - Role of A/GTE vis-a-vis
Universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of
providing guidance and has no authority empowering it to
issue or enforce any sanctions by itself - Colleges affiliated
to University/Universities are part of them and the exclusion
F of University in the definition of technical institution as defined
in s.2(h) of the A/GTE Act must be extended to the affiliated
colleges also -
Provisions of AICTE Act are to be
implemented through UGC as Universities and its affiliated
colleges are all governed by provisions of the said Act u/s.12A
of the UGC Act read with Rules Regulations framed by the
G UGC in exercise of its power ulss.25 and 26 of the said Act -
Autonomy of the University is recognized and the object and
intendment of the Parliament in excluding the Universities
from the definition of technical institution as defined uls.2(h)
H
1054
--t
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1055
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU.
of the A/GTE Act makes this explicitly clear- The powers and
A
functions conferred for controlling and regulating the
universities and its affiliated colleges has been explicitly
conferred upon the UGC - University Grants Commission Act,
1956- s.12A rlw ss.25 and 26.
B
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
s.2(g) -
Technical education -
Course in Computer
Applications at post graduation level (MCA) - Contention
raised on behalf of the A/GTE that technical education
includes MCA - Held: Stands to its reasoning and logic in
C
view of the nature of MCA course imparted to the students at
post graduation level by the institutions, constituent colleges
and affiliated colleges to the Universities - Meanings of the
words 'technology' and 'engineering' as per the dictionaries
clearly show that MCA also comes within the definition of
technology - The same is technical education and therefore,
D
comes within the definition of technical education but for its
proper conduct of courses and regulation, the role of A/GTE
must be advisory and for the same, a note shall be given to
the UGC for its implementation by it but not the A/GTE
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
s.2(g) - Course in Management at post-graduate level (MBA)
- If 'technical education' uls.2(g) of the A/GTE Act - Nonproduction of any material by the A/GTE to show that MBA
course is technical education - Held: MBA course is not a
technical course within definition of the A/GTE Act - Reasons
assigned for MCA course being 'technical education' does not
hold for MBA course - Approval from the A/GTE not required
for obtaining permission and running MBA course by the
appellant colleges.
A/I India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987- s.24
- A/GTE Regulations - Amended regulation introduced by
A/GTE in exercise of its power u/s. 10(k) of the A/GTE Act -
However, amended Regulation not placed before the
Parliament as mandatorily required as per s.24 of the A/GTE
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Act - Effect - Held: If the Statute prescribes a particular
procedure to do an act in a particular way, that act must be
done in that manner, otherwise it is not at all done - Nonplacing of the amended Regulations on the floor of the
Houses of the Parliament as required u/s.24 of the A/GTE Act
B vitiated the amended Regulations in law - Administrative Law.
Writ petition was filed by the appellant association of
colleges seeking relief to prohibit the All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE) from exercising its
jurisdiction over its' member colleges (affiliated to
C Bharathidasan University or Manonmaniam Sundaranar
University) with reference to the Master of Business
Administration (MBA) and Master of Computer
Applications (MCA) courses conducted by them. The writ
petition was dismissed by the single Judge of the High
D Court holding that the All India Council for Technical
Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act) and the AICTE
Regulations were enforceable against the member
colleges of the appellant Association. Writ appeal filed
thereagainst was also dismissed.
E
Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court
interpreted the provisions of the AICTE Act and held that
even though the University concerned was not required
to take permission from the AICTE, its affiliated colleges
F were required to do so; and further that the appellant
colleges should get its course of Master of Computer
Applications (MCA) ratified by AICTE as per the
prescribed format.
In the instant appeals, therefore, the following
G questions of law arose for consideration:-
(1)
Whether the colleges affiliated to the University
concerned comes within the purview of
exclusion of the definition of "Technical
H
Institution" as defined under Section 2(h) of
ASSON. OF MAGMT OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1057
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU.
the AICTE Act, 1987; and whether the AICTE
A
has got the control and supervision upon the
affiliated colleges of the respective universities
of the member colleges of the appellant in
C.A.No.1145/2004 and the appellants in
connected appeals?
B
(2)
Whether the MCA course be construed as
technical education in terms of definition
under section 2(g) of the AICTE Act?
(3)
Whether the Regulation B(c) and B(iv) of the
C
AICTE Regulations by way of amendment in
the year 2000 inserting the words 'MBA and
MCA'
before
Architecture
and
Hotel
Management courses is applicable to the
concerned colleges of the appellants; and
D
whether non placement of the amended
Regulations before Houses of the Parliament
as required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act
is vitiated in law?
Allowing the appeals, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. The AICTE Act does not contain any
evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy the
authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies which
they are assigned to perform. Further, the AICTE Act does
F
not intend to be an authority either superior or to
supervise or control the universities and thereby
superimpose itself upon the said universities merely for
the reason that it is laying down certain teaching
standards in technical education or programmes G
formulated in any of the department or units. While
enacting the AICTE Act, the Parliament was fully alive to
the existence of the provisions of UGC Act, 1956. Special
care has consciously and deliberately been taken to
make specific mention of university, wherever and
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A whenever the AICTE alone was expected to interact with
university and its departments as well as constituent
institutions and units. The role of the inspection
conferred upon the AICTE vis-a-vis universities is limited
to the purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms
B and standards in the technical education system so as
to conform to the standard laid down by it with no further
or direct control over such universities or scope for any
direct action except bringing it to the notice of UGC. The
role of AICTE vis-a-vis universities is only advisory,
c recommendatory and one of providing guidance and has
no authority empowering it to issue or enforce any
sanctions by itself. It can only advise the UGC for
formulating the standard of education and other aspects
to the UGC. AICTE norms can be applied to the affiliated
0
colleges through UGC. [Para 38] [1108-E-H; 1109-A-C, F;
1110-C]
1.2. It is also relevant to refer to the exclusion of
university from the definition of 'technical institution' as
defined under section 2(h) of the AICTE Act. The
E Institution means an institution not being university, the
applicability of bringing the university as defined under
clause 2 (f) of UGC Act includes the institution deemed
to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act and
therefore the affiliated colleges are excluded from the
F purview of technical institution definition of the AICTE
Act. Section 12A of the UGC Act clearly speaks of
regulation of fees and provisions of donation in certain
cases which refers to the phrase affiliation together with
its grammatical variation included in relation to a college,
G recognition of such college by, association of such
college with, and admission of such college to the
privileges of universities. A careful reading of subsections (2)(c), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 12A of the UGC
Act makes it abundantly clear about colleges which are
H required to be affiliated to run the courses for which
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1059
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU.
sanction/approval will be accorded by the university or
A
under the control and supervision of such universities.
Therefore, affiliated colleges to the university/universities
are part of them and the exclusion of university in the
definition of technical institution as defined in Section 2(h)
of the AICTE Act must be extended to the affiliated
B
colleges to the university also, otherwise, the object and
purpose of the UGC Act enacted by the Parliament will
be defeated. The enactment of UGC Act is also traceable
to Entry 66 of List I. The role of the AICTE Act is only
advisory in nature and is confined to submitting report c
or giving suggestions to the UGC for the purpose of
implementing its suggestions to maintain good standards
in technical education in terms of definition under
Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and to see that there shall
be uniform education standard throughout the country
to be maintained which is the laudable object of the
AICTE Act for which it is enacted by the Parliament. The
provisions of the AICTE Act shall be implemented through
the UGC as the universities and its affiliated colleges are
all governed by the provisions of the said Act under
Section 12A of the UGC Act read with Rules Regulations
that will be framed by the UGC in exercise of its power
under Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act. The autonomy
D
E
of the university is recognized and the object and
intendment of the Parliament in excluding the universities
from the definition of technical institution as defined
under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act makes this explicitly
clear, after scanning the definition of education institution
with reference to the exclusion of universities and
Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the AICTE Act. The powers
and functions conferred for controlling and regulating the
G
universities and its affiliated colleges has been explicitly
conferred upon the UGC. Hence, it has been given the
power to regulate such universities and regulations in
relation to granting sanctions/approvals and also
maintaining educational standards and over-seeing the
F
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A prescription of the fee structure including the admission
of students in various courses and programmes that will
be conducted by the university and its institutions,
constituent colleges, units and the affiliated colleges.
B
[Paras 39, 40] (1110-E-H; 1111-A-G; 1116-G-H; 1117-A-D]
Bharathidasan University & Anr. v. A/GTE & Ors. (2001)
8 SCC 676: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 253 - held applicable.
Unni Krishnan J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. 1993 (1) SCC 645: 1993 (1) SCR 594- held overruled.
C
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Kamataka (2002) 8 SCC
481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 - followed.
Parashavananth Charitable Trust & Ors. v. A/GTE 2013
(3) sec 385 - relied on.
D
State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Education and
Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104: 1995 (2) SCR 1075
and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and
Secretary to Government High Education Department,
Thiruvananthapuram (2000) 5 SCC 231: 2000 (2) SCR 1234
E - distinguished.
2.1. The meanings of the words 'technology' and
'engineering' as per the dictionaries would clearly go to
show that MCA also comes within the definition of
technology. Therefore, the contention that technical
F education includes MCA as raised on behalf of the AICTE
stand to its reasoning and logic in view of the nature of MCA
course which is being imparted to the students at post
graduation level which is being conducted by the
institutions, constituent colleges and affiliated colleges to
G the universities. The same is a technical education and
therefore, it comes within the definition of technical
education but for its proper conduct of courses and
regulation the role of AICTE must be advisory and for the
same, a note shall be given to the UGC for its
H implementation by it but not the AICTE. [Para 42] [1120-E-G]
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1061
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU.
2.2. As per definition of 'technical education' under
A
Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act and non production of any
material by the AICTE to show that MBA course is a
technical education, it is held that MBA course is not a
technical course within the definition of the AICTE Act
and insofar as reasons assigned for MCA course being
B
'technical education', the same does not hold for MBA
course. Therefore, approval from the AICTE is not
required for obtaining permission and running MBA
course by the appellant colleges. [Para 43] [1120-H; 1121A-B]
C
Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary; Wharton's Law
Lexicon; Encyclopedia Law Lexicon; The New Shorter Oxford
English dictionary and Advanced Law Lexicon - referred to.
3. The amended Regulation Nos. S(c) and S(iv) of D
2000 were introduced by the AICTE in exercise of its
power under section 1 O(k) of AICTE Act by adding the
MBA and MCA courses within the purview of the
provisions of AICTE as it is included in the Regulation as
a technical education. However, the amended Regulation
E
has not been placed before the Parliament which is
mandatory as per the provisions of Section 24 of the
AICTE Act. The position of law is well settled· that if the
Statute prescribes a particular procedure to do an act in
a particular way, that act must be done in that manner,
F
otherwise it is not at all done. Not placing .the amended
Regulations on the floor of the Houses of 'Parliament as
required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act vitiates the
amended Regulations in law. [Para 44] [1121-C-E; 1122A-B, F]
G
Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kera/a 1999 (3) SCC
422: 1999 (1) SCR 1121 - relied on.
4. The relief sought for is granted insofar as not to
seek approval from the AICTE for MBA and MCA courses
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A are concerned. [Para 46] [1123-C]
B
c
D
E
Case Law Reference:
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 253 held applicable
Para 1
2013 (3) sec 385
relied on
Para 17
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 followed
Para 18
1995 (2) SCR 1075
distinguished
Para 20
2000 (2) SCR 1234
distinguished
Para 20
1993 (1) SCR 594
held overruled
Para 39
1999 (1) SCR 1121
relied on
Para 44
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1145 of 2004.
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.11.2003 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 2652 of 2001.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 5736-5745 of 2004
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Rakesh Dwivedi, V. Balachandran,
Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Sumeet Sharma,
Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant, C.S. Singh, Gopal Singh, V.G.
Pragasam, S. Thananjayan, Navin Prakash for the appearing
F parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. The appellants filed these civil
appeals questioning the correctness of the common judgment
G and order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the High Court of
judicature at Madras in W.A. 2652 of 2001, W.A. No. 3090 of
2001, WA 2835 of 2001, WA 3087 of 2001, WA 2836 of 2001,
WA 3091 of 2001, WA 3092 of 2001, WA 2837 of 2001, WA
3088 of 2001, WA 2838 of 2001 and WA 3089 of 2001,
H dismissing the writ appeals thereby affirming the dismissal of
ASSON. OF MAGMT OF PVT COLLEGES v .. ALL INDIA 1063
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
writ petitions by wrongly interpreting the provisions of All India
A
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short AICTE Act)
and held that even though the University is not required to take
permission from the All India Council for Technical Education
(for short AICTE), its affiliated colleges are required to do so.
Further, the High Court has held, while dismissing the writ
B
appeals, that the appellant colleges should get its course of
MCA ratified by AICTE as per the prescribed format which
according to the appellants herein is in contravention of settled
principles of interpretation of Statutes and also runs contrary
to the law laid down by this Court in case of Bharathidasan c
University & Anr. Vs. A/GTE & Ors'.
2. Certain relevant facts in relation to the appeals are
stated hereunder:-
The appellant colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu are
D
running Arts and Science courses. Most of them are affiliated
to Bharathidasan University and some of them are affiliated to
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The member colleges
of the appellant in C.A.No.1145 of 2004 and the appellants in
the connected appeals are running MCA course which have so
far not obtained the approval of the AICTE. According to the
information placed before the Court by the AICTE, as of the
academic year 2001-2002, there were 865 institutions in the
country offering 40,792 seats for the MCA course which had
the approval of the AICTE. Within the State of Tamil Nadu the
number of institutions which have received such approval are
208. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated
that apart from the member colleges of the first appellant and
colleges of the second appellant, all other institutions offering
MCA have obtained the approval of the AICTE.
3. Regulations 1994 have been prescribed in Form II which
is in terms of Regulation 5(2)(b) and were framed pursuant to
Section 1 O(k) of the AICTE Act for grant of approval to the
1.
(2001) a sec 675.
E
F
G
H
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A colleges who have started new technical institutions,
introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake
capacity of seats for the courses or programmes. Form II is
titled "Application for Existing lnstitution(s) seeking AICTE
approval without additional course(s) and/or additional intake(s)
B in engineering/technology, architecture, pharmacy, applied arts,
etc."
4. In the 1997, Regulation 2(2) framed by the AICTE was
added by way of an amendment to the 1994 Regulations,
providing that the regulations are not applicable inter alia, to
C the proposals relating to post graduate courses for MBA, MCA
or equivalent.
5. On 16.8.2000, the aforesaid sub-regulation (2) was
deleted and the said courses were added in Regulation 8(c)
D enabling the AICTE to prescribe the land and deposit
requirements even in respect of Arts and Science Colleges
having MBA or MCA courses.
6. On 3.3.2001, a communication was sent by the AICTE
E to the member colleges of the appellant in C.A. No.1145 of
2004 in respect of its proposal to commence MCA course
requiring the colleges to furnish information regarding the
proposed land and building. On 14.3.2001, a writ petition was
filed by the appellant's association seeking relief to prohibit the
AICTE from in any way exercising its jurisdiction over its
F member colleges with reference to the MBA and MCA courses
conducted by them. The said writ petition was dismissed by
the learned single Judge holding that the AICTE Act and
Regulations are enforceable against the said member colleges
of the appellant, against which the Association had filed writ
G appeal. The same came to be dismissed by affirming the
judgment of the learned single Judge by passing impugned
common judgment which is under challenge in CA No.1145 of
2004.
H
6(a) So far as the facts in the connected appeals are
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1065
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
concerned, they are stated in brief as under:
A
The colleges run by the appellants in the connected
appeals are affiliated to Bharathidasan University and it has
approved the courses and programmes which are being
conducted by the said colleges including MCA and MBA. The
B
AICTE Regulation is applicable to professional colleges only
that to from academic year 1994. There is no provision for
existing arts and science colleges which are running MCA
courses. The letter dated 31.5.2000 from the AICTE was
received by Bharathidasan University wherein it was mentioned
C
that no admission should be made by the competent
authorities in unapproved or unrecognized professional colleges
from the academic year 1994. Some of the colleges filed writ
petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging
the letter dated 31.5.2000 being ultravires of the AICTE Act
itself. The High Court passed an interim order dated 20.7.2000
D
staying the direction of the AICTE as contained in its letter
dated 31.5.2000. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
AICTE amended regulations vide notification dated 16.8.2000.
By the said amendment it deleted the earlier amendment of
1997 in which MCA course was not within the purview of the
E
AICTE Act. Through the said amendment MCA course was
conspicuously added in Rule 8(c) of the Regulations. By virtue
of the said amendment, the AICTE claimed that it has got
powers to check and regulate the MCA course. The High Court
of Madras after hearing some of the appellant colleges quashed
F
the letter dated 31.5.2000 of the AICTE. However, the High
Court left it open to the appellant colleges to challenge the vires
of the amended AICTE Regulation vide order dated
22.11.2000.
The appellant colleges preferred writ petitions in the High
Court of Madras challenging the amended Regulation dated
16.8.2000 mainly on the ground that it is ultra vires to the AICTE
Act as the MCA course which are being run by the appellants
colleges do not fall under the definition of technical education
G
H
1066
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 6 S.C.R.
A as contained in Section 2(g) of the Act and it was also
challenged on the ground that since the amended Regulation
has not been placed before the Houses of Parliament for
approval they cannot be enforced.
8
The aforesaid appeals are filed framing certain questions
of law which are mentioned hereunder:-
c
D
E
F
G
H
(a)
Whether the colleges affiliated to University are
obliged to take separate permission/approval from
the AICTE to run classes in Technical Courses in
which the affiliated university of the colleges is not
required to obtain any permission/approval under
the AICTE Act itself?
(b)
Whether the course leading to a degree of Master
of Computer Applications is a technical course
within the purview of the definition of 'technical
education' as contained in Section 2(g) of the
AICTE Act as it stands today?
(c)
Whether the Courts can read something in a
Statute, which is not expressly provided in the
language of the Act, and/or insert words and/or
punctuations, which are not there?
(d)
Whether the impugned amendment dated
16.8.2000 of the 1994 Regulations would not take
effect without the same being placed before the
Parliament?
(e)
Whether the Rules or Regulations made under an
Act can override or enlarge the provisions of the
Act?
7. In support of the aforesaid questions of law, the learned
senior counsel and other counsel on behalf of the appellants
have urged the following legal contentions:-
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1067
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.)
The High Court has erred in holding that even though the
A
University is not required to take permission of the AICTE to
start or run a course of technical nature, the colleges affiliated
to the University/Universities cannot claim such a right. This
interpretation is not the correct legal position for the reason that
when the Universities are exempted from taking permission/
B
approval from the AICTE, the High Court in view of the law laid
down in Bharathidasan University's case (supra) could not have
held that the colleges affiliated to their respective universities
which are imparting tuition to the students under them by
conducting courses are required to take permission or approval c
from the AICTE.
8. It is further contended that the colleges who have opened
the courses in question are affiliated to the universities. They
are the controlling authorities with regard to their intake capacity
for each course, the standards to be followed for each course,
D
the syllabus of the course, the examination process etc. It is
urged that the High Court has failed to consider the relevant
aspects of the case namely that it is the university/universities
only which awards/confers degree on the students studying the
course in question in their affiliated colleges. Thus, for all intents
E
and purposes the courses are being run by the Universities.
9. It is further urged that if the interpretation given by the
High Court with regard to the provisions of the AICTE Act and
Regulations is accepted by this Court, it will run contrary to the
F
law laid down by this Court in the Bharathidasan University
case (supra). In this decision, this Court clearly dealt with the
scope and purpose of the University for which it has been
established, the relevant para of which reads as under:-
"2. The Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 created the
G
University in question to provide, among other things, for
instruction and training in such branches of learning as it
may determine; to provide for research and for the
advancement and dissemination of knowledge; to institute
degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions;
H
A
B
c
1068
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
to hold examinations and to confer degrees, titles,
diplomas and other academic distinctions on persons who
have pursued an approved course of study in a university
college or laboratory or in an affiliated or approved college
and have passed the prescribed examinations of the
University; to confer honorary degrees or other academic
distinction under conditions prescribed; and to institute,
maintain and manage institutes of research, university
colleges and laboratories, libraries, museums and other
institutions necessary to carry out the objects of the
University etc. In other words, it is a full-fledged University
recognized by the University Grants Commission also."
10. The High Court has noticed that the University was
created under the statute "to provide, among other things, for
rendering instruction and training to their students of the
D affiliated colleges in such branches of learning as it may
determine; to provide for research and for the dissemination
of knowledge; to institute degrees, titles, diplomas and other
academic distinctions on persons who have pursued an
approved course of study in a university college or laboratory
E and have passed the prescribed examination of the university"
in the light of the afore-mentioned judgment pronounced by this
Court.
11. It is clear from the Bharathidasan University Act that
F the colleges affiliated to University impart education in different
courses run by University in which the students have to pass
the prescribed examination of the University for making
themselves eligible for degrees. Therefore, the interpretation
given by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the
colleges affiliated to the University which are imparting
G education to their students on behalf of the University will have
to seek AICTE's approval for technical courses, though such
approval is not required to be obtained by the affiliated collegl:!s
as the same will be contrary to the judgment of this Court
referred to supra.
H
ASSON. OF MAGMT OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1069
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
12. Further, it is contended that the High Court has erred
A
in not appreciating that the colleges are affiliated to a
University, which is their controlling authority and has been
established by an Act of State legislature which has given it
suitable powers to regulate the procedure of the affiliated
colleges regarding their education standards, infrastructure,
B
examinations etc. This can be noticed by perusing various
provisions of Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 and especially
Section 8, 33 (xvii) and (xviii), 39 and 63, which read as under:-
"8. Visitation- The Chancellor shall have the right to cause
C
an inspection or inquiry to be made, by such person or
persons as he may direct, of the University, its buildings,
laboratories, library, museums, workshops and equipment,
and of any institutions maintained, recognized or approved
by, or affiliated to, the University, and also of the
examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done
D
by the university and to cause an inquiry to be made in
respect of any matter connected with the University, The
chancellor shall in every case give notice to the University
of his intention to cause such inspection or inquiry to be
made and the university shall be entitled to be represented
E
thereat.
33. Statutes- Subject to the provisions of this Act the
statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
F
(xvii) the conditions of recognition of approved colleges
and of affiliation to the University of affiliated colleges;
(xviii) the manner in which, and the conditions subject to
which a college may be designated as an autonomous
college or the designation of such college may be
cancelled and the matters incidental the administration of
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 6 S.C.R.
autonomous colleges including the constitution and
reconstitution, powers and duties of Standing Committee
on Academic Affairs, Staff Council, Boards of Studies and
Boards of Examiners;
39. Admission to University examinations.- No
candidate shall be admitted to any University examination
unless he is enrolled as a member of a University college
or a laboratory or of an affiliated or approved college and
has satisfied the requirements as to the attendance
required under the regulations for the same or unless he
is exempted from such requirements of enrolment or
attendance or both by an order of the Syndicate passed
on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on
Academic Affairs made under the regulations prescribed.
Exemptions granted under this section shall be subject to
such condition, as the syndicate may think fit.
63. Report on affiliated colleges- The syndicate shall,
at the end of every three years from the notified date,
submit a report to the Government on the condition of
affiliated and approved colleges within the University area.
The Government shall take such action on it as they deem
fit."
Therefore, the control upon the affiliated colleges of the
F University is vested with the University itself and it cannot be
said that for certain type of courses the control will be with the
AICTE. Further, the High Court has failed to notice the fact that
the University to which the member colleges of the appellants
belong is controlled by the University Grants Commission, which
is a Central Governing Body formed under the Act of
G Parliament known as University Grants Commission Act of
1956, for controlling the affairs of the University recognized by
it. The Bharathidasan University is recognized by the UGC. The
relevant provisions of this Act which cover the said University
and its colleges are Sections 12, 12A, 13 and 14, which will
H be extracted in the relevant paragraphs of this judgment. It is
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1071
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
further urged that the aforesaid provisions would show that the
A
UGC provisions for controlling the University are applicable and
analogous to its affiliated colleges also and therefore to carve
out a distinction between the University and its affiliated
colleges and not treating the affiliated colleges as an integral
part of the University in the impugned judgment by the High
B
Court is not only erroneous in law but also suffers from error in
law.
13. The High Court has failed to take into consideration
the relevant legal aspect of the cases viz. that the AICTE has
C
been given adequate power to inspect the colleges and
University running technical courses, to check the syllabus,
standard of education being imparted in them and their
examination process under Section 10 of the AICTE Act.
14. Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing
D
on behalf of the appellant in CA No.1145 of 2004 submits that
the AICTE Act and its Regulations do not apply to University/
Universities or constituent colleges and its institutions but
according to the AICTE the provisions of AICTE Act would
apply to the affiliated colleges of the Universities. He further
E
submits that the issues in questions in this case arenotification of 6th February, 2001 about the governing body of
the member colleges of the appellant Association, notification
of 3rd March, 2001 regarding land area and also pointed out
the other notifications issued by the AICTE covering a wide
canvas namely notifications issued on 9.9.2002 in relation to
F
the governing body, staff etc. of the member colleges of the
appellant, notification dated 22.10.2003 regarding the unaided
institutions, notification dated 30.10.2003 regarding salary and
notification dated 28.10.2003 regarding guidelines for common
G
entrance test(s) for admission to MCA Programmes in the
country. In contrast, UGC guidelines are issued on 20th
December, 2003 and 29th December, 2003 whereby
instructions were given not to issue the advertisement for
admission and not to conduct any entrance test for admission
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 6 S.C.R.
A to professional programmes until they receive the policy
guidelines of the UGC. He submits that the notifications issued
by the AICTE amount to AICTE having control over the colleges
affiliated by the Universities by displacing UGC norms.
8
15. Further, the learned senior counsel places strong
reliance on Bharathidasan University's case (supra) and
contends that the affidavit filed by the UGC does not raise any
issue which has been dealt with by this Court in the
Bharathidasan University's case. He has placed reliance upon
paragraph 8 of the Bharathidasan University's judgment in
C support of his submissions, that though legislative intent finds
specific mention in the provisions of the Act itself, the same
cannot be curtailed by conferring undue importance to the
object underlying the Act particularly, when the AICTE Act does
not contain any evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy
D the authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies, having their
own assigned roles to perform. Further strong emphasis is
placed by him at Paragraph 1 O of the Bharathidasan
University's case (supra) wherein this Court, with reference
to the provisions of AICTE Act held that the Act is not intended
E to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control
the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such
universities merely for the reason that it is imparting technical
education or programmes in any of its departments or units.
Further, observations are made after careful scanning of the
F provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act
in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-a-vis the
Universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding
factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining
appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an
G authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by
itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action.
Further, he had placed reliance on Paragraph 12 of the
abovementioned case and contended that the intention of the
Parliament was very clear while enacting the AICTE Act as it
H was fully alive of the existence of the provisions of the UGC Act
ASSON. OF MAGMT. OF PVT. COLLEGES v. ALL INDIA 1073
COUNCIL FOR TECH. EDU. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
which was in full force and its effect and which specifically dealt
A
with coordination and determination of standards at university
level of institutions as well as institutions for higher studies.
Further, with reference to definition of "technical institution" as
defined in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, the Parliament has
taken special care to make conspicuous and deliberate mention
B
of the universities to highlight wherever and whenever the
AICTE alone was expected to interact with the university, its
departments as well as its constituent institutions. In this regard,
he also placed strong reliance upon Section 12A of the UGC
Act under Chapter Ill which deals with the powers and functions c
of the University Grants Commission. Clause (a) of Section
12A speaks of affiliation with its grammatical variations and
includes in relation to a college, recognition of such college,
Association of such college with admission of such college to
the privileges of a university. Clause (d) speaks of qualification
D
which means a degree or any other qualification awarded by
a University. Also strong reliance is placed upon sub-section
(4) 6't Section 12A which authorizes UGC to conduct an inquiry
in the manner provided under the Regulations, if the
Commission is satisfied after providing reasonable opportunity
to such colleges that such college contravenes the provisions
of sub-section (3) of the above Section of the Act. In such case,
the Commission may, with the previous approval of the Central
Government pass an order prohibiting such college from
presenting any students then undergoing such course of study
therein to any university for the award of the Degree for the
qualification concerned. Sub-section (5) of Section 12A further
provides for the Commission to forward a copy of the order
made by it under sub-section (4) to the University concerned,
and on and from the date of receipt by the University of a copy
E
F
of such order, the affiliation of such college to such University
G
shall, in so far as it relates to the course of study specified in
such order, stand terminated and on and from the date of
termination of such affiliation for a period of three years
thereafter affiliation shall not be granted to such college in
relation to such similar course of study by that or any othe
1074
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A University. Sub-Section (6) speaks that in case of termination
of affiliation of any college under sub-section (5), the
Commission shall take all such steps as it may consider
appropriate for safeguarding the interests of the students
concerned. Sub-section (7) further states that regulations made
B for the purpose of the aforesaid provisions of Section 12A of
the UGC Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time
being in force.
C
16. Further, reliance has been placed by him upon Section
128 of the UGC Act which confers power on the Commission
to pass an order of prohibition regarding giving any grant to a
University declared by the Commission not fit to receive such
grant. This provision was inserted in the UGC Act through an
Amendment Act, 1972 (33 of 1972) which came into force on
D 17.6.1972.