Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | ||
|---|---|---|
| CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION |
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 581 OF 2016
| FOUNDATION FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH | ||
|---|---|---|
| AND EDUCATION FORE SCHOOL OF | ||
| MANAGEMENT THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR | …PETITIONER(S) |
Versus
| THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDUCATION THROUGH THE | ||||||
| MEMBER SECRETARY | …RESPONDENT(S) |
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner, Foundation for Organizational Research and
Education Fore School of Management is a registered educational
th
institution running courses in management. On 15 March,
2016, the petitioner applied to the respondent, the All India
Council for Technical Education (for short ‘the AICTE’) for
extension of approval of existing seats and for increase in seats in
th
certain courses. On 25 April, 2016, the AICTE granted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHARANJEET KAUR
Date: 2019.06.21
15:10:29 IST
Reason:
extension of approval to the petitioner for existing seats in the
existing courses. However, in this communication nothing was
1
written with regard to the prayer for increase in seats.
Correspondence was exchanged between the parties but finally
nd
on 22 June, 2016, the AICTE rejected the request of the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner, despite having no permission for increase in
seats, admittedly granted permission to students in excess of the
seats. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this
nd
Court for quashing of the letter dated 22 June, 2016 and also
prayed that the petitioner be permitted to continue with the
th
session which had commenced on 6 July, 2016 for the current
academic year without jeopardizing the career of the students
who had already been admitted. When the matter was taken up
th
by this Court on 25 July, 2016, the petitioner institution was
directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,00,000/ (Rupees Two Crore only)
and it was noticed that the petitioner had admitted 51 students
th
in the meantime. Thereafter, on 6 September, 2016 another
order was passed in which it was recorded that a sum of
Rs.2,00,00,000/ (Rupees Two Crore only) in terms of the order
th
dated 25 July, 2016 had been deposited and it was also noticed
that admission of 51 students who had been admitted beyond the
2
sanctioned number of seats had been axed without giving any
explanation. We may also note that in the order it has been
recorded as follows:
“Mr. Khurshid, learned senior counsel, conceded that the
sanction strength is 240, but 372 students were
admitted; but the Institution had reasons to do so, for the
A.I.C.T.E. did not proceed with the approval within the
stipulated framework of time and further the Institution
had been experiencing that the students after taking
admission, leave the Institution.”
Thereafter, the Court issued the following directions:
(a)“A.I.C.T.E. shall verify who are the students eligible
under the norms regard being had to the concept of
merit, to continue in the petitionerInstitution.
(b)The Inspection Team of A.I.C.T.E. shall carry out
another inspection to find out as to whether the
Institution has removed the deficiencies that were
pointed out by the inspecting authority.
(c) The petitionerInstitution shall cooperate with the
Inspection Team.
(d)The petitionerInstitution shall deposit a further sum
of Rs. 2 crores before the Registry of this Court within
four weeks hence.”
3. The petitioner deposited another sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/
(Rupees Two Crore only) pursuant to the said direction.
Therefore, Rs.4,00,00,000/ (Rupees Four Crore only) stands
deposited in this Court. The inspection report was received,
according to which the deficiencies earlier pointed out by the
3
AICTE had been removed but the inspection committee pointed
out certain other deficiencies.
4. During the pendency of the petition, the AICTE issued
notice to the petitioner as to why a penalty should not be
imposed upon it. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the
AICTE imposed a penalty of Rs.23,10,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty
Three Crore Ten Lakhs only) towards the excess admission made
of 42 number of students. The petitioner has not cared to amend
the writ petition to challenge the order imposing penalty but has
filed an application being I.A. No.8 in this regard. Though this
may not be technically correct, we are examining this issue also.
5. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner has drawn our attention to the various
communications exchanged between the parties and submits
that inaction of the AICTE in not responding to the request of the
petitioner for increase in seats was itself an arbitrary action and
the reasons given for not permitting increase in the intake in the
courses was totally illegal. Mr. Naphade also argued that an
affidavit had been submitted clearly setting out that all the
deficiencies would be removed before the session commences.
4
Mr. Naphade further urged that the penalty imposed is highly
excessive and arbitrary. He further submits that when the Court
is seized of the matter, penalty should not have been imposed.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Harish Pandey, learned counsel for
the respondent submits that the AICTE had zero deficiency policy
especially with regard to the students who have come from
abroad. According to the AICTE, statutory committees were not
set up by the last date, as provided in the case of Parshvanath
1
and therefore, the petitioner’s case
Charitable Trust v. AICTE
was rejected. Mr. Pandey further submits that the penalty has
been imposed strictly in accordance with the Approval Process
Handbook (20162017) of the AICTE.
7. We are not going into the submissions made by Mr.
Naphade that the AICTE delayed the grant of permission and
acted arbitrarily. Even assuming that the decision of the AICTE
was not correct, the petitioner institution had no business to
admit students beyond the number permitted by the AICTE. In
case the petitioner institution felt that the AICTE was delaying
the matter or was not acting fairly, the proper course for the
petitioner was to have approached this Court and prayed for
1 (2013) 3 SCC 385
5
appropriate relief. The petitioner could not take the law into its
own hand and grant admission to students in excess of the seats
permitted by the AICTE. Therefore, we have no doubt in our
mind that the action of the petitioner in granting admission to
the students beyond the seats sanctioned is totally illegal and
contrary to law.
8. Time and again, this Court has noticed that the educational
institutions admit students beyond the numbers permitted
putting the future of the students at stake. In the present case,
we are not setting aside the admission of the students because
that action would be too harsh upon the students who should
not suffer for the totally illegal action of the petitioner institution.
9. This brings the question as to whether the penalty imposed
is proper or not. The Approval Process Handbook (20162017) of
the AICTE itself provides the penalties in case excess admissions
are carried out. Chapter IV deals with Actions in case of
Violation of Regulations. Clause 3.1 of Chapter IV of this
handbook reads as follows:
“ 3. Excess admissions
3.1 Excess admissions over the sanctioned intake shall not
be allowed under any circumstances. In case any excess
6
admission is reported to/noted by the Council, appropriate
penal action will be initiated against the Institution. The
Institution shall be liable to following punitive action from
any one or more of the following by the Council.
Penalty for excess admission amounting to five times the
total fees collected per student shall be levied against each
excess admission
Suspension of approval for supernumerary seats for one
academic year
Reduction in sanctioned intake
No admission status in one/more courses for one
academic year
Withdrawal of approval for Program/course
Withdrawal of approval of the Institution”
10. The AICTE can impose any one or more of the aforesaid
prescribed penalties. In this case, the AICTE has only imposed
the financial penalty which is the first penalty prescribed. It is
the admitted case of the petitioner that it was charging
Rs.11,00,000/ as fees for the entire course from each student.
In terms of Clause 3.1 of Chapter IV of Approval Process
Handbook, 5 times penalty for each student works out to
Rs.55,00,000/ and for 42 students it works out to
Rs.23,10,00,000/, which is the penalty imposed by the AICTE.
The AICTE has no discretion to award a lesser penalty and, in
fact, the petitioner has been let off lightly since only one penalty
has been imposed whereas the AICTE could have imposed more
than one penalty prescribed. However, we make it clear that the
amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/, which is deposited, shall be
7
adjusted towards the penalty and the petitioner is directed to
deposit the balance amount of Rs.19,10,00,000/ with the AICTE
within 8 weeks from today failing which AICTE shall be at liberty
to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
11. Having held thus we are also of the considered view that the
students who had paid large sums of money should not be made
to suffer. They have already completed the course but the
degrees have not been awarded to them. We, therefore, direct
that the degrees be awarded to the said students.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All
pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
…………………………J.
(Deepak Gupta)
…………………………J.
(Surya Kant)
New Delhi
June 21, 2019
8