Government authorities must accept statutory regulator-approved intake when issuing affiliation NOCs.

The petitioner-institution, affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and governed by the regulatory framework of the All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”), applied for extension of approval for the academic year 2026–27 and subsequently obtained AICTE approval dated 10 April 2026 to conduct the Bachelor of Computer Applications (“BCA”) course with an intake of 120 seats.

The petitioner thereafter sought a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) from the Directorate of Higher Education/Directorate of Training and Technical Education for commencing the BCA programme in the second shift with 60 seats.

The applicable DHE Policy Guidelines dated 12 January 2016 permitted a second shift subject to specified conditions, including that the course had been conducted in the morning shift for at least two years.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the respondents to treat the petition as a representation and pass a reasoned order.

The respondent thereafter rejected the request by a speaking order dated 31 August 2026, primarily relying on Clause 7.1 of the 2016 Policy Guidelines.

The petitioner challenged that rejection, contending that the AICTE’s approval was binding and that the respondents were required to issue the NOC in accordance with the subsequent DHE Order dated 23 July 2026.

Whether the respondents could refuse to issue an NOC for the petitioner’s BCA second-shift programme by relying on Clause 7.1 of the DHE Policy Guidelines, despite AICTE having approved the relevant course and intake?

Whether the DHE Order dated 23 July 2026 required the respondents to accept the intake approved by the statutory regulatory body for purposes of issuing an NOC?

Whether the speaking order dated 31 August 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s representation was legally sustainable?

The Court applied the DHE Policy Guidelines dated 12 January 2016, particularly Clause 1.1(iii)(d), which required the norms prescribed by the relevant statutory or regulatory body to be adopted where applicable, and Clause 7.1 concerning second-shift courses.

It relied on Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, (2000) 5 SCC 231, which holds that, once the statutory procedure has been followed and AICTE has granted approval, the State cannot impose an independent policy objection contrary to that approval; if the State identifies subsequent facts or non-compliance, it must refer the matter to AICTE for appropriate action.

The Court also considered A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University v. Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, (2021) 2 SCC 564, and the principle that State authorities or universities may prescribe higher standards than AICTE, provided they do not lower or adversely affect the standards prescribed by the central regulatory body.

However, the Court held that the subsequent DHE Order dated 23 July 2026 specifically clarified that approval of the statutory regulatory body specifying the permitted intake “shall be duly accepted” for issuance of an NOC, thereby giving the obligation a mandatory character.

The Court found that the respondents had rejected the petitioner’s request primarily by mechanically applying Clause 7.1 of the 2016 Policy Guidelines.

However, the DHE Order dated 23 July 2026, issued in continuation of the existing policy, expressly required acceptance of the intake approved by the competent statutory regulatory body for purposes of issuing an NOC.

Since AICTE had approved the BCA course with an intake of 120 seats, the respondents were bound to recognise that approval and could not independently deny the NOC by relying on the second-shift restriction in Clause 7.1.

Consistent with Jaya Gokul Educational Trust, if the respondents disagreed with the AICTE-approved intake or believed that applicable conditions had not been fulfilled, they were required to approach AICTE for appropriate action rather than refuse the NOC on their own.

The Court therefore held that the rejection was contrary to the mandatory language of the 23 July 2026 Order.

The speaking order dated 31 August 2026 was accordingly set aside.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case afresh in accordance with the Court’s observations and complete the exercise within one week.

The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.