State’s year-long delay in approving AICTE-backed BBA/BCA colleges cannot cost students their academic year, Patna High Court rules

The petitioners were students admitted to BBA and BCA courses for the 2025–26 academic session at three colleges.

The University’s Affiliation and New Teaching Programme Committee, Academic Council, Syndicate and Senate had approved or recommended temporary affiliation, and AICTE issued approvals for the courses on 30 April 2025.

The colleges admitted the petitioners in July 2025, but the University did not permit their registration or examination-form submission because the State’s formal approval was pending.

The State granted approval on 13 May 2026, after the academic session had ended.

The petitioners sought validation of their admissions, reopening of the relevant portal and permission to sit examinations.

In connected appeals, the Division Bench had directed that eligible students be facilitated to appear in the examination without creating any right or equity, leaving the merits to the writ court.

1. Whether students admitted to AICTE-approved BBA/BCA courses, following the University’s approval and recommendation for affiliation, could be denied registration and examination solely because the State’s formal approval had not been granted when admission occurred

2. Whether the State’s delayed approval and the University’s refusal to process registration and examination forms justified directions to validate admissions and reopen the portal

The Court considered the AICTE Act, 1987, particularly Sections 10 and 11, under which AICTE sets technical-education standards and grants approval for technical institutions and courses

It also considered Section 21(2)(d) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, and Article 3(1)(e) of Statute No. 29, which the respondents relied upon for the requirement of State approval and the restriction on admitting students before affiliation

Relying on State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, Jaya Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary, Rungta Engineering College v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P., the Court held that State and University requirements concerning technical education must operate consistently with the AICTE Act and its standards; State action should not obstruct approved courses through undue delay, while University affiliation remains a distinct requirement to be exercised consistently with the applicable central framework

The Court also applied Article 14 to the alleged differential treatment of similarly situated students

The Court found that the colleges had secured AICTE approval and completed the University’s internal approval process before admitting the petitioners; the University had also forwarded its recommendation to the State

The State’s approval, granted only after the academic session, could not remedy the practical prejudice caused by its delay.

On these facts, the Court treated the delay as attributable to the State and held that it should not defeat the students’ opportunity to pursue the approved courses and sit examinations.

It also found the refusal difficult to reconcile with the treatment of students in comparable AICTE-approved BBA/BCA courses

The Court distinguished National Institute of Health Education and Research v. State of Bihar, because that case involved the absence of AICTE recognition and materially different recognition and affiliation circumstances

It directed the State and the University to validate the petitioners’ admissions, reopen the portal for registration and examination forms, and issue a fresh examination schedule so that the petitioners and other similarly situated students who had properly taken admission could appear in the examination, preferably within two months

The directions were confined to those students and did not prevent the colleges from obtaining approval or affiliation for subsequent academic sessions

No order as to costs was made