CWP No.10047 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10047 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 04-05-2011 P.D.Memorial Religious and Educational Association, Village Sarai Aurangabad, Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rajbir Sherawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2. MAHESH GROVER, J CM no.938 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CWP no. 10047 of 2010 The petitioner is a registered association and is engaged in imparting education offering engineering courses to the aspiring students. The petitioner had set up a Engineering College for women namely P.D.M. College of Engineering which they now wish to convert into a co-educational institute. Finding non-availability of female students the decision for conversion has been so taken. The petitioner contended that they had applied pursuant to Annexure P-2 while the AICTE – respondent no.2 which was required to take the decision has not done so which has CWP No.10047 of 2010 (O&M) 2 prompted them to file the instant writ petition. In response to the notice of motion having been issued by this Court, a short reply has been filed by respondent no.2. They have stated that the application of the petitioner was deficient in various regards which deficiencies have been pointed in para no.1 and para 3 of the reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the reply states that he is willing to comply with all the requirements that are expected of him and will also forgo all the benefits that the institution had availed of at the time of starting the college for girls. A specific averment to this effect has been made in para 7 of the petition. Reference has also been made to earlier decision of this Court dated 19.8.2009 rendered in CWP no. 11846 of 2009 titled as Swami Devi Dyal Hi-Tech Education Academy vs. State of Haryana and another wherein in similar circumstances, this Court had directed AICTE to re-consider the case of the college desirous of starting a co-education institution. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:- “In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed in the light of the judgment mentioned hereinabove. It is directed that the petitioner be allowed to convert the girls institute to a co-educational institute subject to completion of all formalities. Respondent no.4 will accordingly allot the students to the petitioner institute after it acquires the status of co-educational institute. It is further directed that the AICTE will take decision on the request of the petitioner for conversion of the present girls institute into a co-educational institute within a period of 10 days. In the meantime, CWP No.10047 of 2010 (O&M) 3 respondent no.4 will allot students to the petitioner institution treating as a co-educational institute. However, the final admissions will remain subject to the decision of the AICTE.” The observations of this Court were made after extensively relying upon an earlier decision of this Court rendered in CWP no. 8318 of 2009 titled as Shree Siddivinayak Educational Trust vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 15.7.2009 and the relevant portion of the decision rendered in this writ petition is extracted herebelow:- “........................ The petitioner now wanted to convert the Women Institutions into Co-education Institutions. In the short reply filed by the respondents, the grounds for rejection as mentioned in Annexure P-7, have been reiterated. Vide order dated 10.07.2009, further information was sought from the AICTE. The said order reads as follows:- “Reply on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 filed in Court is taken on record. The moot question that needs consideration is whether the policy of the AICTE permitting establishment of girls institute is an absolute bar for its alteration at any subsequent stage or there is no embargo for such an established institution to apply for deviation for conversion into a co-education institution. Mr.Sharma shall produce the requisite policy on the next date of hearing. List on 14.07.2009.” CWP No.10047 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Mr.SK Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the AICTE has produced the Policy Decisions of the Council with regard to Approval Process. He has referred paragraphs 9.20, 9.21 and 9.28 of the Policy Decision to argue that the petitioner is not entitled to convert its existing institutions into integrated Campus as a Coeducation institution. Paragraph 9.20 deals with the change of name of an institution, whereas paragraph 9.21 deals with change of category of an Institution i.e. from Self- financing to Aided etc. Both these paragraphs have no application in the present case. Paragraph 9.28 deals with the establishment of New Technical institutions for Women, which is reproduced as under:- “ 9.28 Establishment of New Technical Institutions for Women. For establishment of new technical institutions exclusively set up for women certain norms have been relaxed which are as follows:- a. Land: For the technical institutions exclusively set up for women, the land norms prescribed for establishment of all other Technical Institutions have been relaxed up to 50% in rural category and 20% in Metro & State Capital category and 10% in Mega Cities category. b. FDR and Processing Fee: 20% relaxation are allowed in FDR amount and processing fees for establishment of new technical institutions exclusively set up for women. c. Built up area & Number of courses and intake: CWP No.10047 of 2010 (O&M) 5 The total built up area required for setting up of new institutions are as per existing norms. However, to start with institutions for women will be allowed up to 5 courses with total annual intake of 300 with each course intake not exceeding 90. d. Single window system for processing proposals: Two copies o the application shall be submitted to the Member Secretary, AICTE along with a proof of having submitted a copy of the application each to the affiliating University and State Government and a Demand Draft of Rs.5000/- drawn on a nationalized bank in favour of “The Member Secretary, AICTE” payable at New Delhi. One copy of the application shall be directly submitted each to the affiliating University and the State Government either in person or through Speed/Registered Post.”. From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is abundantly clear that for establishment of the New Technical Institutions for Women, the AICTE had introduced various incentives stipulated therein. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did avail all incentives while introducing two Women Institutions referred to above and now the petitioner-Trust has approached AICTE for conversion of these Institutions into coeducational institutions and for integration of the Campus. Mr.Sunil Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at the Bar and has also referred to the averments made in his application Annexure P-3 to the CWP No.10047 of 2010 (O&M) 6 effect that the petitioner is still ready and willing to forego all incentives. Not only this, the petitioner has given the details in paragraph 21 of the writ petition to indicate that petitioner has already surrendered all incentives and benefits secured at the time of establishment of the two Women Institutions. It is also stated that the land for coeducational/ integrated Campus has already been purchased and the necessary infrastructure is complete and ready. It is also stated that the petitioner even deposited the additional fee for establishing a co-educational Institution. It is, accordingly, prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to switch over to the co-educational institution because the petitioner has completed all norms as required by the AICTE. Even though the AICTE in its impugned letter Annexure P-7 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for conversion of the Girls Institutions to Co-educational Institutions, no but rules, regulations or norms or policy decision has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to conversion of the Girls Institutions into co-education Institutions. What has been brought to my notice is paragraph 9.28 of the Policy decision which only provides for relaxation of norms in case one intends to establish a girl institute. It does not, in any manner, create an embargo for conversion of the girls Institution to co-educational institution if the Institution is ready and willing to meet all norms/requirements of the AICTE. CWP No.10047 of 2010 (O&M) 7 In view of the above, present petition is allowed. Impugned letter dated 04.03.2009, Annexure P-7, is hereby set aside. The AICTE is directed to take a fresh decision on the application of the petitioner for conversion of the existing girls Institutions to that of co-education Institutions with integrated campus on the basis of the norms meant for the Co-education Institutions/integrated campus, as stipulated in Annexure P-2. The petitioner has also notified the courses intended to be started after conversion, even though, presently, the petitioner is running different kinds of courses. AICTE will also examine this aspect of the matter and may permit the petitioner to switch over to new courses as may be considered appropriate. The AICTE is further directed to pass a fresh order keeping in view the above aspects subject to fulfillment of the necessary conditions/norms by the petitioner in this regard. Let the decision in this regard be taken within a period of one week from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority.” Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of in terms of the decision rendered in CWP no. 8318 of 2009 titled as Shree Siddivinayak Educational Trust vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 15.7.2009. May 04, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge