IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.5715, 5716, 5973 & 7065 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED MPS. W.P.No.5715 of 2010 :- Sengunthar Charitable Trust rep. by its President ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The All India Council for Technical Education, rep. by its Member Secretary, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Officer All India Council for Technical Education Regional Office "Shastri Bhavan", 26. Haddows Road Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents W.P.No.5716 of 2010:- Sengunthar Charitable Trust rep. by its President ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The All India Council for Technical Education, rep. by its Member Secretary, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Officer All India Council for Technical Education Regional Office "Shastri Bhavan", 26. Haddows Road Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.5973 of 2010:- St. John's College of Engineering and Technology for Women rep. by its Director & Managing Trustee, A. Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Member Secretary All India Council for Technical Education 7th Floor, Chandralok Building Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. The Regional Officer All India Council for Technical Education Southern Regional Office Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan Chennai. ... Respondents W.P.No.7065 of 2010:- Paramasivam Palanisamy Charitable Trust, rep. by tis Chairman Mr. K. Paramasivam ... Petitioner Vs. 1. All India Council for Technical Education rep. by its Member Secretary 7th Floor, Chandralok Building Opposite Western Court Janpath Road, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. The Assistant Director All India Council for Technical Education 7th Floor, Chandralok Buildings Opposite Western Court Janapath Road New Delhi – 110 001. 3. The Regional Officer All India Council for Technical Education Regional Office "Shastri Bhavan", 26, Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 006. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.5715 of 2010 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent comprised in its communication dated 28.10.2009 bearing F.No.TN-74- 296/ENGG/2008/7925 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated 24.10.2009 for conversion of 'Senthunthar College of Engineering for Women', Tiruchengode into a co-education by treating it as a college established under general category and accord necessary approval from the academic year 2010- 2011. W.P.No.5716 of 2010 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the decisions of the first respondent Council taken in its 61st and 62nd meeting of the Executive Committee as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void and is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. W.P.No.5973 of 2010 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate order on the petitioner's representation dated 30.1.2010. W.P.No.7065 of 2010 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the decision of the first respondent council taken in its 61st and 62nd meeting of the Executive Committee to the effect that "AICTE not to allow conversion of women's institution to co-educational institutions, henceforth" and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 19.3.2010 bearing F.No.06/05/TN/&-T(W)/2008/07 as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 14.10.2009 and grant approval for conversion of the petitioner college Maharaja Engineering College for Women, Erode Road, Perundurai-638 052 to Co-educational institution in the name of Maharaja College of Engineering and Technology from the academic year 2010-2011. For Petitioner in W.P.Nos.5715 & 5716 of 2010 : Mr. Sathish Parasaran For Petitioner in W.P.No.5973 of 2010 : Mr.G.Jermiah For Petitioner in W.P.No.7065 of 2010 : Mr. V. Sanjeevi For Respondents in all the WPs. : Mr. N.Muralikumaran Standing Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER In W.P.No.5715 of 2010, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 28.10.2009, wherein the request of the petitioner to convert the Sengunthar College of Engineering for Women, Tiruchengode into Co-Education College, as the said decision is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated 24.10.2009 for conversion of 'Senthunthar College of Engineering for Women', Tiruchengode into a co-education by treating it as a college established under general category and accord necessary approval from the academic year 2010-2011. 2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.5715 of 2010 is that the petitioner is a Trust created under the Registered Trust Deed dated 14.12.1995 with an object of establishing educational institutions among other things. In the year 2004, the trust decided to start an Engineering College in Tiruchengode town to cater the education needs of the poor students and resolved to start Engineering College for Women. The petitioner Trust acquired lands for an extent of 12.84 acres in Tiruchengode, Namakkal District. After the purchase of the lands, buildings were constructed with all amenities as per the requirements laid down by the first respondent for an Engineering College of general category. According to the petitioner, there was no additional requirement for conducting engineering course exclusive for women. There is no difference with regard to the requirements whether the institution is for general category or for women alone. After the completion of 60% of the construction, the Trust made an application before the second respondent on 31.1.2007 for the grant of approval for establishment of new Engineering college, namely, "Sengunthar College of Engineering for Women" for Under Graduate Degree courses from the academic year 2007-2008 in four branches i.e., B.E. Computer Science and Engineering, B.E.Electronics & Communication Engineering, B.Tech Information Technology and B.E. Medical Electronics Engineering. 3. The second respondent by letter dated 3.5.2007 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.35 lakhs in the form of Fixed Deposit jointly in the name of the second respondent and the petitioner Trust towards Refundable Performance Guarantee Fee and for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards visiting fee. The said direction was complied with and after inspection, by order dated 12.7.2007, the first respondent accorded its approval for the petitioner's Engineering College with total annual students of 240 i.e. 60 in each branch from the academic year 2007-2008. The petitioner subsequently obtained approval from the first respondent for conducting Master of Computer Applications (MCA) from the academic year 2008-2009 with an annual intake of 60 students by order dated 17.7.2008. According to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner, after according necessary approval during the middle of the academic year 2007, the first respondent issued an advertisement in newspapers and declared a new policy giving certain concessions exclusively for women in respect of land requirement, fixed deposit and built up area. According to the petitioner, the petitioner Trust did not avail the said concessions at all and the application was submitted even prior to the announcement of the new policy. The petitioner commenced its engineering course in the college from the academic year 2007-2008 and the number of students admitted in the college are as follows:- Sl.No . Course Sanctioned intake Students admitted 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 1. Computer Science and Engineering 60 60 59 5 2. Electronics and Communication Engineering 60 54 60 + 6* 55 3. Information Technology 60 55 56 0 4. Medical Electronics Engg. 60 08 30 22 Total 240 177 211 82 4. As far as MCA course is concerned, as against the sanctioned intake of 60 students, the petitioner could admit only 25 students for the academic year 2008-2009 and the remaining seats could not be filled up for want of women candidates. In view of the non- availability of adequate students in women category and in order to effectively implement the object of the Trust, a decision was taken to conduct co-education instead of confining courses to women students alone, so that all students in the backward locality will be benefitted. Based on the said decision of the petitioner-Trust, on 24.10.2009, the petitioner requested the second respondent to grant approval seeking conversion of Sengunthar College of Engineering for Women, Tiruchengode as a co-education college from the academic year 2010-2011 onwards. The petitioner also stated that in the college, the land area, fixed deposit and requirement of constructed area are in accordance with the general category norms and the petitioner also obtained No Objection letters from the existing women students in the college for conversion of the college as co-education college and for the said representation dated 24.10.2009, the second respondent sent a reply on 28.10.2009 and stated that as per the policy of the first respondent, the Council does not entertain any request for conversion of the exclusively women institution to co-educational institution. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The said communication is challenged in this writ petition. 5. In W.P.No.5716 of 2010, the very same petitioner prayed for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the decision of the first respondent-Council taken in its 61st and 62nd meeting of the Executive Committee as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void and is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. W.P.No.5973 of 2010 is filed by St.John's College of Engineering and Technology for Women, Vellore-11 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate order on the petitioner's representation dated 30.1.2010 seeking permission to convert the women's college to co-education college from the academic year 2010-2011 in the name of St. John's College of Engineering and Technology for Women. The said college was established by Sudeshi Seva Trust in the year 2008 granted approval of four courses i.e. Computer Science and Engineering, Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Electronics & Communication Engineering and Information Technology with an intake of 60 each, by order dated 30.6.2009. The Anna University granted affiliation by order dated 28.7.2009. As there was lesser number of students to join in the said courses for women, the petitioner has submitted a representation praying for permission to admit male students also and the same is pending. 7. W.P.No.7065 of 2010 is filed by Paramasivam Palanisamy Charitable Trust, Perundurai, Erode District praying for Declaration declaring the decision of the first respondent council taken in its 61st and 62nd meeting of the Executive Committee to the effect that "AICTE not to allow conversion of women's institution to co- educational institution and the consequential order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the second respondent as unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 14.10.2009 seeking grant of approval for conversion of Maharaja Engineering College for Women as co-education college. 8. The Maharaja Engineering College for Women was established by Paramasivam Palanisamy Charitable Trust, Perundurai, Erode District. The said college was granted approval by AICTE on 2.6.2008 with an intake of 90 students each in the branches of B.E.Electronics and Communication Engineering, B.E.Computer Science and Engineering, B.E.Electricial and Electronics Engineering and B.Tech Information Technology for the year 2008-2009 and for 2009-2010, intake was increased to 120 for first two courses and approval was granted to MBA course with an intake of 60 students. In the petitioner Engineering College, only few seats are filled up and large number of seats are remaining vacant for both the years i.e. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and hence, the petitioner college has submitted an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application and prayed for conversion of the said women's college to co-education engineering college stating that it was not granted relaxation of rules with regard to availability of land, fixed deposit and building facilities. 9. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that in order to promote the social cause of women's higher education, a scheme was formulated to have engineering colleges exclusively for women by reducing the requirement of land, buildings etc., and the petitioners have taken advantage of the scheme and having established their engineering colleges for women, they cannot seek conversion of their women's colleges into co-education colleges. The Executive Committee of AICTE after careful consideration arrived at a decision considering the grant of relaxation to women institutions and if the permission as sought for is granted to the petitioners, it will defeat the object of the scheme, particularly the grant of relaxation of the norms. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for permission to convert the Engineering College for Women to that of Co-Education Engineering Colleges. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have not granted relaxation in any one of the colleges, who are the petitioners herein while granting approval for the respective courses, which are granted permission either with respect to the land or with respect to the building and all the petitioners have satisfied the requisite norms for having their engineering colleges without any relaxation i.e. engineering colleges which can admit both male and female students and therefore, the decision of the Executive Committee stating that the petitioners have already availed the relaxation and obtained permission to run the Engineering College for Women cannot pray for conversion as Co-education Engineering Colleges is without any application of mind. The learned counsel also submitted that neither in the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE") Act, nor under the Regulations, there is any prohibition to convert the existing college for women to that of co-education college. The learned counsel further added in their submission that the petitioners having invested huge amount for the purchase of the lands, construction of the building and for providing infrastructure facilities are entitled to utilise the said land, building and infrastructures by admitting students in full as per the sanctioned strength and applications are made seeking conversion only on the basis that the number of women aspirants for admission in these colleges are very limited and large number of seats are remaining vacant for more than a year and thus, the petitioners are entitled to seek conversion of their Engineering Colleges as co-education colleges and refusing permission to convert the colleges is in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the policy taken by the Executive Committee and having availed the concessions once for the establishment of Women's College they are estoped from seeking conversion of their colleges into that of co-education institutions. 12. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 13. The point in issue in these writ petitions are: i) Whether there is prohibition under the AICTE Act or Regulations to deny permission to convert the Engineering Colleges for Women to that of Co-Education Engineering Colleges ? ii) Whether the petitioners have availed the concessions with respect to the land, fixed deposit and building requirements while getting approval for their respective Engineering courses on the ground that they are establishing the colleges for women. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there is no prohibition in the Act and Regulations prohibiting such conversion. 15. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also failed to point out any provisions in the Act or Regulations empowering the respondents to deny permission to convert the women college into co- education college. Thus, it is evident that there is no statutory prohibition to grant conversion of colleges from exclusively for women to that of co-education. On a perusal of the policy decision of the Council as per Clause-9.5, excess admissions over the sanctioned intake shall not be allowed under any circumstances and if any excess admission is reported, penal action will be initiated. 16. Clause 9.28 Relaxation of norms is mentioned to New Technical Institutions for Women. Clause 9.28 a to d, reads as follows:- " 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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 : 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 upto 5 courses with total annual intake of 300 with each course intake not exceeding 90. (d) Single Window System for processing proposals : Two copies of 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." It is the consistent case of the petitioners that even though approval was granted to the respective courses, number of women students seeking admission is very limited and large number of sanctioned seats are remaining vacant for all these years. The said position is not disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. If approval is granted for a particular number of seats and if women candidates are not available to fill up all the seats, the petitioners are justified to submit their application to grant permission seeking conversion in the absence of any prohibition mentioned in the AICTE Act or Regulations. As denial of permission will lead to wastage of investment for the establishment of Engineering Colleges as well as the guaranteed rights of the petitioners are to be taken note of by the respondents, while taking a decision. The approval of courses granted to the petitioner colleges by the first respondent, nowhere state that the colleges are not entitled/eligible to get conversion of the colleges for women to co-education colleges. Relaxation of norms if any granted to the petitioner colleges are also not mentioned anywhere in the approval order. 17. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also produced a communication issued by the AICTE to the second respondent dated 23.3.2010, wherein the minutes of the 61st Executive Committee Meeting held on 6.10.2009 is communicated. The said communication is dealing with the Executive Committee minutes, which reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ " The Executive Committee noted that AICTE has a scheme to grant approval to institutions exclusively for women based on certain relaxed norms with all the objects to promote education for women and granted approvals to a number of institutions under this scheme. The Executive Committee observed that if the proposals to convert these institutions exclusively for women on relaxed norms into co-educational institutions are entertained and accepted, it shall defeat the very objective of the scheme. Further, such practice i.e. to start the institutions as a women institution to avail the benefit of relaxed norms and thereafter convert it into a co- educational institution may not be ethically healthy practice. It was therefore decided that in future no proposal to convert a women institution into a co-educational institution should be entertained. The Executive Committee also resolved that henceforth the Letter of Approvals, in case of fresh approvals for Women Institution, should have a clear condition that it cannot be converted into a co- educational institution at any stage. The Executive Committee also directed to dispose off the pending proposals for conversion of Women Institutions to co-educational Institutions accordingly." 18. From the perusal of the above minutes, it is evident that the only consideration made by the Executive Committee while taking its decision is the relaxation of norms already granted at the time of approval for Engineering Colleges exclusively for women. It is the specific case of the petitioners that none of the petitioners have approached for any relaxation and they are having the infrastructures for general institution and therefore, their request for conversion of Engineering Colleges for Women to the Engineering College-Co- education may be directed to be reconsidered. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that adequate and separate provisions are made to cater the needs of women students and women teachers. 19. In the light of the said submissions and having regard to the fact stated in the Executive Committee minutes as well as the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, the only reason stated by the Executive Committee for arriving at a decision as stated supra, the impugned order in W.P.No.5715 of 2010 is set aside and the applications of the petitioner colleges are remitted to the AICTE for fresh consideration with regard to the request of the petitioners seeking conversion of their courses conducted by the Engineering Colleges exclusive for women to that of co-education. Necessary orders are directed to be passed by the first respondent based on the application already submitted before the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. kb Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Member Secretary All India Council for Technical Education, NBCC Place, 4th Floor, Eastern Tower, Bhisma Pitmah Marg, Pragathivihar, Lodhi Road New Delhi 110 003. 2. The Regional Officer All India Council for Technical Education Regional Office "Shastri Bhavan", 26. Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. 3. The Member Secretary All India Council for Technical Education 7th Floor, Chandralok Building Janpath Road, New Delhi – 110 001. 4. The Assistant Director All India Council for Technical Education 7th Floor, Chandralok Buildings Opposite Western Court Janapath Road New Delhi – 110 001. + 3 ccs to Mr. N.Muralikumaran AICTE, Advocate SR No.24958 + 2 ccs to Mr. G.Jeremiah, Advocate SR No.25003 + 1 cc to Mr.V.Senjeevi, Advocate SR No.24944 RJ(CO) SR/19.4.2010 orders made in W.P.Nos.5715, 5716, 5973 and 7065 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/