o tBiffirWTTn"- •ii A FR, }J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shrl Sunil Kuinar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Shartna, J J PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.ICI No. 3725 of 2011 GDR Education Society (A Society registered iinder the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973) represented through Vice President Sanjay Rungta, registered office at Rungta Educational Campus, Kohka- Kurud Road.Kurud, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Technical Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 Directorate of Technical Educadon, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, through the Director, Women Polytechnic Premises, Byron Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 All India Council for Technical Education Through its Meraber Secretary, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi PETITIONER 4 The Central Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education Through the Regional Officer, Tagore Hostel-2, Shyamla Hills, BhopalfM.P.) W.P.ICI No. 3727 of 2011 Mahanadi Education Society, (A Society registered under the Chhattisgarh ', Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973) tHrough the Secretary Shailendra Jain, Office at C- 15, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) yersus SSsaawssailuMilK^VKeassas^jv W.P.fCTNos. 3725: 3727: 3729: 3916; 3918; 3933; 3991 & 4357of20U RBSPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Technical Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director, Technical Educational, Directorate, Technical Educational, Govt. Girls Polytechnic . Caiupus, Byron Bazar, Raipur All India Council for Technical Education Through its Member Secretary, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001 The Central Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education Through the Regional Officer, Tagore Hostel-2, Shyamla Hills, BhopalfM.P.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.(C) No. 3729 of2011 Disha Education Society, running and managing the institution in the nanie and style of 'Disha Institute of Management and Technology', a Society duly registered under the relevant provisions of the C.G. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1972 having its registration No. 71 and registered office at Satya Vihar, Nardaha, Chandkhuri Road, Pacheda, Raipur (CG) acting in the preniises through its Secretary/Authorized Signatory Shri Umesh Upadhyay, son of Shri N.P. Sharma, aged 50 years, resident of B/34, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur 2 The Secretary, Ministry of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur / -n W.P.(CT Nos. 3725; 3727: 3729: 3916:3918:3933;3991 & 4357 of 2011 The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur All India Council for Technical Education Through its Member Secretary, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi The Central Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education Through the Regional Officer, Tagore Hostel-2, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.ICt No. 3916 of 2011 Shri Gangajali Education Society (A Society registered under the Chhattisgarh Societies Registorikaran Adhiniyam, 1973) Running Shri Shankaracharya College of Engineering and Technology, since 19/08/1999 through Secretary I.P. Mishra, S/o Shri S.P. Mishra, Aged about 70 years, registered ofEice at Junwani Road, Village Junwani, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Du-ector of Technical Education Directorate of Technical Education, Govemment Gu-ls Polytechnic Campus, Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekananda Technical University, Through the Registrar, Sector 8, North Park Avenue, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 4 All India Council for Technical Education, through its ManE^ing Secretary, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi- 110 001 •sr ?—• W.P.(QNos. 3725: 3727; 3729: 3916: 3918; 3933; 3991 & 4357 of 2011 The Central Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education Through the Regional Officer, Tagore Hostel-2, Shyainla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.LC) No. 3918 of 2011 Bhilai Institute of Technology Trust, (A Society registered under the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973) Running Bhilai Institute of Technology since 1986 represented through Secretary I.P. Mishra, S/o Shri S.P. Mishra, Aged about 70 years, registered office at Bhilai House, Durg (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director of Technical Education, Directorate ofTechnical Education, Government Girls Polytechnic Campus, Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekananda Technical University, Through the Registrar Sector 8, North Park Avenue, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 4 All India Council for- Technical Education, through its Managing Secretary, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi- 110 001 5 The Central Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education Through the Regional Officer, Tagore Hostel-2, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) W.P.ICyNos. 3725: 3727: 3729; 3916: 3918: 3933: 3991 & 4357 of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PETITIONERS W.P.ICI No. 3933 of 2011 M.M. Foundation, running and managing the uistitution in the name and style of 'M.M. College of Technology', a Society duly registered under the relevant provisions of the C.G. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1972 having its registered office at Muktangan, Civil Lines, Opposite Central Bank, Raipur (CG) acting in the premises through its Manager (Operation) Shri Sameer Sharma, son of Late Dr. M.L. Shanna.aged 42 years, resident of KatoraTalab, Raipur (CG). Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur 2 The Secretaiy, Ministry of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur 3 The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur 4 (AICTE) Through : Its Managing Secretaiy, 7A Floor, Chandra L.K. Building, NewDelhi 110 001 5 The Central Regional, Office AICTE, Through : The Regional Ofiice, Tagore Hostal Shyamala Hills, Bhopal(M.P.) W.P.(C) N6. 3991 of 2011 1 Rungta College of Engineering & Technology, Bhilai, P.0, Kurud, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 Rungta College of Engineering 8s Technology, Raipur, Veer Savarkar Nagar Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 R.S.R. Rungta College of Engineering & Technology, Raipur, Iti W.P.rONos. 3725; 3727; 3729: 3916: 3918: 3933: 3991 & 4357 of2011 RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Veer Savarkar Nagar Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh A1I Petitioners Through its authorized signatory Yusuf Ahmed, S/o IshaqAhined, Aged about 35 years, R/o P.0. Kurud, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Directorate of Technical Education, Through its Director, Government Giri's Polytechnic Campus, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 All India Council for Technical Education, Through its Chairman, 7'r Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath,New Delhi- 110 001 4 The Regional Officer, Regional OfGce, All India Coundl for Technical Education, Tagore Hostel-2, Shamla Hills, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh ' 5 Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Through its Vice Chancellor, North Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh And W.P.(C) No. 4357 of20JJ, Krishna Educational Society, (A Registered Society), through the Authorized Member Shri Alok Tripathi, Registered Office at 234 Zonal Market, Sector-10, Bhilai, Tahsil & District- Durg (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) p,0 W,P.fCTNos.3725: 3727: 3729: 3916; 3918; 3933; 3991 & 4357 of 2011 The Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), through the Director, 7th Floor, Chandralok Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi The Director, Technical Education Department, Govemnient Girls Polytechnic Campus, Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Swarai Vivekanand Technical University, fhrough the Registrar, Sector-8, North Park Avenue, BhUai, District- Durg (C.G.) The Central 'Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education Through the Regional Officer, Tagore Hostel-2, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) (Writ Petitions under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Appearance: Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate & Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. RajeevShrivastava, Mr. Prateek Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additiohal Advocate General wilh Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State and Director Technical Education. Mr. S.S. Rajput, Advocate for AICTE and Central Regional OfficeofAICTE. Mr. Rakesh Shroti and Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocates for Swami Vivekanand Technical University. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the interveners. SSS3SS W.P.fQ Nos. 3725; 3727; 3729; 3916; 3918: 3933: 3991 & 4357 of 201 1 JUDGMENT (24.08.2011) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, we have heard them together and they are being disposed ofthis conimon judgment. (2) Except the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4357/2011, fhe othei petitioners are running various Engineering Colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh. These petitioners applied to All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for getting approval for increase in their intake capacity, approval for introducing new branches, continuation ofnew branches in second shift, running ofnew shift and opening of new branches in different disciplines. The AICTE granted the approval to the respecdve petitioners for opening of new branches, running of additional shift and increase in their intake capacity as per their applications under The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE.Act). After grant of respective approval/recognition as required under AICTE Act, the petitioners wanted to admit the students in Session 2011- 2012 in their colleges, but when the notice for counseling was pubUshed by the Government, they found that their colleges were not permitted to participate in counseling for the new programmes, increased intake and new shifts etc. for which approvals were granted to them by AICTE.It is at this stage, the writ petitions were filed and it was prayed that a mandamus or T-. 1 f^'l W.P.fONos. 3725: 3727: 3729: 3916; 3918:3933:3991 & 4357 of2011 suitable direction be issued to the respondents to include the various colleges of the petitioners in the counseling for admitting the students in their institutions as per their approval and recognition granted by the AICTE. (3) W.P.(C) No. 4357/2011 relates to opening of a new Engineering College. The petitioner of fhis writ petition is a society. It had applied for allotment of land to open Engineering College. The State vide order dated 22.5.2009 duly allotted 10 acres of land on lease to the petitioner for 30 years with the condition of opening Engineering College within a period of 3 years. The petitioner duly paid requu-ed amount ofRs. 2.32 crores and got the lease registered. The petitioner imraediately applied for pennission for construction of requisite infra-structure before the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. After getting permission from the Municipal Corporation, the petitioner constructed the building as per its requirement, by an application dated 7.2.2011, the petitioner applied to the AICTE for grant of approval/recognition for opening Engineering Course in its College for Academic Session 2011- 2012 with required fee of Rs.35 lacs. The respondent- AICTE on 14.7.2011, granted recognition to the petitioner. Sirice the counseling for Academic Session 2011-2012 was scheduledbetween 14.7.2011 to 27.7.2011, the petitioner movedan application on 15.7.2011 beforethe concemed authority of the Government for grant of NOC etc., but the same was refusedby communicafiondated 19.7.2011 (Annexure-P/1) on the 1 3^E^ESZ3^^aaas^as 10 W.P.rQNos. 3725: 3727: 3729: 3916; 3918: 3933: 3991 & 4357 of 2011 ground that the Govemment has sent a proposal to AICTE for not granting such permissions.in the Acadeinic Session 2011-2012, therefore, it was not possible to grant NOC. However the communication also contains that the above restriction is for the Academic year 2011-2012 only, therefore, after removal of the restriction, the application of the petitioner would be considered. The communication which has been sent to the AICTE by State of Chhattisgarh on 14.3.2011 has also been filed by the petitioner a£ part of Annexure-P/1. The petitioner has challenged the above 2 communications and has prayed for du'ection to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in counseling process of Academic Session 2011-2012 (Engineermg Courses) as per recognition. (4) Two other petitioners have also challenged the validity of communicationdated 14.3.2011 (Annexure-P/1 in W.P.(C) No. 4357/2011). (5) The State and their authorities have filed their return. TKS7 have contended that the State has not received any information from AICTE with regard to grant of approval in favour of the petitioners. Even fhe petifioners have not filed any approval letter issued by the AICTE as per Clause 7.1 of the AICTEApproval Process Handbook 2011-2012. So far as grant ofpermission for participation in the process of counseling is concemed, it has been contended that the State has already decided that no new courses/new colleges/increase in intake including second shift ft' 11 W.P.rciNos. 3725;3727: 3729: 3916; 3918; 3933: 3991 & 4357of2011 will be permitted in the Engineering Courses in the State of Chhattisgarh and a letter dated 14.3.2011 has been sent to AICTE with detailed reasons. The letter contains that there has been abnormal increase of seats in the Engineering Colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh as in the Academic Session 2010-2011 more than 7,000 out of total 20,130 seats remained vacant; in the previous year i.e. 2009-2010 more than 3,000 out of total 15,740 seats remained vacant. 2 unaided private colleges had applied for issuance of NOC, but one of them has withdrawn and more than 11 colleges were facing acuteshortage of students till last year and the situation is likely to remain the same in near future. Therefore, looking to the entire scenario that more than 7,000 seats remained vacant last year in B.E. Courses, the AICTE was informed through the impugned communication thus :- 1. not to give approval to any new unaided private institute for the BE/B.Pha./MCA/MBA/D.Pha. Programmes in the state. ; 2. not to give extension of approval to second shiftto institution already running in the state and permit to merge the admiftedstudent of second shift in first shift itselfas a one time measure. 3. not to permit increase in intake capacity of any course for the above programs. 4. not to allow any new course in the above programs. 5. only re-appropriation/change of intake and closure of any course may be allowed, keeping the upper cap of totat intake intact at the level as it was in the previous year or lower than the previous year. ssw-WifnK.wff-^sKi 12 W.P.(Q Nos. 3725; 3727; 3729: 3916:3918;3933:3991& 4357 of 2011 It was further informed by thesaid communication that the above decision of the Government may be treatedas the view ofthe State Government as per Clause 4.14 of AICTE Regulation 2011 published and notification in the Gazette oflndia; Extraordinay on 10 Dec., 2010 and as per provision given in point 3,3 & 3.4 ofthe AICTE Approval Process Hand Book (2011-2012). It was also informed that no separate NOC as required by AICTE will be issued by the State Government to any applicant of the private' colleges in this regard. (6) The Affiliating University has supported the stand taken by the State. It has also objected the manner in which the recognition took place. It has contended that the AICTE proceeded in haste- hurry manner and no proper time was granted to the University to submit the views before grant of recognition to the petitioners.It has contended that even after grant of recognition, without granting afQliation the petitioners cannot be permitted to participate in counseUng or to take admissions of the students. (7) AICTE or its Central Regional OfGce has not filed the retum. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of these respondents has orally supported the grant of recognition to the petitioners. (8) Three applications have been filed for permission to intervention i.e. I.A. No. 2 in W.P.(C) No. 3918/2011; I.A. No. 3 in W.P.(C) No. 3727/2011 and I.A. No. 2 in W.P.(C) No. 3991/2011. iM \ :;> 13 W.P.(C1 Nos. 3725; 3727; 3729.3916; 3918:3933;3991 & 4357 of2011 The interveners are also running private Engineering Colleges. They have also supported the stands taken by the Government and the Affiliating University. (9) Learned counsel for the pedtioners submitted that AICTE is the supreme authority and the decision taken by the AICTE granting recognition to the petitioners in the above manner cannot be chaUenged by the State or the University on the grounds taken by them in impugned letter dated 14.3.2011. Once fhe recognition was granted by the AICTE, the State as also the Affiliating University cannot deny permission/affiliation and that has to be granted to fhe respective institutions. They referred to Entry 66 of List-I and Entry 25 of List-III prepared under Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (10) On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondents and Affiliating University submitted that proper procedure was not adopted for grant of recognition. The grant of recognition to the petitioners in no manner confer any right to them to have a no objection certificate from the State and affiliation from the concemed University. The State and the University, keeping themselves within their respective jurisdiction, can refuse the permission and affiliation in suitable matters. No mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioners to participate in counseling or to take admission of the students unless a permission is granted by the State and they get proper affiliation froin the University. •^ @U19aia*il!3eE^ffi&.>a&'S^3ut.41BBUnBULUU!'aBn 14 W.P.tQNos. 3725: 3727: 3729: 3916: 3918: 3933; 3991 & 4357 of2011 (11) Learned counsel for the proposed interveners also supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the State and University. (12) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petitions. (13) In Thirutnuruaa Klrupananda Variuar Thavathiru SundaK^ Swamigal Medical Educational & Charltable Trust -Vs- State pf Tamll Nadu and Others. 11996} 3 SCC 15, the Supreme Court held that "The legislative power in relation to education was earlier distributed in aU the three legislative lists in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Parliament was conferred legislative power in respectof matters specified in Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I (Union List) while fhe State legislatures were conferred the power in respect of matters specified in Entry 11 of List II (State List) and Parliament and State legislatures were conferred concurrent power in respect of matters specified in Entry 25 of List Ifl (Concurrent List). By the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Entry 11 of List II "has been deleted and Entry 25 in List III has been enlarged to cover matters which were earlier specified in Entry 11 of List II. In view of the said amendment, the legislative power in respect of education is now conferred exclusively on Parliament in respect of matters specified in Entries 63 to 66 of List I and concurrently on parliament and State legislatures in respect ofmatters specified in Entiy 25 ofList III. /. °<?" 7- 15 W^(C') Nos. 3725; 3727: 3729; 3916; 3918;3933; 3991 & 4357 of2011 (14} In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust -Vs- Comntissioner & Secretary to __ Governtnent Higher Education Department, ThiruuanathaDuram. Kerala State and Another, 12000) S SCC 231, it was observed that there is no power vested in the State under any State law to granf approval and even tf it was so vested, it would have been void and the ground of repugnancy alone would be sufficient to quash the State Government's letter dated 16-8- 1996 refusing to give their approval. It was further observed vide Para-27 that the so-called "policy" of the State as mentioned in their counter-affidavit filed in the High Court was not a ground for refusing approval. Referring to the judgment of Thirumuruga Kirupananda (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the State would not have any "•po}icy" outside the AICTEAct and indeed if it had a policy, it should have been placed the sanae before the AICTE and that too before the latter granted permission. Once that procedure laid down in the AICTE Act arid Regulations had been followed, there was no scope for any further objection or approval by the State. (15) In case on hand, the impugned communication dated 14.3.2011 sent by the State to the AICTE appears to be a policy decision which the Government has taken on account of various seats remaining unfilled in 2 Academic Session i.e. 2009- 2010 and 2010-2011. It was a communication sent at the stage of consideration for grant of recognition to the petitioners. The -ppwers relating to grant of recognition, after coming into force of •^t "ip'',' ..iKI..'iLu;1?'.". si^VWiyS'^'?'' •_'S!!L'S£SCWaSCS<^aB^SS3SilaE9!&WSi'3S"'''",.::'S°'S"'3S 16 W.P.fQNos. 3725: 3727: 3729: 3916: 3918: 3933; 3991 & 4357 of 2011 the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 exclusively vests with the AICTE and the State, as an effect of Entry 6685 25 of List-I and List-III would not be in a ppsition either to make law on the subject covered by the AICTE Act, 1987 or even to tiike policy decision relating to the matters already covered theirunder. (16) In State of T.N. and Another -Vs- S.V. Bratheep tMINORI and Others, 12004) 4 SCC 513, the Supreme Court observed that Entr3< 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an exclusivity in the raatter of admission, but, if certain prescription of standards have been made pursuant to Entry 66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over the standards fixed by the State in exercise of power under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India or any other authority functioning under it. Whether the policy of the State relating to not opening Engineering Colleges and not granting permission to the colleges for further shifts or to increase thqir ^ intake on the ground of seats-in the Colleges lying vacant in previous years was good ground for the AICTE to refuse recognition ? We are of the view that the above ground taken by the State for opposing recognition for opening the new colleges or for new courses, in view of the provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 and further in view of the above constitutional mandates was nol correct. ^ o 17 W.P.(C~)Nos. 3725; 3727; 3729: 3916; 3918: 3933: 3991 & 4357 of 2011 (17) The impugned letter would show that it was a general decision taken by the State and coininunicated to the AICTE with a request to treat the same as the view of the State Govemraent as per Clause 4.14 of AICTE Regulations 2011. The views of the Government or the policy decision of the Government was not binding on AICTE. If after consideration of the views of the State the AICTE has taken the decision to grant recognition to the petitioners, it cannot be said that the action taken by the AICTE; was not in accordance with law. Moreover, this is not a petition challenging the decision of the AICTE. Learned counsel for the respondents have referred to various provisions relating to procedure for grant of recognition and have argued that the AICTE has acted in haste-hurry manner and it has not followed proper procedure for grant of recognition. Since these writ petitions are not related to the above subject matter and challenge has not been made by any aggrieved party to the recognition granted by AICTE, we do not feel it appropriate to go intb that aspect of matter and to record a finding in relation to the grant of recognition on account of alleged procedural flaws in the same. If an institution wants to run some more courses or it wants to increase its annual intake, it runs the risk of remaining its seats vacant. The loss and gain on account of the activity of the institution is the risk of that institution andfhe Govemment cannot make a policy to oppose the recognition only on account of seats lying vacant in previous academicyears. In policy framed by the Govemment in a welfare State should be well founded and / '-. 18 W.P.(C1Nos,3725; 3727: 3729; 3916; 3918: 3933: 3991 & 4357_(rf2011 should be made in public interest keeping in mind the jurisdiction ofthe concerned Government to legislate on the subject or even to make a policy on the subject. If the policy of the concerned Government is not reasonable and is not founded on soand principles or the grounds keeping in mind the public interest, thc same cannot be allowed to exists. The major portion of the policy decision is in form of the view of the Government againsl recognition which was to be granted by the AICTE,has merged m^» the final decision of the AICTE, and in that manner it does not remain