C.W.P.No.10054 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.W.P.No.10054 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.10.2011 Guru Harkrishan Educational Trust and another ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing clauses 10.0 and 10.1 of the Approval Process Hand Book 2011-2012 issued by the second respondent, All India Council for Technical Education issued under its Regulations 2011 notified under Section 23 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987(for short,”AICTE”). It is alleged that these two clauses violate the petitioners right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, inasmuch as, according to the petitioners, these clauses make their educational institute ineligible to apply for approval of the Council for starting an additional course of Master of Computer Application (M.C.A.) in their institution. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner-trust runs an exclusive girls college in village Phallewal Khurd, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur under the name and C.W.P.No.10054 of 2011 2 style of Guru Harkrishan Girls College. The educational trust is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the college was established in 2009 with approval from AICTE to run a Post Graduate Course in Business Administration (MBA) for the academic session 2010- 2011. The petitioners now want to introduce an additional course of MCA in their college and that because of clauses 10.0 and 10.1, they are unable to do so. 2. This Court on 1.6.2011 issued notice of motion to the second respondent,i.e., AICTE with particular reference to grounds 6 and 7 of the petition which read as follows:- “(vi. The respondents by introducing clause 10.0 and 10.1 in the Approval Process Hand book, have infringed the fundamental right of the petitioners to run the educational institution as provided under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The respondents may impose reasonable restrictions on the rights of the citizens of India in relation to practicing any profession, to carry on any occupation, trade or business but cannot prohibit them from running the educational institution which is neither against the interest of the general public nor against the interest of any scheduled tribe. Similarly, the running of the education institution by the petitioners is neither against the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality. Therefore, C.W.P.No.10054 of 2011 3 clause 10.0 & 10.1 debarring the petitioners from introducing the additional course is violative to the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. (vii) That the aforesaid clauses 10.0 and 10.1 of the approval process hand book issued by the respondents is violative to the provisions of the article 14 of the Constitution of India. The institutions running MCA courses are eligible to seek approval for introducing MBA course in the same institution while vice versa is not permitted. There is no rationale behind this condition. When both the courses may continue in one institution running MCA courses, there is no reason why both cannot run in the institution running MBA course when it fulfills all the conditions and provides necessary infrastructure for the computer applications as specified by the AICTE. The object of the council is to improve the quality of Technical Education and maintain coordinated development of Technical Educational System throughout the country as mentioned in the Aims and Objects of the AICTE Act, 1987. Therefore, there is no nexus between the aims and objects to be achieved under the Act and imposition of ban on the institutions running C.W.P.No.10054 of 2011 4 management courses, to introduce course of computer applications. As such this ban is liable to be removed.” 3. On being served with the summons, respondent No.2 representing the second and third respondents put in appearance and filed written statement dated 4.10.2011. In the written statement, AICTE has relied on Section 10 of the AICTE Act and have laid special emphasis on Clauses (i) to (k) of Section 10 which read as follows:- “(i) Lay down norms and standard for courses, curricula, physical and instrumental facilities, staff pattern staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations; (j) Fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees; (k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned;” Still further in the written statement, it has been explained para 5 as under:- “5. That as per clause 10 of the approval process handbook various courses have been allowed in second shift in existing courses based on the availability of infrastructure as per prescribed norms. For example MBA is allowed in existing MCA programme in second shift but on the other hand MCA is not permissible in existing MBA for the reasons that to run MCA programme various laboratories are required to run the programme but in MBA these C.W.P.No.10054 of 2011 5 Laboratories are not required. Therefore, MBA is permissible in MCA but in existing MBA, MCA is not permissible as the infrastructure facilities in MBA are very less comparative to MCA programme moreover land requirement is also difference in both the programmes. AICTE has notified that the Land Requirements for Technical Institutions offering various programme under Appendix 4 of Approval Process Handbook 2011-12 clearly brings to the public notice tat the Land Requirement is 1.50 acres for MCA and 1.00 acre for MBA in rural area as defined by the competent authority. It is also relevant and necessary to mention here that in MBA programme, AICTE cannot in force extra infrastructure beyond the prescribed infrastructure under the norms but in the MCA programme all infrastructure are already available.” 4. The petitioner-Trust filed replication. They have emphasized that the college campus comprises 8 acres of land while as per norms of the Council, only 1.5 acres is required to run the proposed MCA course. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. Clause 10.0 lays down that the council shall allow programmes/courses/divisions in Technical Institutions in the 2nd shift working as per clause 10.1 subject to fulfillment of conditions as prescribed in the prospectus. Clause 10.1 permits both MCA and management courses to run together in the 2nd shift. The land requirement norms are laid C.W.P.No.10054 of 2011 6 down in clause 4.1 for “institution in rural places” just as the petitioner college is located in rural area. The stand alone Post Graduate Programme requires 1.5 acres for MCA course and 1 acre for management course (MBA). We fail to see any ban or embargo on the institution contained in the clauses 10.0, 10.1 and 4.1 in running a management course by introducing in addition to the MBA Course, the course of Master of Computer Application, in case all other parameters are met by an institute applying for permission to run the MCA course in an existing college. The petitioners have placed on record its request to respondent AICTE to consider its application dated 23.12.2009 to start the MCA course for the session 2010-2011. The AICTE in turn responded to that letter through its communication dated 15.2.2010 advising the petitioner that all applications have to be submitted online only while returning the draft of `40,000/- to the petitioners submitted as processing fee. What has transpired after this letter between the petitioner and AICTE is not spelt out. 7. We find that there is no order declining the request of the petitioners passed by the AICTE. The petition is premature and is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue its application with the AICTE for expanding college to include the MCA course. 8. Without going into the merits of the case, we direct that in case the request is made online as required, together with a fresh draft, AICTE will consider the same expeditiously in accordance with its handbook, grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioners. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE October 12,2011 nk