Civil writ Petition No.9195 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil writ Petition No.9195 of 2010 Decided on : 27.7.2010 Manav Nirman Samiti (Manav Institute of Technology and Management for Women) .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is an Educational-Society and had applied to the respondent-State as well as to All India Council for Technical Education for approval to establish Institute of Technology and Management (for women). This approval was granted on 29.6.2008 with an annual intake of 300 students for a four years course for Civil writ Petition No.9195 of 2010 -2- B.E./B.Tech. in different subjects. No objection Certificate was also issued on 11.7.2008. This approval was further extended on 28.5.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner-institution made a prayer for converting the institution to co-education institution as was done by another society existing in the neighbourhood of the petitioner. The reason for seeking conversion to co-education perhaps is that the petitioner is not getting the full quota of students and there is even shortage of girls students in the courses for years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Through an application dated 27.4.2010, the petitioner applied for converting the petitioner-institution to a co- education institution. Copy of the application is placed on record as Annexure P-4. Counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner- institution fulfills all the norms like it is having more than 10 acres of land and a fixed deposit of 35 lacs, which is an essential requirement to open a co-education institution. The prayer of the petitioner was under consideration and due to the approaching date of admission in counselling, petitioner-institution filed this writ petition for directing the respondents to consider and allow the prayer made. Notice of motion was issued and the respondents were required to file reply within 4 weeks. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner-institution filed an application for pre-poning the case, for which notice was issued. Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3/AICTE appeared and prayed for time to file reply. Today, the reply has been filed and is taken on record. Civil writ Petition No.9195 of 2010 -3- In reply, it is stated that the application filed by the petitioner was taken up for consideration and in view of the policy decision dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-9), the prayer as made has been rejected on 15.6.2010. Copy of this order is annexed with the reply as Annexure R-2/1. The submission made by the counsel for the respondent-AICTE is that neither the decision is under challenge nor the policy and accordingly, he prays that the writ petition be dismissed. A perusal of the reply filed would show that the respondents have denied the request for conversion as this mode if allowed to be adopted would defeat the very purpose of formulating a scheme of concession, which is provided while giving permission to run women institution. The apprehension is that if this is allowed, it would permit backdoor entry as no permission in such cases is granted with diluted norms. It is indicated in the reply that there is no bar for the petitioner-institution to apply afresh for grant of permission to run a co-education institution. Of course for that it has to fulfill the norms. The main objection appears to be that after obtaining permission for running an institution only for women, the conversion is being sought in a manner, which will lead to back door entry and hence not appropriate. This of course has been so expressed in the reply, as can be noted from the following portion:- “ If at all it can only be treated as a fresh application for starting of a new engineering college under the general co-educational category subject to the rules, regulations and guidelines prescribed by AICTE for processing of Civil writ Petition No.9195 of 2010 -4- new application.” Counsel for the petitioner, however, apprehends that in case the petitioner is to move a fresh application for grant of permission then the earlier permission granted for running an institution for women may lapse. This apprehension, in my view, is not well founded. Once the petitioner has been given a permission to run an institution for women only for which there is a valid affiliation and the students are admitted, the same would not stand withdrawn, in case, the petitioner-institution is to make an application for grant of permission for running a co-education institution. Let the petitioner-institution make a fresh application for grant of running a co-education institution. The respondents would consider the request of the petitioner, if so made, in terms of the policy instructions and in view of the stand, which is reflected in the reply filed before this Court in the present writ petition. It can be expected that the respondents would consider the request of the petitioner in a fair and reasonable manner. The request would not be considered in the background that the permission as sought for conversion has been declined. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. July 27, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE Civil writ Petition No.9195 of 2010 -5- Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. **** Prayer is for placing on record the written statment. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of. July 27, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE