Holding

The Court held that AICTE's exclusive jurisdiction under the 1987 Act precludes the University from refusing affiliation on grounds within AICTE's domain, rendering the University's refusal unconstitutional and requiring it to grant affiliation.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai and the Secretary of the GDR Educational Society challenging the Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University's refusal to grant affiliation. The University had declined affiliation on several grounds, but the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) had already approved the college and later inspected it, finding it compliant with all norms. The Court held that under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, AICTE has exclusive jurisdiction over standards and approval of technical institutions, and the University cannot refuse affiliation on matters within AICTE's domain. Consequently, the University's decision was deemed untenable, violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, and was set aside. The Court directed the University to grant affiliation to the college.

Issues considered

Whether the Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University has the authority to decline affiliation of a technical institution when AICTE has granted approval.
Whether the exclusive jurisdiction over standards and approval of technical institutions lies with AICTE under the 1987 Act, precluding state or university regulation.
Whether the University's refusal to affiliate violates the constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14) and freedom to practice a profession (Article 19(1)(g)).
Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the University's decision.

Legislation cited

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987s. 10(k), s. 2(h), s. 3
Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Act, 2004s. 14, s. 23, s. 3, s. 4, s. 6
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(g)

Subjects

technical educationAICTEaffiliationuniversity jurisdictionconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 19statutory authority

Judgment

[2014] 12 S.C.R 796

A RUNGTA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BHILAI & ANOTHER
v.
CHHATTISGARH SWAMI VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL
UNIVERSITY & ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.653 of 2014)
B SEPTEMBER 25, 2014
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.)

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
c ss.2(h), 3 and 10(k) - Establishment and running of
institutions imparting technfcal education - Regulation of -
Held: Educational institutions imparting technical education
are amenable to th'e control of AICTE:under the 1987 Act in
certain aspects and the regulatory authority of the. State, and
D Universities established by or under a legislation of the State,
in certain other aspects.

All India .Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
ss.2(h), 3 qnd 1O(k) -Authority to grant/decline affiliation to
institution imparting technical education - Objections of
E respondent-University for declining affiliation to first petitioner
college - Challenge to - Held: Each one of the objections
squarely fell within the sweep of one or the other areas which
only the A/GTE had the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with -
None of them fell within the area legally falling within the
F domain of the respon.dents - Only course of action available
· for the respondents was to bring the shortcomings noticed by
them to the notice of the A/GTE and seek appropriate aution
against the petitioner college ~ Decision of respondent not
to grant affiliation to the first petitioner college wholly
G untenable - The Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical
University Act, 2004.

Disposing of the writ petition, the Court

H 796
RUNGTA ENG COLLEGE, BHILAI v. CHHATIISGARH SWAMI 797
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSllY

A
HELD:1. Educational institutions imparting technical
education are amenable to the control of AICTE under the
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 in
certain aspects and the regulatory authority of the State,
and Universities established by or under a legislation of
8
the State, in certain other aspects. [Para 32] [810-G-H]

2. In the instant case, each one of the objections
which according to the respondent formed the basis for
declining affiliation to the first petitioner institution,
squarely fall within the sweep of one or the other areas c
which only the AICTE has the exclusive jurisdiction to
deal with. None of them are demonstrated to be matters
falling within the area legally falling within the domain of
the respondents. AICTE, on inspection of the 1st pe~itioner
college reported that the 1st petitioner college fulfils all the D
conditions prescribed by the norms and standards laid
down by AICTE. The respondents did not make any
specific assertion that such a report of the AICTE is
factually incorrect. Assuming for the sake of argument
that, in the opinion of the respondents, the petitioner E
college has not in fact fulfilled any one of the conditions
required under the norms specified by the AICTE, the
only course of action available for the respondents is to
bring the shortcomings noticed by them to the notice of
the AICTE and seek appropriate action against the
F
petitioner college. [Para 42] [815-A-D]

3. The decision of the respondent not to grant the
affiliation to the first petitioner college is wholly untenable
and is required to be set aside. [Para 43] [815-E]
G
State of T.N. and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute and Otheri (1995) 4 SCC 104: 1995 (2)
SCR 1075; Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner
& Secretary to Government Higher Education Department,
H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R.

A Thiruvanathapuram, Kera/a State and Another (2000) 5 SCC
231: 2000 (2) SCR 1234 and Bhartia Education Society v.
State of H.P. (2011) 4 SCC 527: 2011 (2) SCR 461 -
referred to.

Case Law Reference:·
B
1995 (2) SCR 1075 referred to Para 33
2000 (2) SCR 1234 referred to Para 34
2011 (2) SCR461 referred to Para 34
c
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
653 Of 2014. I

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

D T. Mahipal for the Petitioner.

Vikrant Singh Bais for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E J. CHELAMESWAR, J. · 1. A Society called GDR
Educational Society claims to be running a number of colleges.
It is claimed in the writ petition that the 'first petitioner' is one
of such colleges and the second petitioner is a Secretary of
the said Educational Society.
F
2. The All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter
referred to as "AICTE") is a body constituted under Section 3
of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, ~ 987
(hereinafter referred to as "1987 Act"). The AICTE was
G established for "proper planning and co-ordinated development
of the technical education system throughout the country, the
promotion of qualitative improvement of such education .in
relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and
proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical
education system and for matters connected therewith".
H
RUNGTAENG COLLEGE, BHILAI v. CHHATIISGARH SWAMI 799
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.)

3. One of the functions of the AICTE under Section 1O(k)' A
of the said Act is to grant approval for starting new 'technical
institutions' and for introduction of new courses or programmes
in consultation with technical agencies.

4. "Technical Institution" is defined under Section 2(h) as
B
follows:

"2(h) "technical institution" means an institution, not being
a University which offers courses or programmes of
technical educatlon and shall include such other institutions
as the Central Government may, in consultation with the c
Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as
technical institutions." ·

5. "Technical Education" is defined under Section 2(h) as
follows: D
"2(g) "technical education" means programmes of
education, research, and training in engineering
technology, architecture, town planning, management,
pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other
programme or areas as the. Central Government may, in E
consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare."

6. AICTE granted approval by its proceedings dated
07.04.2013 in favour of a society called the GDR Educational F

1. Section 10. Functions of the Council. It shall be the duty of the Council
to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and G
integrated development of technical education and maintenance of
standards and for the purposes for performing its functions under this Act,
the Council may-
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction
of new courses of programmes in consultation with the agencies
concerned.
H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R.

A Society2 to conduct five different courses of engineering•
indicated in the said proceedings for the academic year 2013-
2014 in the "1st petitioner college"•• which has been
establ_ished by the said society with. a total intake capacity of
300 students.
B
7. It is stated in the communication granting approval dated
07.4.2013 as follows:

"The approval is valid for two years from the date of issue
of this letter for getting affiliation with respective University
c and fulfilling State Govt. requirements for admission. If
institution is unable to start in the academic session 2013-
14 due to reason mentioned above, the institution will have
to apply On-line on AICTE web portal in the next academic
session for continuation of approved intake 2013-14.
D
Th~ Society/Trust/Institution shall obtain necessary
affiliation/permission from the concerned affiliating
University as per the prescribed schedule of the University/
Admission authority etc."
E 8. The Chhattisgarh Swarni Vivekanand Technical
University is established by The Chhattisgarh Swami
Vivekanand Technical University Act, 2004 (25 of 2004)
(hereinafter referred to as the "2004 Act"). The preamble of the
Act indicates the purpose of the Act:
F
"An Act to establish and incorporate a University of
Technology for the purpose of ensuring systematic, efficient

2. •" Unfortunately, the details of the Society - whether it is registered Society
G or not, if registered under what law it is registered - are not specified in
the writ petition. (It is highly doubtful whether a legal proceeding in the
name of a College is maintainable. Modem lawyers appearing on either
side in such litigation do not trouble themselves with such questions and
Judges who ask such questions are considered not sensitive to the "public
interest"!)
H . 3. 1. Mechanical, 2. Civil, 3. Electrical & Electronics , 4. Electrical and 5.
Computer Science & Engineering
RUNGTAENG COLLEGE, BHILAI v. CHHATTISGARH SW/Wd 801
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]

and qualitative education in engineering and technological A
subjects including Architecture and Pharmacy at Research,
Post Graduate Degree and Diploma level and to provide
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto".

9. The University is constituted under Section 3 of the Act B
which declares that such University shall have perpetual
succession, common seal and is capable of suing and being
sued by its name. The objectives of the University are specified
under Section 4. Section 4(13) stipulates that one of the
objectives is "to admit to its privileges colleges or polytechnics C
not maintained by the University, to withdraw all or any of these
privileges and to take over the management of Colleges or
Polytechnics in the manner and under conditions prescribes by
the Statute or the Ordinance".

10. Section 6 declares that the jurisdiction of the University D
shall extend to the whole of the State of Chhattisgarh. Section
6(2) stipulates that "notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, any College or Polytechnic
or institution imparting Technical Education and situated within
the limits of the area specified under sub-section (1) shall, with E
effect from such date as may be notified in this behalf by the
· State Government, be deemed to be associated with and
admitted to the privileges of the University and shall cease to
be associated with other University or Board in the manner
prescribed by Statute or Regulation". Obviously, any institution F
imparting technical education as defined under Section 2(26)
of the Act situated within the limits of State of Chhattisgarh is
deemed to be associated with and admitted to privileges of
the University. '

· 11. Section 23 of the 2004 Act stipulates that the Executive G
Council, a body constituted under Section 22 of the Act, shall
be the supreme authority of the University with various powers
and duties specified under Section 23. One of them is "to admit
Colleges or Polytechnics to the privileges of the University on
H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A the recommendation of the Academic Council and subject to
the provisions of this Act and Statute and to withdraw any of
the privileges and to take over the management of the College
or Polytechnic in the manner and under conditions prescribed
by the Statute and Ordinance".
B
. 12. In view of the requiremerit of securing the affiliation of
the concerned University as stipulated by the order of approval
(07.04.2013) by AICTE, it appears that an application was
made to the said University to grant affiliation to the first
C petitioner college which was rejected in a meeting of the
Executive Council of the University dated 13.5.2013. 4
I

13. Aggrieved by such decision, a Writ Petition (C) No.847
of 2013 came to be filed by the petitioners herein before the
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The said writ petition
D was disposed of by an order dated 28.6.2013 directing
consideration of the representation to be made by the
petitioners after giving them an opportunity of being heard in
person. The operative portion of the order is as follows:

"Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
E
respondent/university submits that he has no objection if
a representation is made, and in the event, a
represe_ntation is made, the same will be considered in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. He
further submits that the petitioner may also be heard in
F
person, if so desired by the petitioner.

In view of the above submissions made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, if the petitioners makes
a representation with a period of one week from today, as
G
4. Since none of the applicant institutions fulfil the AICTE norms as- pointed
out in the inspection reports and admission made in the compliance
affidavits of the existing of deficiencies, the affiliation for _academic session
2013-14 for new college, new courses and increase in intake is liable to
be refused. However, for the current courses in the existing colleges
H affiliation is recommended.
RUNGTAENG COLLEGE, BHILAI v. CHHATllSGARH fNVAf.AI 803
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSllY [J. CHELAf.AEfNVAR, J.]
~

agreed and consented by both the parties, the petitioner A
may appear before the authorities of the respondenU
university. The respondenUuniversity is also directed to
consider and decide the· representation within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation,
in accordance with law, on its own merit and perspective." B

14. The petitioners submitted a representation dated
01.7.2013. A communication dated 17.7.2013 was sent to the
petitioners signed by the Registrar of the University purporting
to grant affiliation for the academic session 2013-14 for the
various courses specified therein for total intake capacity of C
300 students with a rider that such affiliation is subject to
approval of the Executive Council of the University5 • It is the
specific case of the University that such a decision was taken
by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers under Section
14(4) read with Section 23(12) of the 2004 Act. Pursuant to D
such affiliation order, the petitioners admitted more than some
200 students.

15. On 28.12.2013, the petitioners once again applied for
affiliation for the academic session 2014-15. E
16. On 03.3.2014, the 31st meeting of the Executive
Council of the University was held wherein the provisional
affiliation granted on 17.7.2013 by the Vice-Chancellor was
considered. The Executive Council took note of the fact that in
an earlier meeting dated 10.8.2013 the Executive Council had
F
referred the case to the Advocate General for opinion and as

5. In the light of the Order of Hon'ble High Court dated 28th June 2013, and
the submission of documents fulfilling the shortcomings as well as the G
undertaking in this regard, affiliation for the academic session 2013-14 Is
hereby granted for the following courses with following intake capacity.
Computer Science & Engineering - 60, Mechanical Engineering - 60,
Electrical Engineering - 60, Electrical & Electronics Engineering - 60; and
Civil Engineering - 60. (Total: 300)
The above affiliation is subject to approval by University Executive Council. H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A opinion was not forthcoming for various reasons, the Executive
Council took a decision as follows:

"The conditional affiliation granted vide letter No.CSVTU/
Affil/2013-2014/2013/2963 dated 17.7.2013 should be
withdrawn.
B
Students admitted may be transferred to other colleges in
a legal, lawful and rationale manner.

The Executive Council unar\imously took a decision to
c place the matter before the Hon'ble Chancellor for his final
decision in the matter."

17. The question of ratification of the affiliation granted to
the first petitioner College once again came for consideration
in 33rd meeting of the Executive Council on 29/30.4.2014.
D Once again it was decided:

"Based on the majority decision proposal of ratification of
affiliation stands turned down, taking into account the
aforesaid facts. Keeping the future of admitted students,
E a letter be written to the Director-Technical Education and
Secretary-Technical Education, to transfer the students to
other colleges where seats· are vacant."
'
The said decision was communicated to the petitioners
F herein on 01.5.2014.

18. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners filed
Writ Petition No.423 of 2014 before this Court. On 12.5.2014,
this Court issued notice on the said writ petition. On 19.5.2014,
the said writ petition was disposed off. The operative portion
G of the said order reads as follows:

"Be that as it may, it is agreed that the Executive Council
shall look into the matter again in so far as academic year
2013-2014 is concerned, we remit the case back to the
Executive Council to take a decision afresh after giving
H
RUNGTA ENG COLLEGE, BHILAI v. CHHATTISGARH SWAMI 805
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.)

due opportunity to the petitioners to present their case A
before the Executive Council and pass reasoned order
thereon within four weeks.

As far as academic year 2014-2015 is concerned, it is
pointed out by Mr. Varma, learned senior counsel that the 8
application of the petitioner - College along with the
applications submitted by other colleges for affiliation are
already under consideration.

In view thereof, in so far as academic year 2014-2015 is
concerned, the Executive Council shall take a decision in C
the aforesaid manner by 15th July 2014 after following the
due procedure."

19. It can be seen from the order that it is an agreed order
to the effect that the Executive Council will once again examine o
the question of granting affiliation to the first petitioner college
insofar as it pertains to the academic year 2013-2014. Coming
to the question of affiliation for the academic year 2014-2015,
this Court directed the Executive Council to take a decision by
15.7.2014.
E
20. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner submitted
another representation on 23.5.2014 praying that a decision be
taken on the issue of grant of affiliation for the academic year
2014-2015.
F
21. On 04.6.2014, AICTE granted approval for the
academic year 2014-2015 to conduct seven different courses
(five graduate and two diploma courses) with a total intake of
540 students, the details of which may not be necessary for the
present purpose. G
22. On 11.6.2014, an opportunity for oral hearing was
granted by the Executive Council in its 36th meeting. Finally,
by a communication dated 19.6.2014, the University informed
the second petitioner herein that the Executive Council of the
H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A University in its meeting held dated 11.6.2014 took a decision
by majority to disapprove the provisional affiliation granted on .
17.7.2013 to the first petitioner. The said communication reads
as follows:

"Pur_suant to the Order of t~e Hon'ble Supreme Court
B
dated 19.5.2014, the Executive Council of the University
met o 11.6.2014, where a majority decision was taken to
disapprove the provisional affiliation granted on 17.7.2013
to Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai. Therefore, the
status of Runga Engineering College, Bhilai stands "dis-
c affiliated" for the academic session 2013-14. A copy of the
minutes of the Executive Council, citing reasons for
disapproving the provisional affiliation granted to Rungta
Engineering College, Bhilai, is enclosed for your kind
information.·
D
23. By another communication dated 01.7.2014, which was
received by the petitioner on 09.7.2014, the University informed
the second petitioner as follows:

"Pursuant to the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
E
dated 19.05.2014, the Executive Council of the University
met on 11.06.2014 and a majority decision was taken to
disapprove the provisional affiliation granted to Rungta
Engineering College, Bhilai on 17.07.2013. Now, the
status of Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai stands "Dis-
F affiliated" for the academic session 2013-14.

The above has been communicated to you vide letter.
no.1109 dated 19th June 2014. The application for 2014-
15 is an extension of affiliation to the College. The
G decision taken in the Executive Council on
11.06.2014 was to dis-affiliate the College, therefore
the extension of 14-15 does not arise as the College
has already been dis-affiliated."

(emphasis supplied)
H
RUNGTAENG COLLEGE, BHILAI v. CHHATTISGARH SWAfJll 807
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY [J. CHELAfJIESWAR, J.)

24. Hence the writ petition. A

25. The petitioners challenged the impugned order on the
ground that it violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India. It is also argued by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the respondents decided not to grant
8
affiliation on the basis of considerations which are factually
incorrect and areas which are· not within their legal competence
to exercise.

26. On the other hand, the respondent resisted the writ
petition on the ground that the first petitioner College does not C
satisfy various conditions contemplated under AICTE norms
and also Statute 19 of the University. It is the case of the first
respondent University that by a communication dated
26.4.2013 the second petitioner was informed of the various
shortcomings. The relevant portion of the comm1mication reads D
as follows:

"Based on the recommendations of the Inspection
Committee constituted by Chhattisgarh Swami
Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, for the affiliation
E
of courses of your Institution, the institution has been found
tQ be suffering from the following deficiencies:

1. Teaching staff (Assistant professor, Associate
Professor, Professor) appointed on adhoc basis be
selected through the University Selection F
Committee as per statute 19 of CSVTU and as per
AICTE norms. Selection of process be initiated at
the earliest to maintain Cadre ratio as per norms.

2. Principal be appointed as per Statute-19 of the G
University.

3. Student teacher ratio be improved as per norms.

4. Govt. NoCs to conduct 1st year classes for the ·
session 2013-14 be submitted. H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A 5. Journals be procured in the Library as per norms.
E-Journals in digital library and other books related
to general proficiency be procured.

6. Proper timing of librarian is needed as proper entry
of books in accession register be maintained.
B r

7. Safety measures be installed at Structure, Library,
Labs and Workshop. ·

8. Internet connectivity in Computer lab be improved.
c 9. Separate strong room be provided in exam control
room.

10: Flow charts, lab manuals of laboratory & layout of
lab be displayed.
D
11. Lux meter be used to check the illumination in the
different areas like Class rooms & laboratory of the
campus.

12. Playground facility be .improved.
E
13. Licence software & communication skill be
developed as per norms.

14. List of experiments as per University scheme be
F displayed on the notice boards with signature of
Prof. l/c and iab attendant.

15. All weather roads in general be improved and set
back distance of the boundaries be maintained as
per municipal bye building.
G
16. Anti ragging cell, women's cell and counselling cell
be formed & displayed in the campus.

17. Demarcation of parking, Canteen & other amenities
be improved.
H
RUNGTAENG COLLEGE, Bl-llLAI v. CHHATTISGARH SWAMI 809
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]

18. Anvil accessories of the workshop be made A
available.

19. Gas pipe line be provided with commercial gas
cylinder along with shower be provided in the
Chemistry lab. B
\
20. Seating arrangement like stool be provided for the
students in the labs.

21. Supporting laboratory staff be appointed as per
norms & working hours of library be displayed. C

Specifying class rooms, Labs, Library, Computer
centres, Drawing Hall, Workshop, Seminar hall on
the approved building plans, floorwise, (on
photocopies of the original Approved building Plans .
0
without any reductions in size) be submitted to the
University.

Sports fee if any be submitted.

Processing fee of Rs.30,000/- be submitted. E
An affidavit on non judicial stamp paper of
Rs.50/- by TrusUSociety/Principal regarding the
or
steps taken for the Compliance rectifying of the
above deficiencies is to be submitted to the
University latest by 29.4.2013." F

27. In response to the said communication, the GDR
Educational Society serit a reply dated 29.4.2013, the
substance of which is that all the alleged shortcomings pointed
out in the communication of the University dated 26.4.2013 are G
either without any factual basis or had in fact been complied
·with.

28. In the light of sharp difference of opinion between the
petitioners and the first respondent University, during the H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A pendency ofthe present writ petition, we thought it fit to call upon ·
AICTE by the order dated 08.8:2014 to "inspect the petitioner's
College and submit a report whether the petitioner has
complied with all the requirements of law". In view of the said
direction, AICTE conducted inspection and reported. The
B substance of which is that the petitioner College has complied
with all the requirements of law. .

29. The respondent University and the State very
vehemently argued that notwithstanding the opinion expressed
by AICTE there are still some shortcomings examined in the
C light of the norms and standards of the University for granting
affiliation to any institution imparting technical education.

30. It is argued that the University, which is a statutory body
brought int9 existence pursuant to an enactment made by the
D legislative assembly of the State of Chhattisgarh, is obliged to
discharge the duties enjoined upon it by the 2004 Act and it
cannot be prevented from discharging its obligation of being
satisfied that the petitioner institution qualifies for affiliation in
terms of the norms and standards prescribed by it in discharge
E of its statutory powers and compelled to grant affiliation
notwithstanding the fact that the University is not satisfied with
the eligibility of the first petitioner College for affiliation.

31. The authority of the States and the Universities
established by the States to regulate the establishment and ·
F running of institutions imparting technical education has been
a subject matter of a long debate in various judgments of this
Court. '

32. Educational institutions imparting technical education
G are amenable to the control of AICTE under the 1987 Act in
certain aspects and the regulatory authority of the State, and
Universities estabJished by or under a legislation of the State,
in certain other aspects.

33. This Court in State of T.N. and Another v. Adhiyaman
H
RUNGTA ENG COLLEGE, BHILAJ v. CHHATTISGARH SWAMI 811
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSllY [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]

Educational & Research Institute and Others, (1995) 4 SCC A
104, after considering the constitutional scheme of various
entries of List I and List Ill of the Seventh Schedule and the
language of the 1987 Act and the Madras University Act
concluded that the 1987 Act is referable to Entry 66 of List I.
The field of "determination of standards in institutions for higher B
education, or research and scientific and technical institutions"
is exclusive to the Parliament and any law made by the
Parliament referable to the said field is paramount. The 1987
Act empowers the AICTE, a body constituted under the said
Act "to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems c
incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining
accountability of the technical institutions" and lay down "norms
and standards for courses, curricula, staff pattern, staff
qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and
guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting
0
approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new
courses or programmes". This Court categorically held "Thus,
so far as these matters are concerned, in the case of the
institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University
Act and the University but it is the Central Act and the Council
created under ii which will have the jurisdiction". Consequently, E
this Court held "after coming into operation of the Central Act"
the provisions of any other State law overlapping on the area
covered by the CentralAct "will be deemed to have become
unenforceable .. .". The argument that the State legislature can
stipulate norms of higher standards even in those areas which F
are covered by the AICTE is clearly rejected by this Court.

34. The question whether the State Government as a
matter of policy, can decline to grant approval/permission for
the establishment of a new engineering college in view of the G
perception of the State Government that. the opening of new
colleges will not be in the' interest of the students and
employment, fell for consideration of this Court in Jaya Gokul
Educational Trust· v. Commissioner & Secretary to
Government Higher Education Department, H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A Thiruvanathapuram, Kera/a State and Another, (2000) 5 SCC
231. This Court held that the State could not have any policy
outside the AICTE Act and indeed if it had a policy, it should
have placed the same before the AICTE and that too before
the latter granted permission.
B
35. The question of the authority of a University to grant or
decline affiliation squarely fell for consideration before this Court
in Bhartia Education Society v. State of H.P., (2011) 4 SCC
527. The case arose under the National Council for Teachers
Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "NCTE Act") the
C scheme of which is also identical to the AICTE Act. This Court
held as follows:-

"19 .... On the other hand, "recognition" is the licence to
the institution to offer a course or training in teacher
D education. Prior to the NCTE Act, ir:i the absence of an
apex body to plan and coordinate maintenance of the
norms and standards in the teacher education system,
Government and universities/boards. After the enactment
of the NCTE Act, the functions of NCTE as "recognising
E authority" and the examining bodies as "affiliating
authorities" became crystallised, though their functions
overlap on several issues. The NCTE Act recognises the
role of examining bodies in their sphere of activity.

36. This Court examined the scope of Section 16 of the
F NCTE Act which prohibited the grant of affiliation by any
"examining body" - (a University) to any institution conducting
a course for training people for the occupation of teaching
unless such institution obtained recognition from the competent
authority under the NCTE Act Though, this Court made it clear
G that the "examining body" (University) does not have any
discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the
factors which ought to be considered by NCTE while granting
recognition, recognised that the "examining body" has the
· authority to demand compliance with its norms in a limited area
H
RUNGTA ENG COLLEGE, BHILAI v. CHHATIISGARH SWAMI 813
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSllY [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]

regarding the "eligibility of the candidates" and "manner of A
admission" of students etc.

37. It was further held :-

"22 .... For example, NCTE is required to satisfy itself
about the adequate financial resources, accommodation, 8
library, qualified staff, and laboratory required for proper.
functioning of an institution for a course or training in
teacher education. Therefore, when recognition is granted
by NCTE, it is implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on
those aspects. Consequently, the examining body may not C
refuse affiliation on the ground that the institution does not
have adequate financial resources, accommodation,
library, qualified .staff, or laboratory required for proper
functioning of the institution. But this does not mean that
the examining body cannot require compliance wit~ its own D
requirements in regard to eligibility of candidates for
admissions to courses or manner of admission of students
or other areas falling within the sphere of the State
Government and/or the examining body."
E
At para 24, this Court indicated the areas where the
"examining body" can stipulate norms, the non-compliance with
which norms authorise the examining body to cancel the
affiliation.

"24. The examining body can therefore impose its own F
requirements in regard to eligibility of students for
admission to a course in addition to those prescribed by
NCTE. The State Government and the examining body
may also regulate the manner of admissions. As a
consequence, if there is any irregularity in admissions or G
violation of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the
examining body or any irregularity with reference to any of
the matters regulated and governed by the examining
body, the examining body may cancel the affiliation
irrespective of the fact that the institution continues to enjoy H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A the recognition of NCTE. Sub-section (6) of Section 14
cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to make the
process of affiliation, an automatic rubber-stamping
consequent upon recognition, without any kind of discretion
in the examining body to examine whether the institution
B deserves affiliation or not, independent of the recognition."

38. Similarly, under the scheme of the 1987 Act, as noticed
by this Court in para 30 of the Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute case (supra)~ under Section 10 of the
C Central Act, the Council is entrusted with the power to lay
down norms and standards for courses, curricula, staff
pattern, staff qualification, assessment and examination,
fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fees etc.
and further held that in these matters the University will
have no authority.
0
39. The respondents heavily relied upon the last sentence
of para 24 of the decision in Bhartia Education Society
(supra) (extracted earlier) to assert that the respondents still
have the necessary authority to grant or decline affiliation.
E
40. We are of the opinion that the respondents are reading
that sentence out of the context. The judgment was very clear
as to the areas which are exclusively within the jurisdictic;m of
the NCTE whose satisfaction regarding the compliance with the
F standards prescribed by it in those areas is final and the areas
where the "examining body'' has authority to lay down its own
norms (such as eligibility of the students for admission to a
course and the manner of admission).

41. We apply the principles of law mentioned above to the
G facts of the present case. The various objections which
(according to the respondent) formed the basis for declining
affiliation to the first petitioner institution are contained in the
communication dated 26.4.2013 which was extracted in detail
at para 26 (supra).
H
RUNGTA ENG COLLEGE, BHILAI v. CHHATTISGARH SWAflil 815
VIVEKANAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSl1Y [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.)

42. An examination of all the objections mentioned in the A
said communication would reveal that each one of those
objections squarely fall within the sweep of one or the other
areas which only the AICTE has the exclusive jurisdiction to
deal with. None of them are demonstrated before us to be
matters falling within the area legally falling within the domain B
of the respon..;ents. AICTE, on inspection of the 1st petitioner
college reported that the 1st petitioner college fulfils all the
conditions prescribed by the norms and standards laid down
by AICTE. The respondents did not make any specific assertion
that such a report of the AICTE is factually incorrect. Assuming c
for the sake of argument that, in the opinion of the respondents,
the petitioner college has not in fact fulfilled any one of the
conditions required under the norms specified by the AICTE,
the only course of action available for the respondents is to bring
the shortcomings noticed by them to the notice of the AICTE
D
and seek appropriate action against the petitioner college6 .

43. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision of
the respondent not to grant the affiliation to the first petitioner
college is wholly untenable and is required to be set aside. The
same is accordingly set aside. Since the respondent did not E
decline the affiliation to the first petitioner college either on the
ground that the petitioner college is admitting wholly ineligible
students as per the norms stipulated by the respondent
University or that the admission procedure prescribed by the
respondents is not being complied with by the petitioners or F
on any other ground that the petitioners violated any one of the
6. Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to
Government Higher Education Department; Thiruvanathapuram, Kera/a
State and Another ((2000) 5 SCC 231] - "27 ...... 0nce that procedure
laid down in the AICTE Act and Regulations had been followed under
Regulation 8(4), and the Central Task Force had also given its favourable G
recommendations, there was no scope for any further objection or approval
by the State. We may however add that if thereafter, any fresh facts came
to light after an approval was granted by AICTE or if the State felt that some
conditions attached to the permission and required by AICTE to be complied
with, were not complied with, then the State Government could always write
to AICTE, to enable the latter to take appropriate action." H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R.

A stipulations made by the University which the University is
legally competent to make, we have no option but to direct the
respondents to grant affiliation to the petitioner college. The
operative portion of the judgment of this Court has already been
pronounced on 01.9.2014. Therefore, we are not reiterating the
s same.

EPILOGUE

44. We are sorry to say that in the entire writ petition, we
did not find any information whether the GDR Educational
C Society is a body recognized/registered ul)der any enactment.
If it is recognized, what is the relevant enactment under which
the same is registered? So-called first petitioner has no
existence in the eye of law and is not capable of suing or being
sued, though the second petitioner is a natural person who is
D capable of suing and being sued. The bold assertion that the
impugned action is violative of Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution made in the petition is a highly doubtful assertion
vis-a-vis both the petitioners. The rights under Article 19 are
only guaranteed to the citizens. The so-called first petitioner
E cannot be a citizen, not even a person. Whether the right
asserted by the second petitioner under Article 19 is a right to
practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business is not known. No arguments are advanced on either
side. Modern lawyers do not trouble themselves with such
F questions! Any judge asking these questions perhaps is
considered "not sensitive to the public interest"! However, the
whole exercise undertaken· by the respondent is certainly
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, we have
examined the issue.

G 45. The writ petition stands disposed off accordingly.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Writ Petition disposed of.