Holding

Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 authorises the University to withhold a No Objection Certificate when a survey shows no local need, and the State’s policy restricting new courses is a valid exercise of its power, not repugnant to the AICTE Act.

Summary

The appellant Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University declined a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeeth’s request to start a D.Pharmacy course, citing the State Government’s policy and a survey under Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 showing an oversupply of pharmacy colleges in Hyderabad. The respondents challenged the refusal, and the High Court ordered the University to grant the NOC. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 20 empowers the University and State to withhold NOC, whether the State’s moratorium is repugnant to the AICTE Act, 1987 and its regulations, and whether the University’s affiliation regulations are consistent with the statutes. The Court held that Section 20 authorises the University to deny NOC when the locality’s educational needs are not demonstrated, that the State’s policy is a valid exercise of its power, and that there is no repugnancy with the AICTE Act. Consequently, the High Court’s direction was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, quashing the lower court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the University is statutorily bound to issue a No Objection Certificate for a new D.Pharmacy course irrespective of local educational demand.
Whether Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 empowers the University and State Government to refuse NOC based on a survey of educational needs.
Whether the State Government’s policy/ moratorium on new technical courses is repugnant to the AICTE Act, 1987 and its regulations.
Whether the Jawaharlal Nehru Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, 2017 (Regulations 5.2, 5.3) are consistent with Section 20 and the AICTE framework.
Whether the High Court erred in directing the University to grant the NOC.

Legislation cited

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987s. 10, s. 11, s. 23(1), s. 2(g)
All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approvals for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016s. 4.18
Jawaharlal Nehru Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, 2017s. 5.2, s. 5.3
Telangana Education Act, 1982s. 20

Subjects

No Objection CertificateSection 20Telangana Education ActAICTE Acttechnical educationaffiliation regulationsmushroom growthpolicy moratoriumrepugnancyhigher education

Judgment

[2018] 14 S.C.R. 103 103

THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL A
UNIVERSITY REGISTRAR
v.
SANGAM LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10807 of 2018)
B
OCTOBER 29, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Telangana Education Act, 1982 – s.20 – Respondent-College
applied to the appellant-University for grant of No Objection
Certificate (NOC) to start the D.Pharma course in their college C
during the academic year 2018-2019 – University declined NOC
on the ground that as per the Government’s policy and perspective
plan, NOC was not to be granted for new institutions and new
courses – Challenged by respondent – High Court allowed the writ
petition – On appeal, held: s.20 deals with permission for the
D
establishment of educational institutions – s.20(1) provides that
competent authority shall conduct survey to identify the educational
needs of the locality under its jurisdiction as to how many institutions
are operating in the area and whether there is any further requirement
of opening educational institutions/new courses in existing colleges
– s.20(3) provides that any educational agency applying for E
permission u/s.20(2) shall before the permission is granted, satisfy
the authority concerned that there is a need for providing educational
facilities to the people in the locality – In case there are already
large number of institutions imparting education in the area, the
competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC, for
permitting an institution to come up in the area – s.20 intends to F
prevent the mushroom growth of the institutions/courses – There is
already a paucity of well-qualified teachers in a large number of
institutions and the available seats in Pharmacy course in the
Hyderabad city are remaining vacant every year in spite of the
reduction in number of seats – Thus, in the instant case when 30 G
institutions in Hyderabad city are already running Pharmacy course,
the refusal to grant NOC by the University was wholly justified –
Policy decision of the State Government cannot be said to be illegal
– High Court erred in holding that the University was bound to
issue NOC – AICTE Act, 1987 – ss.2(g), 23(1) r/w ss.10 and 11.
H
103
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approvals
for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 4.18
– If repugnant to Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of 2017 Regulations –
Held: Regulation 4.18 cannot be said to be repugnant to Regulations
5.2 and 5.3 of the 2017 Regulations – Jawaharlal Nehru Affiliation
Procedure and Regulations, 2017.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act,
1982 deals with permission for the establishment of educational
institutions. Section 20(1) provides that competent authority shall
C conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality
under its jurisdiction. Section 20(3) provides that any educational
agency applying for permission under section 20(2) shall before
the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned that
there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people
in the locality. The survey is conducted so as to identify the
D educational needs of the locality viz., as to how many institutions
are operating in the area and whether there is any further
requirement of opening educational institutions/new courses in
existing colleges. In case there are already a large number of
institutions imparting education in the area the
E competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC,
for permitting an institution to come up in the area.
[Para 12][110-H; 111-A; 112-G-H; 113-A]
1.2 The provisions contained in Section 20 of the 1982 Act
are wholesome and intend not only to cater to the educational
F needs of the area but also prevent the mushroom growth of the
institutions/courses. In case institutions are permitted to run each
and every course that may affect the very standard of education
and may ultimately result in sub-standard education. There is
already a paucity of well-qualified teachers in a large number of
institutions and the available seats in Pharmacy course in the
G Hyderabad city are remaining vacant every year in spite of the
reduction in a number of seats. It had not been possible to fill up
the available vacancies due to non-availability of students. Thus,
it is apparent that when 30 institutions in Hyderabad city are
already running Pharmacy course, the refusal to grant NOC by
H the University was wholly justified. [Para 13][113-B-D]
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 105
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET

1.3 Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of Jawaharlal Nehru Affiliation A
Procedure and Regulations, 2017 provide that a new college
proposing to offer technical education with the University affiliation
shall first seek a NOC from the University before applying to
AICTE/PCI/any other statutory body. Regulation 5.3 provides
that the permission for starting of new programmes in the existing
B
colleges shall be considered by the University as per the priority/
policy of the State Government if any. The High Court erred in
law in holding that it was not permissible for the State Government
to frame such a policy and the University was bound to issue
NOC. [Paras 14, 16][113-D-E; 115-G-H]
1.4 The Government of Telangana vide its communication C
to the All India Council of Technical Education Regulations
(AICTE) had expressed serious concern at the proliferation and
establishment of technical institutions and the unprecedented
expansion in the intake in all the courses offered by all the
technical institutions coming within the purview of AICTE. Data D
was given in the tabular form including that of the Pharmacy. It
was pointed out that in the year 2015-16 sanctioned intake in
Pharmacy was 11490, seats remained vacant were 4035, in
academic session 2016-17 sanctioned intake was 9226, seats
vacant were 1892. [Para 17][116-A-C]
E
2. The AICTE Act, 1987 defines technical education in
section 2(g) to mean programmes of education inter alia in
Pharmacy also. There is no provision in the said Act to the contrary
to curtail the power of the State as well as of University. The
AICTE has framed the Regulations under the Act of 1987 in the
exercise of the power conferred under section 23(1) read with F
sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 1987 called the All India Council
for Technical Education (Grant of approvals for the Technical
Institutions) Regulations, 2016. Regulation 4.18 provides that
the State Government/UT Administration and the Affiliating
University/Board, as the case may be, shall forward their views G
along with the perspective plan of the State and then the application
shall be processed for grant of approval. Regulation 4.18 cannot
be said to be repugnant to Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 of the
University, and there is no repugnancy in AICTE Act and Section
20 of the Act of 1982. [Paras 18, 19][116-D-F; 117-C]
H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 3. The decision taken by the State Government as apparent
from facts reflected in perspective plan is based on a survey and
supported by the data. Considering the fact that seats are going
abegging. Even in 2017-18 in the Pharmacy course, data has been
given that among 56 colleges affiliated to the University, 30 were
in the city of Hyderabad and out of total 1630 seats, 173 had
B
remained vacant. Thus, it is apparent that a large number of seats
remained vacant. Not more than 30 seats can be allotted to one
institution. The mushroom growth of educational institutions
cannot be permitted. Standard of education cannot be
compromised and sacrificed by permitting institutions to come
C up in a reckless manner without there being any requirement for
them at a particular place. The decision of State had been taken
in an objective manner and the same is based on the consideration
of data and could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary in any
manner whatsoever. The policy decision of the State Government
cannot be said to be illegal and on that basis, the University has
D
taken the decision in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 1982. In
the instant case, the matter was about the proposed location and
affiliation, out of 36 Pharmacy colleges in the State of Telangana
and 30 are located in Hyderabad city alone which are more than
adequate in number. Thus, rightly decision has been taken not
E to start another new course at the proposed location at Hyderabad
city. [Paras 21, 27 and 30][119-D, H; 120-A; 127-B-C]
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational
Society (2005) 3 SCC 212 : [2005] 2 SCR 302 – relied
on.
F State of T.N v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research
Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104 : [1995] 2 SCR 1075 ; Jaya
Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to
Government of Higher Education Department,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (2000) 5 SCC 231 :
G [2000] 2 SCR 1234 ; State of Maharashtra v. Sant
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
(2006) 9 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 638 ; Thirumuruga
Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal
Medical Education & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil

H
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 107
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET

Nadu (1996) 3 SCC 15 : [1996] 2 SCR 422 ; Rungta A
Engineering College, Bhilai v. Chhattisgarh Swami
Vivekananda Technical University (2015) 11 SCC 291
: [2014] 12 SCR 796 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 2 SCR 302 relied on Para 6 B

[1995] 2 SCR 1075 referred to Para 22
[2000] 2 SCR 1234 referred to Para 25
[2006] 3 SCR 638 referred to Para 28
C
[1996] 2 SCR 422 referred to Para 30
[2014] 12 SCR 796 referred to Para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10807
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2018 of the High D
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and The
State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 31293 of 2017.
K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., P. Venkat Reddy, P. Prabhakar,
Prashant Tyagi for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Advs. for the
Appellant. E

V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Mahfooz Nazki, Avinash Tripathi, M. P. Devanath,,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. F
1. The question involved in the appeal is whether a University is
bound to give ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) for opening an
educational institution or for a new course irrespective of educational
needs of the locality under its jurisdiction. In other words, is the University
bound to give NOC in a local area irrespective of whether institutions G
are required in the area and thereby promote the mushroom growth of
institutions?
2. Respondent no.1 – Sangam Laxmibai Vidyapeeth, is a registered
society which has sponsored and manages Bojjam Narasimhulu
H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A Pharmacy College for Women, being Respondent No.2, set up at
Hyderabad. On 27.7.2017, Respondent No.2 applied to the Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological University (for short, “the University”) for grant
of No Objection Certificate (NOC) to start the D.Pharma course in
their college during the academic year 2018-2019. On 19.8.2017, the
University declined NOC on the ground that as per the Government’s
B
policy and perspective plan, NOC was not to be granted for new
institutions and new courses.
3. Respondent No.2 on 26.8.2017 filed an application before the
Pharmacy Council of India (for short, ‘the PCI’) for grant of approval
for starting D. Pharma course for the academic year 2018-2019. The
C PCI insisted on the production of NOC certificate from the University.
4. Challenging the communication dated 19.8.2017 of the University
declining NOC and also challenging regulations 5.1, 5.2 and 6 of the
Jawaharlal Nehru Affiliation Procedure and Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as “the 2017 Regulations”), the respondent filed a writ petition
D before the High Court.
5. In its counter affidavit filed in the High Court, the University
contended that under the provisions of Section 20 of the Telangana
Education Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1982”),
obtaining of NOC as per the All India Council of Technical Education
E Regulations (for short, ‘the AICTE Regulations’) and the 2017
Regulations, was necessary for starting new courses.
6. The validity of Section 20 of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh
Education Act, which is in pari materia with Section 20 of the Act of
1982, has been upheld in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B.
F Educational Society, (2005) 3 SCC 212. The said Act stands adopted
in the State of Telangana.
7. The Government of Telangana also filed a counter-affidavit
pointing out that Government has taken a policy decision and requested
the AICTE by a letter dated 29.11.2016 to declare a holiday on the
G establishment of new technical institutions for the academic year 2017-
2018 onwards. The policy decision was based upon the detailed study
of a large number of technical institutions running in the State and in
particular Hyderabad, wherein even the available seats were lying vacant,
and the addition of more seats and more colleges was bound to adversely
impact the quality of education and would make them financially unviable.
H
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 109
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Ultimately, the fall in the standards of education may result in the low A
employability of the students. The Government had prepared a perspective
plan for technical education in the State and communicated the same to
the AICTE. The Perspective Plan had been prepared in consonance
with the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Act of 1982.
8. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order had B
allowed the writ application. It has observed that grant of NOC will not
enable an institution to start a course. They have several other hurdles
to be cleared for starting D. Pharma. The High Court has held that
Regulations 5.2, 5.3 and 6 of the 2017 Regulations are valid. The vires
of the regulations has been upheld. However, the High Court held that
policy decision taken by the Government not to allow new courses to be C
started is not in terms of section 20 of the Act of 1982 as the provision
does not vest power upon the Government to declare a holiday on the
ground that a lot of seats are going vacant. The High Court has observed
that in case the seats are going vacant educational institutions will
automatically shut down courses for which there is no demand. Unless D
starting of a course or running of an existing course is economically
viable, no educational agency would take up the venture. That is the
concern of the educational agency and not of the Government or of the
University. The High Court has further observed that uneducated
unemployed may find a course where their energies can be channelized
and it is better to have educated unemployed rather than to have a E
breed of uneducated unemployed. The perspective plan prepared by
the Government has also been considered. It has been observed that
seats remaining vacant cannot be the sole criterion for refusal of NOC.
The enrolment of students in Pharma-D has registered a marginal increase
over the years. The University has been directed to grant NOC. F
Thereafter, it will be open to the AICTE and PCI to examine the
application of the petitioner for D. Pharma course and thereafter it will
be open to the University to examine with reference to its own Statutes
as to whether petitioner may be granted affiliation or not. Aggrieved by
the same, the appeal has been preferred.
G
9. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-University that there are thirty institutions which
are running pharmacy courses in the city of Hyderabad. The number of
institutions is more and it is not possible to cater to the needs of all
colleges as students are not enough. The seats remain vacant in spite of
H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A the reduction in the number of seats. There is a paucity of the teachers
as well. The Government of Telangana after a detailed study has prepared
a perspective plan and has forwarded it to the AICTE requesting it not
to open new technical courses as there is a mushroom growth of the
institutions in the city of Hyderabad. Considering the perspective plan,
the decision has been taken not to grant NOC by the University in terms
B
of the provisions contained in section 20 of the Act of 1982 and the
Regulations of the University. The High Court has erred in law in
interfering with the policy decision of the State Government on legally
impermissible grounds.
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent
C contended that it was not open to the Government to frame such a policy
of declaring a holiday. It is for the AICTE or the PCI to take into
consideration the requirements of the area whether institutions have to
be permitted to start a new course. Mainly by the fact that some seats
have remained vacant in the course of Pharmacy, the NOC could not
D have been declined. As it was for the PCI as well as the AICTE to take
into consideration the various aspects after the issuance of the NOC.
Thus, University, as well as the State Government, have exceeded their
powers. The statistics submitted are not of D. Pharma course but relates
to the other courses of pharmacy. The imposition of the moratorium for
the academic year 2018-2019 is bad in law as it would be open to the
E University, after approval is granted by the AICTE and PCI, to examine
whether the institution fulfills its requirements for the purpose of grant
of affiliation. In the perspective plan, it is pointed out that there is need
to start pharmacy course as imbalance has been created by the
establishment of other technical institutions such as engineering etc. which
F may not be good for the country’s growth.
11. The pivotal point for consideration is whether the State
Government and the University have the power to frame a policy and to
refuse the grant of NOC to start a course in Pharmacy in the city of
Hyderabad and the decision of the State Government imposing the
G moratorium for the year 2018-19 is without jurisdiction, irrational or
arbitrary.
12. Section 20 of the Act of 1982 deals with permission for the
establishment of educational institutions. Section 20(1) provides that a
competent authority shall conduct a survey as to identify the educational
H needs of the locality under its jurisdiction. Section 20(3) provides that
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 111
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

any educational agency applying for permission under section 20(2) shall A
before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned that
there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people in the
locality. Section 20 is extracted hereunder:
“[20. Permission for establishment of educational
institutions: - (1) The competent authority shall, from time to B
time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the
locality under its jurisdiction and notify in the prescribed manner
through the local newspapers calling for applications from the
educational agencies desirous of establishing educational
institutions.
C
(2) In pursuance of the notification under sub-section (1), any
educational agency including a local authority or registered body
of persons intending to -
(a) establish an institution imparting education;
(b) open higher classes in an institution imparting primary education; D
(c) upgrade any such institution into a high school; or
(d) open new courses (Certificate, Diploma, Degree, Post-
Graduate Degree Courses, etc.)
may make an application, within such period in such manner and E
to such authority as may be notified for the grant of permission
therefor.
(3) Any educational agency applying for permission under sub-
section (2) shall, -
(a) before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority F
concerned, -
(i) that there is a need for providing educational facilities to the
people in the locality ;
(ii) that there is adequate financial provision for continued and G
efficient maintenance of the institution as prescribed by the
competent authority ;
(iii) that the institution is proposed to be located in sanitary and
healthy surroundings ;
H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A (b) enclose to the application, -
(i) title deeds relating to the site for building, playground, and garden
proposed to be provided ;
(ii) plans approved by the local authority concerned which shall
conform to the rules prescribed therefor; and
B
(iii) documents evidencing availability of the finances needed for
constructing the proposed buildings; and
(c) within the period specified by the authority concerned in the
order granting permission, -
C (i) appoint teaching staff qualified according to the rules made by
the Government in this behalf ;
(ii) satisfy the other requirements laid down by this Act and the
rules and orders made thereunder failing which it shall be
competent for the said authority to cancel the permission.
D
(4) On and from the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh
Education (Amendment) Act, 1987, no educational institution shall
be established except in accordance with the provisions of this
Act and any person who contravenes the provisions of this section
or who after the permission granted to him under this section
E having been cancelled continues to run such institution shall be
punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than
six months but which may extend to three years and with fine
which shall not be less than three thousand rupees but which may
extend to fifty thousand rupees :
F Provided further that the Court convicting a person under this
section shall also order the closure of the institution with respect
to which the offense is committed.”
(emphasis supplied)
A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of section 20(1) makes
G it clear that the survey is conducted so as to identify the educational
needs of the locality would definitely include within its ken how many
institutions are operating in the area and whether there is any further
requirement of opening educational institutions/new courses in existing
colleges, and it is also imperative under section 20(3)(a)(i) that educational
H agency has to satisfy the authority that there is a need for providing
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 113
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

educational facilities to the people in the locality. In case there are already A
a large number of institutions imparting education in the area the
competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC, for permitting
an institution to come up in the area.
13. The provisions contained in section 20 are wholesome and
intend not only to cater to the educational needs of the area but also B
prevent the mushroom growth of the institutions/courses. In case
institutions are permitted to run each and every course that may affect
the very standard of education and may ultimately result in sub-standard
education. There is already a paucity of well-qualified teachers in a
large number of institutions and the available seats in Pharmacy course
in the Hyderabad city are remaining vacant every year in spite of the C
reduction in a number of seats. It had not been possible to fill up the
available vacancies due to non-availability of students. Thus, it is apparent
that when 30 institutions in Hyderabad city are already running Pharmacy
course, the refusal to grant NOC by the University was wholly justified.
14. Apart from the provisions contained in section 20, when we D
consider Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 which clearly provide that a new college
proposing to offer technical education with the University affiliation shall
first seek a NOC from the University before applying to AICTE/PCI/
any other statutory body. Regulation 5.3 provides that the permission for
starting of new programmes in the existing colleges shall be considered E
by the University as per the priority/policy of the State Government if
any. Regulations 5.2 and 5.3 are extracted hereunder:
“5.2 – A new college proposing to offer technical education
with the University affiliation shall first seek a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from the University before applying to AICTE/ F
PCI/other Statutory Body.
5.3 – The permission for establishing Colleges and starting of
new programs in the existing Colleges shall be considered by the
University as per the priority/policy of the state government if
any.” G
15. In Government of A.P. & Anr. v. J.B. Educational Society
& Anr. (supra), the Court considered the validity of section 20 of the
Act of 1982 vis-à-vis section 10 of AICTE Act of 1987 and observed
that the two provisions are not repugnant to each other and they operate
in different fields. The object and purpose of two enactments had been
H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A considered by this Court and it observed that if there are more colleges
in a particular area, the State would be justified in not granting permission
to one more college in that area. Entry 25 of the Concurrent List gives
power to the State Legislature to make laws regarding education, including
technical education. The AICTE Act deals with the general power of
Parliament for coordination, determination of standards in institutions
B
for higher education or research and scientific and technical educational
institutions and Entry 65 of List I deals with the union agencies and
institutions. The State has the competence to pass such legislation and
Section 20 of the Act of 1982 is for the welfare of the State. The Court
observed:
C “13. It is in this background that the provisions contained in the
two legislative enactments have to be scrutinized. The provisions
of the AICTE Act are intended to improve the technical education
and the various authorities under the Act have been given exclusive
responsibility to coordinate and determine the standards of higher
D education. It is a general power given to evaluate, harmonize and
secure proper relationship to any project of national importance.
Such a coordinate action in higher education with a proper standard
is of paramount importance to national progress. Section 20 of
the AP Act does not in any way encroach upon the powers of the
authorities under the Central Act. Section 20 says that the
E competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey to
identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction
notified through the local newspapers calling for applications from
the educational agencies. Section 20(3)(a)(i) says that before
permission is granted, the authority concerned must be satisfied
F that there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people
in the locality. The State authorities alone can decide about the
educational facilities and needs of the locality. If there are more
colleges in a particular area, the State would not be justified in
granting permission to one more college in that locality. Entry 25
of the Concurrent List gives power to the State Legislature to
G make laws regarding education, including technical education. Of
course, this is subject to the provisions of Entry 63, 64, 65 and 66
of List I. Entry 66 of List I to which the legislative source is
traced for the AICTE Act deals with the general power of the
Parliament for coordination, determination of standards in
H institutions for higher education or research and scientific and
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 115
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

technical educational institutions and Entry 65 deals with the union A
agencies and institutions for professional, vocational and technical
training, including the training of police officers, etc. The State
has certainly the legislative competence to pass the legislation in
respect of education including technical education and Section 20
of the Act is intended for the general welfare of the citizens of the
B
State and also in discharge of the constitutional duty enumerated
under Article 41 of the Constitution.
14. The general survey in various fields of technical education
contemplated under Section 10(1)(a) of the AICTE Act is not
pertaining to the educational needs of any particular area in a
State. It is a general supervisory survey to be conducted by the C
AICTE Council, for example, if any IIT is to be established in a
particular region, a general survey could be conducted and the
Council can very much conduct a survey regarding the location
of that institution and collect data of all related matters. But as
regards whether a particular educational institution is to be D
established in a particular area in a State, the State alone would
be competent to say as to where that institution should be
established. Section 20 of the AP Act and Section 10 of the Central
Act operate in different fields and we do not see any repugnancy
between the two provisions.
E
21. The educational needs of the locality are to be ascertained
and determined by the State. Having regard to the regulations
framed under the AICTE Act, the representatives of the State
have to be included in the ultimate decision-making process and
having regard to the provisions of the Act, the Writ Petitioners
would not in any way be prejudiced by such provisions in the A.P. F
Act. Moreover, the decision, if any, taken by the State authorities
under Section 20(3)(a)(i) would be subject to judicial review and
we do not think that the State could make any irrational decision
about granting permission. Hence, we hold that Section 20(3)(a)(i)
is not in any way repugnant to Section 10 of the AICTE Act and G
it is constitutionally valid.”
16. In view of the aforesaid decision, the High Court has erred in
law in holding that it was not permissible for the State Government to
frame such a policy and the University was bound to issue NOC. The
decision of the High Court runs to the contrary, ignores and overlooks H
the law laid down in the said decision.
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 17. The Government of Telangana vide its communication dated
29.11.2016 to the AICTE had communicated the views of the State
Government regarding AICTE approval for the establishment of
educational institutions for the session 2017-18. After discussing the
matter by the Director of Technical Education, Vice-Chancellor of the
University and State Council of Higher Education the State Government
B
had expressed serious concern at the proliferation and establishment of
technical institutions and the unprecedented expansion in the intake in all
the courses offered by all the technical institutions coming within the
purview of AICTE. Data was given in the tabular form including that of
the Pharmacy. It was pointed out that in the year 2015-16 sanctioned
C intake in Pharmacy was 11490, seats remained vacant were 4035, in
academic session 2016-17 sanctioned intake was 9226, seats vacant
were 1892.
18. The AICTE Act, 1987 defines technical education in
section 2(g) to mean programmes of education inter alia in Pharmacy
D also. There is no provision in the said Act to the contrary to curtail the
power of the State as well as of University. The AICTE has framed the
Regulations under the Act of 1987 in the exercise of the power conferred
under section 23(1) read with sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 1987
called the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approvals
for the Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2016. The technical institution
E is required to seek prior approval of the Council as provided in Regulation
4.2. Regulation 4.18 provides that the State Government/UT
Administration and the Affiliating University/Board, as the case may be,
shall forward their views along with the perspective plan of the State
and then the application shall be processed for grant of approval.
F Regulation 4.18 is extracted hereunder:
“4.18 The State Government/UT Administration and the
Affiliating University/Board shall forward their views on the
applications received under Clause 4.1 as applicable, with valid
reasons along with the perspective plan of the State, within a period
G of 21 days from the date of receipt of applications which shall be
taken into account by the Regional Committee for further
processing for grant of approval. If the application is not processed
further, the processing fee after a deduction of 50000/- (Rupees
Fifty thousand only) shall be refunded to the applicant.

H
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 117
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

If the views of the State Government/UT Administration and the A
Affiliating University/Board are not received within a prescribed
time schedule as mentioned in the Approval Process Handbook, it
shall be presumed that they do not have any objection and the
Council shall proceed further for processing of applications.
However, the Council shall consider the previous communications,
B
if any, received from the State Government/UT administration,
the Affiliating University/Board against any Institutions.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. Regulation 4.18 cannot be said to be repugnant to Regulations
5.2 and 5.3 of the University, and there is no repugnancy in AICTE Act C
and section 20 of the Act of 1982 as observed by this Court in Government
of A.P. & Anr. v. J.B. Educational Society & Anr. (supra). The
perspective plan had been prepared by the State of Telangana for 2018-
19. In the perspective plan the State Government has pointed out the
abstract of courses and seats in the existing engineering colleges for the
academic year 2017-18 and it was mentioned that there was an imbalance D
of seats. Following is the extract relied upon by the respondents:
“A perusal of the above Table reveals the fact that the four
programmes viz. Information Technology, Computer Science and
Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering and
Electrical and Electronics Engineering together account for 83,290 E
seats of the total Intake of 1,26,855 seats. This accounts for nearly
66% of the seats and rests account for about 43,565 seats, which
is 34% of the total intake. This lopsided priority will, in the long
run, have an adverse effect on the growth of infrastructure in the
country with its attendant consequences. F
This imbalance needs to be corrected on a priority basis so that
the manufacturing and other sectors do not suffer. The courses
on demand related to latest Technologies and needs of the Industry
such as Mining, Textile, Pharmacy, Automobile, Aviation Civil
Engineering, and Construction Technology and hence their G
enhancement in Intake may be considered in the State, while
keeping in view of the 14 Thrust Areas as mentioned in Para 5,
Page 14 of this Plan. This is also keeping in view that the Pharma
city, Textile hub, Fabcity, ITIR, IT Hubs, etc. are emerging in
Telangana State.”
H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A At the same time in the conclusions and recommendations made
by the Government in perspective plan, it has been pointed out that AICTE
may declare a holiday on the establishment of new technical institutions
for the academic year 2018-19. This holiday applies not only to the
establishment of new engineering colleges but may also be extended
inter alia to B-Pharmacy institutions. It was also pointed out that in case
B
the Pharmacy Council of India has not accorded the approval, AICTE
should not grant approval to the Pharmacy colleges. It was inter alia
mentioned in the recommendations that new programmes may be
sanctioned in Mining, Granite, Textile, Pharmacy, Automobile etc. based
on “new technologies”. However, it was not the case, that course would
C be based on new technology. Following is the relevant extract of the
conclusions and recommendations made by the State:
“6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Thus, the various concerns that arise from all the above data are
summarized below for the consideration of the All India Council
D of Technical Education:-
Is su e R e com m e nd a tio n
• Th e A IC T E h as b e e n sa nc tio nin g the • T he A IC TE m a y th us de c la re a ho lida y
C ol le ge s rou tin el y e ve r y ye a r w itho ut on th e es ta blis hm en t o f N e w T e c hn ica l
a ct ua lly a s se ssin g th e ‘ N e e d’ of the In stit utio ns from th e Ac a d e mic Y e a r
Sta te. W ith a m as siv e n um be r o f su c h 20 18 -1 9. T h e h olid a y a pp lie s n ot o nly
C ol le ge s e sta b lish e d in the S ta te , th e re w ith re g a rd to the e stab lishm e nt of N e w
is a s ev e re s ho rta g e of q ualif ie d E ng ine er ing C olle g e s in the S tate bu t
E Te a c hi ng f ac ulty , wh ic h is s e rio us ly m a y a lso b e exte n de d to B.Pha rm ac y ,
a ffe c ting the Q u a lity o f Ed uca tio n M B A /M C A In stitu tio ns.”
off er e d by m a n y o f the se i nstit utio ns.
Mo reo ve r , it is ob se rv e d th a t a la r ge
nu mb er of se a ts a re f a llin g v a c a nt
e ve ry ye a r as the to ta l nu mb e r of se a ts
a va ila bl e is f a r m o re th a n th e ta k er s.
D uring the y e ar 2 01 6-17 fo r i nsta n c e ,
the re a re a b out 32 78 4 se a ts a n d d urin g
F 20 17 -1 8, th e re ar e 2 93 67 se a ts tha t
rem a ine d v a ca n t i n th e E n gin e e rin g
c ou rse (b as e d on the a f fili ati ons ) .
W ith p oo r a dm issi ons , th e ‘fin a nc ia l
via b ility’ in r un nin g se v e ral c ol leg e s is
be c om in g a prob le m a nd thu s m a kin g
C ol le ge s to o ffe r po or Q ua lity of
Ed uca tio n, w hic h is to ta lly
un de sira bl e. In fa c t, in se v e ra l
G C ol le ge s, th e a d m is sion s d ur in g la st
ye a r an d th is y e ar in En gin e e rin g a n d
MC A pr og r am m e s a re ju st sin gle
dig its. T h is situ ati on h a s l ed to a n
un he a lth y c om pe titio n a m o ng the
C ol le ge s f or a dmi ssio ns b y w oo in g the
stu de nts wi th a ll so rts o f f a lse
prom ise s. T his i s hig hly harm ful to the
Pro fes sio nal E du c ati ona l S y ste m in
H the Sta te .
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 119
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

“OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS A
In view of all the above and to improve the Quality of Education
in Private, Unaided Colleges in the State of Telangana, it is
recommended that:
• New Programmes may be sanctioned such as Mining, Granite,
Textile, Pharmacy, Automobile, Civil Eng. Construction Technology B
based on New Technologies and the needs of the Industry keeping
in view the 14 Thrust Areas mentioned in Para 5 of Page 14 of
this Plan.”
20. Admittedly it is not a case of new technology to be adopted
for the proposed course of D-Pharma by the college in question. Thus, C
the State had put up a moratorium for Pharmacy courses also. It is
significant to note that in the conclusions and recommendations, it was
observed that AICTE had permitted imbalanced growth of the institutions
in the area which could be avoided. In fact, we see that such an expert
body often ignores such relevant factors which makes action arbitrary. D
21. The decision taken by the State Government to impose a
moratorium as apparent from facts reflected in perspective plan is based
on a survey and supported by the data. Considering the fact that seats
are going abegging. Even in 2017-18 in the Pharmacy course, data has
been given in the SLP that among 56 colleges affiliated to the University, E
30 were in the city of Hyderabad and out of total 1630 seats, 173 had
remained vacant. Thus, it is apparent that a large number of seats
remained vacant. Not more than 30 seats can be allotted to one institution.
In the circumstances, the observation of the High Court that it was for
the institution to worry and consider the viability and it was not for the
University or State Government to take same into consideration, is F
completely a flimsy and impermissible reason employed. The mushroom
growth of educational institutions cannot be permitted. The observation
made by the High Court that unfit institution will automatically shut down
the courses is not the judicious approach warranted in such matters. It is
not only that the requirement of the locality should exist but it has to be G
ensured that only the standard educational institutions should come up
and once they come up, they should be able to survive. A large number
of Institutions are not to be opened up to die an unnatural death on the
principle of survival of the fittest and due to non-availability of teachers/
students. Standard of education cannot be compromised and sacrificed
H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A by permitting institutions to come up in a reckless manner without there
being any requirement for them at a particular place. There is a need to
strengthen the existing system of education not to make it weak by further
complicating the issues by wholly unwarranted approach as the one
adopted by the High Court. It cannot be left at the choice of the institution
to open the course whenever or wherever they desire. The High Court
B
has also erred in observing that the seats remaining vacant could not be
the relevant criteria for refusal of NOC.
22. Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents as referred to the decision in State of T.N v. Adhiyaman
Educational & Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104, to contend that
C once the field is occupied by the AICTE Act enacted under Entry 66
List I, the State Legislation falling under Entry 25 List III to the extent it
is in conflict with the Central Legislation, would be void. In case of
repugnancy between legislation made by Parliament and that made by
the State Legislation on a subject covered under List III, the Central
D Legislation shall prevail and to that extent, the State Legislation shall be
void unless it is saved by Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The expression
coordination used in Entry 66 has been considered by the Court to mean
harmonization with a view to forging a uniform pattern for a concerted
action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It
is further observed that whether the State law is repugnant to the Central
E Act under Entry 25 will depend upon the facts of each case. Under the
AICTE Act, the Council has been established for coordinated and
integrated development of the technical education system at all levels
throughout the country. It is required to ensure proper maintenance of
norms and standards in the technical education system. The norms and
F standards to be prescribed for the technical education intend to ensure
the growth of technical education in all parts of the country. The norms
and standards have to be reasonable, adaptable, attainable and
maintainable by institutions throughout the country. When it comes to
such a matter, the provisions of the State Act which impinge upon the
provisions of the Central Act are void and therefore unenforceable. So
G far as the matters which fall under Section 10 of the AICTE Act is
concerned, in case of an institute imparting technical education, the Central
Act has to prevail. At the same time, this Court in the aforesaid decision
has observed that provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation
of technical colleges like the engineering colleges and the conditions for
H grant and continuation of such affiliation by the University shall, however,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 121
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

remain operative but the conditions for affiliation will have to be in A
conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council in
respect of the matter entrusted to it under Section 10 of the AICTE/
Central Act. The Court further observed that so far as technical
institutions are concerned, the norms and the standards and the
requirements for their recognition and affiliation which may be laid down
B
by the State Government and the University should not be in conflict and
inconsistent with those laid down by the Council under the Central Act.
23. In Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute case
(supra), the power of the State Government to grant permission to start
a technical institute that is an Engineering College in the State of Tamil
Nadu came up for consideration. College was functioning and a report C
was received from the Director of Technical Education after inspection
regarding lack of infrastructural facilities. The High Power Committee
in its report stated that conditions imposed by the Government were not
fulfilled. The Director, Technical Education issued a show cause notice
asking the College to explain why the permission granted by the D
Government to start the college should not be withdrawn. The High
Power Committee also resolved to reject the request of the Trust regarding
provisional affiliation for 1989-90. Questioning the same a writ petition
was filed. It was held that the State Government had no power to
cancel the permission granted to the Trust to start the College. It was
required to be canceled under the AICTE Act. It was observed that E
duty was imposed on the Council for recognizing or de-recognizing any
technical institution in the country.
24. In Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute case
(supra), question arose as to the power of the State Government and the
University respectively to de-recognize and disaffiliate an Engineering F
College. Considering Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III, this
Court observed that coordination and determination of standards in
institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical
institutions has always remained the special preserve of Parliament.
Considering the constitution of Council under the AICTE Act, it was a G
representative body of various States and Union Territories and the
Council functions are enjoined under Section 10 of the AICTE Act. This
Court opined that Council has been established to promote the qualitative
improvement of education in relation to planned quantitative growth.
Norms and standards are set by the Council so as to prevent lopsided or
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A an isolated development of technical education in the country.
Unnecessarily high norms or standards, say for admission to the technical
institution or to pass the examination may not only deprive a vast majority
of the people the benefit of the education and the qualification but would
also result in concentrating technical education in the hands of the affluent
and elite group and ultimately result in depriving the country of a large
B
number of otherwise deserving technical personnel. This Court has
considered the provisions of the State Act and the provisions of the
Central Act in various areas and in particular allocation and disbursal of
grants. This Court observed:
“27. The provisions of the State Act enumerated above show that
C if it is made applicable to the technical institutions, it will overlap
and will be in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act in
various areas and, in particular, in the matter of allocation and
disbursal of grants, formulation of schemes for initial and in-service
training of teachers and continuing education of teachers, laying
D down norms and standards for courses, physical and institutional
facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instruction
assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for
charging tuition and other fees, granting approval for starting new
technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or
programmes, taking steps to prevent commercialisation of technical
E education, inspection of technical institutions, withholding or
discontinuing grants in respect of courses and taking such other
steps as may be necessary for ensuring the compliance of the
directions of the Council, declaring technical institutions at various
levels and types fit to receive grants, the Constitution of the Council
F and its executive Committee and the Regional Committees to carry
out the functions under the Central Act, the compliance by the
Council of the directions issued by the Central Government on
questions of policy etc. which matters are covered by the Central
Act. What is further, the primary object of the Central Act, as
discussed earlier, is to provide for the establishment of an All India
G Council for Technical Education with a view, among others, to
plan and coordinate the development of technical education system
throughout the country and to promote the qualitative improvement
of such education and to regulate and properly maintain the norms
and standards in the technical education system which is a subject
H within the exclusive legislative field of the Central Government as
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 123
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

is clear from Entry 66 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule. A
All the other provisions of the Act have been made in furtherance
of the said objectives. They can also be deemed to have been
enacted under Entry 25 of List III. This being so the provisions of
the State Act which impinge upon the provisions of the Central
Act are void and, therefore, unenforceable. It is for these reasons
B
that the appointment of the High-Power Committee by the State
Government to inspect the respondent-Trust was void as has been
rightly held by the High Court.”
The Court has observed that the State Act which impinges upon
the provisions of the Central Act has to be held to be void. In the case,
C
the issue was of derecognition. The power of the recognition of institution
is squarely reserved under the Central Act i.e., AICTE Act. Thus, it
would have power to derecognition also and for the purpose, the procedure
has been given in the AICTE Act. Thus, in Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute, the factual situation was totally different. In that
context, the discussion has been made about the provisions of Section D
10 and the provisions of the State Act of Tamil Nadu. The provisions in
State Act of 1982 are not repugnant to AICTE Act. The vires of
provisions and validity of Act of 1982 has not been questioned and
otherwise, also there is no room to accept the submission that the
provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 1982 are inoperative.
E
25. In Jaya Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner &
Secretary to Government of Higher Education Department,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, (2000) 5 SCC 231, relied on by the
respondents, question arose for consideration whether under Clause 9(7)
of the Kerala University First Statute, which provided that Syndicate
F
has the right to decide about the affiliation to be granted or not after
considering the views of the Government. The provisions .which came
up for consideration have been referred to :
“20. The only provision relied on before us by the State Government
which according to its learned senior counsel, amounted to a
salutary requirement of ‘approval’ of the State Government, was G
the one contained in Clause 9(7) of the Kerala University First
Statute. It reads as follows:
(9) Grant of affiliation: - (1)-(6)...

H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A (7) After considering the report of the Commission and the report
of the local inquiry, if any, and after making such further inquiry
as it may deem necessary, the Syndicate shall decide, after
ascertaining the view of the Government also, whether the
affiliation be granted or refused, either in whole or part. In case
affiliation is granted, the fact shall be reported to the Senate at its
B
next meeting:
It will be noticed that Clause 9(7) of the statute required that
before the University took a decision on “affiliation”, it had to
ascertain the “views “ of the State Government.”
C (emphasis supplied)
As the provisions of Clause 9(7) of the Statute merely required
the University to obtain the views of the State Government, that could
not be characterized as requiring the approval of the State Government.
This Court also opined that the question of affiliation was a different
D matter and was not covered by the Central Act. On considering the
provisions under Clause 9(7) of Kerala University First Statute, this Court
held that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval
of the State Government even if there was one, it would be repugnant to
the AICTE Act. The decision is based on the provisions of Clause 9(7).

E 26. The provisions contained in Section 20 of the Act of 1982
involved in the instant case are different and its validity vis-à-vis to AICTE
Act has already been upheld by this Court. Apart from that, it has not
been pointed out that in the exercise of powers under Section 10 of
Central Act, norms have been fixed by the AICTE as to how many
colleges should function at a particular city/place. Definitely the State
F Government and the University, in the absence of any such norms/rules
having been framed by the AICTE can always have their say as per
applicable statutory provisions or policy. In the instant case, Section 20
of Act of 1982, enables Universities to grant no objection certificate
after considering the local requirement and as no guidelines in this regard
G have been framed by the AICTE, it cannot be said to be an exercise of
power against the norms fixed by AICTE. Consequently, no repugnancy
arises. The mushroom growth of the institutions cannot be permitted,
was rightly pointed out in the perspective plan. A large number of
institutions have already been permitted to function in the State by the
Central Bodies. It is painful to note that at several places mushroom
H
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 125
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

growth of the institutions had been permitted by such bodies in an illegal A
manner. In case there is no check or balance and the power is exercised
in an unbridled reckless manner, the sufferer is going to be the standard
of education. At the same time, there is a necessity of good institutions
with new technology, but at the same time mushroom growth of the
substandard institutions cannot be permitted. There has to be a
B
requirement of educational institutions in the locality and that is one of
the main considerations.
27. The counsel appearing for the respondents were not able to
point out any of the provisions in the AICTE Act and rules for adjudging
requirement of the locality have been framed by the Council. In the
absence of guidelines or norms framed to check the mushroom growth C
of the institutions, the university cannot be deprived of considering the
said aspect. The State Government had also sent a communication to
AICTE regarding the alarming increase in the number of technical
educational institutions in the area in question and imbalanced growth.
The decision of State has been taken in an objective manner and the D
same is based on the consideration of data and could not be said to be
irrational or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever. The policy decision of
the State Government cannot be said to be illegal and on that basis, the
University has taken the decision in terms of Section 20 of the Act of
1982.
E
28. In State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Shastra Mahavidyalaya, (2006) 9 SCC 1, question arose for
consideration as to the power of the Government of Maharashtra as it
refused to issue no objection certificate for starting new BEd college for
the academic year 2005-06 in view of the provisions of National Council
for Teacher Education Act (NCTE Act). Though the permission was F
granted by the Council under Section 14 of the NCTE Act to start the
college. This Court held that university was bound to implement a decision
of the NCTE Act and grant affiliation in accordance therewith irrespective
of the bar under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
This Court also observed that it does not imply that under Sections 82 G
and 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 were null and void.
They would not apply to the case but in other appropriate courses. This
Court observed that:
“61. Interpreting the statutory provisions, this Court held that by
enacting Section 10A, Parliament had made “a complete and H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A exhaustive provision covering the entire field for the establishment
of a new medical college in the country”. No further scope is left
for the operation of the State Legislation in the said field which
was fully covered by the law made by Parliament. The Court,
therefore, held that the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of
the State Act which required prior permission of the State
B
Government for establishing a medical college was repugnant to
Section 10A of the Central Act and to the extent of repugnancy,
the State Act would not operate. The Court noted that in the scheme
that had been prepared under the Regulations for the establishment
of new medical colleges, one of the conditions for the qualifying
C criteria laid down was ‘essentiality certificate’ regarding the
desirability and of having the proposed college at the proposed
location which should be obtained from the State Government.
The proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, therefore,
must be construed only as regards “proposed location”. The
‘essentiality certificate’, however, could not be withheld by the
D
State Government on any ‘policy consideration’ inasmuch as the
policy and the matter of establishment of new medical college
rested with the Central Government alone.
62. From the above decisions, in our judgment, the law appears to
be very well settled. So far as co-ordination and determination of
E standards in institutions for higher education or research, scientific
and technical institutions are concerned, the subject is exclusively
covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution
and State has no power to encroach upon the legislative power of
Parliament. It is only when the subject is covered by Entry 25 of
F List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution that there is a concurrent
power of Parliament as well as State Legislatures and appropriate
Act can be by the State Legislature subject to limitations and
restrictions under the Constitution.”
29. In Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
G (supra) Court further observed that proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 5
must be construed with respect to “proposed location”. The essentiality
certificate could not be dealt with by the State Government on any policy
consideration inasmuch as the policy and the matter of establishment of
new medical college rested with the Central Government alone. In the
instant case, it is mainly with respect to local area i.e., the city of
H
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV. v. SANGAM 127
LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Hyderabad which power has been saved by this Court even in the A
aforesaid dictum.
30. In Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara
Swamigal Medical Education & Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (1996) 3 SCC 15, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Medical University
Act, 1987 came up for consideration. The provisions of the Act are B
different. For the establishment of a Medical College, State Essentiality
Certificate and affiliation from University is required. In the instant
case, the matter is about the proposed location and affiliation out of 36
Pharmacy colleges in the State of Telangana and 30 are located in
Hyderabad city alone which are more than adequate in number. Thus,
rightly decision has been taken not to start another new course at the C
proposed location at Hyderabad city. Thus, the said decision is no avail
to espouse the cause of the respondents.
31. The respondents have also referred to the decision in Rungta
Engineering College, Bhilai v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekananda
Technical University, (2015) 11 SCC 291, wherein question came up D
for consideration with respect to the power of examining authority i.e.,
University and State Government, to withdraw provisional affiliation or
to decline grant of affiliation. The decision was taken to disapprove
provisional affiliation granted to the college. This Court observed that
the objections on the basis of which action was taken squarely fall within E
the sweep of one or the other areas which only AICTE has exclusive
jurisdiction to deal with. These shortcomings ought to have been brought
to the notice of AICTE to take appropriate action against the college.
On facts of the instant case, the decision cannot be applied as it is not
the case of shortcomings.
F
32. Resultantly, the appeal deserves to be allowed, same is hereby
allowed. We quash the impugned judgment and order. No costs.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.

G

H