Holding

The Supreme Court extended the online counselling deadline to 20‑21 October 2014, upheld the University's remedial plan, and affirmed that AICTE prior approval is mandatory and the fixed admission schedule must be strictly adhered to.

Summary

The petitioners sought an extension of the time schedule for online counselling and admission to technical courses of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, arguing that many seats remained vacant and AICTE had not adhered to its prescribed timetable. The University had issued a notification for supplementary counselling, which was later withdrawn, leading to multiple writ petitions. The Court examined the statutory framework under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the role of AICTE versus universities, emphasizing the need for a fixed, unalterable admission schedule. Weighing the larger public interest, the Court accepted the University's proposed solution and extended the online counselling deadline to 20‑21 October 2014, while imposing specific conditions on admission and attendance. It also reiterated that AICTE prior approval is mandatory for technical courses and that the schedule fixed in Parshvanath Charitable Trust case must be followed in subsequent years. The writ petitions were consequently disposed with the directions issued.

Issues considered

The necessity and legality of extending the counselling and admission schedule for technical courses.
Whether AICTE's prior approval is mandatory for conducting technical courses and admissions.
The jurisdiction of AICTE vis‑à‑vis universities under the AICTE Act and UGC Act.
The permissibility of supplementary counselling after the cut‑off date.
The applicability of the schedule fixed in Parshvanath Charitable Trust case to future years.

Legislation cited

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987s. 10(k), s. 11, s. 2(h)
University Grants Commission Act, 1956

Subjects

AICTEtechnical educationcounsellingadmission schedulepublic interestuniversityextension of timeSupreme Courtwrit petitionArticle 32

Judgment

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 364

A VARUN SAINI & ORS;
v.'
GURU GOBI ND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA UNIVERSITY
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 853 of 2014)
B
OCTOBER 16, 2014
[DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

.
Education/Educational Institutions:
.
c All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
Technical courses - Counseling and admission by
authorities of the University - Adherence of schedule
pertaining to approval by All India Council for Technical
Education - Notification by the University to provide a fresh
0 round of counseling (supplementary counseling) after the cut-
off date - Challenged to, upto Supreme Court- Subsequently
Notification withdrawn - Thereafter, writ petition filed seeking
extension of time schedule which would give rise to
conducting of another round of counseling- Held: Weighing
E the issue on the scales of larger public interest in the facts of
·case and the relief sought, the solution offered by the
University accepted as that would subserve the cause of
justice - Certain directions issued as regards counseling and
admission.
F Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Weighing the issue on the scales of
larger public interest in the obtaining factual matrix, the
relief sought and the plausible solution offered by the ·
University can be accepted as that would subserve the
G cause of justice. In these courses, the university can
keep the pace. Such an agonizing situation inviting
national waste could have been avoided had AICTE and
the University would have been more careful, cautious
and circumspect. However, to do complete justice,
H
364
VAR UN SAINI v. GURU GOBI ND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 365
UNIVERSITY

certain directions have been issued in the larger public A
interest and ultimately subserve the cause of
justice.[Para 24, 25, 26][388-F-G; 389-B, D]
1.2 It was submitted that the problem occurs every
year, for despite llays for counselling are .fixed, adequate
number of students are not called for counselling, as a 8
result of which, many students who have cleared the
CET do not get an opportunity to undertake the
counselling and eventually the admission does not take
place. It is in the sphere of university administration. But
when the problem is recurrent, the University is told to C
hold counselling in such a manner within the stipulated
time in the schedule so that all the seats are filled up if
there are eligible candidates for such counselling. The
University cannot behave like an alien to the national
interest. It is imperative to state, a_concerted effort has D
to be made by the AICTE and the University to avoid
recurrence of this kind of piquant and agonising
situations. Perceived from any perspective, it does not
augur a healthy situation. Had the AICTE functioned
within the time frame in respect of the process the matter E
would not have given rise to such a situation. Similarly,
had the University conducted the counselling with
utmost responsibility ~eeping .in view the number of
seats that were available in the approved institutions and
the number of students that have qualified in the F
Common Entrance Test, possibly the gravi\yl <)f.the
problem would have been less. [Para 27][p9-D-G;
390-B-D]
1.3 In a State of good governance, a problem is
taken note of so that appropriate and timely steps are G
taken to avoid any recurrence. The authorities who are
incharge of giving approval, preparing syllabus, imparting
education and carrying, on such other activities, are
required to behave with responsibility. Lack of concern
is only indicative of the beginning of destruction. That H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A cannot be allowed to occur...Therefore, the AICTE and
the University are cautioned to see to it that things are
done on time following the fixed time schedule. Time is
extended for carrying out the on-line counselling till 21 ••
of October, 2014. The students who hav.e already taken
B admission in colleges shall not be permitted to
participate in the supplementary counselling, and the'
students who are attending classes in any institution
without the counseling shall be deemed not to have been
admitted and, therefore; they will be eligible to participate
c · in the on lin'e counseling. The students those are
selected-for admission "and allotted'to the respective
colleges on merits'siiall
·
take
· r
admission forthwith.r The ·
~ i

students after·r
being
~
allotted to
..
a. particular college. shall ,
be put in a separate Section as they shall be required to
o attend extra-working classes. The educational
institutions have to seriously impart education with the
help and aid of teachers,· if necessary, by· providing
adequate means and facili~tion for the teachers·. The
University shall constitute a team to see Whether classes
E are held or not. Unless a' student gets the· requisite
attendance of 75% on the basis of the computation held,
regard being had to the entire teaching' days, he shall
not be permitted to appear in the examination. The time
schedule originally fixed in Parshavnath Charitable Trt}St
F case shall remain in force and be religiously followed in
' 28, 29][390-E-G; 391-B-H]
the subsequent years: [Paras
' . '

Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council
for Technical Education 2012 (11) SCR 1057 :
(2013) 3 SCC 385; Association of Management
G of Private Colleges v. All India Council for
Technical Education and others (2013) 8 SCC
271; Bharathidasan University v. All India Council
for Technical Education 2001 (3 ) Suppl.
SCR 253 : (2001\ 8 sec 676; T.M. Pai
H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 367
UNIVERSITY

Foundation v. State of Karnataka 2002 (3) Suppl. A
SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 • referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2012 (11) SCR 1057 referred to Para 3
(2013) 8 sec 211 referred to Para 7 B
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 253 referred to Para 7
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to Para·7
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
853 of 2014. C
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 854, 855, 857, 883, 867, 884 of
0
2014.
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, C.A. Sundaram, Gop~I Jain, Amit
Sibal, Parag Tripathi, Ravi Sikri, Sr. Advs., Ravikiesh K. Sinha,
Rakesh Sinha, Abhijat P. Medh, Mohit Chadha, Anil Kumar
Tandale, Sanjay Sharawat, Ratish Kumar, M.M.S. Attri, Divya E
Roy, Vaibhav Kalra, Ms. Sumedha Dang, Ms. Mahima Gupta,
Anish Chawla, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Amitesh Kumar, Ms. N.
Annapoorani, Advs with them for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Education is the spine of any F
civilised society. Formal education has its own significance,
for it depends upon systemic imparting of learning regard being
had to the syllabus prescribed for the course and further
allowing space for cultivation by individual endeavour. The G
sacrosanctity of formal education gains more importance in
the field of technical studies because theory, practical training
and application in the field cumulatively operate to make a
student an asset to the country and, in a way, enables him to
achieve excellence as contemplated under Article 51Aofthe
H
'368- SUPREME COURf'REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Constitution. The natural corollary, in the ultimate eventuate,
is the acceleration of the' growth of the nation. Bu( a pregnant
·one, when an attitude of apathy or lackadaisical propensity or
proclivity of procrastination of the statutory authorities creeps
in as a consequence of which the time schedule' meant for
B approval of the educational institutions and commencement
· of the courses is not adhered to, a feeling of devouring
darkness seems to.reign supreme as if ''things fall apart". There
is a feeling of discomfiture - how to' find out a sol vat ion to the
agonizing problem in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article
C 32 of the Constitution .of India, for there are some compelling
r~asons to do so to protect the nationai interest as well as not
to scuttle the aspirations of young students or to comatose
their hopes
. .
stating .that all cannot be well in the State of Denmark
and there should not be a Sisyphean endeavour. We are
o ' constrained to commence with such a prologue as the present
batch of writ petitions pertains to counselling and admission
in certain categories of courses which are approved and
controlled from many a spectrum regard being had to the
sustenance of standard in education by the.All India Council
E for Technical Education (for brevity, "AICTE"), and also some
categories of courses which are directly governed by the
statutes and regulations ofthe University, namely, Guru Gobind
· Singh lndraprastha University (hereinafter referred to as "the
University") in the backdrop of extension of time schedule fixed
F by this Court in respect of technical courses.
_ 2. The controversy involved in this batch of cases has a
past, which requires to be exposited with requisite respect for
chronology. We have already indicated at the beginning that
in all these cases, we are concerned with the a_dherence to .
G schedule pertaining to approval by AICTE, counselling and
admission by the authorities of the University. That being the
centripodal issue, our advertence shall remain restricted to
the said arena. At this juncture, we·may state that at the
appropriate stage, we shall refer to some necessitous facts·
H from W.P.(C) No. 853/2014.
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 369
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

3. We are pbligated to sit in a time machine to appreciate A
how the schedule was fixed by the AICTE under the All India
CouncilforTechnical EducatioriAct, 1987 (for brevity, "the 1987
- Act) and the Regulations framed thereunder and how the said
.schedule was appositely re-fixed by this Court inParshvanath
Charitable Trust Vs. All India Council for Technical B
Education'. In the said decision, a two-Judge Bench scanning
the anatomy of the 1987 Act, observed thus:
"17. The provisions ofthe All India Council for Technical
Education Act, 1987 (for short 'the AICTE Act') are
intended to improve the technical education system C
throughout the country. The various authorities under the
AICTE Act have been given exclusive responsibility to
coordinate and determine the standards. of higher
education. It is a general power given to evaluate,
. harmonise and secure proper' relationship to any project D
of national importance. Such coordinated action in higher
education with proper standard is of pararriount
importance to the national progress.
18. The provisions of the AICTE Act, including its E
Preamble, make it abundantly clearthatAICTE has been
established under the Act for coordinated and integrated
development of the technical education system at all levels
throughout the country and is enjoined to promote
qualitative improvement of such education in relation to F
planned quantitative growth. The AICTE is required to
regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and
standards in technical education system. AICTE is to
further evolve suitable performance appraisal system for
technical institutions and universities incorporating norms G
and mechanisms in enforcing their accountability. It is
required to provide guidelines for admission of students
and has the power to withhold or discontinue grants to
such technical institutions where norms and standards
1
(2013) 3 sec 385 H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 14 S.C.R.

A laid down by it and directions given by it from time to
time are not followed. The duty and responsibility cast
on AICTE implies that the norms and standards to be.
set should be such as would prevent isolated
development of education in the count,Y.
• • I'
B 19. Section 10 of the AICTE Act enumerates various
powers and functions of AICTE as also its duties and
obligations to take steps towards fulfilment of the same.·
One such power as envisaged in Section 1O(k) is to

c "grant approval for starting new technical institutions
and for introduction of new courses or programmes in
consultation with the agencies concerned".
It is important to see thatAICTE is empowered to inspect
or cause to inspei::t.anytechnical institution in clause (p))
D of Section 10 without any reservation whatsoever.
However, when it comes to the question of universities,
it is confined and limited to ascertaining the financial
needs or its standards of teaching, examination and
research. The inspection may be made or caused to be
E made of any department or departments only ard that
too, in such manner as may be prescribed, as envisaged
in Section 11 of,theAICTEAct. _
20. All these vitally important aspects go to show that the
Council (AICTE) created under the AICTE Act is not
F intended to be· an authority either superior to or to
supervise and control .the universities and thereby
superimpose itself upo.fi such universities merely for the
reason that they are imparting teaching in technical
education or programmes in any of their departments or
G units. A careful scanning of th~ provisions of the AICTE
Act and the provisions of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956.in juxtaposition, will show that the
role of AICTE vis-a-vis' the universities is only advisory,
recommendatory and one of providing guidance, thereby
H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA . 371
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.)

subserving the cause of maintaining appropriate A
standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority
empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself. ·
Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in
· the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash
Rahangdale [(2012) 2 SCC 425), State of Tamil Nadu B
.v. Adhiyaman Educational &Research Institute [(1995)
4 SCC 104) and Bharathidasan University v. Al/ India
Council for Technical Education[(2001) 8 SCC 676)."
4. The Court referred to various other facets and adverted
to All India Council For Technical Education (Grant of Approval C
for Starting New Technical Institutions, Introduction of Courses
or Programmes and Approval of Intake Capacity of Seats for
the Courses or Programmes) Regulations, 1994 and noted
the Schedule to said Regulations which read as under:-
-. . ..
- --- D
SI. Stage of µ-ocessing ai:plication Last date
t-.b. by which
• the
. processing
should be
complete:!. E
(1) (2) (3)
81
1. For receivirg proposals by Bureau 31
RC December
2. For Bureau RC to screen the F
application and (a) to return the
incompete applications to the
applicarts, and (b) to forward the
applications to (i) State Government .
concerned (ii) University or State
Board concerned, for their comments G
QiO Regional Officer to a-range \Asits
by Expert Committees, and (iv) .
BLreaus MPCD, BOS and RA for
their comments
H
..
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 3. For receiving the comments 15111 March
from (I) the State Government
(ii) the Universtty or the State
Board, and (iiO the Regional .
committee based ·on the
,B Expert Commtttee's report,
and (iv) from the Bureaus
MPCD, BOS and RA .
4. For consideration 'of the 31 51 March
comments from the State
C Governments, Universtties or
State Boards, Regional
Committees, and Bureaus of
the Council by the State level
Committee
D 5. For recommendations to be
made by the Central Task
Force
6. For communicating the final • 30 111 April
decision io the State
E Government or the University
Grants Commission, under
intimation to the Regional
Office, Director of Technical
Education, applicant,
F University or State Board
5. After reproducing the schedule, the Court ruled that
adherence to the same is mandatory and not directory, for non-
adherence of the schedule can result in serious consequences
and can jeopardise not only the interest of the college students
G but also the maintenance of proper standards of technical
education. It further observed that the authorities concerned,
particularly AICTE should ensure proper and timely action upon
the application submitted to it and it must respond to the
applicant within a reasonable time period and should not allow
H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 373
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.] ··

the matter to be dragged till the final date giving rise to A
avoidable peculiarities by all stakeholders. After so stating,
the Court also took note of.the act that there seem to be some
variation in the schedule issued under Regulation 8(15) and
the duties reflected in the Handbook. After noticing that, the
two-Judge Bench opined that the admission schedule should B
be declared once and for all rather than making it a yearly
declaration. Emphasis was laid on the consistency and
smoothness in admission process. It has also been stated
that there has to be a fixed and unaltered time schedule for
admission to the colleges so that the students know with C
certainty and well in advance the admission schedule that is
to be followed and on the basis of which they can exercise
their choice relating to college or the course. The Court
referred to the schedule that was submitted before it for
admission for the academic year 2013-2014. Eventually, the D
Court fixed an appropriate schedule which is as follows:
"The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as follows:
- . ·- - - ----- --- - . -· -
Event Schedue
Conduct of entranoe In tl"e month of May E
exam ration (Al EEE/State
·CET/Maragarent quota
exarrs, ac.) ..

D:!claration d result of ·ai or before 5" June
qualifying exanin1iion (1Zh F
exam or similar) and
entranoe examiration
1st round d counselling/ To be completed oo or
a:lrrission for alctment of befcre 30th July
seats G
t'" rourd of counsellirg fer To be completed CJl or
alctment d seats befcre 1oth July ·
U3st rourd of counsellirg To be completed CJl or
for anotment of seats · befcre 20th Juy
H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Last date for admitting 30th JL.ly
candidates in seats other Hcwever, any number of
than alldted above rounds fer counsernng
tould be conducted
dependng oo local
requi rernerits, bli all the
B rounds shall be completed
. '. I
before '3Jth July
Commencement of academic 1" August
session
Last date up to v.hich 15th August
c· studerits can be admitted
against vacancies arising due
to any reason (no studerit
shwld be admitted in any
instltliion after the last date
under any quota)
D
Last date r:i granting Cf 101h April
refusing approval byAICTE
Last date ri granting Cf 15m May
refusing approval t:ly<
· University/state Government
E
After fixing the schedule, the Court thought it appropriate
to rule that:
"42. The admission to academic courses should start,
as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The
F seats remaining vacant should again be duly notified and
advertised. All seats should be filled positively by 15th
August after which there shall be no admission, whatever
be the reason or ground.
43. We find that the above Schedule is in conformity with
G the affiliation/recognition schedule aforenoticed. They
both can co-exist. Thus, we approve these admission
dates and declare it to be the law which shall be strictly
adhered to by all conc~rned and none of the authorities
shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary these dates of
H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 375
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

admission. Certainty in this field is bound to serve the A
ends of fair, transparent and judicious method of grant of
admission and commencement of the technical courses.
Any variation is bound to adversely affect the
maintenance of higher standards of education and
systemic and proper completion of courses." B
7. At this stage, it is seemly to refer to a subsequent
decision in Association of Management of Private Colleges
Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others2.
In the said decision, certain educational institutions, being
aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court of Judicature C
of Madras, had approached this Court on the foundation that
the High Court had erroneously interpreted the 1987 Act, for
the High Court had opined that the University is not required to
take permission from AICTE, but its affiliated colleges are
required to do so. The High Court has further ruled that the D
appellant colleges therein should get their course of MCA
ratified by AICTE as per the prescribed format, which according
to the appellants, was in contravention of the settled.principles
of interpretation of statutes as stated in Bharathidasan
()niversity II. All India Council for Technical Education 3 . E
The two-Judge Bench referred to Parshvanath Charitable
Trust(supra), T.M. Pai Foundation II. State of Karnataka 4 ,
the definition of 'technical education' and 'technical institution'
in the dictionary clause of the Act and certain provisions of
University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Regulations F
framed under the said Act and came to hold as follows:
"52. . ...... the AICTE Act does not intend to be an ·
authority either superior or to supervise or control the
univ~rsities and thereby superimpose itself upon the said G
universities merely for the reason that it is laying down
certain teaching standards in technical education or
programmes formulated in any of the department or units.
2
(2013) s sec 211
'(2001) B sec 676
'(2002) s sec 481 H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A It is evident that while enacting theAICTEAct, Parliament
was fully alive to the existence of the provisions of the
UGC Act, 1956 particularly, the said provisions extracted
above. Therefore, the definition of "technical institution"
in Section 2(h) oftheAICTEActwhich authorizes AICTE
B to do certain things, special care has consciously and
·. deliberately been taken to make specific mention of
university, wherever and whenever AICTE alone was
expected to interact with a university and its departments
as well as constituent institutions and units. It was held
c after analyzing the provisio"n of Sections 10, 11 and 12
of the AICTEAct that the role of the inspection conferred
upon the AICTE vis-a-vis univer.sities is limited to the
purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms and
standards in the technical education system so as to
D conform to the standard laid down by it with no further or
direct control over such .universities or scope for any
direct action except bringing it to the notice of UGC. In
that background, this Court in Bharathidasan University
case made it very clear by making the observation that it
E has examined the scope of the enactment as to whether
theAICTE Act prevails over the UGCAct or the fact.of
competent entries fall in Entry 66 List I vis-a-vis Entry 25.
of List Ill of the VII Schedule of the Constitution.
53. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of
F Bharathidasan University case which are extracted
above makes it verY clear that this Court has exempted
universities, its colleges, constituent institutions and units
from seeking prior approval from AICTE. Also, from the
reading of paragraphs 19 and 20 of Parashvanath
G Chartitable Trust case it is made clear after careful
scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 that the role of
AICTE vis-a-vis universities is only advisory,
recommendatory and one of providing guidance and has
H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 377
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.)

no authority empowering it to issue or enforce any A
sanctions by itself."
8. After the aforesaid judgment was delivered, a writ
petition No. 895/2013 was filed which was taken up on
24.3.2014 wherein the Court passed the following order:
B
"Rule nisi.
Having regard to the important issue involved in
the Writ Petition, we think that it will be appropriate if the
matter is heard by a Bench of three Judges.
The matter may be listed accordingly within six C
months from today."
9. In SLP(C) No. 7277/2014, on 17.4.2014, the following
order came to be passed:
"In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of D
respondent No.1, i.e., All India Council for Technical
·Education (AICTE), it is stated that Approval Process
Handbook (2013-14) is presently in force and the same
has been extended and made applicable for the
Academic Year2014-15 as well. E
AICTE shall now proceed in accordance with
the Approval Process Handbook for the Academic Year
2014-15 insofar as the members of the petitioner
Association and all colleges and institutions situated F
similarly to the members of the petitioner Association _
are concerned and necessary orders shall be issued by
AICTE within ten days.
Prayer for interim relief is ordered accordingly."
10. In SLP(C) No. 7277/14, IA No. 2-3/2014 were filed. G
In the said applications, on 09.05.2014, a four-Judge bench,
passed the following order:
"The order dated 17.4.2014 passed by this Court is
clarified and it is.directed that prior approval of All India H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14S.C.R.

'
A Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is compulsory
and mandatory for conduct of a technical course including
the MBA/Management course by an existing affiliated
Technical College and also new Technical College which
will require affiliation by a University for conduct of its
B Technical Courses/Programmes for the academic year
2014-15.
The time given in the order dated 17.4.2014 is extended
by 10.6.2014.
c IA Nos. 2 & 3 of 2014 stand disposed of as above."
11. Thereafter, a bunch of writ petitions and I.A. No.6 in
SLP(C) No. 7277/2014 were filed. The Court referred to the
schedule in Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra) and
taking note of the stand oftheAICTE, directed as follows:
D
"In the application, the AICTE has averred that it has
received 7280 applications from existing technical
institutions in the country, of which 6751 applications have
been processed already and the remaining 529
applications are pending consideration as on 4th June,
E 2014. Since the exercise was of this magnitude, all
applications could not be processed so as to
comprehensively respond to the directions of this Court,
reproduced above. Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned
Additional Solicitor General, states that if time is
F extended by one week, all the remaining applications
shall also be processed by AICTE. The prayer in the Writ
Petitions is substantially the same since the stand of the
AICTE is that although, after due consideration, EOA for
Academic year 2014-15 is recommended, because of
G the deadline given by this Court, the approval cannot be
granted.
There can be no gainsaying that every eligible
student/ candidate desirous of participating in further
H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 379
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

education, especially where resources and institutions A
are available, should be accommodated so long as
academic standards are not undermined.
We are satisfied that if the respondent - AICTE is
granted seven more days within which to decide all
pending applications, these overriding interests shall be 8
addressed. It is in these circumstances that we modify
previous orders in the following manner:
The AICTE is granted seven days within which to
take a decision on all the applications pending before it. c
It shall first take up the applications in which it has already
expressed willingness to grant approvals, but have not
done so in deference of the Orders of this Court.
Thereafter, the concerned Universities/State Authorities/
Bodies which have the powers of granting affiliation shall
0
take a decision on that subject within one week. It is for
these reasons that the first round of counselling/
admission for allotment of seats which was to be
completed by 30th June, 2014 will now be completed by
15th July, 2014. The second round of counselling shall E
be completed by 22nd July, 2014 and the last round of
counselling shall be completed by 29th July, 2014. In
this manner, the date of commencement of the Academic
Session, as laid down by this Court above, shall not be
disturbed.
F
It is made clear that all the Colleges who have
been cleared for intake of students for the Academic Year
2014-2015, as envisaged in the process above, shall
be cleared and considered for admitting students for the
current Academic Year. Learned Senior Counsel G
appearing for the petitioners in some of the Writ Petitions
apprehends that the respondents may adhere to
Annexure P-7. We think that that would not be appropriate
in view of the orders contained herein."
H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R

A 12. In spite of the aforesaid order, the grievance, as
submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for
Union of India appearing on behalf of AICTE as well as for the
University still subsisted. In SLP(C) No, 21901/20.14, a two-.
Judge Bench, appreciating the core fact that the concerned
B institution had been granted approval way back in 2011 and
struggling to commence the first academic session, directed
as follows:-
"... We find it appropriate to direct the. respondents to
allow the petitioner to commence the academic session
c within one week from today by adhering to the different
steps laid down by this Court. The counselling shall be
conducted on the basis of the merit list prepared by the
concerned competent authority, for which a Notification
·shall positively be issued by tomorrow i.e. 14.08.2014.
D The students who have already been admitted to other
institutions, will not have the option to seek admission in
the petitioner-institution.
The counselling process, in terms of the directions
issued by this Court shall be completed by 19.08.2014,
E
and the admissions shall be finalised under all
circumstances by20.08.2014."
13. Further substantiating the reason, the Court observed:
"The reason for us to extend the schedule expressed by
F this Court in its earlier orders, is based on the fact, that·.
the institution in question i.e. the petitioner before this
Court had· assailed the action of the Anna University
be10Fe the High Court by filing a writ petition as far back
in 2013. It is only beca~se, the judicial process extended
G up to 21.07.2014 (when the impugned order was
passed) that the deadlines have been crossed. The last
date for finalising admissions has yet not crossed. The
denial of commencement of the academic session would
cause extensive financial loss to the petitioner, despite
H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 38.1.
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

the fulfilment of all essential norms. It is in these peculiar A
circumstances that the instant order has been passed."
14. As the chronology of events would further uncurtain
IA No. 46/2014 was filed in Parshvanath Charitable Trust
(supra) for extension of time and the Court, on 11.08.2014,
while dealing with the Schedule in respect of the State ofAndhra B
Pradesh and Telangana, directed as follows: "ii
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the fact that State ofTelangana
has been created recently on 2.6.2014 and both the c
States i.e. newly created State ofTelangana and the State
of Andhra Pradesh may face some difficulty to complete
the admission process within the time stipulated.
We allow the prayer. Both the States of Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh and the competent authorities will D
complete the coun~elling and admission in engineering
colleges and other institutions by 31st August, 2014 in
accordance with law. The extension of time will be
applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh and newly
. created State ofTelangana and notthe other State." . E
15. Be it noted, IA Nos. 50-56/2014 were filed in
Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra) case and the Court ·
adverting to the•earlier table and the table submitted by the
AICTE, issued the following directions:
F
"Earlier when the matter was taken up by this court on
' · 19th August, 2014 in I.A. No. 50,51 &52, the following
order was passed:
"The petitioners may file an additional affidavit
enclosing a chart showing the date they intend to (i) G
get counselling of students, (ii) admit the students,(iii)
start the course, (iv) number of classes to be attended
as per law (iv)the day when the course will be
completed as p_er the norms, (v) the month in which
H
.382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A admit card will be issued and (vi) the examination
schedule to commence.
Postthe matter on 25th August, 2014."
The aforesaid order was passed with a view to know
B whether the students will suffer if the period of counselling an
admission is extended and whether the petitioners will be in a
position to complete the sessions within time schedule.
The additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Applicant I.A. NO. 50/2014 showing therein details of the
C existing v Academic Calendar Year 2014-2015 which reads
as follows : '
---·--·-----·- ----- -- -- ·1 sr-·· - . ----- ------- - --- ----·· ----· - - - - - -
State ri aca:!emic of 'August No. ri • Days
session as per (University started considering 5 days a
Supreme Court their classes on 19th v..eek- Holidays*
D
August, 2014

Actual date of start of 2d" of Au;iust 71-06 = 65 teaching
classes days

Last ri teaching 29'" of November
E
Issue of Admit Card · · 1m of Dec (Admit card
- are issued on line)
.

Preparation 1m Dec-14".Dec 14 Days
F Leave for Exam
'
Start ci Semester 15" c:I December,
examination 2014

Erd ri Semester 10"' ct Jan., 2015
G examination

Start ri second 15"' ri January, 2015
semester

H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 383
UNIVERSITY[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

The Applicants have now proposed the academic A
calendar for admission in their Colleges/Institutions,
without loss of teaching days, making Saturdays as
teaching days :

Start ci a:aderric 1st of Septerrba" No. of Days
B
session considering 6 days a
wee< - f-blidays*
Last day of tea::hing 2lf' ·of Noventler 78-6 - 72
teaching days

Issue ci Adrrit Card 1st of Dec. (Mrit card
c
are issued on line)

Preparaion, Leave for 1" Dec-14" Dec 14 Days
Elcan
.
D
Start of Slmester 15'" of Decentler, a:J14
ecarrination

Erd of Slmester 1lT" of Jan., 2015
ecarrination
E
Start ci second 15'"of Januay, 2015
serrester •

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of other
applicants and AICTE submits that there is no objection F
if the Academic Calendar Year proposed b the applicant
- International Institute of Technology & Business,
.Sonepat and others in I.A. No. 50/2014 is allowed. It may
be allowed to be applied to other institutions who have
filed similar applications. " ·
G
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
we direct to implead the applicants as party to C.A. No.
9048/2012, extend the cut-off for counselling and
admission as fixed by the final judgment and order dated
13th December, 2012 passed in C.A. N0.9048/2012 by H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A · one week i.e. 5th September, 2014 with clear
understanding that they will admit the students and
complete the Session as per the time schedule shown
and recorded above.
This extension of time for G_ounselling and Admission
B shall be applicable to the Colleges/Institutions who have
filed the applications for impleading as the parties to the
present appeal and the Colleges and Institutions for
whom permission has been sought by AICTE."
c - 16. We have referred to the orders passed by this Court
in a sequential manner only to highlight that for the academic
year 2014-15 there was some cavil with regard to the
jurisdiction of AICTE till the four-Judge Bench by order dated ·
9.5.2014 clarified prior approval of AIGTE is compulsory and
0 mandatory for conduc.t of technical course including MBA/
Management course by exiting affiliated technical college and
also including technical college which would require affiliation
·by a university for conduct ofits technical process/programmes
for the academic year 2014-15. The fime schedule originally
E postulated in the Parshvanath case was extended regard
being had to the special features of each case..
17. In the case at hand it is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi that
the university had issued a notification on 28 . 8.2014 to provide
a fresh round of counselling (supplementary counselling) after
F 15.8.2014 which was the cut-off date. The said notification
issued by the university challenged before the High Court of
Delhi. The learned Single Judge issued notice in the Writ
Petition but did not pass an interim order. In lntra-CourtAppeal
the Division Bench by an order dated 3.9.2014 gave liberty to
G the universityto go ahead with the supplementary counselling
for non-AICTE courses/ non-NCTE courses and granted liberty
to move this court for extension of time. Assailing the
aforesaid .order Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24442 of 2014
was filed and this court on 8.9.2014 passed the following order:-
H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 385
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

.. "Issue notice. A
Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate for the respondent, on
caveat, has entered appearance and accepts notice.
We have been apprised, in the course of hearing of this
petition forthe purposes of admission, thatthe University B
has issued a notification dated 28.08.2014, which is prior
to the order passed by the High Court. The said
notification, as submitted by Mr. Sibal, is likely to affect
the schedule fixed by this Court for AICTE arid other
statutory authorities like, NCTE, etc. It is also urged at c
the Bar by virtue of this notification being worked out, the
students who have been admitted to a particular course,
may be dislodged or try their option for other courses as
.a consequence of which the educational institutions would
likely to face a hazard. Be that as it may, Mr. Maninder 0
Singh, learned ASG shall explain the impact and effect·
of the notification issued on 28.08.2014.
As an ad interim measure, it is directed there shall be
stay of operation of the order dated 3.09.2014 passed
by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in LPA No. 576/ E
2014 and th"e Notification referred to hereinabove.
Liston 12.09.2014."
When the matter was listed thereafter, a statement was
made by the counsel appearing for the university that the F ·
notification dated 28.8.2014 which was the subject matter of
the writ petition in the High Court was withdrawn. Taking note
of the said submission, the following order came to be passed.
"Heard Mr. Manin.der Singh learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the University. It is submitted by G
the learned Additional Solicitor General that the Universify
has taken a decision to withdraw th~ Notification dated
28thAugust, 2014.

H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2014] 14 S.C.R. ·

A In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by . ···
the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the
Writ Petition© No.5696/2014 pending in the High Court
of Delhi, is deemed to have been disposed of."
, r .
19. Thereafter the present batch of writ petitions have' .... ; ·
B been filed fundamentally for extension of time schedule which ' .
would logically give rise to conducting of another round of·
counselling. It is contended in the writ petition that more than ..
six thousand seats are vacant and there are thousand of.
students who are qualified in CET and there is no justification
C not to fill up the said seats. It is asseverated that due to no · ·
fault of the educational institutions which are self-financed are
likely to suffer enormous financial loss and the students who .
have cleared the entrance test and are meritorious would lose ·
one year. Be it stated, the notificatio11 issued by the university •
D covered the following courses:- ·
"(a) B,Tech/M. Tech. (Dual Degree)/B.Tech. CETCode .;· '
31;
(b) BBA,CET Code 125,.,. __

E (c) BCA CET Code 114
(d) B. Com., CET Code 146
(e) B.Ed. CET Code 122
(f) BJMC, CET Code 126
F
(g) BA, LLB/BBA, LLB. CET Code 121
.
(h) MBA, CET Code 191
(i) MCA, CET Code 105 ·
G U) LE to B.Tech. CET Code 128 and 129"
. . r
20. It is not disputed that courses covered under (a), (h),
(i) and 0) are covered by AICTE Regulations. B,Ed. CET
Code 122 is covered under the NCTE Act and Regulations
framed thereunder. Courses covered under, (b), (c), (d), (f)
H
VAR UN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 387
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

and (g) are directly governed by the university statutes and A
regulations. In the present case we are not dealing with the
controversy pertaining to the cases under the NCTEAct, 1993.
21. First, we shall dwell upon the courses thaf are
regulated by the 1987 Act and the 1994 Regulations. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, 8
the institutions and the students, thatAICTE did not adhere to
the schedule as far as the counselling is concerned and the
University played possum with the schedule and further created
·a chaos by allowing the students who had already taken
admissions in certain institutions to participate in the C
supplementary counselling which is impermissible on the face
of the prospectus issued by the university. Mr. Rohtagi, learned
Attorney General would submit that AICTE, after the
pronouncement of the judgment in Association Management
of Private Colleges' cas~ was uncertain of its jurisdiction/ D
authority till it was conferred the power although by an interim
order on 9.5.2014 in Orissa Technical. Colleges
Association's case, and that uncertainty caused delay. We
have been apprised that the matter is pending before a three-
Judge Bench and theAICTE has proceeded solely on the basis E
of the interim order. As far as the issuance of the notification
in respect of ten courses having access to all candidates
including the students who had already taken admission,
learned Attorney General submitted, that such inclusion was
contrary to the prospec'tus and also erroneous on many a score. F
22. Let it be clearly stated that we appreciate that for the
academic year 2014-15, there were certain unforeseen
circumstances. First, a question mark was put on the authority
of AICTE, (ii) second, there was bifurcation of States of Andhra G
Pradesh to two states, namely State of Andhra Pradesh and
State of Telengana, and· (iii) third, number of seats had
remained vacant despite students having qualified and
desirous of taking of the courses.
H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A ·. 23. In our considered opinion, these are significant
speCial features that have occurred in the academic year 2014-
15. There are two ways to look at the fact situation .. It can be
perceived with a myopic attitude or it can be appreciated,
regard being had to multitudinous consequences. We have
B be~n apprised by the learned Attorney General that if time is
granted for on-line counselling it can commence w.e.f. 20th of
October, 2014 and would be over within two days and thereafter
classes can start. He has reproduced a letter dated 11th of
October, 2014 issued by the Vice-Chancellor how the University
C would carry out the supplementary counselling. We think it apt
to reproduce the same:-
• "University would be agreeable to carry out a
supplementary counselling for admissions for
remaining vacant seats from the eligible CET qualified
D candidates.
•The University has further decided that only vacant seats
·will be filled up from eligible CET qualified students
as per their merits, who have not taken admissions.
as yet.
E
• The university also agrees that rio further dislocation
will be carried out for any students who are already
admitted in the programmes at any college/institute."
· 24. Weighing the issue on the scales of larger public
F interest in the obtaining factual matrix we are inclined to state
that the relief sought and the plausible solution offered by the
University can be accepted as that would subserve the cause
of justice. In these courses, the university, as submitted before
us, can keep the pace. The students who would be taking
G admissions subject to our order, be put in one section in the
allotted colleges so that they can attend classes for an extra
hour. That apart their holidays shall be curtailed as per the
directions of the University. An undertaking to the said effect
can be taken from the students. Every student shall have the
H
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 389
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

requisite 75% attendance of the original number of classes. A
In case, there will be any shortage of attendance it shall be
sternly dealt with.
25. Be it noted, such an agonizing situation inviting
national waste could have been avoided hadAICTE and the
University would have been more careful, cautious and B
circumspect. However, to do complete justice, we have issued
the aforesaid directions. This is in the larger public interest.
At this juncture we may fruitfully recapitulate an ancient saying:-
"Yadapi Sidhham, Loka Virudhham c
NaAdaraniyam, Na Karaniyam"
26. As the present fact situation depicts the larger public
interest and ultimately subserve the ca.use of justice we extend
the time for on-line counselling till 20th of October, 2014.
D
27. At this juncture, we have been apprised by Mr. P.P.
Rao and Mr. Sundram, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners that the problem occurs every year; for despite
di\IYS for counselling are fi~ed, adequate number of students
are not called for counselling, as a result of which, many students E
Who have cleared the CET do not_ get an opportunity to
undertake the counselling and eventually the admission does
not take place. We are absolutely consciqus that it is in the
sphere of university administration~ But when the problem is
recurrent we command the University to hold counselling in F
such a manner within the stipulated time in the schedule so
that all the seats are filled up if there are eligible candidates
for such counselling. The University cannot behave like an
alien to the national interest. Another aspect which requir~s to
be noted is that a blame game has been going on by the G
educational institutions on the one hand and theAICTE and
the University on the other, and on certain occasions between
the AICTE and the University. All of them function in the field of
education. Such kind of cavil and narrowness is likely to create
a concavity in the educational culture of the country. Therefore, H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 s.C.R.

A all concerned must remember that education charters the way
where a civilized man slaughters his prejudices. Any education
properly imparted is a constant allurement to learn. · It is
inconceivable that the authorities who are in charge of
controlling the sphere of education to behave like errant knights
B justifying their own fanciful deeds. Law expects a rational
perception, logical approach and ,a studied and well-
deliberated decision from all the authorities. It is imperative
to state, a concerted elfort has to be made by theAICTE and
the University to avoid recurrence of this kind of piquant and
C agonising situations. Perceived from any perspective, it does
not augur a healthy situation. Had theAICTE functioned within
the time frame in respect of the process the matter would not
have given rise to such a situation. ·similarly, had the University
conducted the counselling with utmost responsibility keeping
o in view the number of seats that were available in the approved
institutions and the number of students that have qualified in
the Common Entrance Test, possibly the gravity of the problem
would have been less. ·
28. In a State of good governance, a problem is taken
E note of so that appropriate and timely steps are taken to avoid
any recurrence. The authorities who are incharge of giving
approval, preparing syllabus, imparting education and carrying
on such other activities, are required to behave With
responsibility. Lack of concern is only indicative of the
F beginning of destruction. ·That cannot be allowed to occur.
Therefore, we caution the AICTE and the University to see to It
that things are done on time following the fixed time schedule.
We ingeminate, atthe cost ofrepetition, that we have extended
the time because of the situation that has prevailed this year
G but if due efforts are taken, we are certain that same would l')Ot
be required. We hasten to clarify the time schedule originally
fixed in· Parshvanath Charitable Trust case has to be treated
as the schedule for all coming years. Any modification that
has been done, as is manifest from the various orders which
H we have reproduced hereinbefore, including the present
VARUN SAINI v. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA 391
UNIVERSITY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

judgment, have been passed forthe academic session 2014- A
15 in the special features of each case. Be it stated, avoidanee
· · · of unpleasant litigation is a progressive step in a civilised
· society governed by rule of law.
29. To sum up:
B
(a) Time is extended for carrying out the on-line
counselling till 21st of October, 2014 .
•
(b) The students who have already taken admission in
colleges shall not be permitted to participate in the
supplementary counselling, and the students who are C
attending classes in any institution without the counseling
shall be deemed not to have been admitted and,
therefore, they will be eligible to participate in the on line
counseling.
(c) The students those are selected for admission and D
allotted to the respective colleges on merits shall take
admission forthwith.
(d) The students after being allotted to a particular college
shall be put in a separate Section as they shall be E
required to attend extra-working classes. The
educational institutions have to seriously impart
education with the help and aid of teachers, if necessary,
by providing adequate means and facilitation for the
teachers. · F
(e) The University shall constitute a team to see whether
classes are held or not.
(f) Unless a student gets the requisite attendance of 75%
on the basis of the computation held, regard being had
to the entire teaching days, he shall not be permitted to G
appear in the examination.
(g) The time schedule originally fixed in Parshavnath
Charitable Trust.(supra) shall remain in force and be
religiously followed in the subsequent years. H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A (h) Ex consequenti, the writ petitions are disposed.of on
above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

· Nidhi Jain Petitions disposed of.