Judgment :- 1. This writ petition came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 11.06.2012. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Trust seeking to challenge an order dated 12.04.2012, wherein and by which the second respondent All India Council for Teacher Education (for short AICTE) informed the Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu that the AICTE after following due process decided to withdraw the approval granted in favour of Sri Padmavathi College of Engineering, Mevalurkuppam, Valapuram with immediate effect for violation of the provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 and also on other grounds. Therefore, in the interest of the students studying in the College in various programmes/courses, the University was requested to kindly take necessary action to ensure transfer of students to other colleges under its jurisdiction. It also requested to intimate if necessary approval for creation of supernumerary seats to accommodate the students in other college/colleges was required. This was preceded by the order passed by the AICTE withdrawing approval given to the college. 3. The College run by the petitioner Trust was granted approval on 18.12.1998 and extension of approval was granted for the period from 2008 to 2011 on 02.05.2008. On 03.11.2010 a surprise visit was made to the College and deficiencies were noted. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 22.12.2010. Reply from the petitioner was received on 13.01.2011 and the matter was heard by the Hearing Committee on 18.04.2011. The Committee recommended for withdrawal of approval. The said recommendation was forwarded by the Regional Committee recommending withdrawal. The Appellate Committee concurred with the view of withdrawal on 22.06.2011 and accordingly withdrawal order was passed on 28.07.2011. 4. At that stage, the petitioner Trust filed writ petitions before this Court being W.P.Nos.16926 of 2011 and 18244 of 2011. In the first writ petition, they sought for a direction to renew the approval of the College for the period from 2011-2012 by considering the compliance reports sent along with supporting documents without reference to the pendency of the FIR registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 5. In the first writ petition, they sought for a direction to renew the approval of the College for the period from 2011-2012 by considering the compliance reports sent along with supporting documents without reference to the pendency of the FIR registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 5. In the second writ petition, they sought to challenge an order dated 28.07.2011 by which withdrawal of permission was granted and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to the respondents to renew the approval of the College for the academic year 2011-2012 by considering the compliance reports sent along with supporting documents without reference to the pendency of the FIR registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 6. The writ petitions were heard along with other two writ petitions filed by another college and were disposed of by a common order dated 16.08.2011. 7. In paragraph 14, this Court observed as follows:- "14. In the light of the above background though this Court cannot issue direction to renew the approval, this Court can certainly direct the respondents 1 to 3 to reconsider the withdrawal order and if the respondents are satisfied about the compliance of the norms fixed by the AICTE by these two institutions the approval can be extended. The petitioners have invested huge amount, constructed building, provided other infrastructural facilities and as such withdrawal of approval has got serious consequence. Therefore the impugned orders are set aside with direction to the second respondent to reconsider the issue regarding extension of approval of the existing courses, considering the compliance report submitted by each of the petitioners on 08.07.2011. If necessary another inspection team can also be sent for inspection to find out whether all the AICTE norms are complied with and thereafter it can pass fresh orders. It is made clear that this Court is not giving any positive direction and it is upto the second respondent to consider the compliance of AICTE norms by the petitioner institutions and if the second respondent is satisfied, it is open to the second respondent/competent authority to grant approval without reference to the pendency of FIR filed by C.B.I. Till fresh orders are passed, status-quo as on date is ordered to be maintained. As admissions and classes have to commence shortly, the second respondent is directed to complete the process and pass fresh orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order." (Emphasis added) 8. Pursuant to the said direction, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.01.2012. In that Show Cause Notice, several deficiencies were pointed out. The petitioner sent a reply to the notice on 31.01.2012. With regard to the requirement of building plan approval from the Department of Town and Country Planning, it was stated that they had already applied to the Competent authority under Town and Country Planning Act in August 2011 to get the building plan approval. Since there was some delay in getting the approval, the same would be produced as soon as they receive the same. With reference to shortage of teaching faculty, it was stated that they did not fill up the vacancies since they were under the impression for the year 2011-12, they were denied admission and as the Expert Committee had pointed out the shortage, they had appointed two Professors and three Associate Professors. With reference to appointment of staff in the month of January 2012, it was stated that selections were made long before, but some of the faculty members have joined only in January 2012. 9. It was on receipt of the same, AICTE decided to withdraw the approval. It was stated that the document pertaining to faculty appointment process, the constitution of the selection committees etc. was not submitted in support of appointments made. Associate Professors do not fulfill academic qualification as per AICTE norms. The building plan approval from the Department of Town and Country Planning was not submitted. Likewise, no Land Use certificate was submitted. In that view of the matter, their request was rejected by the AICTE and thereafter decision was taken to redistribute the students to some other institutions. 10. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee of AICTE. In the mean while, the Director of Technical Education viz., the 4th respondent by his proceedings dated 01.05.1021 informed the students regarding withdrawal of approval and requested the students to fill up the particulars in the format given and send them to Commissioner of Technical Education and also to attend the counselling. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 11. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 11. When the writ petition came up on 23.05.2012, this Court ordered notice to the respondents. Pending the notice, as the impugned decision will cause prejudice to the institution as well as the students, an interim stay insofar as the transfer of students to other institution was concerned was granted. It was at that stage, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent AICTE requested the matter to be heard urgently and the matter came to be posted as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice as noted already. 12. On notice from this Court, on behalf of third respondent AICTE, Southern Regional Office, a counter affidavit dated 16.06.2012 has been filed together with supporting documents in the form of typed set. It was stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a surprise inspection was made on 07.01.2012 and a proper show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply, the order came to be passed. 13. In Paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows:- "16. I respectfully submit, as per the Regulations of the AICTE, no further appeal against the orders of the Appellate Committee lies with the Chairman of the AICTE and in the present case, on the date of surprise inspection and on the date of hearing before the Appellate Committee, the deficiencies still existed and the respondents have decided to withdraw the approval granted to the petitioner institution. Further, the petitioner had been given several opportunities to rectify the deficiencies and the same have not been complied with and as such, the approval given to the petitioner Institution is withdrawn. Further, a body of experts who constitute the Committee had perused the documents and the reports of the Surprise Committee which also consists of a body of exports and it is well found that the deficiencies still existed. Hence, in the welfare of students, AICTE had decided to withdraw the approval and sent a communication to redistribute the students to other approved institutions." 14. Mr. K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Kandan Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently they had sent land delivery certificate on 05.03.2012. Hence, in the welfare of students, AICTE had decided to withdraw the approval and sent a communication to redistribute the students to other approved institutions." 14. Mr. K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Kandan Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently they had sent land delivery certificate on 05.03.2012. In so far as the building plan approval and the land use certificate are concerned, it is admitted they are yet to get the same from the Director of Town and Country Planning. 15. Mr. K. Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2010 4 CTC 225 [Srinivasa Institute of Engineering Technology v. AICTE and others]for contending that New Regulation 2010 repealed AICTE 2006 Regulation and that repeal will take effect only prospectively i.e., on 06.02.2010 and therefore, the new requirement cannot be made applicable retrospectively. 16. It must be noted that the petitioner is having second round of litigation and even in their second round, they have not satisfied the Regulations framed by the AICTE in fulfilling the minimum criteria. Though Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel stated that having got permission from the local authority, it is only a matter of course they will get permission from the Director of Town and Country Planning and therefore, on that ground permission should not be withdrawn. 17. However, it must be noted if necessary requirement is not fulfilled, it is open to the appropriate body which is empowered to grant recognition/approval or to reject the same and only in the case of the petitioner, such relaxation can never be made unless such power of relaxation also vest with the Committee. Since the petitioner has not fulfilled the necessary requirement, it is open to the AICTE to withdraw the permission granted to them due to the deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Committee as well as by the Appellate Committee. 18. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2403 [Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan and others]. In paragraph 28, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 28, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules... " (Emphasis added) 19. The Supreme Court in All India Council For Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in (2009) 11 SCC 726 has held that the Court has got no power to interfere with the decision taken by the Expert Bodies. It is necessary to refer to the following passages founds in paragraphs 15 to 18:- "15. ...what should be the norms and standards in regard to entry qualification, content of course instructions and manner of assessing the performance by examinations, are all decisions in academic matters of technical nature. AICTE consists of professional and technical experts in the field of education qualified and equipped to decide on those issues. In fact, a statutory duty is cast on them to decide these matters. 16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. 17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. 17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. AllahabadUniversity this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 & 17) “11. … Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. ... * * * 17.… While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.” 18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) “29. … the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In the light of the same, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.