Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Educational Trust seeking to challenge the letters of rejection, dated 6.4.2012 as well as 16.05.2012 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to re-consider their application for establishment of AVS School of Engineering and Technology at Attur Main Road, Chinnagoundapuram, Salem for the academic year 2012-13 subject to production of building plan approval by the petitioner. 2. When this writ petition came up on 30.5.2012, notice of motion was ordered. On notice, a counter affidavit, dated Nil (June, 2012) was filed by respondents 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner Trust is running several educational institutions including engineering college in Salem. When the petitioner made an application for starting an Engineering college, the matter was considered by the respondent All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE). It was rejected by an order dated 6.4.2012. In the order of rejection it was stated as follows : "In terms of the provisions under the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations 2011 notified by the Council vide notification number F-No.37-3/Legal/2011 dated 10/12/2010 and other notifications, as applicable and published from time to time, I am directed to convey the Rejection of Application for establishing a Technical Institution/Campus bearing Application ID 1753634034 for AVS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,ATTUR MAIN ROAD, CHINNAGOUNDAPURAM, NEAR AVS COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE, SALEM, Tamil Nadu, 636106 for the detailed reasons as noted in the following reports, as applicable to this Institute. i. Scrutiny report, ii. Re-scrutiny report, iii. Expert committee visit report, iv. Regional committee report, v. Reasons for rejection in the EC 4. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Appeal Committee and they were also asked to be present on 24.02.2012. It was also rejected by an order dated 16.05.2012 upholding the same reasons. The petitioner once again sent a letter dated 23.05.2012. In that letter, they had requested to re-consider their claim to set up a new technical Campus. In their letter, they wrote as follows: "We submitted our application to set up our new Technical Campus (AVS Technical Campus, Attur Main Road, Chinnagoundapuram, Salem-636 106) on January 18, 2012. Then we received a report with six deficiencies concerning land and building. Out of these six, we have cleared two-Classification of Land and Land use certificate. In their letter, they wrote as follows: "We submitted our application to set up our new Technical Campus (AVS Technical Campus, Attur Main Road, Chinnagoundapuram, Salem-636 106) on January 18, 2012. Then we received a report with six deficiencies concerning land and building. Out of these six, we have cleared two-Classification of Land and Land use certificate. Now we are left with four – 1) Site plan, 2)Complete Building plan, 3)Plan/Section/Elevation detailed and 4)Architect Certificate. We assure you that we will clear the remaining four deficiencies within a month and we will be ready for the final approval." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that approval for the plan was recommended by the local planning committee and also produced a copy of the recommendation dated 13.06.2012 sent by the Member Secretary of the Local Planning Authority addressed to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai recommending the case of the petitioner. 6. But, however in the counter affidavit filed by the AICTE, in paragraphs 4 to 6 it was averred as follows: "4. I respectfully submit that the Scrutiny Committee of the Respondent Council, on perusal of the documents vide its report dated 14.2.2012 pointed out that the site plan has not been approved by the Competent Authority and the Building Plan has also not been signed by the Competent Authority and further the land use Certificate has also not obtained from the Competent Authorities and therefore called for further details from the Petitioner. 5. Immediately thereafter the petitioner had furnished certain details and a re-scrutiny was also done by the Scrutiny Committee and again the same defects were pointed out on 25.2.2012. Since the documents furnished by the petitioner for scrutiny were not as per the norms of the AICTE for approval of a new technical institution, the application for approval by the Petitioner was rejected by order dated 6.4.2012, against which the petitioner herein has filed the above writ petition. 6. I respectfully submit that the prayer of the petitioner to reconsider the application of the petitioner subject to production of building plan approval is not maintainable since as per the Approval Process Hand Book and as per the Regulation of the AICTE, the application can be considered for approval only if all the documents are in complete form and the same is as per the regulation of AICTE norms. As per the AICTE norms, the building should be approved by the Competent Authority ie the Director of Town and Country Planning. As such since the petitioner has not produced the approval of the building plan by the competent authority and the land due certificate by the competent authority, the application has been rejected. So far as the academic year 2012-13 is concerned, the time for grant of approval has already over and as such the petitioner if at all is able to get the building plan approval from the competent authority, the petitioner has to apply afresh for approval for the next academic year...." 7. Mr.Kandan Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that they have complied with almost all conditions except for production of the plan approval by the Director of Town and Country Planning and that is only a matter of course. On that score, they should not be denied grant of approval for starting the campus for the academic year 2012-2013. Therefore, they prayed for a direction. 8. It is an admitted fact that at the time when the application was submitted, the building plan was not granted by the competent authority. It is evident from the fact that even in the writ petition, the petitioner has filed M.P.No.2 of 2012 seeking for a direction to the fourth respondent to grant approval. The AICTE has given the narration of events by which the application will be received, processed and will be decided one way or other. Therefore, it is the prerequisite that the application should be in complete shape. The fact that the petitioner producing the approval at a later date cannot be a ground for contending that the application submitted by them was complete in its shape. If the application is not in the shape, then the deficiencies pointed out by the inspection committee and approved by the Regional committee cannot be found fault with. Even during appeal, the petitioner could not get the certificate. Therefore, in the absence of any law to grant exemption by the AICTE, the petitioner's application submitting the approval for starting the college during this academic year cannot be accepted. 9. 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]. Therefore, in the absence of any law to grant exemption by the AICTE, the petitioner's application submitting the approval for starting the college during this academic year cannot be accepted. 9. 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 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... " 10. 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. 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. 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. Allahabad University1 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 Bhupeshkumar Sheth2 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) 11. As rightly informed by the AICTE, the petitioner will have to seek for approval for starting the course in the next academic year 2013-2014 and send an appropriate application in complete shape. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.