Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 669 (KAR)

RAI TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2018-06-07

VINEET KOTHARI

body2018
ORDER : 1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner Rai Technology University and others on 20th April 2018. 2. The controversy involved in the present case is to be squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University and Another Vs. All India Council For Technical Education and Others ([2001] 8 SCC 676), the relevant extracts of which from paragraphs 8, 10 and 13 are quoted below for ready reference: “When the legislative intent finds specific mention and expression in the provisions of the Act itself, the same cannot be whittled down or curtailed and rendered nugatory by giving undue importance to the socalled object underlying the Act or the purpose of creation of a body to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Act, particularly when the AICTE Act does not contain any evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy the authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies, having their own assigned roles to perform. Merely activated by some assumed objects or desirabilities, the courts cannot adorn the mantle of the legislature. It is hard to ignore the legislative intent to give definite meaning to words employed in the Act and adopt an interpretation which would tend to do violence to the express language as well as the plain meaning and patent aim and object underlying the various other provisions of the Act. Even in endeavouring to maintain the object and spirit of the law to achieve the goal fixed by the legislature, the courts must to by the guidance of the words used and not on certain preconceived notions of ideological structure and scheme underlying the law. AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its departments or units. AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its departments or units. A careful scanning through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-a–vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action. The conscious and deliberate omission to enact any such provision in the AICTE Act in respect of universities is not only a positive indicator but should be also one of the determining factors in adjudging the status, role and activities of AICTE vis-à-vis universities and the activities and functioning of its departments and units. If Section 10(K) does not cover a “university” but only a “technical institution”, a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of “technical institution” to apply to universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a “university” and a “technical institution”. AICTE cannot make any regulation in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, notwithstanding subsection(1), which though no doubt enables such regulations being made generally to carry out the purposes of the Act, when such power is circumscribed by the specific limitation engrafted therein to ensure them to be “not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and the Rules…”. So far as the question of granting approval, leave alone prior or psot, Section 10(1)(k) specifically confines the limits of such power of AICTE only to be exercised vis-à-vis technical institutions, as defined in the Act and not generally. When the language is specific, unambiguous and positive, the same cannot be overlooked to give an expansive meaning under the pretext of a purposive construction to perpetuate an ideological object and aim, which also, having regard to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act, is not warranted or justified. When the language is specific, unambiguous and positive, the same cannot be overlooked to give an expansive meaning under the pretext of a purposive construction to perpetuate an ideological object and aim, which also, having regard to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act, is not warranted or justified. Therefore, the Regulations insofar as they compel the universities to seek for and obtain prior approval and not to startany new department or course or programme in technical education (Regulation 4) and empower itself to withdraw such approval, in a given case of contravention of the Regulations (Regulation 12), are directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 10(1)(k) of the Act and consequently void and unenforceable.” 3. The learned Additional Government Advocate has filed statement of objections before the court and relying upon the “Regulations of Diploma Programme as per the Curriculum-2015 (C15)” – AnnexureR2 produced along with the statement of objections, she submits that, the equivalence of Diploma courses conducted by the petitioner University for lateral entry into the B.E. Course, is to be considered by the respondent No.2/Director of Department of Technical Education, Bengaluru and which requires an approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (‘AICTE’ for brevity) for Diploma Courses conducted by the petitioner/University whereas, in consonance with the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the AICTE vide Annexure-C/communication dated 12.9.2017 has already conveyed to the petitioner University that the “Universities” do not come within the purview of AICTE and any further clarification, if any, may be sought from the University Grant Commission (UGC). 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr.D.r.Ravishankar submits before the Court that the petitioner/University created under Annexure-A/enactment of the State Government known as “The Rai Technology University, Bangalore Act, 2012” is a University and therefore, does not fall within the jurisdiction of AICTE as a “Technical Institution” in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted before the Court that the petitioner/University holds the approval of UGC as well as the State. 5. He further submitted before the Court that the petitioner/University holds the approval of UGC as well as the State. 5. Therefore, it appears that the respondent No.2 Director of Department of Technical Education, Bengaluru, who has not so far considered the case of the petitioner-University for grant of Eligibility Certificate or Equivalence Certificate for the Diploma Courses in question conducted by the petitioner-University, deserves to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner-University in consonance with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and not in accordance with the Regulations relied upon by the respondent/State. 6. In view of the urgency in the matter as narrated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Online Entrance Test for the entry into B.E. Course is to commence from 15th June 2018, the respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner/University as early as possible. 7. The petitioner/University appears to have approached the respondent No.2/Director of Department of Technical Education, Bengaluru, in this regard vide Annexure-J on 12.8.2017 and also vide Annexure-K dated 30.8.2017, but the said representations do not appear to have been decided by the said authority so far. 8. In the circumstances of the case, the present Writ Petitions are disposed of, by directing the respondent No.2/Director of Department of Technical Education, Bengaluru, to decide the case of the petitioners in this regard for grant of Eligibility Certificate or Equivalence Certificate for the Diploma Courses conducted by it for the purpose of admission to the B.E. Course in accordance with the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, forthwith. 9. The petitioners may appear before the respondent No.2/ Director of Department of Technical Education, Bengaluru, on 8th June 2018 at 11.00 a.m. and the said authority is directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard within three days thereof i.e., on or before 12th June 2018. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.