JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. The petitioners, by way of the present petition, have challenged the decision of 'No Admission' dated 30.4.2019 taken by the respondent - All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE") (Annexure-A). 2. The petitioner No. 1 is an educational institution offering Post Graduate courses affiliated to Gujarat Technological University and is managed by the petitioner No. 2 Trust. The petitioner No. 1 offers the course of Masters in Computer Applications (MCA) at the post graduate level, which course is of six semesters spread over three years. The said institute was opened in the academic year 2001-2002. The respondent AICTE is a statutory body established under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The said Act provides for establishment of All India Council for Technical Education with a view to provide planned and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and regulation of proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for the matters connected therewith. Section 10 of the said Act lays down the functions of the Council, which inter alia provides that it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards. In order to discharge its duties in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Act, the AICTE has framed the Regulations for grant of approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes of existing technical institutions. The AICTE has also evolved a Hand Book for approval process, in which detailed procedure as well as the conditions, which the institutes must follow and fulfill are mentioned, in order to seek approval for either starting new technical institutions or for integration of courses/programmes as increase/variation of intake capacity of seats of courses/programmes by the existing technical institutes. 3. The respondent Council conducted a surprise visit to the petitioner's institute on 12.10.2017 during which various deficiencies with regard to buildings/built up/instructional/administrative/amenities area/faculty etc., were found. 3. The respondent Council conducted a surprise visit to the petitioner's institute on 12.10.2017 during which various deficiencies with regard to buildings/built up/instructional/administrative/amenities area/faculty etc., were found. The report of the Committee in that regard was uploaded on the portal of the respondent Council and the petitioner Institute was intimated vide the letter dated 17.10.2017 through web portal to appear before the Standing Hearing Committee (SHC) on 1.11.2017 along with supporting documents/evidence with regard to the compliance of the deficiencies found during the surprise visit. However, the petitioner institute did not remain present before the SHC, and therefore, the SHC recommended "No Extension of Approval" (EOA) for the academic year 2018-2019. It appears that thereafter a speaking order was passed on 20.11.2017 by the competent authority approving the recommendation of the SHC. The petitioner institute having submitted an appeal as per the provisions contained in Approval Process Handbook 2018-19 (APH) against the said decision before the Standing Appellate Committee (SAC), the SAC after considering the documents submitted by the representative of the petitioner institute decided that the institute be granted EOA with 25% reduction in intake for the academic year 2018-19 and further directed the institute to comply with the undertaking in respect of barrier free environment submitted and to satisfy the norms on faculty or principal and submit a report on or before 15.4.2018. 4. It further appears that thereafter the respondent Council wrote a letter dated 12.10.2018 to the petitioner Institute inter alia directing the petitioner to submit compliance report towards the deficiencies noted by the Committees, on or before 31.10.2018, to enable the Council to process the case of the petitioner for grant of EOA for the academic year 2019-20. In response to the said letter the petitioner Institute submitted the report dated 25.10.2018. In the said report it was intimated as regards the deficiency of non-availability of the Principal/Director that the Institute had published an advertisement for faculty recruitment under different cadres, and that the Institute had received only two applications for the post of Director and on scrutiny, no candidate was found suitable for the post. As regards the deficiency with regard to shortage of Faculty members, it was intimated that the number of admission in MCA programme was less in the academic year 2018-19, however, the management had decided to issue advertisement for recruitment and the shortfall would be complied with. 5. As regards the deficiency with regard to shortage of Faculty members, it was intimated that the number of admission in MCA programme was less in the academic year 2018-19, however, the management had decided to issue advertisement for recruitment and the shortfall would be complied with. 5. Thereafter a circular letter was issued by the AICTE dated 15.1.2019 intimating about the meeting of Standing Hearing Committee/Standing Appellate Committee requesting the petitioner to bring the documents mentioned therein. The representative of the petitioner Institute attended the said meeting held on 23.1.2019 on which date the hearing had taken place before the SAC. The representative of the petitioner at the said hearing had submitted the compliance report dated 21.1.2019 along with the relevant documents as per Annexure-H colly. According to the petitioners, they did not hear anything from SHC/SAC since January 2019. In the meantime, the petitioner No. 1 institute had to apply for renewal of intake every year on the portal of the respondent AICTE. The said portal opened in January 2019. The petitioner made the application giving all the details on the Application Deficiency Report generated on 20.2.2019 (Annexure-I). On 30.4.2019, the website showed the current status as "EOA" recommended by the Council. The copy of screen-shot taken on 30.4.2019 has been annexed as Annexure-J to the petition. However, thereafter the current status of the petitioner Institute was changed to 'No Admission'. According to the petitioners, though the current status was changed it was not possible to download the report, and therefore, the petitioner Institute sent an E-mail raising grievance on 1.5.2019. Thereafter another E-mail was also sent on 2.5.2019. On 9.5.2019 the petitioner received one-line response stating that as per APH 2019, the status is revised as approved intake is zero (Annexure-P). It is further case of the petitioners that thereafter 'No Admission Report' dated 30.4.2019 was uploaded on the website of AICTE on 14.5.2019, stating that detailed speaking order along with reasons/deficiencies noted by SHC/SAC is being issued separately in due course (Annexure-A). Being aggrieved by the said decision dated 30.4.2019 the petitioners have filed the present petition. 6. It is further case of the petitioners that thereafter 'No Admission Report' dated 30.4.2019 was uploaded on the website of AICTE on 14.5.2019, stating that detailed speaking order along with reasons/deficiencies noted by SHC/SAC is being issued separately in due course (Annexure-A). Being aggrieved by the said decision dated 30.4.2019 the petitioners have filed the present petition. 6. The respondent has filed the affidavit-in-reply contending inter alia that after going through all the deficiency reports, the letter of 'No Admission' for the academic year 2019-20 dated 30.4.2019 was uploaded on the portal on 30.4.2019 as per the last date fixed by the Supreme Court and the status of 'No Admission' was also changed on the portal on 30.4.2019 itself. The petitioner Institute might have taken the screen-shot while the transaction from 'EOA recommended' to 'No Admission' was being carried out on the portal. It is further contended that subsequent to the uploading of 'No Admission' letter on the portal, a detailed speaking order dated 15.5.2019 was uploaded on the portal. The respondent has also filed an additional affidavit for producing on record the copy of the report of SAC dated 23.1.2019 contending inter alia that the representative of the petitioner Institute had appeared and attended the SAC hearing on 23.1.2019 and submitted the explanation dated 21.1.2019. The petitioner Institute was aware about the said deficiencies since the year 2018 as mentioned in the order dated 10.4.2018, but had failed to remove the same till the date and the deficiencies were finally communicated to the petitioner vide the speaking order dated 15.5.2019. The said detailed order dated 15.5.2019 has been produced by the petitioner along with the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioners, in which it has been contended by the petitioners that the said order dated 15.5.2019 was located on the website only on 27.6.2019 after the filing of affidavit-in-reply by the respondent Council. 7. Learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani for the petitioners vehemently submitted that on 30.4.2019 the website of the respondent showed the current status as 'EOA' recommended by the Council and immediately thereafter the said current status was changed to 'No Admission', and that the "No Admission Report" dated 30.4.2019 (Annexure-A) was uploaded by the respondent only on 15.5.2019. 7. Learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani for the petitioners vehemently submitted that on 30.4.2019 the website of the respondent showed the current status as 'EOA' recommended by the Council and immediately thereafter the said current status was changed to 'No Admission', and that the "No Admission Report" dated 30.4.2019 (Annexure-A) was uploaded by the respondent only on 15.5.2019. According to her, the last date for approving/disapproving any deficiencies was 10.4.2019 and if the appeal was filed before the Appellate Committee, the Appellate Committee had to hear and decide the same by 30th April of the relevant year as per the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court in case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 385 . In the instant case, the respondent had uploaded 'No Admission Report' dated 30.4.2019 stating that a detailed speaking order along with reasons/deficiencies noted by SHC/SAC was being issued separately in due course, however, thereafter till the filing of the petition, no such detailed order was made available and it was only after the filing of the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent, the order dated 15.5.2019 was suddenly found on the website of the respondent. She, therefore, submitted that there was utter disregard and violation of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the said judgment at the instance of the respondents. Ms. Jani taking the Court to all the correspondence on record submitted that the petitioners were very much vigilant in following up their application for extension of approval for the academic year 2019-20, however, the respondent had failed to take any decision, much less to communicate to the petitioner within the deadline prescribed by the Supreme Court. As regards the deficiencies, she submitted that the petitioners had complied with most of the deficiencies, however, so far as the appointment of Principal/Director was concerned, despite the advertisement issued in 2018, suitable candidate was not available, and so far as the faculty members were concerned, the ratio of faculty to students was maintained considering the reduction in the number of admission in the MCA programmes since last couple of years. While conceding that the representative of the petitioners had remained present before the SAC for hearing on 23.1.2019, she submitted that the petitioners were not conveyed in writing the recommendation of the SAC for putting the Institute under 'No Admission' category for the academic year 2019-20. She lastly submitted that non-availability of full-time Director/Principal and the faculty is the problem faced by most of the Institutions and the petitioner Institution has also once again issued the advertisement for the appointment of Principal and the process is still on. The petitioners had also made representation dated 27.5.2019 to the respondent Council, which has still remained undecided. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Vilas Goswamy for the respondents, however, submitted relying upon the same judgment in case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. (supra) as relied upon by Ms. Jani, and the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner Institution having failed to comply with the deficiencies pointed out to them, the 'No Admission Report' dated 30.4.2019 for the academic year 2019-20 was uploaded on the portal on the same day i.e. 30.4.2019, which was in compliance with the last date fixed by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. According to him, the status of 'No Admission' was also changed on the portal on 30.4.2019 itself, however, the petitioner might have taken the screen-shot while the transaction from 'EOA' recommended to 'No Admission' was being carried out on the portal. According to him, subsequently detailed speaking order dated 15.5.2019 was also uploaded on the portal. Hence, there was no violation or disregard of the directions given by the Apex Court. Mr. Goswamy also submitted that the representative of the petitioners had remained present before the SAC at the time of hearing on 23.1.2019 and had explained the deficiencies, however, admittedly the deficiency of non-availability of Principal and shortage of faculty existed on 23.1.2019, and therefore, the SAC had recommended to put the Institute under the 'No Admission' category for the academic year 2019-20. 9. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties, it would be beneficial to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. 9. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties, it would be beneficial to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by both the learned Advocates for the parties. Supreme Court, after considering the provisions contained in the AICTE Act, more particularly with regard to the various functions and powers of AICTE under the said Act and after considering the various earlier judgments observed as under:- "21. From the above principles, it is clear that the AICTE has varied functions and powers under the AICTE Act. It is a specialized body constituted for the purpose of bringing uniformity in technical education all over the country and to ensure that the institutions which are recognized by the AICTE are possessed of complete infrastructure, staff and other facilities and are capable of maintaining education standards for imparting technical education. 22 to 24 xxx 25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the central authorities such as the AICTE have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act. In the case of AICTE v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [JT 2009 (5) SC 216 : 2009 (11) SCC 726 ], this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may not substitute their opinion in place of opinion of the Council, held as under: 17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and 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, courts will step in. In Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, 1980 IILJ 175 SC, this Court observed: '11. ...Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread... 17. ... If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, courts will step in. In Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, 1980 IILJ 175 SC, this Court observed: '11. ...Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread... 17. ... While there is no absolute bar, 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 [ 1985 (1) SCR 29 , this Court reiterated: '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.' 32. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four year Advance Diploma holders who had passed the entry level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one time measure was extended for several years and was also extended to Post Diploma holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education. 26. Right from the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others etc. etc. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education. 26. Right from the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others etc. etc. [JT 1993 (1) SC 474 : 1993 (1) SCC 645 ], this Court has unequivocally held that the right to establish an educational institution does not carry within it the right to recognition or the right to affiliation. Grant of recognition or affiliation is neither a matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission to the privileges of a University is a power to be exercised with great care keeping in view the interest of the public at large and the nation. Recognition has to be as per statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict adherence by all concerned. These conditions of recognition and the duly notified directions controlling the admission process are to be construed and applied stricto sensu. They cannot be varied from case to case. Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. v. Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors., JT 2012 (8) SC 265 at this stage, in addition to the case of Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh. 27 to 29 xxx 30. Thus, there is no occasion to take it as a deemed and/or implied approval for the new site of the appellant-college. Approval can hardly be inferred. It is a matter of fact and the authorities are expected to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and upon due diligence and in compliance with the procedure prescribed under law. For these reasons, we find that the view taken by the High Court does not call for any interference. 35. It is the requirement of law that there should be strict adherence to the time schedule for grant of approval as well as for admissions without exception. For these reasons, we find that the view taken by the High Court does not call for any interference. 35. It is the requirement of law that there should be strict adherence to the time schedule for grant of approval as well as for admissions without exception. In exercise of the powers vested in the AICTE, under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the AICTE Act, it had made regulations namely the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Staffing New Technical Institution, Introduction of Course and Programmes and Approval of Intake Capacity) Regulations, 1994. Schedule to these regulations reads as under: Sl.No. State of Processing application Last date by which the processing should be completed 1 2 3 1. For receiving proposals by Bureau R.C. 31st December 2. For the Bureau RC to screen the application and (a) to return the incomplete applications in applicants, and (b) to forward the applications to (i) State Government concerned (ii) University or State Board concerned, for their comments (iii) Regional Officer to arrange visits by Export Committees, and (iv) Bureaus MPCD, BOS and RA for their comments. 3. For receiving the comments is from 15th March (i) the State Government (ii) the University or State Board and (iii) the Regional Committee based on the Expert Committees report and (iv) from the Bureaus MPCD, BOS and RA 15th March 4. For consideration of the comments from the State Governments, 31st March Universities or State Boards, Regional Committees, and Bureaus of the Council by the State level Committee 31st March 5. For recommendations to be made by the Central Task Force. 15th April 6. For communicating the final decision to the State Government or the University Grants Commission, under intimation to the Regional office, Director of Technical Education, applicant, University or State Board. 30th April This Schedule has statutory backing. Thus, its adherence is mandatory and not directory. 36. Non-adherence of this Schedule can result in serious consequences and can jeopardize not only the interest of the college students but also the maintenance of proper standards of technical education. The authorities concerned, particularly the AICTE, should ensure proper and timely action upon the applications submitted to it. It must respond to the applicant within a reasonable time period and should not let the matter drag till the final date giving rise to avoidable speculations by all stakeholders. The authorities concerned, particularly the AICTE, should ensure proper and timely action upon the applications submitted to it. It must respond to the applicant within a reasonable time period and should not let the matter drag till the final date giving rise to avoidable speculations by all stakeholders. Thus, it would be appropriate for these authorities to bring to the knowledge of the parties concerned, the deficiencies, if any, and the defects pointed out by the Expert Committee during the inspection within three weeks from the date of such inspection or pointing out of defects, as the case may be. For better administration, the AICTE should also state the time within which such deficiencies/defects should be removed by the applicant. This will help in building of a coherent and disciplined method of working to ensure the proper implementation of the entire formulated scheme of technical education. The AICTE will not have any jurisdiction or authority to issue approval for commencement of a new course or for additional intake of students beyond 30th April of the year immediately preceding the commencement of an academic year. 37 to 39 xxx 40. The above Schedule though was finalized by the Committee on 29th January, 2012 but the same appears to have been notified only on 30th September, 2012. The reasons for the same are again unknown. We are unable to appreciate that once the academic session begins on 1st August, then as to why should admission be granted upto 30th August of the year, particularly when, as per the terms of the Schedule, beyond or after 30th April, AICTE will not issue any approval for commencement of new course for additional intakes. The Schedule, thus, introduces an element of arbitrariness and may cause prejudice to the students who might miss their classes for a period of one month without any justification. Thus, it is required that the above-stated Schedule be modified to bring it in line with the Schedule for approval as well as to prevent inequalities, arbitrariness and prejudice from affecting the students in relation to their academic courses. The order granting or refusing approval, thus, should positively be passed by 10th April of the relevant year. The appeal should be filed within one week and the Appellate Committee should hear the appeal and decide the same by 30th April of the relevant year. The order granting or refusing approval, thus, should positively be passed by 10th April of the relevant year. The appeal should be filed within one week and the Appellate Committee should hear the appeal and decide the same by 30th April of the relevant year. The University should grant/decline approval/affiliation by 15th May of the relevant year. Advertisement should be issued and entrance examination conducted positively by the end of the month of May." 10. From the afore-stated legal position, it is clear that the Regulations framed by the respondent AICTE have force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once the approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the views of the expert body would normally be accepted by the Courts, unless the powers vested in such expert body are found to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the Act. It is also settled legal position that the requirements laid down in the Regulations should be strictly complied with and there should not be any dilution of educational standards adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. The Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education. The orders passed by the authorities have to be complied with as per the procedure prescribed under the law. The Supreme Court in the afore-stated judgment has also observed that the adherence to the time limit fixed in the schedule is mandatory and not directory and that non-adherence of the said schedule can result in serious consequences and jeopardize not only the interest of the college students, but also the maintenance of the proper standards of technical education. Hence, the authorities more particularly the respondent AICTE should ensue proper and timely action upon the applications submitted to it and respond to such applications within a reasonable time period and should not let the matter drag till the final date giving rise to avoidable speculations by stakeholders. Thus, it would be appropriate for the respondent Council to bring to the knowledge of the parties concerned, the deficiencies, if any, and the defects pointed out by the expert committee during the inspection within three weeks from the date of such inspection or pointing out defects, as the case may be. Thus, it would be appropriate for the respondent Council to bring to the knowledge of the parties concerned, the deficiencies, if any, and the defects pointed out by the expert committee during the inspection within three weeks from the date of such inspection or pointing out defects, as the case may be. The AICTE should also state the time within which such deficiencies should be removed by the applicant Institute in order to build a coherent and disciplined method of working to ensure the proper implementation of the entire formulated scheme of technical education. It has also been stated that the AICTE will not have any jurisdiction or authority to issue approval for commencement of a new course or for additional intake of students beyond 30th April of the year preceding the commencement of an academic year. 11. Since the main thrust of the arguments of Ms. Jani for the petitioners was that the respondent AICTE had not adhered to the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court in the afore-stated judgment and had shown disregard to the directions given therein, let us examine as to whether there was any disregard or violation of the directions given by the Supreme Court at the instance of the respondent AICTE. 12. At the outset, it may be stated that as transpiring from the petition, the current status of the petitioner was changed to 'No Admission' on 30.4.2019 on the portal. Of course, according to the petitioners, on 30.4.2019 initially the current status of the petitioner Institute on the website showed "EOA recommended by the Council" and was thereafter changed to 'No Admission' on the same day. As regards 'No Admission Report' dated 30.4.2019 (Annexure-A), it has been stated in the petition that the said report was uploaded and was made available for printing only on 14.5.2019. Though the said averments have been disputed by the respondent in its affidavit by stating that the current status of 'No Admission' and the 'No Admission Report' were uploaded on the portal on 30.4.2019 itself. Now, even if it is believed that 'No Admission Report' was uploaded on 14.5.2019, then also the petitioner had already come to know on 30.4.2019 itself from its current status shown on the portal that the petitioner Institute was placed in the category of 'No Admission'. Now, even if it is believed that 'No Admission Report' was uploaded on 14.5.2019, then also the petitioner had already come to know on 30.4.2019 itself from its current status shown on the portal that the petitioner Institute was placed in the category of 'No Admission'. The petitioner also had knowledge of 'No Admission Report' dated 30.4.2018 (Annexure-A) at least by 14.5.2019, however, the petition was filed on 7.6.2019, which was registered on 11.6.2019. There is no explanation coming forth as to why the petition was filed almost after one month of the knowledge of the petitioners that the status of the petitioner Institute was put under 'No Admission' category. If the petitioners were wrongly put in 'No Admission' despite they having complied with the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent and if the time was the significant factor running against the petitioners, they would not have waited for a month to challenge the alleged action of the respondent. 13. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that during the surprise visit on 12.10.2017 conducted by the respondent Council, various deficiencies were found. Though the petitioner Institution was duly intimated, nobody had remained present to explain the deficiencies before the concerned authority. Therefore, the SHC had recommended 'No EOA' for the academic year 2018-19 on 1.11.2017. However, thereafter the matter was placed before the Approval Bureau and a decision was taken on 10.4.2018 to the effect that the petitioner Institute be granted 'EOA' with 25% reduction in intake for the academic year 2018-19, and that the Institution shall comply with the undertaking in respect of Barrier free environment submitted and shall satisfy the norms of faculty members and Principal and submit a report on or before 15.4.2018. That having not been submitted, again the petitioner was called upon by the Approval Bureau vide the letter dated 12.10.2018 to resolve the deficiencies noted by the Committees and submit the compliance report to the Council on or before 31.10.2018 so as to enable the Council to process its case for grant of EOA for the academic year 2019-20. That having not been submitted, again the petitioner was called upon by the Approval Bureau vide the letter dated 12.10.2018 to resolve the deficiencies noted by the Committees and submit the compliance report to the Council on or before 31.10.2018 so as to enable the Council to process its case for grant of EOA for the academic year 2019-20. The petitioner Institution responded to the said letter, vide communication dated 21.10.2018 explaining the said deficiencies, however, in the said communication also it was stated that no suitable candidate for Principal/Director was found and that the management had decided to issue advertisement for the recruitment with regard to the shortfall of the faculty members. It is also not disputed that thereafter at the hearing before the SAC on 23.1.2019, the representative of the petitioner Institution had remained present and explained the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent. Though it has been disputed by the petitioners that the report dated 23.1.2019 of the SAC was communicated to them, it has not been disputed that the representative of the petitioner Institution had remained present before the SAC and explained the deficiencies, in which it was stated that the Principal was not available and shortage of faculty still existed. The SAC, therefore, had recommended to put the Institute under 'No Admission' category for the academic year 2019-20. Thereafter, the status of the petitioner Institute on the portal of the respondent was changed to 'No Admission' category on 30.4.2019. Under the circumstances, it could not be said that the petitioner Institution was not conveyed about the deficiencies or about the change of status to 'No Admission' on or before 30.4.2019 for the academic year 2019-20, or that there was any violation or disregard to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the decision in case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. (supra). 14. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate Ms. Jani that there are many other technical institutions who do not have full-time Director or Principal and also the requisite strength of faculty members, and the respondent AICTE has not taken any action against such institutions, Ms. Jani has failed to name any such institution to substantiate her allegation with regard to the discriminatory treatment being meted out to the petitioner Institution. 15. Jani has failed to name any such institution to substantiate her allegation with regard to the discriminatory treatment being meted out to the petitioner Institution. 15. As discussed herein above, the deficiencies which were found during the surprise inspection carried out on 12.10.2017 were not complied with till the consideration of the application for grant of EOA for the academic year 2019-20, though it was specially brought to the notice of the petitioner Institute vide the letter dated 12.10.2018 and letter dated 15.1.2019. Further, though the representation of the petitioner Institution had remained present during the course of hearing on 23.1.2019 before the SAC, he had failed to show compliance of the deficiencies as regards to appointment of Principal/Director and shortage of faculty members. Even till this date the said deficiencies exist. Under the circumstances, it could not be said that the action of the respondent in placing the petitioner Institution in 'No Admission' category for the academic year 2019-20 was arbitrary or discriminatory. As per the settled legal position, the Court cannot substitute its own view in place of the decision taken by the expert body of the respondent Council, which would dilute the educational standards, adversely affecting the standard and quality of engineering degree courses. 16. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed, however, it appears that since the petitioner Institution has filed the representation on 28.5.2019 (Annexure-R) to reconsider the decision of the respondent authority, which appears to have remained pending. It also appears that the petitioner Institute has made efforts to appoint qualified Principal/Director and the faculty members by issuing advertisements. Ms. Jani had submitted that recently interviews were also fixed for the said posts. Hence, if the suitable candidates for the posts of Principal/Director and faculty are selected by the petitioner Institute, the representation of the petitioner may be considered by the respondent Council in the light of subsequent events, as may be legally permissible under the Regulations and as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one week from the date of receipt of the order. 17. Subject to the afore-stated direction, the petition is dismissed.