WP/22842/2009 of St. Marys College of Engineering AND Technology, Vs All India Council for Technical Education, on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

The petitioner is a college of Engineering andTechnology established in the year 2001 with theapproval of All India Council for Technical Education (forshort ‘the Council’), 1[st] respondent herein. The 1[st]respondent has created a facility of permitting 15% ofsupernumerary seats in each course of study in anEngineering College for the benefit of the students who are Foreign Nationals, persons of Indian origin andchildren of Indian workers in Gulf Countries (for short ‘thePIO quota’), subject to certain conditions. The 1[st]respondent evolved an independent procedure forthis. 12 conditions are stipulated for this purpose. The petitioner submitted an application for availing thisbenefit. Approval was accorded by the 1[st] respondent tothe petitioner for the academic year 2008-09 for fourcourses. However, since the approval came at a belatedstage, it is stated that the petitioner was not able to availthe benefit thereof.

As required under the relevant provisions, thepetitioner submitted an application on 29.12.2008 forextension of that benefit for the current academic year i.e.,2009-10. Correspondence ensued in this regard. As amatter of fact, the petitioner approached this Court by filinga writ petition complaining that no action has been takenthereon. Ultimately, the 1[st]respondent issuedproceedings dated 15.10.2009 refusing to accordapproval by stating two reasons viz., that the built up areaavailable per student does not accord with the stipulatednorms and that the result in the final year of concernedcourse for the past two academic years is less than 75%.The petitioner challenges the said proceedings.

It is urged that the difference between the availablespace on the one hand and the prescribed one is verymeager and that the percentage of pass of students forthe past two academic years has no nexus with theapproval prayed for by the petitioner. The In-chargeChairman and the Member Secretary of the 1[st]

respondent are made as eo nomine parties to the writpetition and mala fides are alleged against them.

The 1[st] respondent filed a counter affidavit. Theparameters for according permission for supernumeraryseats under PIO quota are mentioned in detail. Theallegation made by the petitioner be it as to the mala fidesor compliance with the conditions are denied. Referenceis also made to the correspondence that ensued betweenthe petitioner and the 1[st] respondent.

Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearanceand submissions are made by their counsel extensivelyon their behalf, but no counter affidavit was filed.

The Secretary and Correspondent of the petitioner-institution appeared in person and made extensivearguments. He submits that the very fact that theapproval was accorded to the petitioner during the pastacademic year discloses that it fulfilled the conditions andthat the impugned proceedings are unsustainable in lawor on facts. He further submits that he has exposedseveral mistakes that are taking place in the Council andas a vindictive measure, respondents 2 and 3 havedenied approval to the petitioner by raising certaingrounds. It is also pleaded that the conditions such asbuilt up area per student is not immediately relevant forthe purpose. He contends that the percentage of result inan institution depends upon several factors and stipulationof minimum 75% of results for the past two academicyears not only causes hardship but is also irrelevant.

Conclusion

Sri K.Rama Kantha Reddy advanced arguments onbehalf of all the respondents. He submits that the facilityclaimed by the petitioner is extraordinary one in natureand since high standards are required to be maintainedfor the students of such category, necessary stipulationsare made. Learned counsel submits that once thepetitioner does not dispute that the deficiency pointed outin the impugned proceedings exist, the writ petition iswithout any merits. He also submits that respondents 2and 3 were made parties by name with an oblique motive.

In addition to the intake that is permitted in eachcourse in an institution, the Council provided for anadditional intake to the extent of 15% in favour of thestudents of PIO category. As many as 12 conditions arestipulated for this purpose. It is only those institutionswhich fulfil these conditions that are entitled for the facility.The petitioner submitted application seeking the saidfacility for four courses viz., (i) Computer Science &Engineering (ii) Electronics and CommunicationEngineering (iii) Electrical and Electronics Engineering;and (iv) Information Technology for the current academicyear 2008-09. The application was processed andapproval was accorded at a belated stage. It is stated thatthe petitioner could not avail the same.

As required under the relevant regulations, thepetitioner submitted application for the current academicyear. There was indeed some delay on the part of the 1[st]respondent in processing the application. However, thereasons therefor are not of immediate relevance. Theapplication was ultimately rejected vide proceedings dated 15.10.2009 stating that there are two deficienciesviz.,

(i) build-up area available is 12.18 squaremeters per student as against the requirementof 12.5 square meters per student; andmeters per student as against the requirementof 12.5 square meters per student; and

(ii) the result of the last two years for the finalyear students is less than 75% calculatedbased on number of students who haveappeared in the final examination.

The grounds of challenge to these proceedings havealready been mentioned above.

The Council prescribed the procedure to be followedin the matter of extension of the facility of 15%supernumerary seats. Clause (7) thereof deals with theeligibility criteria. The two relevant clauses of theprocedure read as under:

(i) The total built up area of the institution(excluding hostels and residential areas)should not be less than 12.5 sq.m. per student;and

(ii) The results of the last two years fro final yearstudents should not be less than 75%,calculated based on Number of studentsappeared in the final examination.students should not be less than 75%,calculated based on Number of studentsappeared in the final examination.

The petitioner does not dispute that the two conditionsreferred to above are not fulfilled. It must be noted that thesupernumerary seats are created for the benefit ofForeign Nationals or persons of Indian origin and naturally they would tend to compare the facilities in the institutionsin India with those available in the concerned Countries. Even otherwise, the Council is vested with the power toprescribe the norms for grant of approval. The very factthat the petitioner made an application for that facilitydiscloses its willingness and readiness to abide by theconditions. Having submitted application under theprescribed procedure, the petitioner cannot turn roundand brand the conditions either as irrelevant orunreasonable.

This Court cannot examine the relevance orotherwise of the conditions referred to above, particularlywhen the petitioner did not challenge them. Thestipulation of a specified area per student cannot be saidto be without nexus. The specialized agency like theCouncil has studied the entire issue and arrived at theconclusion that per student, the built up area of 12.5square meters must be made available. This includes thespace for class room, the laboratories and other facilities. The objectivity with which the application was consideredis evident from the fact that the built up area available withthe petitioner is clearly mentioned.

So far as the results for the past two years in thefinal year of the concerned courses in the institution areconcerned, it is certainly an important and relevantstipulation. If the performance in the regular courses isnot encouraging or meritorious, a special facility intendedfor the benefit of Foreign Nationals cannot be extended. Itis a matter of record that the percentage of pass in thepetitioner-institution for the past two years in the said courses is 68%, far below the prescribed percentage. Neither the Council or for that matter, this Court isconcerned with the reasons that contributed for relativelyless percentage of results.

The petitioner made certain allegations againstrespondents 2 and 3. The occasion for this Court toexamine the allegations of mala fides would arise onlywhen the petitioner has fulfilled the relevant conditionsand was entitled for approval, but the same was deniedon account of the mala fide exercise of powers byrespondents 2 and 3. In the facts of the present case, thegrant of approval in favour of the petitioner, despite theexistence of deficiency on important aspects, would havebeen the result of an illegal exercise of power and aninstance of favoritism. Rejection of an application on theground that the conditions are not fulfilled, cannot bebranded as mala fide exercise. Viewed from any angle,this Court does not find any basis to interfere with theimpugned order.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

________________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)

Date: 31.12.2009

Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.

(B/o)

JSU

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

JSU

Writ Petition No.22842 of 2009

Date: