STUDENT ACADEMIC EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Student Academic Education Society
The All India Council For Technical Education
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Anoop V. Mohta, J.(Oral) - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.
(2.) Petitioner is an educational institution running Diploma in Pharmacy course based upon the permission granted by All India Council of Technical Education ("Aicte") which is the supreme authority for starting any technical education course even within State of Maharashtra. Petitioner got AICTE approval in the year 201415 itself to establish pharmacy program for undergraduate students with intake capacity of 140 students. Respondent No.3 - Director of Technical Education in July 2015 restricted the intake to 100 students. Petition was filed in this Court and by order dated 14th July, 2015 petitioner was permitted to admit 120 students for the said course. Petition was disposed of on 04th August, 2015. Again for the academic year 201617 Respondent No.3 restricted the intake capacity to 100 students. Petitioner preferred another writ petition. Based upon order dated 27th March, 2016, the intake capacity retained to 120 students.
(3.) It was expected in view of the order passed by this Court and the approval granted by AICTE the intake capacity would be retained to 120 students. However, Respondent No.3 restricted again to 120 students by not publishing the number on the website of centralised admission process. Placing on record the judgments passed by this Court in similarly situated matters, noting the controversy about supremacy of Aicte and/or pharmacy. Respondent No.3 in its reply referred the guidelines received from Pharmacy Council dated 25th June, 2013 whereby it is informed to the State that admission of pharmacy council under the fee waiver scheme could be restricted to 100 students. This was the reason for government to restrict the number on website to 100, by again overlooking the earlier orders passed retaining it to 120 students as per AICTE approval. The Court's order in spite of above communication of pharmacy council, ought not to have been overlooked by Respondent No.3. The supremacy of Aicte and/or pharmacy council still pending in Supreme Court. But in view of orders passed by Supreme Court the importance is given to the Aicte throughout India including State of Maharashtra, we see there was no reason for Respondent No.3 to overlooking the same position and should have retain 120 students capacity as ordered by this Court from time to time.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.