DIPAK MISRA,J - (1.)Education is the spine of any civilised society. Formal education has its own significance, for it depends upon systemic imparting of learning regard being had to the syllabus prescribed for the course and further allowing space for cultivation by individual endeavour. The sacrosanctity of formal education gains more importance in the field of technical studies because theory, practical training and application in the field cumulatively operate to make a student an asset to the country and, in a way, enables him to achieve excellence as contemplated under Article 51A of the Constitution. The natural corollary, in the ultimate eventuate, is the acceleration of the growth of the nation. But, a pregnant one, when an attitude of apathy or lackadaisical propensity or proclivity of procrastination of the statutory authorities creeps in as a consequence of which the time schedule meant for approval of the educational institutions and commencement of the courses is not adhered to, a feeling of devouring darkness seems to reign supreme as if ''things fall apart ''. There is a feeling of discomfiture - how to find out a solvation to the agonizing problem in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for there are some compelling reasons to do so to protect the national interest as well as not to scuttle the aspirations of young students or to comatose their hopes stating that all cannot be well in the State of Denmark and there should not be a Sisyphean endeavour. We are constrained to commence with such a prologue as the present batch of writ petitions pertains to counselling and admission in certain categories of courses which are approved and controlled from many a spectrum regard being had to the sustenance of standard in education by the All India Council for Technical Education (for brevity, ''AICTE ''), and also some categories of courses which are directly governed by the statutes and regulations of the University, namely, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (hereinafter referred to as ''the University '') in the backdrop of extension of time schedule fixed by this Court in respect of technical courses.
(2.)THE controversy involved in this batch of cases has a past, which requires to be exposited with requisite respect for chronology. We have already indicated at the beginning that in all these cases, we are concerned with the adherence to schedule pertaining to approval by AICTE, counselling and admission by the authorities of the University. That being the centripodal issue, our advertence shall remain restricted to the said arena. At this juncture, we may state that at the appropriate stage, we shall refer to some necessitous facts from W.P.(C) No. 853/2014. We are obligated to sit in a time machine to appreciate how the schedule was fixed by the AICTE under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for brevity, ''the 1987 Act) and the Regulations framed thereunder and how the said schedule was appositely re -fixed by this Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust Vs. All India Council for Technical Education [(2013) 3 SCC 385]. In the said decision, a two -Judge Bench scanning the anatomy of the 1987 Act, observed thus:
''17. The provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short 'the AICTE Act ') are intended to improve the technical education system throughout the country. The various authorities under the AICTE Act have been given exclusive responsibility to coordinate and determine the standards of higher education. It is a general power given to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any project of national importance. Such coordinated action in higher education with proper standard is of paramount importance to the national progress. 18. The provisions of the AICTE Act, including its Preamble, make it abundantly clear that AICTE has been established under the Act for coordinated and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The AICTE is required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in technical education system. AICTE is to further evolve suitable performance appraisal system for technical institutions and universities incorporating norms and mechanisms in enforcing their accountability. It is required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has the power to withhold or discontinue grants to such technical institutions where norms and standards laid down by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed. The duty and responsibility cast on AICTE implies that the norms and standards to be set should be such as would prevent isolated development of education in the country. 19. Section 10 of the AICTE Act enumerates various powers and functions of AICTE as also its duties and obligations to take steps towards fulfilment of the same. One such power as envisaged in Section 10(k) is to ''grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned ''.

It is important to see that AICTE is empowered to inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution in clause (p)) of Section 10 without any reservation whatsoever. However, when it comes to the question of universities, it is confined and limited to ascertaining the financial needs or its standards of teaching, examination and research. The inspection may be made or caused to be made of any department or departments only and that too, in such manner as may be prescribed, as envisaged in Section 11 of the AICTE Act. 20. All these vitally important aspects go to show that the Council (AICTE) created under the AICTE Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or to supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that they are imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of their departments or units. A careful scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis -à -vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing guidance, thereby subserving the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale [(2012) 2 SCC 425], State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute [(1995) 4 SCC 104] and Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education [(2001) 8 SCC 676]. ''

(3.)THE Court referred to various other facets and adverted to All India Council For Technical Education (Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical Institutions, Introduction of Courses or Programmes and Approval of Intake Capacity of Seats for the Courses or Programmes) Regulations, 1994 and noted the Schedule to said Regulations which read as under: - JUDGEMENT_24_LAWS(SC)10_2014.html
After reproducing the schedule, the Court ruled that adherence to the same is mandatory and not directory, for non -adherence of the schedule can result in serious consequences and can jeopardise not only the interest of the college students but also the maintenance of proper standards of technical education. It further observed that the authorities concerned, particularly AICTE should ensure proper and timely action upon the application submitted to it and it must respond to the applicant within a reasonable time period and should not allow the matter to be dragged till the final date giving rise to avoidable peculiarities by all stakeholders. After so stating, the Court also took note of the act that there seem to be some variation in the schedule issued under Regulation 8(15) and the duties reflected in the Handbook. After noticing that, the two -Judge Bench opined that the admission schedule should be declared once and for all rather than making it a yearly declaration. Emphasis was laid on the consistency and smoothness in admission process. It has also been stated that there has to be a fixed and unaltered time schedule for admission to the colleges so that the students know with certainty and well in advance the admission schedule that is to be followed and on the basis of which they can exercise their choice relating to college or the course. The Court referred to the schedule that was submitted before it for admission for the academic year 2013 -2014. Eventually, the Court fixed an appropriate schedule which is as follows: JUDGEMENT_24_LAWS(SC)10_20141.html

''42. The admission to academic courses should start, as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The seats remaining vacant should again be duly notified and advertised. All seats should be filled positively by 15th August after which there shall be no admission, whatever be the reason or ground. 43. We find that the above Schedule is in conformity with the affiliation/recognition schedule aforenoticed. They both can co -exist. Thus, we approve these admission dates and declare it to be the law which shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned and none of the authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary these dates of admission. Certainty in this field is bound to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious method of grant of admission and commencement of the technical courses. Any variation is bound to adversely affect the maintenance of higher standards of education and systemic and proper completion of courses. '' At this stage, it is seemly to refer to a subsequent decision in Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others [(2013) 8 SCC 271]. In the said decision, certain educational institutions, being aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madras, had approached this Court on the foundation that the High Court had erroneously interpreted the 1987 Act, for the High Court had opined that the University is not required to take permission from AICTE, but its affiliated colleges are required to do so. The High Court has further ruled that the appellant colleges therein should get their course of MCA ratified by AICTE as per the prescribed format, which according to the appellants, was in contravention of the settled principles of interpretation of statutes as stated in Bharathidasan University V. All India Council for Technical Education [(2001) 8 SCC 676]. The two -Judge Bench referred to Parshvanath Charitable Trust(supra), T.M. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481], the definition of 'technical education' and 'technical institution' in the dictionary clause of the Act and certain provisions of University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Regulations framed under the said Act and came to hold as follows: ''52. .......the AICTE Act does not intend to be an authority either superior or to supervise or control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon the said universities merely for the reason that it is laying down certain teaching standards in technical education or programmes formulated in any of the department or units. It is evident that while enacting the AICTE Act, Parliament was fully alive to the existence of the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 particularly, the said provisions extracted above. Therefore, the definition of ''technical institution '' in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act which authorizes AICTE to do certain things, special care has consciously and deliberately been taken to make specific mention of university, wherever and whenever AICTE alone was expected to interact with a university and its departments as well as constituent institutions and units. It was held after analyzing the provision of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the AICTE Act that the role of the inspection conferred upon the AICTE vis -a -vis universities is limited to the purpose of ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system so as to conform to the standard laid down by it with no further or direct control over such universities or scope for any direct action except bringing it to the notice of UGC. In that background, this Court in Bharathidasan University case made it very clear by making the observation that it has examined the scope of the enactment as to whether the AICTE Act prevails over the UGC Act or the fact of competent entries fall in Entry 66 List I vis -a -vis Entry 25 of List III of the VII Schedule of the Constitution. 53. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of Bharathidasan University case which are extracted above makes it very clear that this Court has exempted universities, its colleges, constituent institutions and units from seeking prior approval from AICTE. Also, from the reading of paragraphs 19 and 20 of Parashvanath Chartitable Trust case it is made clear after careful scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 that the role of AICTE vis -à -vis universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing guidance and has no authority empowering it to issue or enforce any sanctions by itself. '' After the aforesaid judgment was delivered, a writ petition No. 895/2013 was filed which was taken up on 24.3.2014 wherein the Court passed the following order:

''Rule nisi. Having regard to the important issue involved in the Writ Petition, we think that it will be appropriate if the matter is heard by a Bench of three Judges. The matter may be listed accordingly within six months from today. '' In SLP(C) No. 7277/2014, on 17.4.2014, the following order came to be passed: ''In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, i.e., All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), it is stated that Approval Process Handbook (2013 -14) is presently in force and the same has been extended and made applicable for the Academic Year 2014 -15 as well. AICTE shall now proceed in accordance with the Approval Process Handbook for the Academic Year 2014 -15 insofar as the members of the petitioner Association and all colleges and institutions situated similarly to the members of the petitioner Association are concerned and necessary orders shall be issued by AICTE within ten days. Prayer for interim relief is ordered accordingly. '' In SLP(C) No. 7277/14, IA No. 2 -3/2014 were filed. In the said applications, on 09.05.2014, a four -Judge bench, passed the following order: ''The order dated 17.4.2014 passed by this Court is clarified and it is directed that prior approval of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is compulsory and mandatory for conduct of a technical course including the MBA/Management course by an existing affiliated Technical College and also new Technical College which will require affiliation by a University for conduct of its Technical Courses/Programmes for the academic year 2014 -15. The time given in the order dated 17.4.2014 is extended by 10.6.2014. IA Nos. 2 and 3 of 2014 stand disposed of as above. ''