- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner had approached this Court seeking quashing of letter dated 10th April, 2013 issued by the Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the AICTE), whereunder the application of the petitioner Institute for extension for approval for the Academic Year 2013 -14, has been rejected. He had also made a prayer for quashing of letter contained in File No. ERO14476904/2012 -13, dated 11th April, 2013 issued under the signature of the Advisor AICTE, New Delhi (respondent no.4), whereby the petitioner -Institute has been placed under "No Admission Status  for the Academic Year 2013 -14, as it would cause serious detriment to the petitioner Institute which is imparting technical education since last 12 years as per the norms and regulation of the AICTE. The petitioner also sought direction upon the respondent authority to accord approval to the petitioner -Institute for Academic Session 2013 -14 as according to petitioner Institute, it fulfills all the standards laid down by the AICTE. It also sought for further direction upon the respondents to allow it to take admission in the B.Tech Course for the Academic Session 2013 -14. When the writ petition was filed, the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the appellate committee of AICTE being aggrieved by the impugned orders as aforesaid. The matter was adjourned to enable the respondents to file their response and it was also observed that it would be open for the appellate board of AICTE to take a decision in respect of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid period. Thereafter once again the matter was adjourned as no counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents. It was also informed that the appellate body had not taken any decision on the appeal preferred by the petitioner. However, when the matter was taken up on 8th July, 2013, the petitioner pressed an I.A. No. 4580 of 2013, seeking challenge to the appellate order dated 28th June, 2013 passed by the appellate committee of AICTE, whereby the petitioners appeal was rejected. After hearing the counsel for the parties the petitioner was allowed to incorporate the proposed amendments in the main writ application. Therefore, the order dated 28th June 2013 passed by the appellate committee is also impugned in the present writ application.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner -Institute is that it has been established in the year 2001. Ever since its affiliation to the Ranchi University, Ranchi and grant of approval by the AICTE for running the Engineering Course, it has been running and maintaining the Institution as per the norms and standards as laid down by the AICTE. It is submitted that yearwise extension of approval to the petitioner Institute has been granted continuously thereafter by AICTE till the Academic Year 2012 -13 vide Annexure -1 and 1/1. However a surprise visit was conducted in the petitioner Institute by the AICTE team on 12th April, 2012 and it was noticed to show cause relating to certain deficiencies pointed out by the Surprise Inspection Committee as also to appear before the Standing Complaint Committee of AICTE vide letter dated 24th May, 2012 vide Annexure -2. According to the petitioner, it appeared before the Standing Complaint Committee and explained its bonafide giving satisfactorily replies before the Expert Committee. No adverse communication was made to it thereupon. However, again on 8th August, 2012, another surprise visit was conducted by the AICTE Team and a show cause was issued to it to explain the set of deficiencies pointed out inter alia relating to excess admission in the year 2003 -04, the qualification of the Principal /Director of the Institute being not in accordance with norms and the Teacher Faculty Ratio in the institute being also not in consonance with the AICTE requirements vide Annexure -3 dated 27th August, 2012. The petitioner submitted its reply on 8th September, 2012. According to petitioner -Institute, it explained the matter of admission of the Diploma Holders, who had been laterally admitted in 2nd Year Engineering Course and allowed to continue their studies and their results were published at the instance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 645 and 659 / 2005. It also pointed out that the Principal A. Bhattacharya possesses the qualification of B.E., M. Tech and Ph. D in Engineering and was fully eligible for appointment as the Principal of the petitioner -Institute. The petitioner also gave details of the teaching faculty to justify the teacher -students ratio as being in accordance with the norms of AICTE vide its reply dated 8th September, 2012. According to the petitioner, no adverse order was communicated to the petitioner Institute in relation to the deficiencies pointed out by the expert committee.;