Graphic Era (Deemed To Be University) vs Union Of India & Anr

Lok Pal Singh, J

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the pending representation dated 20th July 2019 of Graphic Era (Deemed to be University) after giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorized representative of the Graphic Era (Deemed to be University) at an early date and to sanction 60 seats each for undergraduate programs of B.Tech (Computer Engineering) & B.Tech (Computer Science & Technology) so that the institute may complete the admission process against these seats if sanctioned on or before 14.8.2019.

Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner-University is a renowned University of the State of Uttarakhand and is engaged in imparting education to the students since long. It is the only University in the State of Uttarakhand with National Board of Accreditation accredited programs (Computer Science and Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering and Mechanical Engineering). Petitioner University was accorded approval during the year 2018-19 by the AICTE for various Technical Education Programs including Computer Science and Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering and Mechanical Engineering vide AICTE letter dated 10.04.2018. AICTE issued a public notice in the month of January 2019 inviting applications from the existing Technical Institutions for increase in intake/additional courses. The applications were required to be submitted online on AICTE Web Portal latest by 8th February, 2019, which later on was extended upto 11th February, 2019 without penalty and 16th February, 2019 with penalty. In view of provisions of Clause 2.7.3, petitioner University is entitled to three new courses/expansion of existing for new Courses/expansion of existing course(s) i.e. equal to the number of valid NBA accredited Course(s). However, the petitioner University could apply for only one new course i.e. Computer Engineering (Software Engineering) with one division (60 seats), for remaining two courses viz. B.Tech (Computer Engineering) and B.Tech (Computer Science and Technology) online application could not be made on account of technical problems in AICTE web portal. Petitioner-University represented the AICTE vide letter dated 15.7.2019 and submitted offline paper application requesting AICTE to grant sanction in its favour for new courses. Said request of the petitioner was rejected by the AICTE. Petitioner-University then again made a representation to the AICTE on 20.07.2019 and thereafter on 27.07.2019, requesting reconsideration of its decision, on which no response has been received from AICTE till date. The grievance of the petitioner is that the last date of completion of admission process is 14.08.2019.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner University would submit in view of provisions of Clause 2.7.3, petitioner University is entitled to three new courses/expansion of existing for new Courses/expansion of existing course(s) i.e. equal to the number of valid NBA accredited Course(s). However, the petitioner University could apply for only one new course i.e. Computer Engineering (Software Engineering), due to technical problem in the AICTE Web Portal. He would also submit that the Petitioner University has sufficient infrastructure for the proposed courses and because of technical problem in AICTE web portal itself, petitioner-University should not be deprived of its legitimate right of getting another two new courses sanctioned in its favour. It is contended that there is no fault on the part of the Petitioner University.

Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that AICTE may be directed to take decision on the representation moved by the petitioner University at the earliest.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, on the basis of instructions received, would submit that there is no provision of accepting offline application. He would place reliance on Clause 2.7.2 (c) of All India Council for Technical Education Approval Process Handbook (2019-20), which reads as under:-

2.7.2 Requirements and Eligibility

a. The Institution shall have valid NBA accreditation for the existing Course(s) as deemed necessary.

b. The Institution applied for NBA and awaiting for the results of the visit is also eligible to apply, but a valid NBA Certificate shall be produced at the time of Scrutiny.

c. The Institution seeking approval for Increase in Intake/Additional Course(s) shall apply on AICTE Web-Portal along with the additional documents as per Appendix 17 of the Approval Process Handbook.

d. The Institution shall have "Zero Deficiency" based on Self-Disclosure as per the Deficiency Report generated through Web-Portal.

e. No punitive action is pending against the Institution or FIR is filed by CBI or any other agency.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping into consideration the fact that AICTE is aiming to increase additional courses in the existing technical institutions which certainly would provide benefit to the students as due to non-availability of courses, students are constrained to go abroad for studies, in the opinion of the Court, an opportunity should be provided to the petitioner University by the respondent no.2 either by opening the Web Portal for a day or by accepting the offline application of the petitioner University.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner-University to make a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 within two days, despite knowing the fact that representations have already been made by the petitioner University to the respondent no.2. If such a representation is made, respondent no.2 shall consider it sympathetically and shall take a decision on the same within a period of seven days. In case, any inspection would be required by the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 may ask the petitioner-University to furnish the details regarding thereof at the cost of the petitioner University.

No order as to costs.

Let a certified copy of the order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties today itself, on payment of usual charges.