AICTE Approval for Educational Institute and Statutory Deadlines

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by the Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society (the petitioners) against the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), challenging the rejection of their application for the establishment of Anant Institute of Business Studies (AIBS) for the academic year 2017-18. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the AICTE to immediately issue a Letter of Approval (LoA) allowing them to start the institute for the 2017-18 academic year, despite the rejection of their application on the grounds of certain deficiencies. The issue raised critical questions related to the adherence to statutory timelines and the implications of deficiencies in the application process.

Background: The petitioners had applied to the AICTE in February 2017 for approval to establish AIBS. The application was scrutinized by AICTE’s various committees, and an Expert Visit Committee (EVC) report dated 1st March 2017 found no deficiencies, recommending the approval of the petitioners’ institution. However, the matter was delayed as the EVC inspection in April 2017 was obstructed, leading to a delay in processing the approval. On 30th April 2017, AICTE issued a rejection letter to the petitioners, citing the failure to comply with necessary inspection procedures. This led the petitioners to approach the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which dismissed their petition as infructuous.

The petitioners then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which, on 22nd June 2017, directed that the petitioners be given an opportunity for a fresh inspection. Subsequently, an EVC inspected the institution in July 2017, noting certain deficiencies, such as the sharing of land between two institutions and insufficient amenities. The petitioners, in response, withdrew their proposal for another institution and provided the necessary clarification regarding land usage.

Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioners contended that AICTE’s rejection of their application was unjust, especially since they had complied with the statutory deadlines and completed the necessary formalities. They argued that any delays in processing the application were due to AICTE’s inaction, not their fault, and that their substantial investment in setting up the institution (approximately Rs. 4 crores) should be considered as an important factor in granting the approval. They also emphasized that no other institution in the region offered similar courses, making their institution a vital educational opportunity for the public.

Respondent’s Argument: The AICTE, represented by its counsel, argued that the rejection of the petitioners’ application was in line with the prescribed guidelines and statutory timelines. The respondents stated that the petitioners had failed to allow the EVC team to inspect the premises in April 2017, which led to the delay. The AICTE also pointed out that the petitioners’ institutions shared the same land, which violated the regulations and could not be condoned. After the petitioners rectified this issue by withdrawing their proposal for another institution, the AICTE proceeded to grant approval for AIBS, but for the academic year 2018-19, not 2017-18.

Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the mandatory nature of the timelines specified in the AICTE Regulations. The Court held that the AICTE had acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with the statutory deadlines, which are not directory but mandatory. The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ investment but noted that the deficiencies in their application, which were identified during the fresh inspection, could not be overlooked. Moreover, the Court made it clear that any indulgence shown to the petitioners would violate the statutory timelines and affect public interests, as the academic year had already commenced, and the deadline for student admissions had passed.

Key Points from the Judgment:

• The Court reiterated that AICTE’s decision to issue approval for AIBS for the academic year 2018-19 was in accordance with the statutory guidelines and timelines.
• The petitioners were found to be responsible for the delay, as they had failed to disclose the sharing of land between the two institutions initially, which led to the deficiencies in the application.
• The Supreme Court held that even though the petitioners had made substantial investments, it was not sufficient grounds to grant relief by overriding the statutory deadlines.
• The Court also emphasized that the timelines set by AICTE are statutory and mandatory, and any deviation would undermine the integrity of the process.
• The petitioners were denied the relief sought and were instead directed to pay costs to the respondents.

Conclusion: This case highlights the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines and regulations when applying for educational approvals. The Court’s decision underscores the significance of transparency and compliance in the approval process. The judgment also clarifies that while financial investments and public interest arguments may be considered, they cannot override the legal requirements and deadlines set by statutory bodies like AICTE.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Om Sai Punya Educati vs All India Council fo Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-08-2017.pdf