Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. D.Y. Patil Pratishthan's Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Polytechnic, a trust running an educational institution, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to include the institution in the Centralised Admission Procedure (CAP) for First Year Engineering Courses (Diploma) for the academic year 2014-2015. The petitioner had obtained approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for the said academic year. However, the State of Maharashtra, through the Directorate of Technical Education and the Department of Higher & Technical Education, did not issue a Government Resolution (GR) recording the AICTE approval, thereby excluding the petitioner from the CAP. The petitioner contended that despite having valid AICTE approval, the State's failure to issue the GR and include the institution in CAP was arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987. The respondents argued that the State was in the process of formulating a policy regarding inclusion of institutions in CAP and that the petitioner's case would be considered in due course. The court, after hearing the parties, held that AICTE approval is sufficient for inclusion in CAP and the State cannot withhold the GR based on pending policy decisions. The court directed the State to issue the necessary Government Resolution recording the AICTE approval and to include the petitioner institution in the Centralised Admission Procedure for the academic year 2014-2015 forthwith. The court also directed the Directorate of Technical Education to issue an institute code and display the petitioner's name on its web portal with course-wise sanctioned intake and choice codes. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Technical Education - Inclusion in Centralised Admission Procedure - AICTE Act, 1987, Section 10 - The petitioner, a trust running a polytechnic, obtained AICTE approval for the academic year 2014-2015 but the State did not issue a Government Resolution recording the approval, thereby excluding the institution from CAP. The court held that AICTE approval is sufficient and the State cannot withhold inclusion based on pending policy decisions. The court directed the State to issue the GR and include the petitioner in CAP forthwith. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Mandamus - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to direct the State to perform its statutory duty of recording AICTE approval and including the institution in CAP, as the State's inaction was arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's rights. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner institution, having obtained AICTE approval for the academic year 2014-2015, is entitled to be included in the Centralised Admission Procedure (CAP) conducted by the State, despite the State not issuing a Government Resolution (GR) recording such approval.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The State of Maharashtra is directed to issue the necessary Government Resolution recording the AICTE approval granted to the petitioner institution for the academic year 2014-2015 forthwith. The Directorate of Technical Education is directed to include the petitioner institution in the Centralised Admission Procedure (CAP) for First Year Engineering Courses (Diploma) for the academic year 2014-2015, issue an institute code, and display the petitioner's name on its web portal with course-wise sanctioned intake and choice codes. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- AICTE approval is sufficient for inclusion in Centralised Admission Procedure
- State cannot withhold GR based on pending policy decisions
- Writ of Mandamus can be issued to direct inclusion in CAP
