Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate Board and Watumall Institute of Electronics, Engineering and Computer Technology, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the letter dated 30 April 2016 and order dated 30 April 2016 issued by Respondent No.1, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), whereby the petitioner no.2 institution was placed in 'No Admission Category' for the academic session 2016-17. The petitioners also challenged the communication dated 8 April 2016 rejecting their proposal for change of site of the petitioner no.2 institute. The petition was initially heard and rule was issued on 13 June 2016 with interim relief staying the operation of the order dated 30 April 2016 and allowing the college to participate in the Centralized Admission Process (CAP) for engineering courses except Bio Medical Engineering, subject to an undertaking to apply for occupation certificate from the Municipal Corporation. The court heard learned counsel for respective parties. The petitioners argued that the rejection was arbitrary and without proper consideration. The respondents contended that the change of site required prior approval and the institution lacked necessary approvals. The court analyzed the facts and held that the impugned orders were passed without giving opportunity of hearing and without proper application of mind. The court directed AICTE to consider the petitioners' application for change of site on merits after giving them an opportunity of hearing. The court also set aside the order placing the institution in 'No Admission Category' and directed that the interim relief granted earlier shall continue until the disposal of the application by AICTE. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Change of Site - AICTE Approval - The petitioners sought change of site for their engineering college. AICTE rejected the proposal and placed the institution in 'No Admission Category' for academic session 2016-17. The court held that the rejection was arbitrary and directed AICTE to consider the application on merits after giving opportunity of hearing. (Paras 1-25) B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - The court observed that the impugned orders were passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 10-15) C) Education Law - No Admission Category - Validity - The court held that placing an institution in 'No Admission Category' without proper consideration of the change of site application was unsustainable. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the AICTE's rejection of the petitioners' application for change of site and placing the institution in 'No Admission Category' was valid and whether the petitioners are entitled to relief.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed AICTE to consider the petitioners' application for change of site on merits after giving opportunity of hearing. The interim relief granted earlier shall continue until disposal of the application.
Law Points
- Change of site for technical institution requires AICTE approval
- AICTE must consider application on merits
- No admission category cannot be imposed without proper consideration
- Opportunity of hearing must be given before adverse decision
