(Dipak Misra and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
Foundation For Organizational Research And Education “Fore School of Management” Thr Its Director Jitendra K. Das ___________ Petitioner;
v.
AICTE _________________________________________ Respondent.
(With appln.(s) for bringing on record additional documents and directions and intervention and office report)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 581/2016, decided on September 6, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
I.A. Nos. 1/2016 & 4/2016
1. These are the applications for intervention.
2. Heard Mr. Dharmendar Rautrey, learned counsel for the applicants. The applications for intervention stand allowed.
W.P.(C) No. 581/2016
3. Heard Mr. Salman Khurshid and Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned senior counsel, being assisted by Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution, Mr. Anil Soni, learned counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.) and Mr. Dharmendar Rautrey, learned counsel for the intervenors.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Institution that pursuant to the order dated 25-7-20161, a sum of Rs. 2 crores has been deposited before the Registry of this Court. The amount so deposited shall be kept in a short term fixed deposit in the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi, so that interest can be accrued on the same.
5. Mr. Anil Soni, learned counsel appearing for the A.I.C.T.E. has submitted that the petitioner-Institution has played inexcusable truancy with the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, (for brevity, ‘the Act) and the Regulations framed thereunder. Additionally, he would submit that the petitioner-Institution has harboured the notion that it can be law unto itself and, as a result thereof, it had admitted 372 students against the sanctioned strength of 240 (132 in excess) in two courses, namely, PGDM and PGDM (I-B).
6. Mr. Dharmendar Rautrey, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors submits that he represents 27 students and all of them are continuing in the petitioner-Institution. According to him, the Institution, in one fine morning, had made a declaration that 51 students are beyond the prescribed quota, but the basis of which has not been disclosed and the every student who has been axed remains in darkness.
7. Mr. Khurshid, learned senior counsel, conceded that the sanction strength is 240, but 372 students were admitted; but the Institution had reasons to do so, for the A.I.C.T.E. did not proceed with the approval within the stipulated framework of time and further the Institution had been experiencing that the students after taking admission, leave the Institution.
8. Be it stated, on the earlier occasion, we had directed deposition of Rs. 2 crores before the Registry of this Court so that in the ultimate eventuality, if we strike down all the admissions of the students, they can be compensated. At this juncture, Mr. Soni, learned counsel appearing for the A.I.C.T.E. has submitted that the A.I.C.T.E. shall verify that the students who have been continuing in praesenti, are entitled to continue.
9. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions raised at the Bar, we direct as follows:—
(a) A.I.C.T.E. shall verify who are the students eligible under the norms regard being had to the concept of merit, to continue in the petitioner-Institution.
(b) The Inspection Team of A.I.C.T.E. shall carry out another inspection to find out as to whether the Institution has removed the deficiencies that were pointed out by the inspecting authority.
(c) The petitioner-Institution shall cooperate with the Inspection Team.
(d) The petitioner-Institution shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 2 crores before the Registry of this Court within four weeks hence.
10. Let the matter be listed on 18th October, 2016.
———
1 Foundation for Organizational Research and Education “Fore School of Management” v. AICTE, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 581 of 2016, order dated 25-7-2016 (SC)
