Common order:

Subject matter of this batch of writ petitions relates to second shift admissions in B.Tech/B.Pharm/MBA courses during the academic year 2010-11 in the petitioner institutions. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi granted permission/approval/affiliation to the petitioner institutions for starting second shift courses in their respective institutions in various degrees etc. Granting of second shift permission to the institutions was not to the liking of Government of Andhra Pradesh; and therefore the Government did not approve second shift courses in the petitioner institutions and did not permit the Convenor, EAMCET, 2010, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) to allow counselling to second shift courses in the petitioner institutions. Consequently, Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education (in short, the State Council) did not approve admissions of students made by the petitioner institutions into second shift courses. Even though the Universities including JNTU to which the respective petitioner Colleges are affiliated did not approve academic programmes being run by the petitioner Colleges in their second shift by giving their own respective reasons. In those circumstances, the petitioner institutions - Colleges have come up with this batch of writ petitions before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus against Government of Andhra Pradesh, State Council, Convenor, EAMCET, 2010 as well as the respective Universities seeking permission for counselling for second shift admissions, approval of second shift admission of students in Category B seats (which category of seats is filled up by the respective Colleges without reference to counselling for admissions to Category A seats) and affiliation of the respective Universities for the respective academic programmes in the above courses in the second shift. Sheet-anchor of the petitioners contentions is Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Higher Education, Thiruvananthapuram (2000)5 SCC 231) [LQ/SC/2017/249] of the Supreme Court. It is contention of the petitioners that when once AICTE has granted affiliation to the respective institutions for starting second shift courses, the State Government as well as the University are bound by the said decision and that they cannot have independent stand or independent policy which runs counter to AICTE decision.

2. On behalf of AICTE, its Regional Officer in South Central Regional Office, Hyderabad filed counter-affidavit, even though the petitioners have no grievance against AICTE and did not make any allegations against AICTE. It is stated that AICTE filed counter-affidavit in view of certain averments made by the State Council as well as Convenor, EAMCET, 2010. It is denied that AICTE did not follow any regulations and that AICTE has not considered objections of the State Government. According to AICTE, there was meeting of its Regional Committee at Hyderabad on 24.06.2010 and the Regional Committee recommended approval for second shift. It is contended on behalf of AICTE that the said Regional Committee meeting on 24.06.2010 was attended by not only Vice Chancellor of JNTU, Hyderabad, Principal of University College of Technology, Osmania University but also State Governments Officers namely Commissioner of Technical Education and Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, who are members. It is further contended on behalf of AICTE that granting approval for second shift courses in the petitioner institutions is in accordance with AICTE regulations as well as after following due procedure prescribed thereunder.

3. On behalf of the State Government, Special Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department filed counter-affidavit as well as additional counter-affidavit. It is their contention that views of the State Government have to be taken into account by AICTE Regional Committee while taking a decision in this regard and that AICTE in gross violation of mandatory procedures granted approval for second shift in engineering and that Government of Andhra Pradesh specifically objected for grant of approvals for second shift in engineering and those objections were not considered by AICTE. It is further contended that Regional Committee of AICTE in its meeting on 08.07.2010 categorically found that second shift courses in engineering in the existing engineering Colleges are not warranted. The State Government as well as State Council and JNTU heavily placed reliance on Govt.ofA.P. v J.B.EducationalSociety (2005(3) SCC 212) of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (in short, the A.P.Act of 1982) is not in any way repugnant to Section 10 of AICTE Act. According to the State Government, they have also got role in AICTE taking decision for granting permissions for new Colleges as well as new programmes like second shift in engineering in the already existing approved Colleges. It is complaint of the State Government that AICTE did not follow the prescribed procedure before granting permissions to the petitioner institutions for running second shift in engineering in their existing Colleges.

4. Incharge Secretary of the State Council filed counter-affidavit on the same lines as that of the State Government. It is contended that when supply is more than demand in the first shift itself in the State of Andhra Pradesh, AICTE should not have granted permission for second shift in engineering to Colleges in Andhra Pradesh, ignoring objections raised by the State Government.

5. Registrar of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the University stating that in pursuance of the applications of the respective petitioners for granting affiliation to second shift, the University constituted fact finding Committee who inspected the Colleges and submitted respective reports pointing out deficiencies which are set out in the respective communications to the Colleges rejecting their applications for grant of affiliation for second shift. It is his contention that the University has got power to refuse affiliation for non-fulfilling the norms prescribed by it and which norms are in conformity with those prescribed by AICTE and that in accordance with decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu v Adhiyaman Educational and Research (1995(4) SCC 104).

6. The Additional Advocate General appearing for JNTU contended that the University under procedure and regulations for affiliation fixed certain criteria, conditions and norms to be satisfied by colleges seeking affiliation. Regulation sub statute 2.1 reads as follows:

2.1 Society/Trust

A registered Society/registered trust may alone be eligible to seek affiliation for academic programmes and it shall satisfy the conditions stipulated in sub Statute 2.2 to 2.17 so far as they are not inconsistent with the regulations that may be stipulated by the University and AICTE/COA/COP from time to time.

7. It is contended basing on the above regulation that apart from satisfying regulations stipulated by AICTE, Colleges have to satisfy further regulations stipulated by the University insofar as they are not inconsistent. Apart from granting affiliation to Colleges, the regulations empower the University to grant affiliation to any academic programme in any College. The regulations include stipulation as to staff pattern, student teacher ratio, faculty cadre etc. Whensome of the petitioner Colleges sought affiliation to second shift of B.Tech., etc. courses in their respective Colleges which Colleges are already affiliated by the University, the University did not consider granting of affiliation to second shift by giving reasons in their respective communications to the Colleges. The following table demonstrates reasons given by the University for not granting affiliation.

Sl.No.Name and place of the CollegeReasons for not granting affiliationDate of communication

1.SreeNidhi Institute of Science & Technology, Yamnampet, Ghatkesar (M),Rangareddy District.1. Number of faculty ratified is 111/259=42.8% which is below the university norm of 50%.

2. Proposed Dean for second shift is not identified.08.09.2010

2.VidyaJyothi Institute of Technology, Himayathnagar (V), CB Post, Hyderabad.1. As per norms, no.of professors required is 16 & Faculty cadre ratio desired is 16:32:96. However actual cadre ratio is 13:19:95. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. No. of Faculty Ratified is 05/127=03.93% which is below university norm of 50%.08.09.2010

3.CVR College of Engineering, Vastu Nagar, S.No.315, Mangalpalli (V), Ibrahimpatnam (M), Ranga Reddy District.1. As per norms, no. of professors required is 21 & Faculty cadre ratio desired is 21:42:127. However actual cadre ratio is 10:53:127. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. Proposed Dean for Second shift is not of Professor cadre.

3. There is no MECHANICAL Branch itself in First Shift. Hence experience of running a new branch in Second shift will be difficult.

4. Extra Library facilities & Computers to accommodate students of 1st shift and 2nd shift simultaneously is not shown.08.09.2010

4.MallaReddy Institute of Techonolgy & Science, Mysammaguda, Gundlapochampally (V), Medchal(M), Ranga Reddy District.1. As per norms, no of professors required is 16 & Faculty cadre ratio desired is 16:32:95. However actual cadre ratio is 14:24:102. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. No of faculty ratified is 68/140=48.57%, which is below the University norm of 50%.08.09.2010

5.MallaReddy College of Engineering & Techonology, Maisammaguda, Gundlapochampally(V), Medchal(M), Ranga Reddy District1. As per norms, no. of professors required is 17 & faculty cadre ratio desired is 17:34:98. However actual cadre ratio is 04:28:95. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. No. of faculty ratified is 43/127=33.85, which is below the University norm of 50%.08.09.2010

6.CM Engineering College, Sy.No.518, 519, 521 & 532, Mysammaguda, Dhulapalli(P), Via Hakimpet, Secunderabad.1. As per norms, no. of professors required is 15 & faculty cadre ratio desired is 15:30:98. However actual cadre ratio is 04:12:112. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. 1st year Pass percentage is below University average for the A.Y 2009-10 it is 12.31(31.33).08.09.2010

7.SreeNidhi Institute of Science & techonology, Yamnamet, Ghatkesar(M), Rangareddy District.1. Number of faculty ratified is 111/259=42.8% which is below the university norm of 50%.

2. Proposed Dean for second shift is not identified.08.09.2010

8.CMR College of Engineering & Technology, Kandlakoya, Medchal (M), Hyderabad1. As per norms, no. of professors required is 24 & Faculty cadre ratio desired is 24:44:136. However the college has not furnished the faculty positions.

2. No. of Faculty ratified by the University is 01/196=0.5% which is below University norm of 50%.08.09.2010

9.CMR Institute of Technology, Kandlakoya Vil, Medchal Mdl, Hyderabad.1. As per norms, no. of professors required is 15 & Faculty cadre ratio desired is 15:30:94. However actual cadre ratio is 03:32:103. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. Number of Faculty ratified by the University is Nil/138=0% which is below University norm of 50%.

3. Proposed Dean for Second Shift is not identified.

4. Extra Library facilities & Computers to accommodate students of 1st shift and 2nd shift simultaneously is not shown.08.09.2010

10.Auroras Scientific and Technological Institute, Formerly Church Inst. Of Technology), Gagillapur (Vill), Qutbullapur (M), Ranga Reddy Dist., A.P1. As per norms, no.of professors required is 14 & Faculty cadre ratio should be 14:28:86. However actual cadre ratio is 02:24:74. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. Principal is not ratified by the University.

3. No.of Faculty ratified by the University is 13/100=13% which is below University norm of 50%.

4. 1st year Pass percentage is much below University average. For the A.Y 2008-09 it is 11.72 (29.25); and for the A.Y 2009-10 it is 15.43 (31.33)08.09.2010

11.Auroras Technological & Research Institute, Formerly Karshak Engineering College), Parvathapur(V), Uppal Ghatkesar (M), Ranga Reddy Dist.1. As per norms, No. of professors required is 22 & Faculty cadre ratio should be 22:44:132. However actual cadre ratio is 7:27:111. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. No. of faculty ratified is 12/145=8.27% which is below the University norm of 50%08.09.2010

12.Auroras Scientific & Technological Research Academy, (formerly Santh Samarth Engg. College), Bandlaguda (V & M), Hyderabad 500 0051. As per norms, no. of professors required is 19& Faculty cadre ratio should be 19:38:121. However actual cadre ratio is 05:25:90. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. Extra Library facilities & Computers to accommodate students of 1st shift and 2nd shift simultaneously is not shown.

3. 1st year Pass percentage is much below University average. For A.Y 2008-09 it is 18.72 (29.25); and for the A.Y 2009-10 it is 13.88 (31.33)08.09.2010

13.Auroras Engineering College, Bhuvanagiri, Nalgonda Dist. 508 1161. As per norms, no. of professors required is 21 & Faculty cadre ratio should be 21:42:126. However actual cadre ratio is 5:38:116. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. No. of faculty ratified is 25/159=15.7% which is below the University norm of 50%.08.09.2010

14.AnuragEngineering College, Ananthagiri, Kodad (M), Nalgonda Dist. - 5082061. As per norms, no. of professors required is 21 & Faculty cadre ratio should be 21:42:127. However actual cadre ratio is 5:18:129. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. Number of faculty ratified is 01/152=0.65% which is below the University norm of 50%.08.09.2010

15.AnuragGroup of Institutions, (formerly CVSR College of Engg) Venkatapur (V), Ghatkesar (M), Ranga Reddy Dist.1. As per norms, no. of professors required is 23 & Faculty cadre ratio desired is 23:46:146. However actual cadre ratio is 14:48:127. Hence cadre ratio is not satisfied.

2. First shift Principal is M.Sc.&Ph.D, hence not as per AICTE norms.

3. Number of faculty ratified by the University is 52/189=27.5% which is below University norm of 50%.08.09.2010





8. Having regard to the above contentions and controversies raised by all the parties to this batch of writ petitions it has to be seen whether AICTE has exclusive jurisdiction to take decision as to permitting the petitioner Colleges/institutions to have second shift of classes in various courses and whether AICTE had taken such decision in accordance with law and rules and what is the role of the State Government and the Universities in AICTE taking decision in this regard. It has to be further seen as to what is the jurisdiction or power of the Universities in granting or refusing affiliation to the second shift courses permitted by AICTE to the petitioner institutions.

9. The controversy regarding jurisdiction of the AICTE to take decision in academic matters relating to technical education is now set at rest by the Supreme Court in number of pronouncements in which relative scopes of Entry 66 of List I, Entry II of List II and Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India were considered. In Adhiyaman(3 supra), the Supreme Court laid down the following points in this regard.

(i) The expression coordination used in Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make coordination either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention.

(ii) To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative.

(iii) If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless the State legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of clause (2) of Article 254, the State legislation being repugnant to the Central legislation, the same would be inoperative.

(iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case.

(v) When there are more applicants than the available situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the Central authority to short-list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central law.

(vi) However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State authorities act illegally.

10. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (1 supra), the Supreme Court after considering the scope of above three Entries in three different Lists of Schedule VII of the Constitution and its previous pronouncements in Adhiyaman (3 supra) and several others, came to the conclusion that a State Government could not have any policy outside the AICTE Act and that University is not justified in not granting affiliation after AICTE sanctioned permission for starting a College or starting a new programme in an already existing College/institution. With regard to role of the State Government, the Supreme Court concluded:

Therefore, the State could not have any policy outside the AICTE Act and indeed if it had a policy, it should have placed the same before AICTE and that too before the latter granted permission. Once that procedure laid down in the AICTE Act and Regulations had been followed under Regulation 8(4), and the Central Task Force had also given its favourable recommendations, there was no scope for any further objection or approval by the State. We may however add that if thereafter, any fresh facts came to light after an approval was granted by AICTE or if the State felt that some conditions attached to the permission and required by AICTE to be complied with, were not complied with, then the State Government could always write to AICTE, to enable the latter to take appropriate action.(emphasis is mine)

On role of an University in granting further or final affiliation after AICTE granted approval, the Supreme Court held:

Procedure and conditions for affiliation could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act, in particular Section 10(k) of the Regulation, and the University could not seek approval of the Government. The university was also one of the agencies consulted by the council of AICTE under Regulation 8. Once that was over, and approval was granted by AICTE, if there was any default on the part of the College in compliance with the conditions of approval, the only remedy for the University was to bring those facts to the notice of AICTE so that the latter could take appropriate action. (emphasis is mine).

11. In J.B.EducationalSociety (2 supra), the Supreme Court was considering the question whether Section 20 (3) (a) (i) of the A.P. Act of 1982 is void and inoperative and the State Government has no legislative competence to pass such a legislation as the State provision was in the field already occupied by the enactment made by the Parliament ie. the AICTE Act, 1987. The Supreme Court while holding that Section 20(3)(a)(i) of A.P.Act of 1982 was not in any way repugnant to Section 10 of the AICTE Act, observed:

21. The educational needs of the locality are to be ascertained and determined by the State. Having regard to the Regulations framed under the AICTE Act, the representatives of the State have to be included in the ultimate decision-making process and having regard to the provisions of the Act, the writ petitioners would not in any way be prejudiced by such provisions in the A.P. Act. Moreover, the decision, if any, taken by the State authorities under Section 20(3)(a)(i) would be subject to judicial review and we do not think that the State could make any irrational decision about granting permission. Hence, we hold that Section 20(3)(a)(i) is not in any way repugnant to Section 10 of the AICTE Act and it is constitutionally valid. (emphasis is mine)

12. Division Bench of this Court in Self-Financing Rural Engineering College Managements Association v All India Council for Technical Education (2005(6) ALD 17), after referring to the above three pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman(3 supra), Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (1 supra) and J.B.Educational Society (2 supra) noticed that all of them were rendered by two Judges Benches of the Supreme Court and observed that the law on the subject is that the last word for establishing a technical education lies with AICTE and that educational needs of a locality are to be ascertained or determined by the State having regard to the regulations framed under the Central Act and that representatives of the State have to be included in the decision making processand final decision rests withAICTE and that it is prerogative of AICTE to approve or not to approve establishment of a new College, but it is bound to consider view of the State Government. Whether the matter relates to establishment of a new technical educational institution or starting of a new programme in an already established technical education institution, the procedure is one and the same.

13. Subsequently, three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v Santh Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1) [LQ/SC/2006/286] , while considering similar question relating to granting recognition for starting Teachers Training and Education Courses (B.Ed courses) by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under the NCTE Act, 1993, endorsed the views of earlier two Judges Benches of the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman (3 supra), Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (1 supra) and in others.

14. In the light of the above settled legal position, this Court in this batch of writ petitions need not address to the question of having any conflict between the provisions of the A.P.Act of 1982 and the AICTE Act 1987. Provisions of both the said enactments can operate in the same field without any conflict and assigning definite roles to the State Government as well as AICTE to act or function within the prescribed statutory spheres assigned to each of them. Therefore, it has to be further examined whether AICTE had followed the prescribed procedure under the AICTE Act and regulations in taking decision as to sanction of second shift courses to the petitioner colleges after making necessary consultations and obtaining views of the State Government and the Universities to which the petitioner colleges are already affiliated.

15. There is no dispute on the part of AICTE that the AICTE Act as well as the AICTE (grant of approvals for technical institutions) Regulations, 2010 and also approval process Hand book issued by AICTE in January, 2010 require obtaining of views/opinion of the State Government as well as the Universities for granting approval by AICTE to any society either for establishment of new technical education institution/College or for starting new programmes or courses in any such colleges. It is contended for AICTE that the State Government did not give its views/opinion within the prescribed period on the subject of second shift of classes and that it is only after AICTE took decision to grant approval for second shift classes, the State Government raised objection therefor. According to AICTE, it had followed the prescribed procedure before granting approval for second shift classes in the petitioner colleges/institutions. On behalf of the State Government, Additional Advocate General contended that even before the State Government expressed its views/opinion on this subject, AICTE took unilateral decision granting approval for second shift of classes in technical education institutions in the State. It is contended for the State Government that the State of Andhra Pradesh has highest number of colleges in southern region of India with highest number of seats in Engineering Colleges. The following comparative information in the southern States is furnished by the State Government:

StateNo.ofcollegesNo.ofseats

Andhra Pradesh6962,70,135

Karnataka16772,400

Maharastra27171,691

Tamil Nadu4561,70,000

Kerala12029,750





There were 696 Engineering Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh with 2,70,135 seats in total. According to the State Government, a good percentage of seats in those Engineering Colleges are left without being filled and that there is no demand or need for enhancing number of seats in those Colleges by way of permitting second shift of classes in Colleges in the State. Though there is no dispute about several engineering seats lying vacant in several Colleges in the State particularly in rural areas as well as in Colleges which are not rated high in public opinion because of not having proper faculty and academic atmosphere, at the same time, there is stiff competition among students aspiring admissions in Engineering Colleges which are reputed and rated high not only located in twin cities but also other places outside the headquarters of the State. At any rate, it is not for this Court to assess the factual position and decide whether decision of AICTE in granting approval for second shift classes in the petitioner institutions is proper or not. It is for AICTE to arrive at a decision on this subject after following the procedure prescribed by law and after taking into consideration all relevant facts and factors and after making consultations with the concerned. It is complaint of the State Government that AICTE took unilateral decision in this regard without following procedure prescribed by law and even without consulting the State Government.

16. Regional Officer of AICTE at Hyderabad filed additional counter affidavit during the course of arguments, giving out details of procedure for grant of approval to start second shift classes in Colleges. It is pointed out that as per Approval process Hand book 2010-11, the institutions have to make on-line applications to AICTE and that such applications are scrutinized by scrutiny committee comprising of 3 experts ie. a Professor, an Architect and an Advocate. Names of 3 experts are picked up by the Computer from names in the system; and such experts are drawn from all over the country. After scrutiny of the applications by the Experts Committee, those applications which are found eligible at the scrutiny will be placed before South Central Regional Committee for further consideration. The recommendations of the South Central Regional Committee are placed before Executive Council of AICTE. As per the additional counter-affidavit of AICTE, 256 applications for second shift were received and out of them, 107 applications were approved by the Executive Council of AICTE from the applicants in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is further stated in the additional counter-affidavit that as per the above prescribed procedure, on 24.06.2010, South Central Regional Committee of AICTE recommended for granting of approvals to the said applicants and that recommendations of South Central Regional Committee were placed before the Executive Council on 26.06.2010 in its meeting, wherein the Executive Committee granted approvals for second shift in the existing technical institutions.

17. Minutes of meeting of South Central Regional Committee of AICTE held on 24.06.2010 at 11:00 A.M. in JNTU, Hyderabad at Kukatpally are placed before this Court. The said Minutes read as follows:

Incharge Chairman welcomed the members and Regional Officer, AICTE has briefed the members about the agenda and taken up for discussion.

Observations & Recommendations

1. State Government representatives have suggested for inclusion of Government and University representatives in Expert Committee visits to the Institutions for starting of new Institutes/Integrated campus to have better understanding of the committees.

2. It is understood that the AICTE is following a procedure of taking undertaking on Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp Paper attested by Magistrate to fulfil the deficiencies within a period of 30 days. The same information may be placed in AICTE website all and the deficiencies fulfilled have to be updated in portal pertaining to particular Institution so that accountability on the part of Managements is verified.

3 .It is desirable to verify the Faculty availability in all the Institutions before according approval of continuation and also increase in intake variation and starting of new programmes/Courses.

4. It is felt by the members that the only institution who fulfil all the deficiencies in the Expert Committee re-visit only are be considered for starting of the New Institutions from the academic year 2010-11 onwards.

5. Uniform procedure to be followed by according additional divisions and also approval to UG/PG Courses. At any case more than 36 intake to be permitted to M.E/M.Tech Programmes offered by the Institution subject to availability of Qualified and Competent Faculty.

From the above Minutes, it is evident that there was no discussion in South Central Regional Committee on 24.06.2010 on the subject of considering applications found eligible at the scrutiny stage for start of second shift in the existing technical education institutions including the petitioners colleges. The said meeting on 24.06.2010 was attended by Vice Chancellor of JNTU, Hyderabad as incharge Chairman of South Central Regional Committee and also Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education, Commissioner of Technical Education and other academic experts. From the above Minutes, it is evident that there was no agenda for that day in the meeting for consideration of eligible applications by South Central Regional Committee, muchless any discussion or consideration on such applications for second shift or final recommendations in that regard. Without there being any discussion or consideration or recommendations by the South Central Regional Committee in its meeting on 24.06.2010, Executive Council of AICTE granted approval for second shift courses in 107 Colleges in this State including the petitioner Colleges on 26.06.2010.

18. In the next meeting of South Central Regional Committee of AICTE held on 08.07.2010 at 12:15 P.M. in Conference Hall of the State Council, the subject relating to granting approval of second shift courses/classes in the existing institutions was permitted to be raised and it was discussed. The Minutes dated 08.07.2010 relating to any other item with the permission of the Chair read as follows:

The Principal Secretary, Higher Education and the Commissioner of Technical Education and Prof.D.N.Reddy, Vice Chancellor, JNTU have requested the Chairman of South Central Regional Committee to take up matter regarding allowing Second Shift Engineering in Engineering Colleges for discussion with the permission of the chair.

The Chairman allowed the Committee to deliberate the above matter. The Committee made a observation that the Second Shift Engineering in Engineering Colleges is not required in the State of Andhra Pradesh, since the state has got maximum number of colleges and maximum intake in the first shift and the committee also expressed its concern about the inconvenience for the reasons mentioned below:

1. Timing is not sufficient for both the shifts.

2. The inconvenience to the girl Students because of the timings.

3. Inadequate number of teachers for the first shift itself.

4. Inconvenience for both the shift students in view of more number of students for common facilities like library, computer centre, toilets, etc.

Accordingly the committee made observations and recommended to the Council not to recommend Second Shift Engineering in Engineering Colleges.

19. Finally, the South Central Regional Committee made recommendation to AICTE not to grant second shift engineering course in the existing Engineering Colleges. But, before the South Central Regional Committee deliberated on the subject and made recommendations, AICTE is stated to have taken decision on 26.06.2010 unilaterally granting permission to start second shift classes in the Engineering Colleges. The said decision of AICTE which is in violation of the prescribed procedure, is arbitrary and not sustainable in law, as no consultation process preceded AICTE decision on this subject. Even though opinion or views of the State Government are not binding on AICTE, before taking a decision, AICTE is bound to take into consideration views of the State Government as well as the University as laid down in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (1 supra) and take a final decision thereafter in the light of the views expressed by the State Government as well as the University. AICTE totally deviated from the procedure and arrived at its own conclusion.The decision of permitting second shift classes related to different Colleges which are affiliated to not only JNTU but also to other Universities like Osmania University, Andhra University, Kakatiya University etc. JNTU, Hyderabad caters to the needs of Colleges in one region of the State. There are other Universities at Kakinada and Anantapur with the same name of JNTU catering to the needs of the respective regions. Except Vice Chancellor of JNTU, Hyderabad, there were no other representatives from other Universities in the State in South Central Regional Committee of AICTE. Principal of University College of Technology, Osmania University can at best represent his college and cannot be reckoned as representative of Osmania University as such. Except South Central Regional Committee Meeting of AICTE, there was no consultation by AICTE with the Universities to which the petitioner Colleges are affiliated. Thus, total consultation process, which is a legal pre-requisite for AICTE to take decision on this subject either with State Government or with the respective Universities was totally given a go-bye by AICTE; and it resulted in arbitrary decision by AICTE in allowing the Colleges to have second shift classes. In this writ petitions, the petitioner Colleges are seeking enforcement of the above arbitrary and illegal decision taken by AICTE.

20. Copy of Minutes of the 65th meeting of Executive Committee of AICTE held on 26.06.2010 at New Delhi is filed containing 4 pages from item No.65.01.01 to item No.65.03.04. None of the resolutions on those items relate to granting of approval for second shift classes in the Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said Minutes only read that Chairman in his welcome address apprised Executive Committee Members about important developments in AICTE since the last meeting and also apprised about progress made in the processing of proposals received by various categories of institutions including for starting second shift in the existing institutions. But, there was no discussion about second shift in the existing institutions muchless about any decision taken on second shift. The said Minutes indicate that Executive Committee of AICTE did not discuss and did not take any decision on second shift in the existing institutions. Averment in the additional counter-affidavit filed by Regional Officer of AICTE at Hyderabad on this aspect is false and baseless in this regard.

21. On the subject of the respective Universities refusing affiliation for second shift classes in the petitioner Colleges, Additional Advocate General representing JNTU contended that JNTU has got prescribed procedure and regulations for granting affiliation and that unless a College or Institution satisfies the norms prescribed in the regulations, the Colleges cannot seek affiliation for second shift classes. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (1 supra), the Supreme Court held procedure and conditions for affiliation could not be inconsistent with the provisions ofthe Central Act and in particular Section 10(k) of the Regulation. The Supreme Court made the said observation on the premise that the University was one of the agencies consulted by AICTE under Regulation 8. In this batch of cases, AICTE has totally violated Regulation 8 relating to consultation with the Universities. In this batch of writ petitions, there are institutions/colleges affiliated to JNTU, Hyderabad, JNTU, Kakinada, Andhra University, Osmania University and Kakatiya University. None of the said Universities was consulted by AICTE before taking decision as to grant of approval for second shift classes in the petitioner Colleges. This subject was not in the agenda of meetings of South Central Regional Committee of AICTE held on 24.06.2010 and 08.07.2010. It is only in the meeting held on 08.07.2010, the subject was discussed not as per scheduled agenda but when some of the members raised the issue with the permission of the Chair. In case the consultation process was scrupulously complied with AICTE before taking a decision, the Universities could not have taken any objections for granting affiliation to second shift classes in the petitioner Colleges, as procedure and conditions for affiliation could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act.

22. Except scrutiny of on-line applications, the expert Committee of AICTE did not make any other exercise by way of making field inspections of the Colleges for verification of additional infrastructure as well as additional faculty required for second shift classes in the Colleges. On the other hand, it is contended for the Universities that they refused affiliations to the petitioner Colleges for second shift classes as the Colleges were not having faculty etc. as per the prescribed norms under the respective regulations of the Universities. It is contended that the Universities refused affiliation for second shift classes after making respective field inspections as well as obtaining information and also on the basis of information regarding faculty etc. which was already available with the Universities from time to time. Since this Court found that granting of approval by AICTE for second shift classes was in violation of the prescribed legal procedure, further question whether the Universities are justified in refusing affiliation for second shift classes is legally justified or not, becomes secondary. In case, AICTE had granted the approval after following thorough consultation process and after making necessary inspections of the Colleges, then only the Universities will be barred from raising objections for grant of affiliation to second shift classes. When the above process was not complied with by AICTE, then it cannot be said that Universities are not entitled to raise objections for granting affiliation to second shift classes in accordance with the respective regulations of the Universities.

23. It is contended for the Universities that AICTE is not an authority which is superior to the Universities and cannot supervise and control the Universities or superimpose itself upon the Universities. BharathidasanUniversity v All India Council for Technical Education (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 676) [LQ/SC/2001/2169 ;] ">(2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 676) [LQ/SC/2001/2169 ;] [LQ/SC/2001/2169 ;] was relied upon on this aspect and I was taken through the following passage in that decision:

All these vitally important aspects go to show that AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its departments or units. A careful scanning-through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act is juxtaposition will show that the role of AICTE vis--vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether Bharatidasan University is liable to have prior approval of AICTE to start a Department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the University itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection. In the light of definition of technical institution contained in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, the Supreme Court made the above observations. There was direct conflict between the University and AICTE in that case; and it is not so in the present writ petitions on hand. The present writ petitions raise the question of granting affiliation by the respective Universities for second shift classes which were approved by AICTE. In such a situation, what was laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (1 supra) is directly applicable.

24. Since this Court found that approval by AICTE to the petitioner Colleges for second shift classes in engineering during the year 2010-11 was arbitrary and not in accordance with law, the State Council as well as the State Government are justified in not notifying for counselling for category-A seats during the said year and in the State Council not approving admissions into category-B seats for second shift classes in the petitioner Colleges. When the entire process of granting approval by AICTE and consequential admission of students by the Colleges into Category-B seats are arbitrary and illegal, JNTU, Hyderabad is justified in withholding results of students who are admitted into category-B seats by the colleges during the academic year 2010-11.

25. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all interim orders in this batch of writ petitions shall stand vacated.