1. The petitioner institution herein has prayed for issuance of a suitable direction to the respondent to issue the letter of approval to the petitioner for increase in intake in respect of courses in the discipline of Engineering at the level of graduation in the branches of Mechanical Engineering and Civil Engineering as also for the status of technical campus.
2. The facts of the case as per the present petition, in a nutshell, are set out as under:
2.1 The petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format to the respondent on 16.12.2011 seeking permission for increase in intake in respect of courses in the discipline of Engineering in the concerned branches thereof at the level of graduation. The said application came to be scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent on 16.03.2012 and since certain infirmities of curable nature were noticed during the said scrutiny, time was given to the petitioner to rectify the same and to wait for re-scrutiny. Re-scrutiny took place on 24.03.2012 and as everything was found to be in order, the committee recommended visit of the set up of the petitioner by an Expert Visiting Committee (EVC) of the respondent.
2.2 Accordingly, the EVC visited the set up of the petitioner on 27.03.2012 and the committee submitted the report in positive and thereupon recommended placing of the aforesaid application of the petitioner before the Regional Committee of the respondent for the further processing thereof for issuance of the letter of approval to the petitioner.
2.3 However, subsequently vide letter dated 21.04.2012, the petitioner was informed that the application of the petitioner stands rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Appeal Committee of the respondent against the said letter of rejection. During the course of hearing of the appeal it was conveyed to the petitioner that the EVC of the respondent would once again inspect the set up of the petitioner for verification.
2.5 Accordingly, on 07.05.2012, the EVC revisited the set up of the petitioner and was absolutely satisfied with regard to the infrastructure and other facilities. In view of this the committee submitted its report positively and thereupon recommended the processing of the said application of the petitioner for issuance of the letter of approval. However, the respondent did not issue any letter of approval and therefore the petitioner has approached this court.
3. Mr. D.C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.
P.A. Jadeja for the petitioner submitted that the course of action of the aforesaid nature on the part of the respondent in not issuing the letter of approval to the petitioner in respect of its aforesaid application for increase in intake in branches of Engineering at the level of graduation and for the status of technical campus which is impugned herein is ex-facie in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India warranting an appropriate redressal at the hands of this Court.
3.1 Mr. Dave submitted that the Expert Visiting Committee had more than once inspected the premises of the petitioner institution and was satisfied and also submitted report in positive to the respondent which in itself calls for a letter of approval from the respondent. He submitted that the inaction on the part of the respondent in not issuing the letter of approval inspite of recommendations from the committee is nothing but high handedness on the part of the respondent and calls for intervention from this court.
4. Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the case of the petitioner institution has been examined by an expert body in the field of Higher Technical Education comprising of members having special knowledge and experience in matters pertaining to technical education and therefore being an expert body in the relevant field of technical education having necessary expertise to decide the educational needs, requirements and deficiencies has examined the matter and reached the conclusion for refusal of approval qua the petitioner institution.
5. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the materials placed on record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner deserves consideration. It is not disputed that since certain infirmities of curable nature were noticed during the scrutiny of the application, time was given to the petitioner to rectify the same and to wait for re-scrutiny. Re-scrutiny took place on 24.03.2012 and as everything was found to be in order, the committee recommended visit of the set up of the petitioner by an Expert Visiting Committee (EVC) of the respondent. Accordingly, the committee submitted the report in positive and thereupon recommended placing of the aforesaid application of the petitioner before the Regional Committee of the respondent for issuance of the letter of approval to the petitioner as sought for.
6. Even recently on 07.05.2012, the EVC revisited the premises of the petitioner and on being satisfied with regard to the infrastructure and other facilities submitted its report positively and thereupon recommended the processing of the said application of the petitioner for issuance of the letter of approval. No concrete ground for denial of the letter of approval to the petitioner is pointed out by learned advocate for the respondent. The affidavit filed by the respondent also does not give out any reason for this court not to interfere in the matter. The respondent are not in a position to point out any deficiency on the part of the petitioner institution so as not to issue a letter of approval. The recommendations of the committees are in favour of the petitioner institution and the same cannot be given a go-bye.
7. In the premises aforesaid, petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to issue the necessary certificates/letters with immediate effect to the petitioner institution. However, if any discrepancy/deficiency, still persists, the same shall be met with/corrected by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. It shall be open to the respondent to inspect the petitioner premises after three months from today and on finding any discrepancy/deficiency, it shall be open to the respondent to take action after issuing due notice to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//