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 commencing a new course in the discipline of Computer Applications at the level of post-graduation and extension of approval for the existing course in the discipline of Management at the level of post-graduation.
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 7th January, 2012 seeking permission for commencing a new course in the discipline of Computer Applications at the level of post- graduation and extension of approval for the existing course in the discipline of Management at the level of post-graduation. The said application came to be scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent on 16.2.2012 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 6th March, 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 20th March, 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 21st April, 2012, the petitioner was informed that the application of the petitioner stands rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Standing Appellate 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 EVC of the respondent would once again inspect the set up of the petitioner for verification.
2.4 Accordingly, on 6.5.2012, the EVC revisited the set up of the petitioner and in the meantime, respondent addressed a communication dated 5th July, 2012 to the Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, State of Gujarat, with a copy thereof to the petitioner stating that the extension of approval in respect of the existing course in the discipline of Management at the level of Post-graduation stands granted to the petitioner for the academic year 2012-2013, whereas, the approval for commencing a new course in the discipline Computer Applications at the level of post-graduation stands rejected. This was followed by an e-mail from the respondent dated 5th July, 2012 wherein, it was convyed that for the reasons recorded therein the application of the petitioner for permission to commence a new course in the discipline of Computer Applications at the level of post-graduation stands rejected. Further, to this, the arbitariness in the impugned action of the respondent is also evident from the fact that the aforesaid communciation and e-mail dated 5th July, 2012 are not all supported by any reasons. There is no response from the respondent to the communication dated 6th July, 2012 addressed by the petitioner seeking the copy of the report of Expert Visiting Committee which was pursuant to what transpired during the course of the said hearing. The process of admission for the course in the discipline of Computer Applications at the level of post-graduation has commenced by the centralized admission committee of the Gujarat Technological University and the same is to end on or about 3rd August, 2012 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 Computer Applications at the level of post-graduation and extension of approval for the existing course in the discipline of management at the level of post-graduation 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, it 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 6th March, 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.
6. Even recently on 6.5.2012,the EVC revisited the premises of the petitioner during which certain deficiencies were found as mentioned in page Nos. 76, 79, 80 and 81. The deficiencies which were shown in the first notice are found to be rectified by the second committee. However, the second committee has come out with the other defects. However, 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 is not in a position to point out any major deficiency on the part of the petitioner institution so as not to issue a letter of approval.
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.) (ashish)