By way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction the Respondent to issue the letter of approval to the Petitioner for commencing new courses pursuant to the application of the petitioner and the report of Expert Visiting Committee of the Respondent. They further prayed to direct the Respondent to inform the Admission Committee for the Professional Courses (Technical), Gujarat State for the Academic Year 2012-2013 the Petitioners shall be entitled to have intake and permission for new courses as per the communication of the Respondent dated 10th May, 2012. 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 29.01.2012 seeking permission for commencing courses in the discipline of Pharmacy in the concerned branches thereof at the level of P.G. The said application came to be scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent and 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 12.04.2012 and no deficiencies were noted.
2.3 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 the further processing thereof for issuance of the letter of approval to the petitioner for commencing the said courses in the discipline of Pharmacy at the level of P.G.
2.3 Mr. D.C. Dave, senior Advocate further contended that pursuant to which, respondent issued a communication dated 10.05.2012 and listed on website on 17.05.2012 to the Principal Secretary Department of Higher and Technical Education being no. F.No. Central/1-730076662/2012/EOA inter alia, stating that permission for commencing aforesaid new courses as prayed for by the petitioners stand granted to the petitioners w.e.f. Academic Year 2012-2013 and new courses were approved.
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 commencing the courses in branches of Pharmacy at the level of P.G. 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 after the EVC visited the set up of the petitioner on 12.04.2012 and found every thing in order in the set of petitioners. 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. Subsequent to the aforesaid, on 17th May, 2012, the petitioners noticed on the website of the Respondent a communication dated 10th May,2012 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, State of Gujarat by the Respondent, with a copy thereof to the Petitioners, inter alia, stating that permission for commencing aforesaid new courses as prayed for by the Petitioner vide its aforesaid application stand granted to the Petitioners with effect from the ensuring academic year 2012- 2012. The aforesaid communication dated 10th May, 2012 was followed by publication of another communication dated 10th May, 2012 on the website of the Respondent on 21st May, 2012 as addressed by the Respondent to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, State of Gujarat, with a copy thereof to the Petitioners, wherein, in contradiction to what was stated in the aforesaid earlier communication dated 10th May, 2012, it came to be conveyed as if the request of the Petitioners for permission for commencing new courses pursuant to the aforesaid application for the same of the petitioners was not acceded to by the Respondent.
6. No concrete ground for denial of the letter of approval to the petitioners 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 petitioners 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, petitions are 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 petitioners 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 petitioners. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J] Siddharth//