1. The petitioner, by way of this petition, challenged the order dated 8-8-2012 whereby the respondent All India Council for Technical Education rejected the application of the petitioner for commencing courses in its establishment in the discipline of Engineering at the level of diploma. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a gross case where for their negligence, the respondent is trying to harass the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for grant of permission to start courses in the discipline of Engineering at the level of diploma vide application dated 10.2.2012. The said application of the petitioner was scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee on 16.2.2012. During the course of scrutiny, the Scrutiny Committee found certain deficiencies which were brought to the notice of the petitioner. Thereafter, re-scrutiny was carried out and report was submitted on 5.3.2012. During the course of re-scrutiny, the Committee noted certain deficiencies.
2.1 On 5.4.2012 the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Standing Appellate committee. Thereafter, the petitioner received intimation from the respondent that SAC Expert Visiting Committee would again visit the premises. On 6.5.2012 the SAC Expert Visiting Committee visited the premises of the petitioner and submitted its report. In the said report, the Committee recommended for processing of the application of the petitioner for issuance of the letter of approval. However, the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner. The reason for rejection of the application was never furnished to the petitioner.
2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions for recommendation on page Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the petition. Even on page No. 45 of the petition, in “column recommended” tick mark of recommendation was made by the Committee. The said report was forwarded to SAC Review. The said SAC Review made a check and rejected the proposal (page No. 41 of the petition) on the ground that SAC found some deficiency in library facility like volumes required 1000 and available 500 and titles required 150 and available 50. It is also stated that actual number of internet Bandwidth, Printer, Legal Application S/W, Legal System S/W, PC to students ratio and language laboratory is not available (page No. 41 of the petition).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the impugned order has not referred any of the comments which have been reflected in the order and return containing deficiencies were available on the website.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Goswami for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the SAC after considering the report of Expert Visiting Committee dated 6.5.2012, rejected the proposal and has not recommended for the recognition of the institution.
5. Before proceeding with the case, the facts as stated above, are that the petitioner applied for grant of permission to start courses in the premises in the discipline of Engineering at the level of diploma. SAC Expert Visiting Committee recommended vide report dated 6.5.2012 and the same was signed by four experts. The members have visited the premises of the institute and recommended for approval. Prima facie, from the report which is placed on page No. 41 where verification with respect to norms – all programmes taken together, number required and number available are matching with the requirements.
5.1 It seems that prima facie the Expert Committee has made tick mark in column “ready and accepted”. I am of the opinion that the number which is referred and actual is matching with the requirements. The Expert Committee made tick marks in column ready and accepted and there is no reason to give a contrary view. In view of the fact that they are matching with the requirements and availability as defined in column itself (on page No. 41 of the petition), the same conclusion is supported by the recommendation by the Committee on page No. 45 of the petition. However, it was forwarded to SAC Review.
6. I have considered the evidence from the record. It is only on the ground which is made at page No. 41 of the petition that SAC found some deficiency in library facility that actual number of Internet Bandwidth, Printers, Legal Application S/W, Legal System S/W, PCs to Students ratio and language Laboratory is not available, the application is rejected. In my view the the requirements in the column are satisfied. Therefore, the Expert Committee recommended for recognition. The SAC Review has wrongly taken a decision and communicated to the petitioner on 8-8-2012 which is required to be quashed and set aside. The said decision and the communication are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant approval/recognition to the petitioner institution and consequential order will be passed within 15 days from today. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute.
7. This petition is allowed subject to the condition that the Inspecting authority is at liberty to inspect the premises of the petitioner and if there is any deficiency noticed, they can issue notice with reasons to the petitioner and may pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J) (pkn)