Summary
The Court upheld the University Syndicate’s academic conditions for affiliation of additional engineering courses. Its power to prescribe norms flowed directly from the University Act and did not disappear because University Statutes had yet to be issued. AICTE approval did not prevent the University from prescribing enhanced standards, provided it did not dilute central standards. The operative modified Syndicate resolution and consequential action concerning the respondent college were upheld.
Issues
- Whether the Syndicate could prescribe affiliation norms before issuance of the first University Statutes.
- Whether AICTE approval excluded additional University standards for affiliation.
Provisions considered
- Sections 8(iii)–(iv), 30(2)(iii) and 63(2), APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015The Syndicate’s statutory power to propose affiliation norms was distinct from the procedure for deciding an individual application for an additional course. (¶¶ 7–9, 28, 32–35)
- Section 14(6), APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015Interim directions in the absence of Statutes could be submitted for approval to the Board of Governors or another concerned authority; approval was not confined to the Board. (¶¶ 29–30, 36)
- Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25, Constitution of IndiaCentral coordination and standards coexist with the State and University role in prescribing enhanced academic standards that do not lower or impermissibly abridge the central field. (¶¶ 44–49, 59)
Held
- The power to prescribe affiliation norms came from the Act itself. The absence of Statutes governing conditions and procedure did not make section 30(2)(iii) ineffective or reserve the entire subject solely to the Vice-Chancellor. Section 63(2) addresses applications for additional courses, rather than the source of norm-setting power. (¶¶ 28, 32–35)
- Even on recourse to section 14(6), the Syndicate was an appropriate other authority for approval. It had acted with the Vice-Chancellor as chair. The later Statutes did not curtail its norm-setting power; the challenged resolutions were not ultra vires for the reasons adopted by the Division Bench. (¶ 29–40)
- Universities may prescribe enhanced norms while remaining unable to dilute AICTE standards. AICTE approval was not a complete answer to legitimate University affiliation conditions. The contrary reasoning based on Rungta Engineering did not reflect the correct legal position in light of the other authorities discussed. (¶¶ 44–54, 58–59)
- The operative 24 June 2020 resolution replaced the earlier accreditation approach with conditions concerning outgoing-student pass performance, a recent academic-audit rating of Good and average intake exceeding half the sanctioned intake over the previous three years. The Court upheld that modified resolution and consequential University action concerning the respondent college. (¶¶ 18, 31, 39–40, 60)
Result
University appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside. Modified Syndicate resolution of 24 June 2020 and consequential action regarding the respondent college upheld. Intervention/impleadment applications dismissed; other applications disposed of; no costs.