ORDER
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.
1. These Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dated 13.8.2003 in WP.No.17288 of 2003.
2. The writ petitioner is the 1st respondent in both the appeals and the said Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent issued in F.No.6032/008/2A/Kar/2000, dated 1.1.2003 and to direct the 1st respondent to confer Deemed University Status to the writ petitioner. For the purposes of convenience, the parties would be referred to as they were arrayed in the writ petition.
3. The case of the writ petitioner, Karunya Institute of Technology and Science, is that it was established (formerly known as Karunya Educational Trust) in 1986 as an unaided Engineering College in Coimbatore District and it is a co-educational College. It was developed into a separate township with all facilities, such as, Bank, Post Office, Police Station, Telephone Exchange, Public Guest House, etc. and the 2nd respondent, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) granted approval of several courses in Under-Graduate level, viz. Civil, Mechanical, Electronics & Communication Engineering in 1986, Electrical & Electronics Engineering in 1994, Computer Science & Engineering in 1994, Electronics & Instrumentation Engineering in 1995, Production Engineering in 1996 and Information Technology in 1999. The petitioner / Institution is also having Masters Degree and Research programmers to award Ph.D in several branches. The Institution is fully residential with a total strength of about 3000 students and the College has been declared as a Christian Religious Minority Educational Institution by the Government of Tamilnadu as well as the National Minority Commission, Government of India. The College has been granted an award for ‘best college’ in the State in 1995 and the said citation was given by the Ministry of HRD. The College was also granted ‘Autonomous Status” in 1999 by the Bharathiar University and it is the first College to be awarded such a status from among the 700 unaided Engineering Colleges all over India. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) Bangalore under the UGC has also granted accreditation to the College awarding “A” Grade for a period of 5 years. It is the only Engineering College in the whole Nation to have obtained this “A” Grade.
4. The petitioner with a view to provide high technological education to the students applied for the grant of Deemed University Status on 3.3.2000 under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. As per the said Act, the Central Government shall on the advise of the UGC, declare by notification in the Official Gazette that any institute of Higher Education other than an University shall be deemed to be recognised to be an University for the purpose of UGC Act. The application of the petitioner was forwarded by the 1st respondent/Union of India, to the respondents 2 and 3 on 6.3.2000 and the 3rd respondent processed the application and sent an Expert Committee for inspecting the Institution on 21.2.2001 and the said Committee inspected the Institution on 21st and 22nd February 2001 and it was satisfied with the infrastructure facilities and was pleased to recommend for the grant of Deemed University Status. It appears that the 3rd respondent based on the report of the Expert Committee passed a necessary resolution to confer Deemed University Status to the petitioner and submitted its recommendations to the 1st respondent in April 2001. The petitioner’s application was also considered by the 2nd respondent and it had sent its own Committee for the assessment of the infrastructure facilities and other requirements for the grant of Deemed University Status and on the report submitted by the Expert Committee, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that its request may be considered after fulfilling 6 deficiencies pointed out by the Committee. The said deficiencies were complied with and ‘Action Taken Report’ was also submitted and the Expert Committee of the 2nd respondent re-inspected the Institution on 4.6.2002 and was satisfied with the compliance.
5. The Action Taken Report was reviewed by the High Powered Sect oral Committee of the 2nd respondent on 10.7.2002 and the recommendation of the 2nd respondent was forwarded to the 1st respondent on 23.7.2002 along with 5 other Institutions for the grant of very same status. Out of these 6 recommended Institutions, 4 including the petitioner are from the state of Tamilnadu and the recommendation was subsequently ratified by the 42nd Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent on 11.10.2002. The 2nd respondent forwarded its recommendations to the 1st respondent on 23.7.2002 for the grant of Deemed University Status with certain conditions. Viz. (i) Faculty may be strengthened in the areas of Electronics and Computer Science and (ii) Research Activities in areas other than those covered by the new “Centre of Excellence” through ISRO/DRDO needs augmentation. In respect of SRM Valliammai Engineering College, Kattankulathur the recommendations had two observations in the nature of conditions. In respect of Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institution, Chennai and Bharat Institute of Technology, Chennai, the conditions were made preconditioned.
6. The conditions imposed to the petitioner were complied with and a report to that effect was submitted on 7.12.2002. The 1st respondent while accepting the recommendation of the 2nd respondent/AICTE with conditional recommendations and declaring 5 other Institutions as Deemed Universities, has not chosen to give the said status to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent sent an order on 1.1.2003 to the petitioner, in which it was stated, “The proposal was examined in the Council as per the guidelines framed for consideration of Deemed University Status . Subsequently, an Expert Committee was caused to your Institution on 12.11.2001 and re-visit on 4.6.2002. The report of the Expert Committee was later placed in the duly constituted High Powered Sectoral Committee held on 10.7.2002 for reviewing and subsequently in the 42nd Executive Committee meeting held on 11.10.2002 for ratification. The Expert Committee report has been forwarded to MHRD.” It was also further stated that the Expert Committee had pointed out 11 deficiencies and the said deficiencies are to be complied with, within a period of 3 months and a compliance report has to be submitted to the Council along with documentary evidence for taking necessary further action and the said order is under challenge.
7. The petitioner states that the order passed by the 1st respondent is erroneous and the same is deviation to the procedure of the 2nd respondent and the petitioner’s further applications on 30.1.2003 were of no avail. The petitioner states that at the time when the Committee inspected the Institution, there were only 6 deficiencies (not 11) and all of them were complied with and the same was confirmed by the revisit of the Committee on 4.6.2002 and in fact, the 2nd respondent sent a letter dated 13.5.2003, to have one more reinsertion and the said inspection was carried out on 29th and 30th May 2003 and a sum of Rs.1 lakh was deposited towards inspection fee and requested for the grant of the status, but, it was not done. It is understood that it was only due to the malaise action of the 1st respondent on whose behalf the 2nd respondent has chosen to delay the process of conferring the said status to the petitioner Institution and the same is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
8. The petitioner states that on 23.7.2002, the 2nd respondent recommended 6 Institutions for the grant of Deemed University Status and the said recommendations were made subject to conditions similar to that of the petitioner. But, the same procedure was not followed in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the act of the 2nd respondent is not justifiable, as the same is discriminatory. As the petitioner was denied of the Deemed University Status, the same is challenged.
9. The 2nd respondent / All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) filed a counter, wherein, it was stated that the petitioner / Institution does not have any vested right to seek an order and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The deficiencies pointed out by the respondent were not complied with by the petitioner and in the absence of the same, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is contended that as per Section 10(t) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, the AICTE is advising the UGC for declaring any Institution imparting technical education as Deemed University. In turn, the UGC has to advise the Central Government as to whether a particular Institution can be declared as Deemed University and Section 3 of the UGC Act provides that the Central Government may, on the advice of the UGC, declare by notification in the Official Gazette that any Institution for Higher Education other than University shall be deemed and recognised to be a University for the purpose of UGC Act and on such declaration being made, all the provisions of the UGC Act shall apply to such Institution as if it were a University within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the UGC Act. The object of declaring a particular Institution as a Deemed University, is to bring under the purview of the UGC Institutions which are not Universities. AICTE forms part of the decision making process consequent on Section 10(f) of the Act and it had laid down detailed guidelines for recommending technical institutions to be deemed University. An assessment has to be done with regard to high standards in teaching, research and developmental activities, innovation and extension services and also the financial eligibility and possesses credible and accountable administrative set up have got to be processed. Detailed guidelines have been given regarding the performance criteria taking into account the success rate of Graduates, Post Graduates and Doctors. The enrollment for conducting education programmers, number of buildings, major research projects, the quality of faculty, research output and publications of faculty in reputed journals, placement record of graduates, the industries sponsored research and development projects, etc., the student turn out as well as the research and development and industrial consultancy are also taken into account. The necessary infrastructure facilities for the grant of the said status would be studied by the 2nd respondent. Necessary infrastructures for the grant of status such as admission of students, conduct of the examinations and experience for independent administration are also factors, which are considered at the time of grant of Deemed University Status. A High Powered Committee would normally be constituted for such inspection. Necessary guidelines for the grant of status was set out by AICTE for the grant of Deemed University Status. The petitioner in this case applied for Deemed University Status in 1999 and on the examination of the proposal, the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) sent its remarks to the Institute in August 1999 and in fact, the Institute had been granted accreditation grades for 5 programmers on 12.5.1999. The petitioner also further applied for accreditation in 1999 in respect of certain programmers, out of which, two programmers viz. M.E. Structural Engineering and M.E.Thermal Engineering were not eligible for accreditation, because two batches of students have not passed out and this deficiency was communicated to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent also wanted to revisit the Institution and the recommendation of the Expert Committee was placed in the Sectoral Committee and subsequently in the NBA meeting it was decided that a revisit should be undertaken for two programmers and it was fixed in July 2000 and on that basis, accreditation was granted for 5 courses for 3 years. It is also stated that the accreditation status granted in May 1999 in respect of some subjects was only for 5 years and it had already expired and the petitioner did not apply for renewal. After exchange of certain letters, AICTE sent a letter dated 25.5.2000 that the petitioner should be directed to correspond directly with AICTE and the petitioner was asked to submit a revised proposal in line with the revised guidelines of AICTE. On 2.5.2001, the AICTE received a letter from MHRD along with the recommendations of the UGC, which was based on the report of the Expert Committee and AICTE was requested to examine the proposal of the Institute. It was pointed out that 5 programmers were not accredit Ted and the 2nd respondent cannot by-pass the guidelines of AICTE. There were certain deficiencies and the same were pointed out to the petitioner and they have not chosen to rectify the same. The Sectoral Committee Report, the Expert Committee Report and the recommendations were placed before the 42nd Executive Committee meeting held on 11.10.2002 and the Executive Committee ratified the same and the recommendations of the AICTE were forwarded to the MHRD to the conferment of Deemed University status for 8 Institutions including the petitioner. The deficiencies pointed out in respect of the petitioner/ Institution are major and therefore, the required status could not be given.
10. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents, came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent acted arbitrarily and allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent in the petition, Union of India has preferred WA.No.3736/2003 and All India Council for Technical Education filed WA.No.3989/2003.
Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondents.
11. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants submitted that the deficiencies pointed out by the Ministry of Human Resources Development by letter dated 6.3.2000 were not complied with by the writ petitioner Institution and the same was communicated to the Institute on 10.4.2000 and again on 19.4.2000 and the Institution was also directed to correspond directly with AICTE by letter dated 1.10.2000 and the Institution was asked to submit a revised proposal in line with the revised guidelines of AICTE and the same was not complied with by the petitioner. The appellants also pointed out the deficiencies, which are 12 in number and contended that those deficiencies are major in nature and the petitioner has not chosen to rectify the same. The contention of the appellants that just because Deemed University Status was given to some other Institution without following certain procedure, the petitioner also should be given the status, is not a ground for asking the appellants to grant the said status. Knowingly or unknowingly some mistake had arisen and it cannot be allowed to stand on record for ever as wrong things would get perpetuated. It is further contended that the petitioner’s request for the grant of Deemed University Status is not a matter of right and it has to undergo certain processes and if the report of the Expert Committee is not wrong, then the question of according accreditation would not at all arise.
12. It is further argued that the writ petitioner has no vested right to get the status of Deemed University and the petitioner has right only after complying with the formalities of the norms and standards prescribed by the various authorities for the grant of Deemed University Status. The application submitted by the petitioner was considered and certain deficiencies were pointed out, which were not rectified or complied with by the petitioner. Without such compliance, the request of the petitioner was declined and orders were passed and no motive or malaise intention could be attributed in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner as the petitioner has not come forward to comply with the deficiencies.
13. In order to support his contentions, the learned Advocate for the appellants relied upon the case of Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another , wherein one party (respondents) applied for permits under the provisions of the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 and permits were granted in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India in the prescribed form. The said permit was valid for a period of 15 years from the date of issue and thereafter it was not renewed and the request for the renewal was returned without assigning any reason and there was also no reference to any policy decision for not effecting the renewal. The applicants filed writ applications before the High Court and the same were dismissed in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Golden Ahar Limited Vs. Union of India. But, however, permission was given to a third party and the same came to be questioned. It was held, “13. What remains now to be considered, is the effect of permission granted to the thirty two vessels. As highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants, even if it is accepted that there was any improper permission that may render such permissions vulnerable so far as the thirty two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of the respondents. It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such mattes there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service in such case.”
14. The appellant also relied upon the case of Gurusharan Singh & others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others . That is the case where the stall holders were running the stalls on the lands form more than three decades which were later required for widening of the road and a question arose before New Delhi Municipal Committee as to how to offer them some attractive proposal to rehabilitate them so that they can move from Panchkuian Road and it ultimately it came down to offer shops to them in the new marketing complex at a confessional licence fee and without trade zoning restrictions subject to the condition that they shall carry any of the trades specified. In the said set of facts, another group filed writ petitions making the very same request for the allotment of shops in the new marketing complex and the same was negatived on the ground that there was no justification.
15. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the 1st respondent/petitioner would submit that the College was granted ‘Autonomous Status” in 1999 by the Bharathiar University and The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) Bangalore under the UGC has also granted accreditation to the College awarding “A” Grade for a period of 5 years. It is further submitted that as the petitioner Institution satisfied all the norms and conditions to confer the Deemed University Status, it had applied for the same under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act. The application of the petitioner was also processed by the 3rd respondent and the same was sent to a Expert Committee for inspecting the Institution and the Expert Committee after inspection also submitted a report, which is available at page 46 of the typed set of papers, wherein it is indicated that “the Institute has been recognised as a center for research by the Bharathiar University. About 20 faculty members are pursuing their research/Ph.D in various Universities and Institutions in Tamilnadu and other parts of the country. 10 senior faculty members are approved by the Bharathiar University. The said Committee was also satisfied that the petitioner Institution fulfills the conditions laid down under UGC guidelines for the conferment of Deemed University Status. The Institute is poised for real development. It has the atmosphere, potential, infrastructures and the ambience for an excellent center of higher technical professional education. The vision of the management, its concern for quality and dedicated others to provide the much required physical infrastructure and caring atmosphere are commendable. Transformation of Karunya Institute of Technology and Science, an autonomous self financing affiliated college under the Bharathiar University, Coimbatore into – is a step in the right direction.”
16. The report of the said Committee was fairly considered by the 2nd respondent / AICTE and it has recommended and sent its own Committee for the assessment of the very same infrastructure facilities and the Committee inspected the Institution on 12.11.2001 and the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that their request may be considered after fulfilling the deficiencies pointed out to the petitioner. In obedience, the petitioner also rectified those deficiencies and submitted an action report to the Expert Committee and a satisfactory report was placed before the 2nd respondent and the same was duly forwarded to the 1st respondent appellant herein on 23.7.2002 along with 5 other Institutions for the grant of Deemed University Status. The recommendations were also ratified by the 42nd Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent recommended for the grant of Deemed University Status to the petitioner with certain conditions. Viz. (i) Faculty may be strengthened in the areas of Electronics and Computer Science and (ii) Research Activities in areas other than those covered by the new “Centre of Excellence” through ISRO/DRDO needs augmentation. The petitioner has complied with them also. In that circumstances only, the respondents 2 and 3 were satisfied and also recommended to the appellant herein. But, unfortunately, the appellant by letter dated 1.1.2003 had once again stated that the Expert Committee had pointed out 11 deficiencies, which have got to be complied with, within a period of 3 months and thereby, reversed its own recommendations and also failed to grant the Deemed University Status, as against which, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
17. The learned Advocate for the 1st respondent has further pointed out that along with this Institution, 5 other Institutions have also applied for the grant of Deemed University Status and the recommendations of the Sectoral Committee was accepted by the AICTE and recommended for the grant of the said status subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, the appellant granted the Deemed University Status to Bharat Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai on 10.1.2003, without any condition. But, by notification dated 13.3.2003 the status of Deemed University was granted to Thai Moogambigai Dental College and Hospital, Chennai and Dr.MGR. Engineering College, Maduravoyal, Chennai subject to conditions, which are 7 in number. As a matter of fact, the deficiencies in respect of those Institutions are grave in nature, as, those Institutions do not have even PG Programmers in all major departments and there was no industry-institution, interaction to facilitate improved campus placement and consultancy activities, etc. When those two Institutions were notified for the grant of Deemed University Status with conditions, the same parameter was not adopted to the petitioner’s Institution. But, on the other hand, the writ petitioner was called upon by letter dated 1.1.2003 to make good certain deficiencies.
18. The learned Advocate for the petitioner would contend that when similar deficiencies found in other Institutions, they were conferred the Deemed University Status, but, the petitioner was singled out and the status was negatived and thereby, submitted that it is a clear violation of not having given equal treatment. It is also pointed out that AICTE had already considered and reviewed the status of the petitioner and the Expert Committee visited the petitioner’s Institution and the report was placed before the Sectoral Committee / Expert Committee and the said Committee recommended for the grant of the Deemed University Status and the same was accepted by AICTE subject to approval of Expert Committee and the same was informed to the petitioner by letter dated 23.7.2002. As per the said intimation, the petitioner was called upon to comply with two deficiencies viz. (i) Faculty may be strengthened in the areas of Electronics and Computer Science and (ii) Research Activities in areas other than those covered by the new “Centre of Excellence” through ISRO/DRDO needs augmentation. These two deficiencies have been complied with by the petitioner and in spite of that, the appellant and AICTE subsequently issued another letter dated 1.1.2003 received by the petitioner on 30th January 2003, wherein, it was called upon the petitioner to rectify certain deficiencies.
19. On a fair consideration of the matter and also after going through the letters and notifications sent and issued by the appellants to the petitioner, it is made out that the petitioner was not treated in par with other Institutions and a clear bias was made out in not having granted the Deemed University status to the petitioner. Adopting different yardsticks for Institutions, which are similarly placed, is a clear discrimination. Here, the petitioner was singled out and denied its legitimate request and it is nothing short of determined discrimination shown to the petitioner. When, equal treatment is denied to the persons belonging to the same group, category or status, it is needless to say that it is parse discriminatory and when it is so, the order/communication so sent by the AICTE is liable to be quashed and the appellants have got to be directed to confer the Deemed University Status to the petitioner. Of course, it is open to the appellants, if need be, to impose conditions if any and the compliance thereof within a particular period of time and this is the order passed by the learned Single Judge also, which in our opinion does not warrant any interference.
20. In the said view of the matter, we do not find any reason, which warrants inference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
21. In the result, both the writ appeals are dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed and the appellants are hereby directed to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Consequently, connected WAMPs are also dismissed.