{"id":70045,"date":"2008-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008"},"modified":"2017-04-01T05:33:31","modified_gmt":"2017-04-01T00:03:31","slug":"dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational … vs The Director Of Technical … on 29 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational … vs The Director Of Technical … on 29 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Deshpande<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                    WRIT PETITION NO. 5809 OF 2008\n\n    1) Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational Academy                )\n        Sr.No.124 and 126,                               )\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n        At Post-Ambi, Talegaon-Dabhade,                  )\n        Tal. Maval, District-Pune-410 506.               )\n\n    2. Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Engineering             )\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n        Sr.No.124 and 126,                               )\n        At Post-Ambi, Talegaon-Dabhade,\n                              ig                         )\n        Tal. Maval, District-Pune-410 506.               )\n        Represented through its Director-                )\n        Mr. Uday Shende.                                 ).. PETITIONERS\n                            \n              Versus\n    1) The Director of Technical Education               )\n             \n\n\n         Government of Maharashtra                       )\n          3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001             )\n          \n\n\n\n    2) State of Maharashtra                              )\n        represented through The Principal Secretary      )\n\n\n\n\n\n        Higher and Technical Education and               )\n        Employment Development,                                         )\n        Government of Maharashtra                        )\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032                       )\n\n\n\n\n\n    3) All India Council for Technical Education         )\n        Western Regional Office, 2nd Floor               )\n        Industrial Assurance Building, V.N. Road         )\n        Opp. Churchgate Railway Station                  )\n        Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020.                      )..\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::\n                                                 2\n\n    RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n    Mr. Vikas Singh with Ms. Udita Singh and Mr. Navdeep Vora i\/by M\/s.\n    N.Vora & Associates for the petitioner. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n    Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Government Pleader for the State.\n    Ms. Beena Menon for respondent No.3.\n\n                          CORAM:  SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., &\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                                          A.P DESHPANDE\n                                                       , J.\n<\/pre>\n
                          JUDGMENT   RESERVED     ON : 21ST AUGUST 2008
\n                          JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 29TH AUGUST 2008<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT : (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.)<\/p>\n
                 In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,<\/p>\n
    Petitioner   No.1   Academy   prays   that   the   Respondents   in   the   Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition be directed to include the name of Petitioner No.2 Dr. D.Y.\n<\/p>\n
    Patil College of Engineering in the list of eligible colleges for allotment<\/p>\n
    of students for the academic year 2008-2009 for Engineering courses<\/p>\n
    through   Centralised   Admission   Process   being   monitored   and<\/p>\n
    implemented by the Director of Technical Education, Government of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra.       As   a   necessary   corollary   to   this   relief,   it   is   further<\/p>\n
    prayed that Petitioner No.2 college be permitted to give admissions to<\/p>\n
    the students for an intake of 240 students for the present academic<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
    year in accordance with the letter of approval issued by the All India<\/p>\n
    Council for Technical Education dated 31st July 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          These   reliefs   are   claimed   on   the   premise   that   Petitioner<\/p>\n
    No.1   is   an   educational   academy   imparting   education   through   its<\/p>\n
    various institutions including Engineering college at Ambi, Talegaon-\n<\/p>\n
    Dabhade, Taluka Maval, District Pune.  Petitioner No.2 is stated to be<\/p>\n
    one of the colleges managed and run by Petitioner No.1.   Petitioner<\/p>\n
    No.1   applied   to   the   University   of   Pune   to   recommend   the<\/p>\n
    establishment   of   the   Engineering   college.     University   of   Pune<\/p>\n
    informed the Petitioners vide their letter dated 3rd  January 2008 that<\/p>\n
    the   University   had   recommended   to   the   State   Government   i.e.<\/p>\n
    Director of Technical Education, for establishment of Petitioner No.2<\/p>\n
    college.     Thereafter,   Petitioner   No.1   also   submitted   a   proposal   for<\/p>\n
    establishment of the Engineering college to the All India Council for<\/p>\n
    Technical Education, New Delhi, who in turn vide their letter dated 18th<\/p>\n
    January   2008   required   the   authorities   to   be   present   for   personal<\/p>\n
    hearing on 1st February 2008.  In furtherance to which, the Petitioners<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
    were   informed   by   Letter   of   Intent   that   they   are   required   to   furnish<\/p>\n
    documents   and   satisfy   other   requirements   stipulated   by   them   vide<\/p>\n
    letter   dated   1st  February   2008.     In   the   Letter   of   Intent,   various<\/p>\n
    documents were asked for and the Petitioners were required to satisfy<\/p>\n
    the requirements stated in the said letter and furnish among others,<\/p>\n
    inter alia, joint fixed deposit receipts, etc. and it was also stated that<\/p>\n
    the Petitioners may indicate the readiness for Expert Committee visit<\/p>\n
    within a period of two months for further consideration of the case.\n<\/p>\n
    The matter remained pending because of certain non-compliance and<\/p>\n
    as per the Petitioners for want of proper persuation by the All India<\/p>\n
    Council for Technical Education.  However, vide letter dated 27th June<\/p>\n
    2008, the All India Council for Technical Education clearly stated that<\/p>\n
    the letter of approval cannot be issued due to following deficiencies :-\n<\/p>\n
               “The   site   of   construction   of   the   new   Engg.   College
\n               building   is   not   matching   with   the   approved   building<\/p>\n
               plan<\/p>\n
               Workshop, Civil work is incomplete.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.          It   was   also   stated   in  the   said   letter   that   as  per  Approval<\/p>\n
    Process   Handbook   (2008),   they   could   avail   the   opportunity   of<\/p>\n
    reconsideration  of   the  proposal.     No  correspondence  or facts  have<\/p>\n
    been averred as to what transpired between 27th June 2008 and 31st<\/p>\n
    July   2008   when   the   letter   of   approval   for   establishment   of   the<\/p>\n
    Engineering   college   in   all   240   seats   was   issued   by   the   All   India<\/p>\n
    Council for Technical Education.  This letter did not indicate as to for<\/p>\n
    which  academic   year the  approval was  issued.     The   approval  was<\/p>\n
    granted subject to various terms and conditions and the Petitioners<\/p>\n
    were required to comply with all the conditions.  In terms of Clause 17,<\/p>\n
    it was stated that in the event of non-compliance with regard to the<\/p>\n
    guidelines,   norms   and   conditions,   action   for   withdrawal   would   be<\/p>\n
    taken.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          After   the   Petitioners   received   this   letter   of   approval,  the<\/p>\n
    Petitioners   without   approaching   the   State   Government   through<\/p>\n
    Director of Technical  Education as well as the affiliating  University,<\/p>\n
    filed   the   present   Writ   Petition   seeking   the   above   reliefs   and   for<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
    appropriate steps to be taken for grant of permission to commence<\/p>\n
    the courses in the Institution and affiliation to the University.\n<\/p>\n
    5.         When the Writ Petition was filed, the Petitioners had also<\/p>\n
    not   impleaded   All   India   Council   for   Technical   Education   as   a<\/p>\n
    Respondent.     However,   on   oral   request   of   the   learned   Counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing for the Petitioners, leave to amend was granted and the All<\/p>\n
    India Council for Technical Education was added as Respondent No.3<\/p>\n
    where after the All India Council for Technical Education appeared in<\/p>\n
    the present Petition.\n<\/p>\n
    6.         The   learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the   Petitioners<\/p>\n
    vehemently argued that  after the grant  of approval  by the All India<\/p>\n
    Council for Technical Education, the Director of Technical Education<\/p>\n
    and the affiliating University has hardly any role to play and thus there<\/p>\n
    was   no   need   to   approach   them   for   any   permission.     It   is   also<\/p>\n
    contended that the College has complete infra-structure.   The fourth<\/p>\n
    round of counselling is to be held by the centralised agency between<\/p>\n
    25th and 28th August 2008.  Therefore, the Respondents are liable to<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
    be directed for inclusion of the name of Petitioner No.2 in the list of<\/p>\n
    colleges and they are obliged to allocate students for admission to the<\/p>\n
    said college.  In the larger interest, it is also contended that the seats<\/p>\n
    will go  waste  and no  prejudice would  be  caused  to  anybody if  the<\/p>\n
    students are allocated to the college and the college commence its<\/p>\n
    Engineering courses.   In support of its contention, reliance is placed<\/p>\n
    upon   the   judgments   of   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Medical<\/p>\n
    Council   of   India   vs.   Madhu   Singh   and   others<\/a>,  (2002)   7   SCC   258,<\/p>\n
    Manish Ujwal and others vs Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University<\/p>\n
    and others<\/a>, (2005) 13 SCC 744 and Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another<\/p>\n
    vs Union of India and others,  (2005) 13 SCC 65  and an order of the<\/p>\n
    Division   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  The   Shetkari   Shikshan<\/p>\n
    Mandal   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra   and   others  passed  in   Writ   Petition<\/p>\n
    (Lodging) No.1826 of 2008 decided on 1st August 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          Because of shortage of time and persistent request of the<\/p>\n
    Petitioners that the matter be heard expeditiously, no reply could be<\/p>\n
    filed on behalf of All India Council for Technical Education.  However,<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   reply   on   behalf   of   the   State   of   Maharashtra   was   filed   and   the<\/p>\n
    prayers of the Petitioners were strictly opposed.  It has been averred<\/p>\n
    on behalf of the State that if the permission is granted to the Petitioner<\/p>\n
    Institution to commence the courses at this juncture, it will defeat the<\/p>\n
    merit   and   it   will   be   unfair   to   higher   and   meritorious   candidates  for<\/p>\n
    picking up college of their choice. According to the State, it will be<\/p>\n
    serious   breach   of   the   golden   rule   of   merit   cum   preference.     It   is<\/p>\n
    averred   that   in   the   advertisement   given   by   All   India   Council   for<\/p>\n
    Technical Education on 24th September 2007, much prior to the time<\/p>\n
    when the application was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners, that<\/p>\n
    the   applications   for   establishment   of   new   institutions   for   technical<\/p>\n
    programmes received after 30th June shall not be valid for the current<\/p>\n
    academic year but shall be valid for next two academic years.  Thus,<\/p>\n
    the Petitioner Institute does not have a valid and existing approval for<\/p>\n
    the current academic year i.e. 2008-2009.   It was argued with some<\/p>\n
    emphasis that number of other colleges have not been considered for<\/p>\n
    the current year on the same basis and if the Petitioners are permitted<\/p>\n
    to be included in the list now, it will result in patent discrimination by<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   State   inasmuch   as   other   colleges   who   have   been   granted<\/p>\n
    approval after 30th June have not been included in the list on the same<\/p>\n
    analogy and clear direction and rule made by the All India Council for<\/p>\n
    Technical Education.   It will be useful to refer to some portions of the<\/p>\n
    reply filed on behalf of the State, which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
             “….        Moreover   it   is   pertinent   to   note   that   in   the
\n             State   of   Maharashtra   `The   Director   of   Technical<\/p>\n
             Education’     is appointed as the Competent Authority by
\n             the   State   of   Maharashtra   to   conduct   the   admission<\/p>\n
             process of various educational institutions conducting
\n             technical education courses.  I say that the Director of
\n             Technical   Education   has   prescribed   a   specific
\n             schedule   for   conduct   of   admissions   to   various<\/p>\n
             Engineering   courses   in   the   State   of   Maharashtra.
\n             Hereto   annexed   and   marked   as   EXHIBIT   `A’ is   the<\/p>\n
             copy   of   the   Notification   issued   in   this   regard   on   9th
\n             June, 2008 by the aforesaid Director.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          …..        …..        …..<\/p>\n
             9.          I say that in as much as the provisions of the
\n             Maharashtra   Universities   Act,   1994   (for   the   sake   of
\n             brevity,   hereinafter   referred   to   as   `the   said   Act’
\n                                                                            )   are<\/p>\n
             concerned, Sub-section 6 of Section 83 of the said Act
\n             makes   it   abundantly   clear   that   no   student   shall   be
\n             admitted by the Petitioner College\/Institution unless the
\n             first time affiliation has been granted by the University
\n             to the Petitioner College\/Institution.   I say that in view<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
     of this clear unequivocal mandate of the Legislature, it
\n     is   impermissible   for   the   Petitioner   to   admit   even   a<\/p>\n
     single student in absence of such first time affiliation
\n     from the concerned University.\n<\/p>\n
     10.         However, I will hasten to add that the State
\n     Government cannot permit at this stage grant of even a
\n     single   admission   at   the   Petitioner   Institution.     The<\/p>\n
     reasons for the same are more particularly set out in
\n     the   aforesaid   paragraphs.     In   short,   I   say   that   the
\n     Petitioner   Institution   does   not   have   affiliation   and
\n     therefore, it is just not possible to permit the Petitioner<\/p>\n
     to admit even a single student at the Institution\/college.
\n     It is worthwhile to note that in the advertisement given<\/p>\n
     AICTE on 24\/09\/2007 vide Advt. No. AICTE\/Legal\/09
\n     (04)\/2007, it is clearly mentioned in category – I under<\/p>\n
     serial no. 4 of “APPLICATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT
\n     OF   NEW   INSTITUTIONS   FOR   TECHNICAL
\n     PROGRAMMES”   such   as   “The   letter   of   Approval
\n     issued after 30th June shall not be valid for the current<\/p>\n
     academic   year   but   shall   be   valid   only   for   next   two
\n     Academic years”.  The AICTE has issued the Letter of<\/p>\n
     Approval (LOA) to the Petitioner’        s Institute vide letter
\n     dated   31\/07\/2008   which   is   already   annexed   at   page
\n     no.   19   of   the   petition.     Therefore   the   Petitioner’  s
\n     Institute is not valid for the current academic year i.e.<\/p>\n
     2008-2009   but   shall   be   valid   only   for   next   two
\n     Academic years.\n<\/p>\n
                 …..        …..        …..\n<\/p>\n
     12.        If   to   obviate   the   aforesaid   situation   the
\n     Petitioner   College   is   offered   to   all   the   students   who
\n     have   been   already   admitted,   the   entire   admission
\n     process   will   get   unsettled.     Allowing   shifting   of   an<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
             already   admitted   single   student   from   one   college   to
\n             another college, sets in chain reaction that unsettles all<\/p>\n
             the admissions so far settled.  In other words, allowing
\n             admissions to the Petitioner college at this stage, will<\/p>\n
             amount to re-opening of the entire admission process.
\n             This is certainly against the public interest and will be
\n             counter   productive   from   the   point   of   view   of   student
\n             community and starting of educational activities of the<\/p>\n
             present   academic   year.     As   per   this   Hon’b          le   Court
\n             Order s passed in W.P. No. 3916 of 2001 and W.P.\n<\/p>\n
             No. 1647 of 2007, the Respondent No.1 and 2 have
\n             not   considered  the   petitioner’       s  institute   for   admission<\/p>\n
             during the academic year 2008-09.   At the same time
\n             as per the Order passed by this Hon’b
\n                                  ig                                le High Court,
\n             Mumbai Full Bench on 08\/08\/2008 in Writ Petition No.
\n             8849   of   2007   along   with   other   Petitions   and   as   the<\/p>\n
             AICTE has issued the Letter of Approval (LOA) to the
\n             Petitioner’   s   Institute   vide   letter   dated   31\/07\/2008   the
\n             Petitioner’   s Institute is not entitled to fill in seats for the
\n             current   academic   year   i.e.,   2008-2009   and   shall   be<\/p>\n
             valid   for   next   two   academic   years.     Hereto   annexed
\n             and marked as EXHIBIT `B’ is the copy of the above<\/p>\n
             mentioned Order delivered on 08\/08\/2008.”\n<\/p>\n
    8.         It   is       argued   on   behalf   of   the   Respondents   that   the<\/p>\n
    consistent and uniform stand       of the Respondent           authorities is<\/p>\n
    that the     approvals granted post         the cut off date (i.e. 30th  June<\/p>\n
    2008) will be   valid only for    next academic year     and not      for the<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
    current academic year.      It will be      inappropriate and unjust now to<\/p>\n
    make the admissions in       undue haste     as it would cause serious<\/p>\n
    prejudice    to the  meritorious students, commencement of the <\/p>\n
    courses and would introduce an inevitable element of arbitrariness as<\/p>\n
    many   other   colleges   which   have   already   been   excluded   on   this<\/p>\n
    ground would be deemed to have been treated unfairly.\n<\/p>\n
    9.<\/p>\n
               The main emphasis which has been placed by the parties<\/p>\n
    and   particularly   by   the   Respondents   is   on   the   Handbook   and   the<\/p>\n
    Advertisement issued by the All India Council for Technical Education.\n<\/p>\n
    Under   both   these   documents,   the   stipulation   with   regard   to   the<\/p>\n
    issuance of letter of approval on and after a particular date has been<\/p>\n
    clearly stated.  In the advertisement which was issued by the College<\/p>\n
    for the current academic year on 9th  April 2007 and even published<\/p>\n
    subsequently on 24th  September 2007, the relevant clause reads as<\/p>\n
    under :-\n<\/p>\n
               “3. SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION<\/p>\n
               The  application  can  be  submitted   “anyn   time”  round<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   year.    However,   the   applications  complete   in   all
\n     respects   received   up   to   31st  December   shall   be<\/p>\n
     considered   for   the   following   academic   year.\n<\/p>\n
     Application   received   after   31st  December   shall   be<\/p>\n
     considered for the next academic year.\n<\/p>\n
                 ....        .....        ....\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n     4. APPROVAL PROCESS\n\n<\/pre>\n
     *   “Letter of Intent (LOI)” issued will be valid for “3
\n         years from the date of issue”.\n<\/p>\n
     *   “Letter of Approval (LOA)” issued will be valid for<\/p>\n
         “2 academic years from the date of issue”.\n<\/p>\n
     *   The   decisions   of   grant   of   approval   or   otherwise
\n         shall   be   communicated   “throughout   the   year”.\n<\/p>\n
         However,   the   letter   of   Approval   (LOA)   for   the
\n         current   academic   year   shall   be   issued   by   30th<\/p>\n
         June   for   completed   application   received   by   31st
\n         December   of   the   previous   calendar   year   which<\/p>\n
         have fulfilled norms and standards prescribe4d by
\n         the Council for establishment of new institutions.
\n         LOA issued on or before 30th  June shall be valid
\n         for   Two   academic   years   including   the   current<\/p>\n
         academic   year   for   obtaining   affiliation   with   the
\n         respective   Universities   and   fulfilling   concerned
\n         State Government requirement for admission.\n<\/p>\n
     *   The Letter of Approval  issued after 30th June shall
\n         not   be   valid   for   the   current   academic   year   but
\n         shall be valid only for next two Academic years.
\n     *   The   Applicant   institutions,   whose   cases   have
\n         been rejected for grant of Letter of Approval (LOA)<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
                    may   submit   compliance   for   reconsideration   or
\n                    may prefer to appeal by 30th  May.   The requests<\/p>\n
                    for   reconsideration   or   appeal   received   after   30th
\n                    May will not be considered for LOA for the current<\/p>\n
                    academic   year   but   only   for   next   two   academic
\n                    years.     The   Applicant   shall   have   only   one
\n                    opportunity   for   reconsideration   or\/for   making   an
\n                    appeal for issue of LOA for the current academic<\/p>\n
                    year.     The   applicant   may   submit   requests   for
\n                    reconsideration or prefer an appeal after 30th June
\n                    for consideration for issue of LOA for subsequent
\n                    academic years.”\n<\/p>\n
    10.         The All India Council for Technical Education is a statutory<\/p>\n
    body   with   the   obligation   to   maintain   proper   standards   relating   to<\/p>\n
    technical   education   in   the   entire   country.       Once   the   Council   in<\/p>\n
    exercise   of   the   statutory   powers   frames   out   a   policy   or   issues<\/p>\n
    guidelines, then such guidelines are binding on all concern and should<\/p>\n
    essentially   be   adhered   to.     The   Handbook   issued   by   the   All   India<\/p>\n
    Council   for   Technical   Education   is   a   legal   and   binding   document<\/p>\n
    issued   for   information   of   the   concerned   parties   i.e.   Students   and<\/p>\n
    Institutions and other public.  Authorities cannot be heard contrary to<\/p>\n
    the   specific   language   of   the   Notifications   issued   by   the   Council   in<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
    exercise of its statutory power.  No doubt it is a settled proposition of<\/p>\n
    law   that   the   All   India   Council   for   Technical   Education   enjoys<\/p>\n
    supremacy in regard to grant of approval for technical courses.  Once<\/p>\n
    the   approval   is   granted,   the   University   or   the   other   authority   like<\/p>\n
    Director of Technical Education cannot sit in judgment over the grant<\/p>\n
    of   approval   but   their   function   is   not   so   ministerial   that   it   has   no<\/p>\n
    significance  in  the   field   of  education  whatsoever.      The  Director  of<\/p>\n
    Technical   Education   is   required   to   grant   permission   for<\/p>\n
    commencement of courses and allot students by central counselling<\/p>\n
    strictly in accordance to the merit and preference of the student.  The<\/p>\n
    University is expected to grant affiliation subject to satisfaction of the<\/p>\n
    conditions.     What   they   cannot   do   is   to   interfere   with   the   approval<\/p>\n
    granted   by   the   All   India   Council   for   Technical   Education   or   its<\/p>\n
    compliance.     In   terms   of   Maharashtra   University   Act,   1994,   the<\/p>\n
    students can be admitted to the course only when the institution is<\/p>\n
    affiliated to the University in terms of Section 83(6) of the Act.   The<\/p>\n
    Petitioners did not even care to approach these authorities for taking<\/p>\n
    appropriate action in accordance with law.  The attempt on behalf of<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                          16<\/span><\/p>\n
    the Petitioners was to completely bye pass the process required to be<\/p>\n
    followed on the ground that All India Council for Technical Education<\/p>\n
    has granted approval.   We are unable to accept this contention as<\/p>\n
    every authority, no matter how formal is its function, is expected to act<\/p>\n
    in accordance with the prescribed procedure.   It is for the University<\/p>\n
    and the Director of Technical Education to examine various aspects<\/p>\n
    and then to  grant or decline permission or affiliation  in  accordance<\/p>\n
    with   law.       Of   course,   they   may   be   expected   to   act   with<\/p>\n
    expeditiousness, but certainly their role cannot be wiped out entirely<\/p>\n
    and that too contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n
    11.        We may also notice that in the meanwhile, the Full Bench of<\/p>\n
    this Court has also pronounced the judgment in the case of Mahatma<\/p>\n
    Gandhi Missions Institute vs The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition   No.8847   of<\/a>   2007   alongwith   other   connected   matters),<\/p>\n
    wherein these principles have been reiterated and the Full Bench has<\/p>\n
    issued the following directions :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
     (a) As   far   as   all   colleges   of   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
         institutions\/trusts for the academic year 2007-2008<\/p>\n
         are concerned, the students who were admitted in<\/p>\n
         furtherance to orders of the court against variation<\/p>\n
         in  intake  of  seats  duly approved  by  the  Council,<\/p>\n
         their admissions would not be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n
     (b) The   colleges\/institutions   shall   ensure   that   in   the<\/p>\n
         courses   already  undergone  by  them,  there  is  no<\/p>\n
         deficiency.   If   the   students   have   joined   their<\/p>\n
         respective courses late, they shall be required to<\/p>\n
         make up the deficiency.\n<\/p>\n
     (c) For the current academic year 2008-2009, we see<\/p>\n
         no reason to interfere with the notification issued<\/p>\n
         by the All India Council of Technical Education or<\/p>\n
         Directorate   of   Technical   Education.     The   said<\/p>\n
         courses   shall   commence   strictly   in   accordance<\/p>\n
         with  the schedule and no institution which  is not<\/p>\n
         duly approved by the AICTE with the concurrence<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
        of   opinion   by   the   Directorate   of   Technical<\/p>\n
        Education and the affiliating University as per the<\/p>\n
        requirements   of   law   upto   30th  June,   2008   shall<\/p>\n
        admit   any   students.     However,   as  per   the   stand<\/p>\n
        taken by the AICTE after completing the requisite<\/p>\n
        formalities and satisfying the authorities concerned<\/p>\n
        in   regard   to   infrastructure   and   educational<\/p>\n
        standards, such seats would be available to have<\/p>\n
        for the next academic year.  The AICTE and other<\/p>\n
        authorities are permitted to adhere to the schedule<\/p>\n
        notified   by   them.   In   fact,   it   is   directed   that<\/p>\n
        henceforth, there shall be strict adherence to the<\/p>\n
        schedule   specified   in   the   law   and   hand-book<\/p>\n
        printed   by   AICTE   in   exercise   of   its   statutory<\/p>\n
        powers.\n<\/p>\n
     (d) The AICTE and all other concerned authorities are<\/p>\n
        hereby directed to communicate to every applicant<\/p>\n
        institution, university or trust about refusal and\/or<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                19<\/span><\/p>\n
                     grant of approval of their proposal by 15th June of<\/p>\n
                     every academic year where the applications have<\/p>\n
                     been   received   in   terms   of   its   brochure   upto   31st<\/p>\n
                     December   of   the   previous   year,   regarding<\/p>\n
                     admissions for the academic year.\n<\/p>\n
    12.         As   held   by   the   Full   Bench   judgment   of   this   court   in<\/p>\n
    Mahatma Gandhi Missions Institute v. The State of Maharashtra and<\/p>\n
    others   (Writ   Petition   No.8847   of<\/a>   2007   alongwith   other   connected<\/p>\n
    matters),  we cannot find any fault in the stand of the All India Council<\/p>\n
    for   Technical   Education   in   its   attempt   to   adhere   to   the   notified<\/p>\n
    schedule.  It is also a correct stand that adherence to the prescribed<\/p>\n
    standards, cut-off dates and grant or refusal of approval has a direct<\/p>\n
    nexus   to   the   performance   of   its   duties   in   terms   of   the   Act.     The<\/p>\n
    Council   cannot   grant   approvals   in   a   mechanical   manner.     It   is<\/p>\n
    expected   to   adhere   to   its   schedule   and   conduct   inspections   in<\/p>\n
    accordance with its policy and provisions of the All India Council for<\/p>\n
    Technical   Education   Act.     The   stand   of   the   All   India   Council   for<\/p>\n
    Technical Education is that the approval is for the next academic year<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                               20<\/span><\/p>\n
    as it was granted subsequent to the notified date of 30th June, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    This fact is not in dispute even before us.   Not only this, even the<\/p>\n
    application for approval was moved by the petitioner subsequent to<\/p>\n
    the cut-off date for that purpose i.e. 31st  December, 2008 as it was<\/p>\n
    moved   on   8th  January,   2008.       Thus,   there   is   substance   in   the<\/p>\n
    argument   of   the   State   that   Petitioners   do   not   have   any   valid   and<\/p>\n
    proper sanction  for the current  year.    Furthermore,  the  approval is<\/p>\n
    subject to the compliance of the conditions stipulated in the approval<\/p>\n
    letter.   Vide their letter dated 27th  June, 2008 which was just three<\/p>\n
    days  prior   to   the   cut-off   date   of   30th  June,   2008,   the   Council   had<\/p>\n
    clearly stated that there were deficiencies including the deficiency in<\/p>\n
    regard   to   the   infrastructure   i.e.   College   building   was   not   in<\/p>\n
    accordance with the approved building plans and the workshop and<\/p>\n
    civil work is incomplete.   The college was also clearly informed that<\/p>\n
    the college could avail the opportunity of reconsideration of proposal.\n<\/p>\n
    These   substantial   compliances   could   hardly   be   completed   for   the<\/p>\n
    current academic year.  In the letter of approval dated 31st July, 2008,<\/p>\n
    there is nothing to state that those deficiencies had been made good.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                             21<\/span><\/p>\n
    The   letter  of  approval dated 31st  July,  2008  had  also informed  the<\/p>\n
    college in no uncertain terms “You are required to submit compliance<\/p>\n
    report as per AICTE’
\n                       s requirements by 31st  August, 2008.” There is<\/p>\n
    nothing on record to show that such compliance was made by the<\/p>\n
    college even till date.  All these events clearly indicate that the entire<\/p>\n
    process was for the next academic year and not for 2008-2009.  The<\/p>\n
    college cannot drive any benefit for the reason that they claimed to<\/p>\n
    have   engaged   certain   staff   members,   teachers   for   the   current<\/p>\n
    academic year.  The college cannot take advantage of its own wrong<\/p>\n
    as the AICTE had put them to a notice by virtue of notification and<\/p>\n
    hand-book that  application  submitted  subsequent to  31st  December<\/p>\n
    and approvals granted subsequent to 30th  June, 2008 would be for<\/p>\n
    the   next   academic   year   and   not   the   current   academic   year.     The<\/p>\n
    Letter of Approval dated 31st July, 2008 opens with the language that<\/p>\n
    the   regulations   notified   by   the   Council,   norms   and   standards   and<\/p>\n
    conditions   prescribed   by   Council   from   time   to   time   would   be<\/p>\n
    applicable.  It is not even the case of the petitioners that they had not<\/p>\n
    submitted   the   application   in   furtherance   to   such   hand-book   and<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                              22<\/span><\/p>\n
    notification.  By 31st August, the date for compliance of counseling is<\/p>\n
    expected to be completed and courses are expected to commence as<\/p>\n
    per   the   calendar.   Another   aspect   which   cannot   be   ignored   by   the<\/p>\n
    court is that the petitioners did not even care to approach either the<\/p>\n
    University   or   the   Director   of   Technical   Education,   State   of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra   for   their   affiliation   and   permission   respectively.     The<\/p>\n
    University, in fact, has not even been impleaded as respondent in the<\/p>\n
    present petition.  The Court cannot, in these circumstances, take unto<\/p>\n
    itself compliance of the requirements of affiliation and permission to<\/p>\n
    commence the courses by deeming fiction. The grant of approval by<\/p>\n
    All   India   Council   for   Technical   Education   is   a   principal   permission<\/p>\n
    which was granted conditionally and as already noticed, there is not<\/p>\n
    even   a   document   on   record   to   show   that   compliance   report   was<\/p>\n
    submitted by 31st  August, as stated by the Council.   No matter how<\/p>\n
    formal   is   the   requirement   of   the   University   granting   affiliation   and<\/p>\n
    Director   of   Technical   Education,   State   of   Maharashtra   granting<\/p>\n
    permission to commence the courses but the law in that regard has to<\/p>\n
    be   essentially   followed   by   the   petitioners   and   he   ought   to   have<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                              23<\/span><\/p>\n
    approached   these   authorities   for   appropriate   action   in   accordance<\/p>\n
    with law.   The petitioners have none else to blame except its own<\/p>\n
    conduct for the present situation.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         Full   Bench   of   this   Court   in  Mahatma   Gandhi   Missions<\/p>\n
    Institute  (supra)  has  directed  strict   adherence  to  notified  schedules<\/p>\n
    and   cut-off   dates,   ensure   implementation   of   merit-cum-preference<\/p>\n
    principle and not to shorten the length of the courses in professional<\/p>\n
    education.   If the relief prayed for by the petitioner is granted at this<\/p>\n
    stage, it would directly or indirectly have the effect of infringing these<\/p>\n
    principles. Even in the case of  Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another v.\n<\/p>\n
    Union   of   India   and   others,(2005)   2   SCC   65,   relied   upon   by   the<\/p>\n
    petitioners, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated the principle in<\/p>\n
    relation to desirability of commencement and completion of courses<\/p>\n
    according to schedule and in paras 22 and 23 of the judgment stated<\/p>\n
    that if any student  is admitted after commencement of the course, it<\/p>\n
    would   be   against   the   intended   object   of   fixing   the   time   schedule.\n<\/p>\n
    Further in its conclusion, the court also stated that there is no scope<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 24<\/span><\/p>\n
    for admitting the students mid-stream and even if seats are unfilled,<\/p>\n
    there cannot be a ground for making mid-session admission.   In the<\/p>\n
    case of Mridul Dhar (supra) where the Supreme Court issued certain<\/p>\n
    directions,  the  court   re-emphasised  the   need  to   adherence  to  time<\/p>\n
    schedules   in   professional   colleges,   however,   required   the   Medical<\/p>\n
    Council   of   India   and   the   Central   Government   to   examine   the<\/p>\n
    applications   for   approval.     None   of   these   judgments   help   the<\/p>\n
    petitioners  to   sustain  a  claim  before  the  court  that   in   face  of  clear<\/p>\n
    stipulation   of   the   hand-book   and   the   notification,   this   court   should<\/p>\n
    compel the All India Council for Technical Education to violate its own<\/p>\n
    rules   and   issue   directions   against   other   respondents   including   the<\/p>\n
    University   (which   is   not   even   a   party   to   the   writ   petition)   to   grant<\/p>\n
    permission   without   compliance   to   their   requirements   and   even   to<\/p>\n
    allocate the students for admission to the college.  Such expansion of<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India    would be<\/p>\n
    opposed to the very spirit of law stated in different Acts including All<\/p>\n
    India Council for Technical Education Act, Maharashtra Universities<\/p>\n
    Act   and   the   Notifications   issued   by   the   Director   of   Technical<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                              25<\/span><\/p>\n
    Education.  The Full Bench of this Court in Mahatma Gandhi Missions<\/p>\n
    Institute  (supra) considered the Division Bench order of this court in<\/p>\n
    Shetkari Shikshan  Mandal  v.  State  of  Maharashtra  and  others  and<\/p>\n
    Atharva   Institute   of   Management   Studies   and   others   v.   Director   of<\/p>\n
    Technical   Education,   Maharashtra   State   and   others.     The   Bench<\/p>\n
    approved   the   principle   stated   in   the   case   of   Atharva   Institute   of<\/p>\n
    Management Studies and directed that for the current academic year,<\/p>\n
    the All India Council for Technical Education and Director of Technical<\/p>\n
    Education  should  adhere  to  the  notified  schedule  and  the   colleges<\/p>\n
    whose approvals were  granted  that too conditionally after 30th  June,<\/p>\n
    2008   were   to   be   included   in   the   list   of   colleges   published   for<\/p>\n
    admission for the next academic year.\n<\/p>\n
    14.         We   are   unable   to   find   any   error   of   law   or   element   of<\/p>\n
    unfairness in the stand taken by the respondents.   Such stand and<\/p>\n
    timely implementation of schedule would hardly call for any judicial<\/p>\n
    intervention.     There   is   merit   in   the   submission   of   the   State   that<\/p>\n
    number   of   other   colleges   have   not   been   included   in   the   list   as<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                                26<\/span><\/p>\n
    approval of the All India Council for Technical Education subsequent<\/p>\n
    to   30th  June,   2008   and   there   is   no   reason   to   treat   the   petitioners<\/p>\n
    differently and in any  case, there  are no  exceptional or compelling<\/p>\n
    circumstances   which   would   justify   grant   of   relief   to   the   petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    Nothing prevented the petitioners from acting timely and submitting<\/p>\n
    their applications prior to 31st December, 2007 and then pursuing the<\/p>\n
    same vigoursly to ensure that the approval was granted prior to 30th<\/p>\n
    June, 2008 and their names were included in the list of colleges for<\/p>\n
    allocation   of   students.   Even   if   they   were   to   be   granted   any   relief<\/p>\n
    today, it would be unfair as firstly, the admission process would be<\/p>\n
    over by that date and secondly, most of the students have already<\/p>\n
    been admitted and they even may not know about the availability of<\/p>\n
    seats in the Petitioners’
\n                             college.  Thus, it would hurt the golden rule of<\/p>\n
    merit-cum-preference   and   would   obviously                     result       in   late<\/p>\n
    commencement   of   courses.     It   needs   to   be   noticed   with   some<\/p>\n
    emphasis that the colleges still have to comply with the requirements<\/p>\n
    of letter of approval dated 31st  July, 2008 and still have to approach<\/p>\n
    the University and Director of Technical Education for affiliation and<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span>
\n                                      27<\/span><\/p>\n
    grant of permission to commence the courses respectively.\n<\/p>\n
    15.       For the  reasons aforestated, we find no merit  in the  Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition and the same is dismissed, however, leaving the parties to<\/p>\n
    bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                            CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                            A.P. DESHPANDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:48 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational … vs The Director Of Technical … on 29 August, 2008 Bench: A.P. Deshpande 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5809 OF 2008 1) Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational Academy ) Sr.No.124 and 126, ) At Post-Ambi, Talegaon-Dabhade, ) Tal. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70045","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. D.Y. Patil Educational ... vs The Director Of Technical ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational ... vs The Director Of Technical ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-01T00:03:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational … vs The Director Of Technical … on 29 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T00:03:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4748,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational ... vs The Director Of Technical ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T00:03:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational … vs The Director Of Technical … on 29 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational ... vs The Director Of Technical ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational ... vs The Director Of Technical ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-01T00:03:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational … vs The Director Of Technical … on 29 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T00:03:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008"},"wordCount":4748,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008","name":"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational ... vs The Director Of Technical ... on 29 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T00:03:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-d-y-patil-educational-vs-the-director-of-technical-on-29-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational … vs The Director Of Technical … on 29 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70045","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70045\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}