All the colleges or educational institutions are permitted to set-up an institution with a specific capacity, the reduction of such capacity has to be justified by some compelling necessity

Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 4th February 2020

SHIRPUR EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 892 OF 2020

Facts of the Case:

• The society established the RC Patel Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research College after securing permission and clearance of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), Director of Technical Education, Govt of Maharashtra, and the North Maharashtra University, in 1992. 
• Its initial student intake of 30 was increased, after permission from the authorities, in 1996 and further, to 60, annually, in 2001. In 2010, AICTE published regulations titled AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010 in terms of which student intake could be increased to 180 and, in addition, the concerned college could start a second shift of classes, for which the maximum intake could be 60 per year. 
• In tune with this policy, the AICTE published the approval process handbook. On 23.08.2010, the appellant’s college increased its annual intake capacity to 240 (180 in the regular shift and 60 in the second shift). This intake increase, apparently had the prior approval of the Govt. of Maharashtra (on 30.06.2010); the Director of Technical Education too approved the increase in intake, by an order dated 09.11.2011. This position continued for the later years, too. 
• The Director of Technical Education, by an order made in 2013, reduced regular intake from 180 to 100; the intake for the second shift, however, was left undisturbed. This reduction, however, was interdicted by an interim order which resulted in continuance of the status quo, with respect to the number of seats (at 180). 
• For the next year, AICTE approved the total intake (regular plus second shift) @ 240 per year, on 04.06.2014; however, the Director of Technical Education again reduced it – like in the previous year, to a total of 160- by an order, which was stayed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on 06.07.2015 
• For the three years, the Director of Technical Education reduced the intake. Again, the High Court stayed the Director’s order, and continued the status quo. In 2018, the AICTE published its handbook for admissions. The appellant claims that its college was compliant with all applicable regulations and rules; despite this, the AICTE’s web portal showed a decreased intake. The petitioner unsuccessfully represented to the respondents; it thereafter approached the High Court of Maharashtra by filing Writ Petition.
• It filed another writ petition, challenging the policy (of AICTE) enabling reduction in the intake. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed Writ Petition.
• The High Court noticed in the impugned judgement that the petitioner’s grievance was two-fold- the absence of approval for the second shift by AICTE and restriction of capacity to 100 students for the undergraduate course. The High Court noted that for the earlier years, the PCI used to restrict the capacity of the institution despite which AICTE used to grant approval for a larger intake of students. This conflict was on account of assertion of supremacy or primacy in the field of regulation of pharmaceutical education by both AICTE and PCI; the former had permitted the institution i.e. the society and its college to admit students with higher capacity. 
• AICTE approved a total intake of 240 which included 180 in the morning shift and 60 in the evening shift. It was then noticed that the AICTE for the first time in 2018-19 reduced intake capacity in respect of the college. This was in terms of AICTE’s powers under Section 23, Section 10 and Section 11 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act and Regulations, framed in 2018. In view of these findings, the High Court dismissed the society’s writ petition.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the society filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India.

Held:

The Court held that the it was apprise of the fact that issues as to which body,  i.e. the AICTE or PCI would be primarily responsible for regulation of pharmaceutical regulation in India is pending consideration before another Bench in several matters. 

In this view of the matter, this court does not propose to finally deal with the question of primacy of regulatory power in the field of pharmaceutical regulation. What is evident however is that the controversy before this court appears to have arisen especially on account of the  conflicting claims to primacy made by the PCI on the one hand – on account of the provisions contained in the Pharmacy Act, which authorised it to prescribe norms and standards both in respect of pharmaceutical education as well as regulation of the provision of the pharmacists and the power of the AICTE under the AICTE Act to regulate technical education (“technical” being defined as inclusive of pharmaceutical education in India). 

As the PCI and the AICTE now arrived at an understanding to move henceforth in a concerted manner in terms of the minutes of meeting held under the aegis of the concerned Minister on 03.01.2018, the court held that at the stage of taking cognizance of the present petition and issuing notice, the State of Maharashtra was directed to upload the name of the petitioner’s college in its web portal subject to final orders. It was held that all admissions made by the petitioner’s college, requires to be regularized and those students who had graduated in the past need to be protected.

The court directed the PCI to give due recognition to such of the students who had been admitted in the past during the pendency of all proceedings upto the total intake capacity of 240 (180 in the first shift and 60 in the second shift) on account of the interim orders made. 

The PCI is, therefore, directed also to give consequential benefit of registration to such students who graduated in the concerned undergraduate courses. Similarly, such of the students who fall within the 100 seats permitted intake capacity, notified for academic year 2019-20, shall be given due recognition and registration. However, students admitted beyond such capacity and those admitted in the second shift for academic year 2019-20 shall not be given such benefits. This appeal is disposed of in the above directions keeping all questions of law open for arguments and decision in the other pending proceedings.