HC refuses to allow admission in 2 institutes on provisional

The Delhi High Court today refused to allow two institutes here to admit students in professional courses for the 2016-17 session on a provisional basis, saying it would put the career of pupils at "risk".
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva rejected the plea of Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology and Polytechnic Institute, which has sought interim stay on the operation of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) April 19, 2016 letter, placing them under "no admission" category for 2016-17.
"Orders permitting a provisional admission of students imposing conditions such as making it clear to the students that against the refusal to grant extension of approval, the writ petition was pending and any admission made would be subject to the outcome of the petition and students shall not be entitled to claim any equity on the basis of the interim order, in my view, create a lot of uncertainty.

"It puts the career of students, who take provisional admission, at risk. The mere fact, that students are willing to take such a risk, does not justify putting them at such a crossroad unless the peculiar facts of the case warrant such an interim order. As noted above, the facts of the present case do not justify such an interim order," the court said.
Run by Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management (DSGM) Committee, the two institutes with sanctioned intake capacities of 600 and 420 students respectively had move the high court against the order of AICTE placing them under "no admission" category for 2016-17.

They had also sought a stay on AICTE orders to let them go ahead with admissions.

Dismissing the plea for interim order, the court said, "In case, the petitioner institute is provisionally permitted to admit students, the entire exercise of allocation of seats/ counseling undertaken over a period of two months in various institutes would be set to naught".
The court observed that "no doubt, a high court while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would have the power, in the facts of a case, to direct AICTE to grant approval and also permit intake of students after the scheduled date.

"However, exercise of such a power would be the exception and not the rule. In my view, the facts of the present case do not justify such an exceptional exercise of power."
Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology has undergraduate engineering courses, while Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic Institute is affiliated to the Board of Technical Education, Delhi, and conducts diploma courses.
AICTE had put the admissions on hold as DSGM Committee had failed to fulfil its commitment to shift the polytechnic institute to Rajouri Garden before October 2015.
Both the institute and polytechnic continued to operate from the premises of Guru Harkrishan Public School at Vasant Vihar here.

AICTE had contended that the land at Rajouri Garden had been specifically allotted for running the polytechnic, but the DSGM Committee, instead of setting up of a polytechnic on the land, set up the technology institute.
Taking note of AICTE contention, the court observed that "even if assuming the issue of the use of land was to be ignored for the time being, because of delay on the part of DDA, petitioners would have to remove the other deficiencies.
"After removal of the deficiencies, the petitioners would have to approach AICTE for approval which would then have to have the facilities inspected once again. If approval is accorded, they will have to then approach the University or the Technical Board for affiliation," it said.

"Only once all this is done would the petitioners be able to have intake of students. The entire process would take time," it observed.