The consequence of amendment made in Section 37 of the U.P. State Universities Act of 1973 is essentially three fold. Firstly, the power to grant affiliation now stands vested in the Executive Council of the University concerned and the requirement of prior approval of Chancellor/State Government stood dispensed with. Secondly, the privilege of affiliation can now be extended to a college only when it fulfills conditions of affiliation, as may be prescribed. Thirdly, the proviso which permitted grant of temporary affiliation even if conditions of affiliation were not fulfilled entirely but only substantially stood deleted. No further amendment is made in the U.P. State Universities Act after the year 2014. The Executive Council is thus empowered in the Act now to grant privileges of affiliation only if the college fulfills all conditions of affiliation as are specified in the Statutes of the University. The object for which temporary affiliation was made permissible i.e. to secure fulfillment of all conditions of affiliation while granting affiliation even if conditions of affiliation are only substantially fulfilled and not in its entirety ceased to exist. Yashraj College of Professional Studies v. State of U.P. , Writ – C No. – 31170 of 2019
Category Archives: Education Law
Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of Section 14(3) (a) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the NCTE is required to grant or refuse recognition to an institute. It has been empowered to impose such conditions as it may consider fit and proper keeping in view the legislative intent and object in mind. In terms of Section 14(6) of the Act, the examining body shall grant affiliation to the institute where recognition has been granted. In other words, granting recognition is the basic requirement for grant of affiliation. It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining body. It is the requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct meaning and consequences. In Bhartia Education Society v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 527, it was held:
“The purpose of ‘recognition’ and ‘affiliation’ is different. In the context of the NCTE Act, ‘affiliation’ enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in public examinations conducted by the examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diploma and certificates. On the other hand, recognition is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teaching education.” Dr. A.H. Rizvi Degree College v. State of U.P., (2018) 1 UPLBEC 787.
In Kurmanchal Institute of Degree and Diploma v. MJP Rohilkhan University, (2007) 6 SCC 35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held while construing the provisions of the UGC Act and the Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973 that each University in the country, though recognized by the UGC, must have its own territorial jurisdiction, save and except for Central Universities or those specified in legislative enactments. In that context, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“The submission of the learned counsel that for the purpose of running a distance education course, extra territorial activities must be carried out may not be entirely correct. It is one thing to say that the University takes recourse to the correspondence courses conferring degrees or diplomas but it would be another thing to say that study centres would be permitted to operate which requires close supervision of the University. In a study centre, teachers are appointed, practical classes are held and all other amenities which are required to be provided for running a full-fledged institution or college are provided. Such an establishment although named as a study centre and despite the fact that the course of study and other study materials are supplied by the University cannot be permitted to be established beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University”. Akhtar Ali Ansari v. State of U.P., (2016) 1 UPLBEC 669 (FB).
In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council For Technical Education and others, (2013) 8 SCC 271 it was held as under:
“As per the definition of “technical education” under Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act and non-production of any material by AICTE to show that MBA course is not a technical course within the definition of the AICTE Act and insofar as reasons assigned for MCA course being “technical education” are concerned, the same does not hold for MBA course. Therefore, for the reasons assigned while answering the points which are framed insofar as the MCA course is concerned, the approval from AICTE is not required for obtaining permission and running MBA course by the appellant Colleges.”
It was further held as under:
“The common impugned judgment and order passed in Sadakathullah Appa College v. All India Council for Technical Education, (2004) 1 CTC 1 is hereby set aside. The civil appeals are allowed. The relief sought for in the writ petitions is granted insofar as not to seek approval from AICTE for MBA and MCA courses.”