Army Welfare Education Society & Anr. Vs. All India Council of Technical Edu. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (C) No. 325/1994
Petitioner: Army Welfare Education Society & Anr.
Respondent: All India Council of Technical Edu. & Anr.
Apeal: Writ Petition (C) No. 325/1994
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 2001
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Constitution
Article 32 – Army Institute of Technology – Institute to be run by Army Welfare Education Society – Decision in J.P. Unnikrishnan’s case (JT 1993 (1) SC 474) fitted to be applied by All India Council of Technical Education – At initial stage, Supreme Court passing orders on 18.7.94, exempting the army institute from regulations framed by AICTE – Position continuing since then. Held that regulation of AICTE shall not be made applicable to the army institute, in relation to admission and charging of fee. Also there is no necessity to make directions about fee structure, keeping in view the welfare of children of army personnels. (Paras 3, 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (JT 1993 (1) SC 474) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The reliefs sought for in this petition are as follows :
“(a) Issue an appropriate writ direction or declaration declaring that the scheme contained in Pt. III of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported in JT 1993 (1) SC 474 (J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh) is inapplicable to the army institute of technology and secondly issue a direction to the Ist respondent. All India council for technical education to grant appeal for the establishment of the army institute of technology.
(b) Alternatively pass orders directing that the petitioners are exempt from the scheme contained in Pt. III of the judgment reported in JT 1993 (1) SC 474 (J.P. Unnikrishnan v. Government of A.P.) in so far as the establishment of the army institute of technology is concerned; and
(c) Pass such or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. This petition is filed by the Army Welfare Education Society which provides education for the children of army personnel including ex-servicemen. Apprehending that the decisions of this Court in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (JT 1993 (1) SC 474 ) is likely to be made applicable to the petitioner this writ petition is filed for the aforesaid relief.
3. However, this court on consideration of the matter and after hearing the parties made an order on 18.7.1994 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the regulations framed by the All India Council of Technical Education (for short the ‘AICTE’) applicable to private engineering colleges shall not apply to this college and allowed the institution to start subject to certain conditions with reference to the fee to be charged by them and that position had continued even thereafter.
4. On the aforesaid basis now that the institution has started and has been functioning for over six years, that position should continue and it will not be proper to upset that state of affairs. It is made clear that the regulations framed by the AICTE shall not be made applicable either in relation to admission and charging of the fees, however subject to other aspects of the rules such as recognition, maintenance of standards etc. It is unnecessary for us to make any direction with regard to the fee structure to be adopted by the institution because the object of the institution itself is to provide for the welfare of the children of the army personnel. In that view of the matter, we do not think any further order is required to be passed. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
1. The reliefs sought for in this petition are as follows :
“(a) Issue an appropriate writ direction or declaration declaring that the scheme contained in Pt. III of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported in JT 1993 (1) SC 474 (J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh) is inapplicable to the army institute of technology and secondly issue a direction to the Ist respondent. All India council for technical education to grant appeal for the establishment of the army institute of technology.
(b) Alternatively pass orders directing that the petitioners are exempt from the scheme contained in Pt. III of the judgment reported in JT 1993 (1) SC 474 (J.P. Unnikrishnan v. Government of A.P.) in so far as the establishment of the army institute of technology is concerned; and
(c) Pass such or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. This petition is filed by the Army Welfare Education Society which provides education for the children of army personnel including ex-servicemen. Apprehending that the decisions of this Court in J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (JT 1993 (1) SC 474 ) is likely to be made applicable to the petitioner this writ petition is filed for the aforesaid relief.
3. However, this court on consideration of the matter and after hearing the parties made an order on 18.7.1994 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the regulations framed by the All India Council of Technical Education (for short the ‘AICTE’) applicable to private engineering colleges shall not apply to this college and allowed the institution to start subject to certain conditions with reference to the fee to be charged by them and that position had continued even thereafter.
4. On the aforesaid basis now that the institution has started and has been functioning for over six years, that position should continue and it will not be proper to upset that state of affairs. It is made clear that the regulations framed by the AICTE shall not be made applicable either in relation to admission and charging of the fees, however subject to other aspects of the rules such as recognition, maintenance of standards etc. It is unnecessary for us to make any direction with regard to the fee structure to be adopted by the institution because the object of the institution itself is to provide for the welfare of the children of the army personnel. In that view of the matter, we do not think any further order is required to be passed. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
