Professional colleges in the state cannot increase their student intake or start new courses once the admission process has begun. Bombay High Court has upheld state government’s decision to refuse affiliation to new courses and increased student capacity in 35 professional colleges after the admission process.
Refusing to interfere in the grant of affiliation by Directorate of Technical Education, Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice DY Chandrachud said, “Courts must have due deference to views of the experts in academic matters.”
HC dismissed the petition filed by Malad-based Atharva Institute of Management Studies, challenging the state’s refusal to grant affiliation to additional seats approved by the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). Atharva contended that they had applied for increase in intake capacity for its management course in January, but AICTE gave its nod only on July 25. However, in keeping with an earlier HC order, which set June 30 as the cut-off date for permitting new courses or additional seats, the government refused any relief to Atharva College.
Justifying the state’s move, Additional Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni argued that if the new intake capacity was allowed after the centralised admission process had begun, things would go awry. It would have a “cascading effect”, Kumbhakoni said, as the admissions to engineering, MBA and other technical courses too were centralised.
Accepting the state’s argument, the court held, “Above all, it needs emphasis that the cause of education is drawn on a canvas which is far broader than the interests of the institutions. This court will not interfere mid-stream in the admissions process or set down unrealistic time schedule for regulating authorities. For, that would only be at the cost of quality in education.”
The judges added, “The admissions process is liable to be seriously jeopardised if the court were to pass orders directing the state government to forthwith implement an increase in the intake capacity in the midst of an on-going admissions process.”
Stating that a sense of judicial restraint must prevail, the judges said, “Universities cannot be commanded by courts to shorten the time schedule prescribed by experts for completing the affiliation process. Judicial intervention is unfortunately liable to result in a situation where corners are cut and deficiencies ignored.”
