AICTE's Annual Approval No Bar To Permanent University Affiliation; Registrar Can't Override Statutory Bodies' Decision: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that the annual Extension of Approval (EoA) granted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) does not bar a university from granting permanent affiliation under the Bihar State Universities Act. It further held that a University Registrar cannot unilaterally alter a recommendation for permanent affiliation approved by the University's...
The Patna High Court has held that the annual Extension of Approval (EoA) granted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) does not bar a university from granting permanent affiliation under the Bihar State Universities Act. It further held that a University Registrar cannot unilaterally alter a recommendation for permanent affiliation approved by the University's statutory bodies.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha was hearing petitions filed by Catalyst College challenging Patliputra University's corrigendum reducing its status from permanent affiliation to temporary affiliation and reducing the intake in its BCA course from 240 seats to 120.
The petitioner submitted that after fulfilling the statutory requirements for permanent affiliation, its application was favourably considered by the University's Inspection Team, Affiliation and New Teaching Programme Committee (ANTPC), Academic Council, Syndicate and Senate, all of which unanimously recommended grant of permanent affiliation along with enhancement of intake in the BCA course from 120 to 240 seats. Acting on these resolutions, the University forwarded the proposal to the State Government. However, the Registrar subsequently issued a corrigendum converting the recommendation into one for temporary affiliation and reducing the intake, allegedly without any authority or reasons.
The University justified the corrigendum on the ground that the proposal for permanent affiliation had inadvertently been forwarded without considering the AICTE approval, which is granted annually through the Extension of Approval (EoA) mechanism.
Framing two principal issues for determination, the Court first examined whether the Registrar was justified in modifying the University's recommendation after it had been unanimously approved by the ANTPC, Academic Council, Syndicate and Senate.
Answering the issue in the negative, the Court held that the recommendation for permanent affiliation was the culmination of a structured statutory decision-making process under the Bihar State Universities Act and not an individual administrative decision. It observed:
“Once the statutory bodies of the University had unanimously resolved to grant permanent affiliation and the University had acted upon such resolutions by forwarding the proposal to the State Government, the recommendations attained a degree of institutional finality within the decision-making framework of the University... The Registrar of the University could not, in the absence of any express statutory authority or any subsequent decision of the competent statutory bodies, unilaterally alter the very recommendation which had emanated from those bodies.”
The Court further held that even if the Registrar believed there was an inconsistency between the University's recommendation and the AICTE approval, the proper course was to place the matter before the competent statutory bodies or bring the issue to the State Government's notice while the proposal was pending. The Registrar could not substitute the collective decision of the University's statutory authorities with an administrative decision.
On the second issue, the Court rejected the University's contention that annual AICTE approvals legally precluded grant of permanent affiliation. The Court held that AICTE approval and university affiliation operate in separate but complementary statutory fields. While AICTE regulates technical education by prescribing standards relating to infrastructure, faculty and intake, the University exercises its statutory power of affiliation under the Bihar State Universities Act.
The Court observed that neither the Bihar State Universities Act nor the AICTE Act contains any provision requiring AICTE approval itself to be permanent before permanent affiliation can be granted. It held:
“Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the annual Extension of Approval (EoA) granted by the AICTE does not constitute a legal bar to the grant of permanent affiliation under Section 21(2)(d) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The grant of permanent affiliation and the grant of regulatory approval/recognition by the AICTE are complementary statutory requirements, each operating within its respective spheres.”
At the same time, the Court clarified that permanent affiliation remains subject to the institution obtaining and maintaining AICTE approval from time to time, and admissions can only be made to the extent permitted by the AICTE for the relevant academic session.
The Court also found the impugned corrigendum to be unreasoned, observing that an administrative decision reversing recommendations approved by statutory bodies could not be sustained merely on explanations furnished during litigation.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the University's corrigendum and subsequent communication, restored the University's recommendation for permanent affiliation, and directed the State Government to process the proposal in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner continuing to obtain the requisite AICTE Extension of Approval.
Case Title: Catalyst College v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14439 of 2025
Appearance: Senior Advocate Mr. Mrigank Mauli, along with Mr. Siddhartha Prasad and Ms. Venkatesh Kirti, appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. K.P. Gupta, GP-10, assisted by Mr. Satya Vrat, AC to GP-10, appeared for the State. Dr. Anand Kumar, along with Md. Faiz Ahmad, appeared for Patliputra University.