KSGBS’S Bharat-Ratna Indira Gandhi College of Engineering v. Union of India

1. This petition seeks to challenge the communication dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure P-28) with further directions to respondent No. 3 to conduct a fresh assessment of the petitioner, on the basis of Self Study Report (SSR) duly submitted by the petitioner alongwith his grievance/appeal filed on 01.12.2018.

2. The facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner are that respondent No. 3-National Assessment and Accreditation Council (hereinafter referred as ‘NAAC’) is established in the year 1994 as an institution of the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred as ‘UGC’) for the purpose of granting assessment and accreditation to education institutions/colleges throughout the country. The respondent No. 3- NAAC is governed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

3. The petitioner-institution is imparting education in the field of engineering since 2005-2006 and is duly approved by All India Council of Technical Educational (hereinafter referred as ‘AICTE’). The petitioner-institution applied for affiliation before respondent No. 3. The team from respondent No. 3-NAAC visited the petitioner-institution on 24.09.2018 and 25.09.2018. After the Peer Team visited the institution, a

3 Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001691 report was prepared and communicated to the petitioner. On the basis of the report, the petitioner-institution was communicated the score card and the grade-sheet which were prepared by respondent No. 3-NAAC. On the basis of grading, the petitioner was classified as ‘assessed and found not qualified for accreditation’.

4. The petitioner-institution being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the observations in the qualitative assessment and its consequent rejection of grant of accreditation, filed its grievance online in terms of the Guidelines for an appeal mechanism. The appeal preferred by the petitioner-institution has been rejected, therefore, the petitioner is before this court.

5. Shri Sanjeev K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that firstly the entire grading system was highly unreasonable and suffers with glaring irregularities. Secondly, no explanation was considered by the respondent No.3-NAAC before taking any decision. According to him, had proper opportunity been given to the petitioner-institution, it would have explained that the petitionerinstitution was meeting all the criteria as was required for accreditation. He, therefore, submits that the non-providing of the opportunity of being heard before the impugned decision was taken at the first stage, itself prejudiced its case and therefore, the same was required to have been considered by the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority in terms of the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 has rejected the petitioner-institution’s appeal without assigning any reason.

6. Shri Satyanand, learned counsel appears on behalf respondent NO. 1 and Shri Apoorv Kurup, CGSC appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. However, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3.

7. The respondent No. 3 in its counter affidavit has stated that it is not discharging any public function, therefore, the writ petition would not be maintainable against respondent No. 3.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record.

9. A bare perusal of the scheme for grant of accreditation would indicate that respondent No. 3-NAAC is assisting the UGC for granting various aids and benefits. The respondent No. 3-NAAC consists of Government authorities and is guided by the statute i.e., University Grants Commission Act. It is a creature of statute i.e., Section 12 ccc of the UGC Act, 1956. The UGC vide gazette notification dated 19.01.2013 has made it mandatory for Higher Education Institution to undergo accreditation. The functions of respondent No. 3-NAAC are of public importance and are related to Government functions. Respondent No.3 is further guided by Government directions. It is thus seen that the writ petition against respondent No.3 would be maintainable.

10. A perusal of order dated 18.02.2019 whereby, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected would indicate that the same is apparently without application of mind and is a non-speaking order. For the sake of convenience the same is reproduced as under:- “NAAC/DO-KR/41-AC-Reply/2019 18th February 2019 Dear Principal, Greetings from NAAC! This has reference to your appeal for reconsidering the grade awarded by NAAC. Your application was placed in the 41st meeting of the Appeals Committee held on 5th February 20l[9]. The Appeals Committee after thorough examination of all the relevant documents and appeal submitted by you, made recommendation to the Executive Council (EC) of NAAC. The EC approved the

5 Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001691 Appeals Committee recommendation for a status quo. In view of the above, as recommended by the Appeals Committee and approved by the EC. there is NO CHANGE IN THE CGPA AND GRADE AWARDED to your institution. This is for your kind information and records. With regards Yours sincerely (S.C. Sharma) To, The Principal BHARAT-RATNA INDIRA-GANDHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, SOLAPUR-PUNE HIGHWAY NO 9 NEAR SOLAPUR UNIVERSITY KEGAON SOLAPUR”

11. What the rejection of appeal order says is that the appeal committee after thorough examination of all relevant documents and appeal submitted by the petitioner, does not find any substance and therefore, no change in the CGPA is required.

12. It is settled law that the requirement of natural justice is applicable not only to judicial or quasi-judicial orders but also to administrative orders with civil consequences to the party in question, unless it is expressly excluded by a law which is otherwise valid. The doctrine of natural justice is not merely a matter of procedure but of substance and any action taken in contravention of natural justice is violative of the holy triangle of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

13. If the memorandum of appeal submitted by the petitioner is perused, the same would clearly indicate that various submissions were