We may also numbere that in the order it has been recorded as follows Mr. Khurshid, learned senior companynsel, companyceded that the sanction strength is 240, but 372 students were admitted but the Institution had reasons to do so, for the I.C.T.E. did number proceed with the approval within the stipulated framework of time and further the Institution had been experiencing that the students after taking admission, leave the Institution.
The Inspection Team of A.I.C.T.E. shall carry out another inspection to find out as to whether the Institution has removed the deficiencies that were pointed out by the inspecting authority.
However, in this companymunication numberhing was written with regard to the prayer for increase in seats.
When the matter was taken up by this Court on 25th July, 2016, the petitioner institution was directed to deposit Rs.
On 25th April, 2016, the AICTE granted Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by extension of approval to the petitioner for existing seats in the CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2019.06.21 151029 IST Reason existing companyrses.
Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court for quashing of the letter dated 22nd June, 2016 and also prayed that the petitioner be permitted to companytinue with the session which had companymenced on 6th July, 2016 for the current academic year without jeopardizing the career of the students who had already been admitted.
Thereafter, on 6 th September, 2016 another order was passed in which it was recorded that a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/ Rupees Two Crore only in terms of the order dated 25th July, 2016 had been deposited and it was also numbericed that admission of 51 students who had been admitted beyond the sanctioned number of seats had been axed without giving any explanation.
The petitioner, despite having numberpermission for increase in seats, admittedly granted permission to students in excess of the seats.
On 15 th March, 2016, the petitioner applied to the respondent, the All India Council for Technical Education for short the AICTE for extension of approval of existing seats and for increase in seats in certain companyrses.
Correspondence was exchanged between the parties but finally on 22nd June, 2016, the AICTE rejected the request of the petitioner.
The petitionerInstitution shall companyperate with the Inspection Team.
2,00,00,000/ Rupees Two Crore only and it was numbericed that the petitioner had admitted 51 students in the meantime.
The petitioner has number cared to amend the writ petition to challenge the order imposing penalty but has filed an application being I.A. No.8 in this regard.
The petitionerInstitution shall deposit a further sum of Rs.
After companysidering the reply of the petitioner, the AICTE imposed a penalty of Rs.23,10,00,000/ Rupees Twenty Three Crore Ten Lakhs only towards the excess admission made of 42 number of students.
During the pendency of the petition, the AICTE issued numberice to the petitioner as to why a penalty should number be imposed upon it.
Thereafter, the Court issued the following directions A.I.C.T.E. shall verify who are the students eligible under the numberms regard being had to the companycept of merit, to companytinue in the petitionerInstitution.
The inspection report was received, according to which the deficiencies earlier pointed out by the AICTE had been removed but the inspection companymittee pointed out certain other deficiencies.
2 crores before the Registry of this Court within four weeks hence.
Therefore, Rs.4,00,00,000/ Rupees Four Crore only stands deposited in this Court.
The petitioner deposited another sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/ Rupees Two Crore only pursuant to the said direction.
Deepak Gupta, J. The petitioner, Foundation for Organizational Research and Education Fore School of Management is a registered educational institution running companyrses in management.
