AICTE Approval for Technical Courses Engineering Courses

Bharathidasan University vs AICTE & Ors

Bharathidasan University vs AICTE & Ors: "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2056 of 1999
PETITIONER: BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT: ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/09/2001

BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju.



JUDGMENT"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2056 of 1999  PETITIONER: BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY & ANR.  Vs.  RESPONDENT: ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS.   DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/09/2001 BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju. JUDGMENT Raju, J. The only and important question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant-University created under the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 [hereinafter referred to as theUniversity Act] having its area of operation over the Districts of Tiruchirappalli, Thanjavur and Pudukkottai in the State of Tamil Nadu, should seek prior approval of the All India Council for the Technical Education [hereinafter referred to as AICTE] to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the University itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection. The Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 created the University in question to provide, among other things, for instruction and training in such branches of learning as it may determine; to provide for research and for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge; to institute degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions; to hold examinations and to confer degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions on persons who have pursued an approved course of study in a University college or laboratory or in an affiliated or approved college and have passed the prescribed examinations of the University; to confer honorary degrees or other academic distinction under conditions prescribed; and to institute, maintain and manage institutes of research, University colleges and laboratories, libraries, museums and other institutions necessary to carry out the objects of the University, etc. In other words, it is a full-fledged University recognized by the University Grants Commission also. When the appellant-University commenced courses in technology such as Information Technology & Management, Bio-Engineering & Technology, Petrochemical Engineering & Technology, Pharmaceutical Engineering and Technology, etc., the AICTE filed a Writ Petition No.14558 of 1998 before the Madras High Court seeking for a writ of mandamus to forebear the University authorities from running/conducting any courses and programmes in those technical courses. The sum and substance of the grievance as well as the objection put forward was that the University did not apply for and secure the prior approval for those courses before their commencement by the University as envisaged under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as the AICTE Act] and the statutory regulations made thereunder by theAICTE, particularly Regulation No.4, which obligated even an University to obtain such prior approval. The stand of the appellant-University was, as it is now before us, that the appellant-University will not fall under the definition of Technical Institution as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and consequently, the regulations made for seeking prior approval of the AICTE even by the Universities to commence a course or programme in technical education or a new department for the purpose, were in excess of the regulation-making powers of the AICTE and consequently, are null and void and cannot be enforced against the appellant-University to the extent it obligates even Universities to seek and secure such prior approval from theAICTE. The learned Single Judge has chosen to accept the stand of  the AICTE by applying and following the ratio of the decision of a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in M. Sambasiva Rao alias Sambaiah & Ors. Vs. Osmania University, Hyderabad rep. By its Registrar & Ors. [1997(1) Andhra Law Times 629] and as a consequence thereof, ordered the cancellation of the admissions made by the University. When the matter was pursued before a Division Bench, the learned Judges in the Division Bench also felt convinced of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and rejected the appeal, necessitating the appellant-University to come to this Court. Since the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are on the same lines as the one adopted by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which the Madras High Court has also purported to follow, it would be just and necessary to refer to the said decision and also consider the correctness or otherwise of the ratio in the said decision. In M. Sambasiva Rao (supra), while adverting to the relevant provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education Act, the A.P. Universities Act, 1991, theAICTE Act and the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of approval for starting new Technical Institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes) Regulations, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations], the High Court arrived at a conclusion that the AICTE Act being a special law on a particular category of education, overrides even theUniversity Grants Commission Act, which, in the opinion of the High Court, was in the nature of a general law in regard to imparting of education by Universities in general in respect of common matters covered thereunder. In spite of both the Acts being those made by the Parliament within its legislative competence even as later law, the AICTE Act was held to be binding. As for the relative operation of the AICTE Act and the State Act dealt with therein, it was held that the AICTE Act occupied the field and that, therefore, the State Act has to yield and consequently statutory regulations made are not only valid and had the force of law as a subordinate legislation, but no question of repugnancy between the Regulations and AICTE Act or any alleged excess exercise of power in framing such regulations, arose on the facts of the case having regard to the creation of the AICTE for the proper planning and coordinated development of technical education system throughout the country. The Andhra Pradesh High Court was of the view that anybody or everyone of the authorities and institutions concerned with a technical education all over the country would fall within the meaning of Technical Institution as defined in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and, therefore, be bound by the authority of the AICTE under theAICTE Act and the Regulations made thereunder. In coming to such conclusions, the Full Bench tried to draw sustenance from the decisions of this Court reported in Unni Krishnan J.P. Vs. State of A.P. [1993(1) SCC 645] and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Ors. [1995(4) SCC 104]. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-University, urged that a university like the appellant as defined under Section 2 (i) will not fall within the definition of a technical institution contained in Section 2 (h) of the AICTE Act and, therefore, equally stood outside the purview of Section 10 (1) (k) of the said Act and consequently not obliged to seek for and obtain the prior approval of the AICTE for starting a department or introducing  new courses or programmers. The regulations framed by the AICTE for the same reason insofar as it obligates even universities to obtain such prior approval, cannot be held to be binding or enforceable against the appellant by the mere fact that the regulation specifically states so, notwithstanding the provisions contained in the Act stipulating to the contrary and any regulation so made will be void and unenforceable. It was also urged that the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court does not lay down the correct position of law and the decisions of this Court relied upon in the said decision really do not lend any support to the principles ultimately laid down therein and, therefore, the Madras High Court ought to have considered the issues independently and not followed the ratio of the Full Bench in M. Sambasiva Raos case (supra). The strong grievance ventilated on behalf of the appellant is that both the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts have failed to properly construe the relevant provisions of the Act, applying the correct principles of interpretation and also giving due consideration and weight to the various stipulations contained in Section 10 which made specific reference wherever the universities also have to adhere to the provisions of theAICTE Act, Rules and Regulations. It was also urged that no Rules or Regulations inconsistent with the provisions of the Act could have been either made under the Act or sought to be enforced, legitimately. Strong reliance has also been placed on the decisions reported in S.K. Singh & Others vs V.V. Giri & another (AIR 1970 SC 2097); D.K. Trivedi & Sons and others vs State of Gujarat and others (AIR 1986 SC 1323) as also the very decision in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others [(1993) 1 SCC 645] and State of T.N. and another vs Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others [(1995) 4 SCC 104] and Medical Council of India vs State of Karnataka and others [(1998) 6 SCC 131]. Dr. J.P. Verghese, learned counsel for the AICTE, while drawing sustenance from the reasoning of the judgment under challenge as well as the Andhra Pradesh case, urged that having regard to the overall functions and powers of the Council under the Act to ensure proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the qualitative improvement of such education and regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and matters connected therewith envisaged under Section 10 of the Act particularly Section 10 (1) (k) read with Section 20 (1) (b) of the ATE Act, the AICTE will have pervasive control over universities also and consequently, the prior approval of AICTE has to be obtained by even the universities like any other technical institution for starting any new department or institute or commencing a new course or programme in technical education. The totality of the purpose and scheme, claimed to be underlying the enactment is said to confer such sweeping powers over all functional activities relating to technical education and the universities cannot claim immunity from such obligation cast under the Act and the regulations made by the AICTE. The sheet anchor of support for the respondent seem to be the decision reported in State of T.N. and another vs Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others (supra) and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust vs Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala State and another [(2000) 5 SCC 231], in addition to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on either side. When the legislative intent is found specific mention and expression in the provisions of the Act itself, the same cannot be whittled down or curtailed and rendered nugatory by giving undue importance to the so-called object underlying the Act or the purpose of creation of a body to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Act, particularly when the AICTE Act does not contain any evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy the authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies, having their own assigned roles to perform. Merely activated by some assumed objects or desirabilities, the Courts cannot adorn the mantle of  legislature. It is hard to ignore the legislative intent to give definite meaning to words employed in the Act and adopt an interpretation which would tend to do violence to the express language as well as the plain meaning and patent aim and object underlying the various other provisions of the Act. Even in endeavouring to maintain the object and spirit of the law to achieve the goal fixed by the legislature, the Courts must go by the guidance of the words used and not on certain pre-conceived notions of ideological structure and scheme underlying the law. In the statement of objects and reasons for the AICTE Act, it is specifically stated that the AICTE, was originally set up by a Government resolution as a National Expert Body to advice the Central and State Governments for ensuring the coordinated development of technical education in accordance with approved standards was playing an effective role, but, However, in recent years, a large number of private engineering colleges and polytechnics have come up in complete disregard of the guidelines, laid down by the AICTE and taking into account the serious deficiencies of even rudimentary infrastructure necessary for  imparting proper education and training and the need to maintain educational standards and curtail the growing erosion of standards statutory authority was meant to be conferred upon AICTE to play its role more effectively by enacting the AICTE Act. Section 2(h) defines `technical institution for the purposes of  the Act, as follows:- technical institution means an institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions. Since it is intended to be other than a University, the Act defines in Section 2 (i) `University to mean aUniversity defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and also to be inclusive of an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act. Section 10 of the Act enumerates the various powers and functions of the AICTE as also its duties and obligations to take steps towards fulfillment of the same. One such as envisaged in Section 10 (1) (k) is to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned. Section 23, which empowers the Council to make regulations in the manner ordained therein emphatically and specifically, mandates the making of such regulations only not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules. The Act, for all purposes and throughout maintain the distinct identity and existence of `technical institutions and `universities and it is in keeping tune with the said dichotomy that wherever theUniversity or the activities of the University is also to be supervised or regulated and guided by the AICTE, specific mention has been made of the University alongside the technical institutions and wherever theUniversity is to be left out and not to be roped in merely refers to the technical institution only in Sections 10, 11 and 22(2)(b). It is necessary and would be useful to advert to Section 10(1)(c),(g),(o) which would go to show that Universities are mentioned alongside the `technical institutions and clauses (k), (m), (p), (q), (s) and (u) wherein there is conspicuous omission of reference to Universities and reference being made to technical institutions alone. It is equally important to see that when the AICTE is empowered to inspect or cause to inspect any technical institutions in clause (p) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 without any reservation whatsoever, when it comes to the question of universities it is confined and limited to ascertaining the financial needs or its standards of teaching, examination and research. The inspection may be made or cause to be made of any department or departments only and that too, in such manner as may be prescribed as envisaged in Section 11 of the Act. Clause (t) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 envisages the AICTE to only advice the UGC for declaring any institution imparting technical education as a deemed University and not do any such thing by itself. Likewise, clause (u) of the same provision which envisage the setting up of a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of  technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it to make recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of the institution or the programme. All these vitally important aspects go to show that the AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an Authority either superior to or supervise and control the Universities and thereby super impose itself upon such Universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its Departments or Units. A careful scanning through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-a-vis the Universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby sub-serve the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a Report to the UGC for appropriate action. The conscious and deliberate omission to enact any such provision in the AICTEAct in respect of Universities is not only a positive indicator but should be also one of the determining factors in adjudging the status, role and activities of AICTE vis-a-vis Universities and the activities and functioning of its departments and units. All these vitally important facets with so much glaring significance of the scheme underlying the Act and the language of the various provisions seem to have escaped the notice of the learned Judges, their otherwise well-merited attention and consideration in their proper and correct perspective. The ultra activist view articulated in M. Sambasiva Raos case (supra) on the basis of  supposed intention and imagined purpose of the AICTE or the Act constituting it, is uncalled for and ought to have been avoided, all the more so when such an interpretation is not only bound to do violence to the language of the various provisions but also inevitably render other statutory authorities like UGC and Universities irrelevant or even as non-entities by making the AICTE a super power with a devastating role undermining the status, authority and autonomous functioning of those institutions in areas and spheres assigned to them under the respective legislations constituting and governing them. In Unni Krishnans case (supra), this Court was not concerned with issues of the nature now sought to be raised and the observations made therein in the context of disputes pertaining to the powers, rights and extent to which the State Legislature or Government could interfere, regulate or prohibit the rights to establish and run professional colleges cannot be taken out of their context and purpose to be pressed into service in this case. As a matter of fact, even this Court, which formulated a scheme to prevent evils of capitation fees etc., specifically excluded from its purview colleges run by the Government and the Universities. Equally, the consideration in Adhiyaman Engineering College case (supra), the question was as to the relative scope and extent of control of a professional engineering college by the State Government in the teeth of the AICTE Act and the powers exercisable by the AICTE under the provisions of the said Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The decisions, the correctness of which are under our consideration in this case, have not kept into consideration before the nature and character of the issues raised in the two decisions of this Court noticed above before relying upon the observations contained therein in dealing with the rights of an university constituted under a State enactment, which, apart from the enactment constituting it, is governed by the provisions of the UGC Act, also made by the Parliament. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Sambasiva Raos case (supra) has unduly oversimplified and underscored the status, position, as well as the importance of the UGC by stating that the UGC was concerned only with the object of providing grants and financial assistance to educational institutions and serving as a recommendatory and regulatory body completely loosing sight of its superior, vital and exclusive role ordained to it by the Parliament itself as an expert body in regard to Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, and the standards of teaching and examination in universities, even in the absence of  the UGC and that too without a proper and comparative consideration of the relative scope and effect of the respective role of the UGC as well as the AICTE. It is by now well-settled that Parliament has enacted the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 as well as theAICTE Act, 1987 in the purported exercise of the powers envisaged in Entry 66 of List-I of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India, which reads as Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. It was permissible for the Parliament to enact a law with the object and aim of co-ordination and determination of standards among a particular class or category of institutions, which may deal with different kinds of education and research as also scientific and technical institutions of different disciplines and specialised branches of even such disciplines. The Parliament, while enacting the AICTE Act, was fully alive to the existence, in full force and effect the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, which specifically dealt with the co- oordination and determination of standards at universitylevel of institutions as well as institutions for higher studies of the category or class other than but deemed to be universities and yet roped into the definition of technical institution only institutions not being a University as defined in Section 2 (i). Apart from so defining technical Institutions so as to be exclusive of University even in empowering the AICTEto do certain things, special care seems to have been conspicuously and deliberately taken to make specific mention of universities, wherever and whenever alone the AICTE was expected to interact with universities andUniversity Departments as well as its constituent Institutions. In the statement of objects to the AICTE Act, the evil sought to be curbed was stated to be the coming up indiscriminately of number of private engineering colleges and polytechnics in complete disregard of the guidelines resulting in diluted standards, unplanned growth, inadequate facilities and lack of infra-structural facilities in them and not of any anomalies arising out of any university bodies or UGC to even think of either sidelining or subjugating them by constituting AICTE. The guarded language employed for the said purpose and deliberate omission to refer to the universities in Section 10 (1) (k) of the AICTE Act while empowering AICTE to accord approval for starting new technical institutions and introduction of new programmes or courses by or in such institutions cannot be ignored to be of any insignificance. A careful analysis of the various provisions contained in Sections 10,11 and 22 will further go to show that the role of interaction conferred upon AICTE vis-a-vis Universities is limited to the purpose of ensuring the proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system so as to conform to the standards laid down by it, with no further or direct control over such universities or scope for any direct action except bringing it to the notice of the UGC or other authorities only, of any lapses in carrying out any directions of the AICTE in this regard, for appropriate action. While stating that autonomy of  universities should not mean a permission for authoritarian functioning, the High Courts by the construction placed by them have virtually allowed such authoritarianism to the AICTE to such an extent as to belittle the importance and elegant role assigned to the universities in the Educational system of the country and rendered virtually subordinate to the AICTE. In our view, that does not seem  to be the object of creating AICTE or passing of the AICTE Act. Such construction as has been placed by the Court in M. Sambasiva Raos case (supra) which found favour of acceptance of the Court in the present case ought to have been avoided and the same could neither be said to have been intended or was ever in the contemplation of the Parliament nor should the UGC and the universities been relegated to a role subordinate to the AICTE. The UGC and universities have always had and have an accepted and well-merited role of Primacy to play in shaping as well as stepping up a co-ordinated development and improvement in the standards of education and research in the sphere of education. When it is only Institutions other than universities which are to seek affiliation, it was not correct to state in the decisions under challenge that an University, which cannot grant affiliation to a technical institution, cannot grant the same to itself. Consequently, the conclusions rendered based on the principles for classifying enactments into `general law and `special law to keep them within their respective limits or area of operation are not warranted and wholly uncalled for and do not merit our approval or acceptance. The AICTE cannot, in our view, make any regulation in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, notwithstanding sub-section (1), which though no doubt enables such regulations being made generally to carry out the purposes of the Act, when such power is circumscribed by the specific limitation engrafted therein to ensure them to be not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules. So far as the question of granting approval, leave alone prior or post, Section 10(1)(k) specifically confines the limits of such power of AICTEonly to be exercised vis-à-vis technical institutions, as defined in the Act and not generally. When the language is specific, unambiguous and positive, the same cannot be over-looked to give an expansive meaning under the pretext of a purposive construction to perpetuate an ideological object and aim, which also, having regard to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act, are not warranted or justified. Therefore, the regulation insofar as it compels the universities to seek for and obtain prior approval and not to start any new department or course or programme in technical education (Regulation 4) and empower itself to withdraw such approval, in a given case of contravention of the regulations (Regulation 12) are directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 10(1)(k) of the Act and consequently void and unenforceable. The fact that the regulations may have the force of law or when made have to be laid down before the legislature concerned do not confer any more sanctity or immunity as though they are statutory provisions themselves. Consequently, when the power to make regulations are confined to certain limits and made to flow in a well defined canal within stipulated banks, those actually made or shown and found to be not made within its confines but outside them, the courts are bound to ignore them when the question of their enforcement arise and the mere fact that there was no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires, particularly when the party in sufferance is a respondent to the lis or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack. It would, therefore, be a myth to state that regulations made under Section 23 of the Act have Constitutional and legal status, even unmindful of the fact that anyone or more of them are found to be not consistent with specific provisions of the Act itself. Thus, the regulations in question, which the AICTE could not have made so as to bind universities/UGC within the confines of the powers conferred upon it, cannot be enforced against or bind an University in the matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course and programme in technical education in any university or any of its departments and constituent institutions. To put it in a nutshell, a reading of Section 10 of AICTE Act will make it clear that whenever the Act omits to cover a `University, the same has been specifically provided in the provisions of the Act. For example, while under clause (k) of Section 10 only `technical institutions are referred to, clause (o) of Section 10 provides for the guidelines for admission of students to `technical institutions and `Universities imparting technical education. If we look at the definition of a `technical institution under Section 2(h) of the Act, it is clear that a `technical institution cannot include a `University. The clear intention of the Legislature is not that all institutions whetherUniversity or otherwise ought to be treated as `technical institutions covered by the Act. If that was the intention, there was no difficulty for the Legislature to have merely provided a definition of `technical institution by not excluding `University from the definition thereof and thereby avoided the necessity to use alongside both the words `technical institutions and University in several provisions in the Act. The definition of `technical institution excludes from its purview a `University. When by definition a `University is excluded from a `technical institution, to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression `technical institution occurs will include a `University will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein. The power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned is covered by Section 10(k) which would not cover a `University but only a `technical institution. If Section 10(k) does not cover a `University but only a `technical institution, a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of `technical institution to apply for Universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a `University and a `technical institution. Thus, we have to focus our attention mainly to the Act in question on the language adopted in that enactment. In that view of the matter, it is, therefore, not even necessary to examine the scope of other enactments or whether the Act prevails over the University Act or effect of competing entries falling under Entries 63 to 65 of List-I vis-a-vis Entry 25 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The fact that initially the syndicate of the appellant-university passed a resolution to seek for approval fromAICTE and did not pursue the matter on those lines thereafter or that the other similar entities were adopting such a course of obtaining the same and that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Sambasiva Raos case (supra) taken a particular view of the matter are not reasons which can be countenanced in law to non-suit the appellant. Nor such reasons could be relevant or justifying factors to draw any adverse finding against and deny relief by rejecting the claims of the appellant-university. We also place on record the statement of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, which, in our view, even otherwise is the correct position of law, that the challenge of the appellant with reference to the Regulation in question and claim of the AICTE that the appellant-universityshould seek and obtain prior approval of the AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or programme in technical education does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by the AICTE for the purpose of ensuring co-ordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards. For all the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and consequently set aside the judgment under challenge by dismissing the writ petition filed in the High Court. Having regard to the position of law declared by us, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in M. Sambasiva Raos case (supra) cannot also be considered to lay down the correct position of law. No costs. J. [ S. Rajendra Babu ] J. [ Doraiswamy Raju ] September 24, 2001.

BTech in Roborics Robots all the way

Perceiving the impact that automation and robotics engineering will have in the coming days,Perceiving the impact that automation and robotics engineering will have in the coming days, Gulzar Institute of Engineering & Technology (GIET), Ludhiana (approved by AICTE; affiliated by Punjab Technical Education), offers a BTech programme in automation and robotics engineering. 

"The course focuses on giving students a hands-on experience and equips them with interdisciplinary knowledge. Automation and robotics engineering open up career opportunities in diverse fields such as manufacturing, agriculture, mining, research and engineering, among others. Robots are the need of the hour as they can do the jobs, which are dull, dirty and mundane," says Gurkirat Singh, executive director, Gulzar Group of Institutes. 

The course will cover areas like micro-processing , computer manufacturing system, artificial intelligence , digital electronics, robot motion planning , elements of mechanical engineering, technical drawing, chemistry, fundamentals of IT, etc. 

15 faculty members take the class, but besides that guest lectures are held whenever there is a need. "Students can put into practice what they study in class in the labs. From the second year, students are exposed to different types of technologies and they are encouraged to explore and innovate. Tutorials and theory classes help in understanding the concepts. Students also take up projects and are allowed flexibility so that they can create new robots. They are encouraged to take part in competitions too," he says. 

Talking about career opportunities that students can have, Singh says that students can pursue careers in diverse areas. "There is a good scope for competent experts and researchers to correlate themselves with different segments of R&D in robotics. Students can opt for fields like surgery, modern warfare and nanotechnology, among others," says Singh. 

Students who complete the course will be helped with placement and internship opportunities . "We have a dedicated cell for this and they help students with training and placement ," he concludes. There are 50 seats for the course. Students who have completed their +2 in the non-medical stream, have scored 65% and hold an AIEEE rank can apply. 

Kapil Sibal launches National vocational education project in Haryana

Gurgaon: Launching the pilot project on National Vocational Education Qualifications Framework (NVEQF) in Haryana, union Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal emphasised the need to change the mindset of parents to promote vocational education in the country.

"India is a country of youth. There is a need to give them such education, which may get them good employment. Parents will have to change their mindset in this regard and ensure that their children get vocational education," Sibal said.

NVEQF, an ambitious national programme to integrate skills, training and qualifications in schools, has been launched in Haryana on a pilot basis before being implemented in other states of the country.

"If someone has to work in automobiles, where is the need to teach him history?

Those who want to pursue studies after schooling can do so but those wanting to work should be professionally prepared to get work," Sibal said.  He added that about 100 community colleges would soon be opened in the country for this purpose.

Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda said Haryana was developing into an education hub of international repute.

"New opportunities are coming up in sectors like IT, automobile, retail and security, for which there is a need to give vocational education to the youth".

"Our government is trying to mitigate the difference between need of skilled manpower of industry and educational qualification of students by imparting them vocational education," Hooda said.

NVEQF has been launched in 40 schools in eight Haryana districts, where vocational education will be imparted in four fields - automobile, retail, IT and security - to students of classes 9-12.

Rs 5 lakh fine proposed for institutes running courses without AICTE approval in Maharashtra

Rs 5 lakh fine proposed for institutes running courses without AICTE approval in Maharashtra | India Education Review: "The state government of Maharashtra has decided that under the proposed Maharashtra State Unauthorized Institutions Act any institution running a course of 12 months without the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) approval, will have to pay a fine of Rs 5 lakh and face up to one-year imprisonment.

This rule will be applicable once the Act comes into force. An ordinance for the same is ready and it will be tabled in the next Assembly session, said state’s Higher and Technical Education Minister Rajesh Tope. He also said the government has decided that the state will participate in nationwide Common Entrance Test (CET) for engineering exams from 2014-15 and not from 2013-14 academic session."

As of now, courses in animal husbandry, agriculture, medicine and those related to social welfare/justice will come under this Act. Officials of joint director level will be authorised to initiate action against such institutions if reports or complaints are received. The appellate authority in these cases will be secretaries of the departments concerned.

While certificate courses of nine months duration or more will not be included in this Act, any course of 12 months or more will have to follow these guidelines. "As per the prevailing laws, including the Maharashtra State Universities Act, no concrete steps can be taken to curb the mushrooming of such courses and institutions, so we felt the need for this Act," said Tope.

http://www.indiaeducationreview.com/news/rs-5-lakh-fine-proposed-institutes-running-courses-without-aicte-approval-maharashtra

CMAT Admit Card 2012-2013 AICTE Download Hall Ticket

CMAT Admit Card 2012-2013 AICTE Download Hall Ticket: "CMAT Admit Card 2012-2013 AICTE Download Hall Ticket


CMAT Admit Card 2012-2013:- Common Management Admission Test (CMAT) is a national level online computer based exam for admission to all management programs that are approved by AICTE. In 2012 CMAT 2012-2013 computer base exams will be conducts on 27th September to 01st October 2012. Aspirants those who are applied now they are looking for admit card cards.



Aspirants CMAT admit card 2012-2013 will be available for print from 15th September 2012. Aspirants may download the AICTE CMAT admit card 2012 from www.aicte-cmat.in. Aspirants may also download from here other examinations admit cards.

Aspirants are advised please download his/ her admit cards only AICTE CMAT official website. Aspirants CMAT results 2012-13 will also declared on above mentioned official website on 17th October 2012. Aspirants score card will be available from 17th October to 17 November 2012. If the aspirants want to get latest updates for CMAT hall tickets, results and score cards subscribe here at privattejobshub.blogspot.com portal. After subscription our portal aspirants will be get the latest CMAT updates in their mail box.

CMAT Admit Card 2012 -"

CMAT 2012: Top B-schools shun CMAT; tier-II & III go for it

CMAT 2012: Top B-schools shun CMAT; tier-II & III go for it: "CMAT allows the better of the two test scores to be used for admissions. By the time results of the second CMAT, scheduled for February next year, is declared, our admission process will almost be over: SPJIMR
While the Common Management Admission Test (CMAT) has been able to bring most of the tier-II and tier-III management institutions into its fold, top B-schools have shunned the AICTE-conducted national-level management entrance exam for their admissions.

Like the previous year, most of the top B-schools have refused to accept CMAT scores for their admission process.  The CMAT entrance test is just a month away, but many top B-schools are either undecided on accepting CMAT or have decided to go ahead without including CMAT scores for their admission process.

Top B-schools like SPJIMR, IMI, TAPMI and BIMTECH have decided not to accept CMAT for their admission process. The Supreme Court in an order in July this year, had extended the stay on the AICTE notification on PGDM autonomy and allowed PGDM institutions to continue with their admissions for academic session 2013-14 through any of the five national tests viz. CAT, XAT, MAT, ATMA and CMAT."

S P Jain Institute of Management & Research (SPJIMR) said it is not sure if accepting CMAT scores is practically feasible. “As CMAT allows the better of the two test scores to be used for the admission, I don’t think we will be able to accommodate that. By the time results of second CMAT which is scheduled in February next year is declared, our admission process would almost be over. Therefore, it is an impractical proposition for us to accept CMAT scores,” said Dr R Sesha Iyer, director of SPJIMR. 

AICTE chairman Dr SS Mantha had earlier said the CMAT examination will be held twice a year. After the September/October test, the next examination would be conducted in January-February 2013. According to the AICTE, students can take both the exams and the better of the two scores will be accepted for the admission process. 

Official sources from Institute of Management Technology Ghaziabad (IMT, Ghaziabad) also confirmed that the institute will not consider CMAT scores. “The institute, however, will be accepting CMAT for admissions to its campuses in Nagpur and Hyderabad like the previous year,” said Dr Lubna Nafees, chairperson- corporate communications and media relations, IMT Ghaziabad.

International Management Institute (IMI) will continue with its practice of accepting CAT scores for all its campuses.  Dr Pritam Singh, director-General, IMI, said, “We have been conducting our admissions based on CAT scores for many years. We find it the right fit for our admission process. We will be continuing with the same.” When asked whether any of the campuses of IMI would accept the CMAT score for the admission to the upcoming academic year, he said “Our experience has been good with CAT scores and we will like to continue with the same for admissions to all our campuses.”  

BIMTECH director H Chaturvedi said, “BIMTECH will continue to accept scores of CAT, XAT and MAT. “We will continue to accept CAT and XAT only for our regular two-year management programmes. However, we will consider MAT scores for about 30 per cent seats in sector programmes,” he said. 

TAPMI director Dr R C Natarajan said the institute will not be accepting CMAT for their admission process as they take a very cautious approach towards this. “We have been accepting CAT scores primarily for admissions to our different programmes. A few years back, we had added XAT and now we have added GMAT scores as well. But we have not yet added CMAT to our admission process,” he said, adding, “For now, there is a strict ‘no’ for CMAT.” 

However, some institutes like SDMIMD-Maysore and IFIM-Bangalore say they will accept CMAT along with other scores.  “We are temporarily accepting CMAT scores. We are an AICTE-approved institution and we respect the regulatory body. So, we will be accepting CMAT along with other national-level entrances like CAT and XAT,” said Dr N R Parasuraman, director, SDM Institute of Management Development, Mysore. IFIM Bangalore director Dr BP Pethiya confirmed that CMAT score would be accepted by the institute for its admission process. 

Some institutes like NITIE and MDI are still in the process of deciding whether to consider CMAT score for their admission process.

However, most of the tier II and tier III institutes are open to accepting CMAT scores for their admission process. For example, institutions like XISS, Ranchi, will be accepting CMAT scores. 

Aspirants who are preparing for tier II and tier III B-schools are hopeful that they would be able to secure admissions through CMAT. “I read the advertisement of AICTE which says all the B-schools would be accepting CMAT score. I hope that I get the best options to choose from on the basis of my CMAT score,” said an aspirant who will be taking CMAT this month. 

AICTE had announced that the first CMAT exam for admission in the academic year 2013-15 is scheduled from September 27 to October 1, 2012. The registration process is on and the last date to register is September 2. The exam will be held in 64 cities across India. The scores of CMAT will be applicable for over 3,500 MBA programs offered by various universities of India.

“States like Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Nagaland and Goa have accepted CMAT as the sole test for the admission in the MBA programs conducted by state universities,” AICTE chairman had told MBAUniverse.com earlier. 

So, instead of holding state-level tests like MAH CET (Maharashtra), UPSEE (Uttar Pradesh), and RMAT (Rajasthan), etc for admission for the academic year 2013-15, the states will accept the CMAT scores, he added. The number of seats offered by the MBA and PGDM programs approved by AICTE for the year 2011-12 was 3,52,571. Besides IIMs and IITs, 3,644 MBA institutes in India are approved by the AICTE. 

Laxminarayan Institute of Technology head remains unpunished for irregularities - The Times of India

Laxminarayan Institute of Technology head remains unpunished for irregularities - The Times of India: "NAGPUR: Though winds of change are flowing in Laxminarayan Institute of Technology (LIT) with a new director at the helm of affairs, the old scars are still haunting the age-old institution.

The Nagpur University is yet to take action against former director Suresh Gholse because of whom LIT was on the verge of getting derecognized. The NU had to pay a fine of Rs2 lakh to bail it out.

Coincidentally, acting director and NU registrar Mahesh Yenkie, who paid the fine in AICTE's Delhi office, and vice chancellor Vilas Sapkal are alumni of LIT.

Citing confidential documents, TOI on March 6 last year had first brought to the fore how LIT's batch of 2010-11 was not approved by AICTE on account of various loopholes including poor maintenance and failure to fill up large scale vacancies."

Even the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court had passed strictures on the NU administration for lack of maintenance and failure to fill up vacancies which are not filled up till date. AICTE's earlier approval was only for 2008-10 session and, thereafter, LIT should have applied for the extension. But mismanagement on the part of Gholse and NU, LIT failed to send the renewal proposal. In fact, the visiting AICTE team had blasted NU officials for the same.

Seven months after the TOI expose, Sapkal constituted a committee under Board of College and University Development (BCUD) director Arvind Chaudhary and head of Gandhian thought department KS Bharti to probe the mismanagement and fix the responsibility.

Shockingly, the panel had only met once in the last one year and failed to take any decision. TOI's enquiries with Chaudhary were stonewalled. "I had called for all records and a decision will be taken soon," has been his only reply.

As an LIT director, Yenkie refused to state anything.

When Gholse took over director's charge from Rajiv Mankar, the infighting touched a new nadir. He invited criticism by sending a New Year greeting to everyone in the institute saying that LIT was undergoing a difficult period for want of teaching faculty. He reiterated that research was restricted due to acute chemical shortage. Gholse had even stopped all the research work for ME or PhD along with BTech and MTech courses.

Gholse was subsequently removed from the post in May last year but continues to be a lecturer.

AICTE CMAT-2013 registrations closes Sept 2; tests from Sept 27

New Delhi-Port Blair

30 Aug 2012

The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has invited applications from eligible candidates for the National level Common Management Admission Test (CMAT) leading to admission in all management programmes approved by AICTE during the Academic Year 2013-14. Graduates in any discipline or Final year students of Graduate Courses can apply for CMAT online for which online registrations has commenced from Aug 3 and will be open till Sept 2, 2012 on the website www.aicte-cmat.in. The CMAT has been made compulsory for students seeking admissions in MBA and MCA colleges approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) from 2013-14.

The AICTE will provide detailed merit list to the respective States/UTs for allotting the students through central counseling or otherwise as per their notified admission procedure and in case there is no central counseling Scores awarded will be used for admission in the AICTE approved Institutes / University Departments.

The examinations will be held in selected centres at Agartala, Dhanbad, Kochi, Pondicherry, Ahmadabad, Dharwad, Kolhapur, Pune, Allahabad, Durgapur, Kolkata, Rajkot, Amravati, Ghaziabad, Kota, Raipur, Amritsar, Gurgaon, Kozhikode, Ranchi, Ananthapur, Guwahati, Lucknow, Shimla, Aurangabad, Gwalior, Ludhiana, Siliguri, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Madurai, Srinagar, Bareilly, Indore, Mumbai, Surat, Bhopal, Jabalpur, Mysore, Trichurapalli, Bhubaneswar, Jaipur, Nagpur, Trivandrum, Chandigarh, Jammu, Nasik, Udaipur, Chennai, Jamshedpur, Noida, Vadodara, Coimbatore, Jhansi, Panaji, Varanasi, Dehradun, Jodhpur, Patna, Visakhapatnam, Delhi, Kanpur, Prakasam, Warangal.

Candidates can opt for 3 cities for online examination in the order of preference and allotment will be based on first come first served. Actual allotment however will be subject to availability of the slots in a particular city. While the computer based tests will be held from Sept 27-Oct 1, 2012, candidates can download their hall tickets from Sept 15, 2012.  Results will be declared on Oct 17 and scores cards can be obtained from Oct 17-Nov 17, 2012. Further information can be obtained from the website http://www.aicte-cmat.in.

AICTE Conducts Online CMAT 2012

AICTE Conducts Online CMAT 2012 "The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has conducted online National Level Common Management Admission Test 2012 (CMAT) for facilitating institutions to select suitable students for admission in all management programs approved by AICTE for year 2012-13. AICTE will conduct CMAT twice in a year for admission in AICTE approved institutions for session 2013-14. A computerised Common Admission Test (CAT) for admission to Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) has also been conducting by IIMs since 2009. Being autonomous institutions, the entire process of conducting exam is coordinated centrally by IIMs. The Director Forum takes overall policy decision regarding CAT examination.

For the benefit of Disabled candidates Testing Assistive devices (TA devices) also known as technical aids are designed to directly enable people with disabilities to perform a particular task successfully. Magnifying Screens are provided by CAT test centres for Visually Impaired students."

Last date to apply for CMAT first edition is 02 Sept 2012

Last date to apply for CMAT first edition is 02 Sept 2012: "Last date to apply for CMAT first edition is 02 Sept 2012
Aug. 30 MBA

The last date to apply for the first edition of CMAT 2012 is 02 September 2012, this will be first of the two entrance tests AICTE is planning to conduct for 2013-2015 PGDM courses in all AICTE approved Institutes. This year too the CMAT will be held ONLINE, the dates are from 27 September to 01 October 2012. Graduates in any discipline or final year graduate students are eligible to apply for for CMAT.

Importance of CMAT

CMAT is the only test for admission in MBA Programmes in AICTE approved institutions and University Departments of all the states, and one of the five tests for PGDM programmes for 2013-14.

AICTE will provide the detailed merit list to the respective State Governments for allotting the students through central counseling. The list of AICTE approved institutions which will be using CMAT scores for admission in management programmes for 2013-14 can be viewed by clicking on the below link.

AICTE approved institutions using CMAT scores

Apply for CMAT"

The Hindu : Cities / Bangalore : Common Management Admission Test from September 27

The Hindu : Cities / Bangalore : Common Management Admission Test from September 27: "Training and learning services company Aptech will be conducting the Common Management Admission Test (CMAT) mandated by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) from September 27 to October 1

More centres

According to a press release, encouraged by the glitch-free process last year, the project duration has been reduced from nine days to five this year. The number of cities where the examination will be conducted have been increased to 64, which means there will be more centres.

The release also quoted AICTE Chairperson S.S. Mantha as saying: “This format allows students to save time, energy and money by institutionalising online testing. We will consider the best of two scores between the CMAT held in September/October and the next, some time later for admissions in academic year 2013-2014.”"

Students resent delay in AICTE approval

Students of Parala Maharaja Engineering College (PMEC) started indefinite dharna and demonstration from Monday demanding All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) approval for the institute.

The PMEC was the first government engineering college in south Orissa. It started functioning from 2009 as a constituent college of the Biju Patnaik University of Technology (BPUT). This institute was named in memory of the royal family of Paralakhemundi, which played a major role in the formation of modern Orissa state on linguistic basis.

But it is an irony that even after three years of functioning; the PMEC has not yet got AICTE approval which is worrying its fourth year students who are in the last session. When contacted the principal of PMEC, B.B.Maharathi also confirmed that the institute had not got the AICTE approval till date.

The agitating students sat on dharna at the institute on Monday regarding this issue. They alleged that on May 28, they had met the Vice-Chancellor of BPUT regarding the matter, but till date no major progress had occurred in the path of AICTE approval for the institute.

“We have decided to continue our agitation for indefinite period till we get definite written assurance regarding AICTE approval for our institute”, said Birendra Kumar Sahu, a leader of agitating students.

Meanwhile, Mr. Maharathi rushed to Bhubaneswar to discuss the matter with the State government. He said he would be leaving for New Delhi on Tuesday to meet AICTE authorities regarding approval of PMEC. “Our institute would surely get AICTE approval,” he assured the students.

According to the principal, the PMEC, although a new institute, has no major infrastructural lacking. But its staff strength needs enhancement. It now has faculty strength of 37, but as per the norms of the AICTE its faculty strength should have been 69, including a principal. Mr. Maharathi said the State government has promised to remove this stumbling block.

Read Full Artical On : http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/article3830221.ece

Students demand AICTE approval for engineering college

BERHAMPUR: Students of Parala Maharaja Engineering College ( PMEC) on Monday boycotted their classes and staged a dharna on the college premises at Sitalapali, on the outskirts of the town. The undergraduate students of the government-run engineering college have launched an agitation for an indefinite period as their institution is yet to get All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) approval.

They feared that they would be deprived of a government job and also cannot pursue higher studies if their institution is not approved by the AITCE. "We have demanded AICTE approval for the institution many times in the past. On May 28, we had approached the vice-chancellor of Biju Patnaik University Technology (BPUT). He assured us the institute would get the approval," said the agitating students. "We will continue our agitation till the institute gets the approval," they said.

Ref : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-28/news/33449569_1_aicte-bput-college-authorities

Rs 5-lakh fine for institutes running courses without AICTE approval

This rule will be applicable to courses of 12 months or more once Maharashtra State Unauthorised Institutions Act comes into force
An ordinance for Maharahstra State Unauthorised Institutions Act is ready and it will be tabled in the next Assembly session, said Higher and Technical Education Minister Rajesh Tope in the city on Friday. He also said the government has decided that the state will participate in nationwide Common Entrance Test (CET) for engineering exams from 2014-15 and not from 2013-14 academic session.

He said, "The ordinance for the Maharashtra State Unauthorised Institutions Act is ready and it will soon be presented before the state Cabinet. As per the proposal, any institution running a course of 12 months or more will be penalised if they don't have the approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). They will also have to pay a fine of Rs 5 lakh and face up to one-year imprisonment."

As of now, courses in animal husbandry, agriculture, medicine and those related to social welfare/justice will come under this Act. Officials of joint director level will be authorised to initiate action against such institutions if reports or complaints are received. The appellate authority in these cases will be secretaries of the departments concerned.

While certificate courses of nine months duration or more will not be included in this Act, any course of 12 months or more will have to follow these guidelines. "As per the prevailing laws, including the Maharashtra State Universities Act, no concrete steps can be taken to curb the mushrooming of such courses and institutions, so we felt the need for this Act," said Tope.

Talking about the nationwide CET, Tope said, "The state Cabinet has approved the decision to join the CET from 2014-15. We have completely ruled out the possibility of it being done from 2013-14 as it will create undue pressure on students. We will go for a 50-50 weightage format, where 50 per cent will be for marks scored in the CET and the other 50 per cent will be for Class XII Board exams."

Ref : http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/rs-5lakh-fine-for-institutes-running-courses-without-aicte-approval/992958/

AICTE office vandalized over Thane college closure

MUMBAI: More than 25 members of the Yuva Sena vandalized the regional office of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) at LIC Building in Churchgate to protest against the closure of Parshvanath College of Engineering in Thane.

The Yuva Sena activists also allegedly roughed up AICTE assistant director A K Shukla and forced him to give his thumb impression on a letter giving permission to hold classes on the campus at least for this academic year. They were accompanied by close to 100 students from the college, who demonstrated outside the AICTE office for four hours.

Reference of : http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-28/mumbai/33449858_1_aicte-college-authorities-technical-education

Andhra Pradesh- engineering degree - AP stumbles as govt steers 'professional' course AICTE Seats in Andhra Pradesh

HYDERABAD: Andhra Pradesh can make for an intriguing case study given its love for the engineering degree, a fascination which is not rooted in logic. Currently, the state has 2.78 lakh engineering seats for the 2.02 lakh students who cleared Eamcet-2012. But the large number of seats and students do not reflect the ugly truth of engineering education in AP - just about 48% of engineering graduates here manage to land jobs.

So why has engineering remained the most preferred professional course despite its dismal record? Observers note that the state's emphasis on engineering is a predictable result of centring educational reforms around 'professional education' which has, over a period of time, become synonymous only with engineering education.

What has put tech colleges high up on the priority list of students from Andhra Pradesh is perhaps the myth that Hyderabad has lucrative jobs in IT industry for all who pass out with a B.Tech degree. The fact that medical colleges, which occupied the other bright end of AP's professional education spectrum, have very few seats to offer (in 2012 the number is still 4,845) has also aided the engineering boom.

Further encouraging this slant towards tech education was the state government's populist fee reimbursement scheme enabling students from Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Economically Backward Classes (EBC) to pursue professional degrees for free. This in turn caused an increase in the number of engineering colleges from 375 in 2009 to 717 in 2012 with managements finding it profitable to milk the scheme by drawing funds in the name of even fake candidates. The state at present has 21% of a total of 3,393 engineering colleges in the country.

The focus on professional education, however, dates back to the engineering boom, educationists said. "The whole country had gone through a shift in focus from vanilla degrees to professional degrees and Hyderabad, since 2000, has been a hub of technical education as part of the IT boom," explains VS Rao, director, BITS-Hyderabad. But a decade after the country witnessed the IT boom, students have been focusing on career options other than engineering in states like Maharashtra and Karnataka. When compared to 717 of them in AP, Maharashra and Karnataka have just 350 and 185 tech colleges with, respectively, 1.7 lakh and 65,000 seats. "These states have encouraged other courses like biotechnology, pharma and law. But in AP, the growth of other courses has been blocked as, right at the intermediate level, students are made to take up the MPC (Maths-Physics-Chemistry) stream in pursuit of an engineering degree," said PM Bhargava, former vice-chairman, National Knowledge Commission.

About 60% of an average of 7.4 lakh students who take admission in intermediate colleges in the state opt for the MPC stream. "The number of students opting for the biology, commerce and humanities streams has been falling steadily over the past ten years," said P Madhusudan Reddy, general secretary of the Government Intermediate College Association. In short, the engineering dream is so big in the psyche of AP students that most cannot think beyond it. "Both my sister and I opted for engineering and my parents were sure that we would land jobs. In our colony, most students opt for MPC and go for Eamcet engineering coaching as it is easy to thus bag a seat," said S Sajini who secured 37{+t}{+h} rank in Eamcet-2012.

The state has, however, failed to maintain a good standard of education in tech colleges. "Recent inspection by AICTE has revealed that 40% of colleges in AP do not fulfill even the minimum requirements as regards faculty and infrastructure," said a source in the higher education department. A recent study conducted on the basis of AMCAT, India's largest employability test, revealed that 57% of engineering graduates in AP (among other states) lack basic employability skills like fluency in English.

Sensing a fall in the quality of education, the state government has asked All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) to stop sanctioning new tech colleges in the state and neither permit additional seats at existing colleges. However, succumbing to pressure from colleges, the government has increased the fee structure in 67 colleges which are known as providing better education than the rest. "The fee hike has created a catch-22 situation in the state. The government on the one hand promoted engineering education and, on the other, increased the fee only in those institutions which provide better education than the rest," said VARK Prasad, director of Save Education Society.

However, there is finally some change unfolding in AP. Poor placements at engineering colleges over the last few years has led to a drop in the number of students signing up for engineering. From 3.16 lakh students who appeared for Eamcet in 2010, the figure has dropped to 2.83 lakh this year. In 2011, just 2.6 lakh students had appeared for the exam.

Meanwhile, the state is taking up its biggest crackdown on colleges ever. "A special task force will inspect each college and will penalise those found to be in violation of AICTE requirements," said Ajay Jain, commissioner, technical education. But the late realisation might not change the fate of education in the state which has to go through massive structural changes.

Aicte Revamping Pharmacy Education with New Syllabus- Pharmacy Education in India - Pharmacy Colleges - Pharmacy Admission

Bay News Network, Visakhapatnam: The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is revamping the Pharmaceutical Education in Indian Universities to help in producing the technical manpower to face the global challenges, said by Prof.S.Y.Gabhe, Chairman of Board of Pharmaceutical Education, AICTE here on Friday. He participated in a meeting organized by GITAM Institute of Pharmacy in GITAM University.

While addressing the faculty and students he briefed that after taking suggestions inputs from various eminent academicians and industry with a view to cater the existing, as well as, growing needs of the industry profession AICTE has prepared a model course curriculum/syllabus for B.Pharmacy and M.Pharmacy programs. He informed that the Syllabus will cover new areas like Bio statistics, Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Basic Electronics and Computer Applications. We strengthen the Organic Chemistry part in new syllabus to improve the employment opportunities to the students. The new syllabus may come into force from this academic year. He said that the Board of Pharmaceutical Education is also planning to organize workshops, orientation programs to faculty members on new syllabus. He has categorically emphasized that the text books and reference books of international standard need to be followed instead of small hand books of lecture notes or user friendly books of general authors. He observed that the ICT enabled learning with innovative teaching methods are very essential to meet the modern teaching needs. He observed that compare with state Universities the Deemed Universities are active while implementing the new courses and curriculum. He emphasized the need of academic research in Pharmaceutical Education in Universities. He said that the University relations with industry will improve the teaching and research.

The Institute of Pharmacy Principal Prof.P.Suresh briefed about the Institute and said that the University is planning to start a drug manufacturing unit in the campus to train the students.

Reference From : 

http://www.baynews.in/index.php/vizag-special/aicte-revamping-pharmacy-education-with-new-syllabus