Delhi High Court - Orders
Yashpal Sinh Jadeja And Ors vs All India Council For Technical ... on 4 July, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4059/2019 & C.M. APPL. 8677/2022
YASHPAL SINH JADEJA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Kartika Sharma, Mr. Udian
Sharma and Mr. Jaitegan Singh
Khurana, Advocates with Petitioner-
in-Person.
versus
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE)
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, Standing Counsel with
Mr. Devesh Dubey, Advocate for R-
1/ AICTE.
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Senior
Panel Counsel for R-2/ UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 04.07.2022 W.P.(C) 4059/2019 & CM. APPL. 8677/2022 (seeking directions to quash the impugned circular dated 23rd November, 2020, issued by Respondent No. 1 and proper implementation of the stay orders)
1. By way of the instant application, Petitioner No. 1 seeks a stay on the operation of circular bearing F. No. 13-56/PC/ODL-Mode/AICTE/2020 dated 23rd November, 2011 passed by Respondent No. 1 - All India Council for Technical Education ("AICTE") revoking the recognition granted to Section A and B Examination course [hereinafter, "AIME course"] at par Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4059/2019 Page 1 of 9 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 14:47:53 with a degree in engineering after 31st May, 2013. With consent of the counsel, the Court has heard arguments on the main Petition itself.
2. Ms. Kartika Sharma, counsel for Petitioners, states that Petitioner No. 1 enrolled in AIME course in electrical engineering provided by the Institution of Engineers (India) [hereinafter, "IEI"] in June, 2013, and claims that AIME course in question, is equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in the concerned field of engineering from a recognised University in India for the purposes of recruitment to superior/ high posts in Government departments.
3. On 6th December, 2012, Respondent No. 2 - Ministry of Human Resources Development ("MHRD"), Union of India issued an office memorandum superseding an earlier office memorandum dated 10th July, 2012 regarding the recognition of equivalence of AIME course, stating that students enrolled in AIME course until 31st May, 2013 shall be recognised for consideration in Central Government jobs - being at par with a degree in engineering. The aforenoted office memorandum reads as under:
"Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110115.
Date; 06.12.2012 OFFICE MEMORANDUM In modification of Order F. No. 11-15/2011-AR (TS.II) dated 10.07.2012 and to facilitate the institutions during transition period, following decision has been taken in the Ministry :
(i) Above order dated 10,07.2012 regarding cases of recognition in perpetuity for equivalence in Central Government job, stands withdrawn.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4059/2019 Page 2 of 9 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 14:47:53
(ii) All those students who are enrolled with the institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/ order in force pertaining to their course for equivalence In Central Government jobs. However, these concerned orders will cease to have effect from 01.06.2013 onwards.
(iii) After 31.05.2013, based on the review by the regulator i.e. AICTE, a decision on continuation of the certification of equivalence of degree/ diploma shall be taken by statutory regulator.
(iv) Statutory regulators should review the fresh proposals/ extension as per their statute and regulations.
2. In case, the institution desires to opt for realigning curriculum with NVEQF, it is advised to use this transition period upto 30.05.2013 for necessary action in this regard.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
4. The afore-extracted office memorandum has been impugned in W.P.(C) 3790/2013 by IEI, wherein this Court vide order dated 31st May, 2013 passed the following order:
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is identical to W.P.(C) 3334/2013 and W.P.(C) 945/2013 wherein while issuing notice in the said matters this Court had directed that OM dated 6.12.2012 qua the petitioners only with respect to the deadline of 31.5.2013 shall remain stayed till the next date and further admissions which are to be made would be subject to final orders, which may be passed in the writ petition.
2. Issue notice to show cause to the respondents as to why petition be not admitted. Notice in the application as well. Learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 accept notice. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that respondent no.3 is not in existence and UGC is the necessary and proper party in this matter. Accordingly, as prayed respondent no.2 is deleted from the array of parties. Let an amended memo of parties be filed by petitioner. Let appropriate steps be taken by the petitioner to implead UGC as a party in the present proceedings.
3. Till the next date of hearing, O.M. dated 6.12.2012 qua the petitioner only with respect to the deadline of 31.5.2013 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing, however, it is made clear that the admissions, which are made, will be subject to final orders, which will be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4059/2019 Page 3 of 9 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 14:47:53 passed in the writ petition.
4. List on 6.8.2013, when W.P.(C) 3334/2013 and W.P.(C) 945/2013 are stated to be listed.
5. Let a copy of this order be given DASTI to counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master."
5. In the instant petition, challenge was made to the Advertisement (undated) issued by AICTE bearing No. P&AP/10(04)/2017 [hereinafter, "impugned advertisement"], which reads as under:
"PUBLIC NOTICE (For Professional Bodies/Institutes Imparting Technical Education) Where are MHRD, Govt. of India, through an order (vide OM No. 11- 15/2011-AR (TS. II) dated 06.12.2012) withdrew the recognition granted to all certificate/qualifications awarded by professional bodies/institutions in the field of technical education. The MHRD further stipulated that from 01.06.2013 onwards the courses for equivalence will cease to have effect for employment in Central Government and the decision on the continuation of the certificate of equivalence of degree/ diploma would be taken by the statutory regular (AICTE) after review. Accordingly, the Council in its 52nd Emergent Meeting held on August 03, 2017 decided to recognize equivalence for all purposes including Higher Education & Employment to Technical Courses conducted by various Professional Bodies/Institutions which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May 2013. Thus, all those students who were enrolled with these Institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013, stand recognized."
6. In the above background, Ms. Kartika Sharma, counsel for Petitioner No. 1, seeks quashing of the impugned advertisement, and also stay on the operation of afore-mentioned circular dated 23rd November, 2020 by AICTE. Ms. Sharma argues that Petitioner No. 1 enrolled in the AIME course in June, 2013 on the strength of the order dated 31st May, 2013 in W.P.(C) 3790/2013 staying the operation of office memorandum qua the deadline of 31st May, 2013 mentioned therein. She states that the impugned advertisement is arbitrary and in the teeth of the stay order dated 31st May, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4059/2019 Page 4 of 9 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 14:47:53 2013. She further states that pursuant to the impugned advertisement, employment opportunities in several Governmental departments and PSUs are being denied to candidates who have enrolled in the AIME course after 31st May, 2013.
7. She also places reliance on the interim order dated 1st May, 2019, passed in the instant petition, wherein the Court while issuing notice, granted an ad-interim stay of the operation of the impugned advertisement qua the stipulation that students enrolled with professional bodies/ institutions with permanent recognition up to 31st May, 2013 would alone stand recognised.
8. Ms. Sharma argues that the impugned advertisement is causing uncertainty, and is in conflict with the stay order dated 31st May, 2013 and the ad-interim protection dated 1st May, 2019 granted by this Court, and thus, are liable to be quashed. AICTE could not have issued the impugned advertisement during the pendency of the instant petition and the same is in utter disregard of Court orders. Ms. Sharma further states that AICTE has misinterpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Through its Chairman v. State of Punjab & Ors.1, and the same does not prevent Petitioners to seek the reliefs prayed for in the instant application as well as main petition.
9. The Court has heard the counsel for the parties at substantial length. In the opinion of the Court, despite the interim orders referred above, no Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4059/2019 Page 5 of 9 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 14:47:53 relief as prayed for in the instant petition can be granted. The issues urged in the present petition have been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Through its Chairman (Supra), which was rendered subsequent to the afore-noted orders dated 31st May, 2013 and 1st May, 2019. The Supreme Court has considered the effect of the office memorandum dated 6th December, 2012 and the impugned advertisement and noticeably granted the benefit of the Membership Certificate awarded upon completion of AIME course only up to 31st May, 2013. The same is evident from the following extract of the said judgment:
"40. If a degree can be awarded only by those institutions which satisfy the description given in sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of the UGC Act, the mandate of a Parliamentary legislation cannot be circumvented or nullified by awarding equivalence to a Certificate issued and awarded by the appellant. What is the value of that certificate will be considered by each employer as and when the occasion arises. The appellant would certainly be entitled to award Certificate of Membership to its Members. What weightage the Certificates must have is for the individual employers to consider in a given case. The concerned employer may attach due importance to such Certificates while considering the worth and ability of the concerned candidates but to say that the Certificates are equivalent to a degree and as such all the candidates who hold such Certificates are entitled to derive the advantages which a degree holder can, is completely a different issue.
41. In the present case, the communication dated 26.05.1976 under which the Certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University, does not indicate any statutory provision under which such equivalence could be granted or conferred. This point becomes more crucial, as after the enactment of AICTE Act, the entirety of the field concerning "technical education" is kept in the domain of AICTE by the Parliament. Section 10 of the AICTE Act entitles AICTE not only to lay down norms and standards for courses, curriculum and such other facets of "technical education" but also entitles it under clause (l) to advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges etc. Going by the width of the power, after the enactment of AICTE Act, even such 1 In M.A. No. 2367/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 17922/2017.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4059/2019 Page 6 of 9 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 14:47:53
privileges could be conferred only after express advice of AICTE and within the confines of various statutory provisions.
42. Consequently, neither can the appellant claim, as a matter of right to be entitled to confer any degree nor can it claim that Certificate awarded by it must be reckoned to be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering.
43. The High Court1 was, therefore, right in observing:-
"... ... the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai is a registered Society and is thus a Technical Institution and is required to obtain approval from AICTE in respect of its courses in technical subjects. The membership of such institute cannot be treated as equivalent to a degree, as the candidate qualified from such institute cannot be said to be at par with the members of Institution of Engineers established under the Statute. (para 208) .........
... ...There is no document produced or alleged that Respondent No.4 has permanent recognition from any Council or Board in respect of its courses. Therefore, the degrees or the membership granted by respondent No.4 cannot be treated as equivalent to Degree in Engineering." (para 211)
44. However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD3 in consultation with AICTE2 upto 31.05.2013 as is evident from Notification dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017. These communications also indicate that all those students who were enrolled upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we have laid down that the Certificates issued by the appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a Degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of students enrolled up to 31.05.2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 06.12.2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. The candidates had opted to enroll themselves so that they could appear at the examinations conducted by the appellant under a regime which was put in place by the Central Government itself and the course content as well as the curriculum were reviewed by the AICTE. However, the aforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear that after 01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease to have any effect.
45. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after 01.06.2013. The Certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 shall Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4059/2019 Page 7 of 9 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 14:47:53 be considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in Central Government.
46. In the premises, we do not find any error in the assessment made by the High Court1 in paragraphs 205 to 213 of its judgment. We, therefore, dismiss all the submissions raised by the appellant and reject Miscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018. No costs."
10. The Supreme court has considered the effect of the aforementioned Notification and impugned advertisement, and held that after 01st June 2013, the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease to have any effect. This brings the curtain down and the issue urged in the instant petition does not survive for consideration. It must also be noted that Petitioner had also approached the Supreme Court seeking a clarification by way of M.A. No. 1439/2020 in Civil Appeal No. 17922/2017. The said application has also been dealt with by way of a speaking order dated 21st August 2020, in the following terms:
"In this Miscellaneous Application No.1439 of 2020, following directions are prayed for:
"(a) Allow the present application and direct the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to adjudicate the writ petitions impugning the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2012 & AICTE public notice on its merits for the period subsequent to 31.05.2013 because the office memorandum dated 06.12.2012 & in AICTE's public notice was not a subject matter of challenge at this Hon'ble Court whereas in writ petition pending at Hon'ble High Court of Delhi since 2013 the office memorandum dated 06.12.2012 & AICTE's public notice are subject matter of challenge.
(b) Direct Hon'ble Delhi High Court to decide on the students who got enrolment subsequent to 31.05.2013 pursuant to stay & admission granted by Hon'ble Delhi High Court to the Institution of Engineers (AMIE) based on merits."
With the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant, we have gone through the petition and the documents appended thereto.
We do not see any reason to entertain this Miscellaneous Application. The Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4059/2019 Page 8 of 9 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 14:47:53Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
11. The contentions urged in the instant application and petition are identical to the prayers before the Supreme Court in M.A. No. 1439/2020, as is evident from the order extracted above. Pertinently, the judgment of the Supreme Court is undeniably a final decision on the issue of equivalence of AIME course with a Degree in engineering. The Supreme Court has categorically held that benefit of the Membership Certificates will only be extended to students who were enrolled in AIME course up to 31st May, 2013, and not thereafter. Petitioner No.1 was concededly admitted after the said date. The interim order passed by this Court would not come to the aid of Petitioner in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Granting relief to the Petitioner, as prayed for, would create ambiguity and uncertainty on the issue, which has been irrefutably decided by the Apex Court.
12. In light of the above, the Court does not find any merit in the application or the petition and accordingly, the same are dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 4, 2022/as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 4059/2019 Page 9 of 9 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:06.07.2022 14:47:53