Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Before we deal with the various points raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, justifying the right of admission in the course under contention, it will be useful to see relevant provisions of the Prospectus-cum-Information Brouchure issued by the respondent-Institution. Clause 2 deals with Programme Structure. It recites that the Institute offers modular pattern of education at Certificate, Diploma and Degree levels in emerging technical subjects, and that each module consists of two years. Higher level programmes may be introduced at a later stage on need basis. It also recites that there would be vartical linkage between various modules which would be as illusterated in Table-I. It is also mentioned that there would be vertical mobility of 50% of the students from Certificate to Diploma and Diloma to Degree with suitable bridge course and suitable bridge course would be provided in science at different levels to overcome the deficiency required for vertical movement and for direct entry after Diploma. Bridge courses on techinical subjects would be provided for the direct entry to Diploma after 10+2 and Degree after 10+2+3. Extensive industrial training would be arranged throughout the country for outgoing students at various levels for acquiring practical experience in industries through practice schools. Table-I, reference whereof has been given in Clause 2, reads under:--

" ENTRY QUALIFICATION AND PROGRAMME DURATION OF VARIOUS LEVELS AS APPROVED BY ALL INDIA CONNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION:

Entry Level         Years spent during   Certificate Course Bridge Course Diploma Bridge Degree 10+ 10+2

--

10+2+3

--

--

--

Sub-clause (b) Clause 2.3 deals with duration of degree course for the one who seeks direct entry into the said course. For him, the duration is three years including bridge course of one year.

7. From the various clauses, noted above, one thing that needs immediate notice is that whereas a students from the Institute, who has sought vertical entry in the degree course, has to necessarily pass 10+2 and also to do 1/2 year bridge course followed by two years diploma course. After he has secured Certificate in Diploma, he has to do 1/2 year bridge course which is followed by two years course for obtaining degree in Engineering. A person who seeks direct entry into the degree course i.e. through Entrance Test, for him the course is of three years; duration including one year bridge course. In other words, a student who has sought vertical entry needs to put in only 2 1/2 years to do decree course out of which 1/2 year is meant for bridge course whereas a student seeking direct entry has to put in three years out of which one year is for bridge course.

11. Coming now to the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, it shall be seen from various clauses of the Pro-spectus-cum-Information Brochure, reproduced above, that a student from the Institute who has sought vertical entry in diploma has to do 1/2 year bridge course which is followed by 2 years course for obtaining decree in Engineering whereas a student, who seeks entry to the degree course through Entrance Test, has to do the course which is of three years' duration including one year bridge course. A student, who has thus come through vertical entry has to do 1/2 year bridge course whereas a student, who has come through direct entry, has to do one year bridge course. When both, i.e. the one who has come through vertical entry and the one who has come through direct entry, complete their bridge course, they are put together to do two years degree course and it is only then that the classes held for them are the same. No doubt, the results of the students, who appeared in the qualifying examination from the respondent-Institute itself had not been declared till such time the arguments were heard in this case but the same would not make much difference as the students from the Institute have to undergo bridge course of only 1/2 year and they would start classes with those, who have sought admission through direct entry six months after the said students, i.e. the students who have been admitted through direct entry. There could be some substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the authorities ought to have considered the change of out of date for admission provided in the Prospetus-cum-Information Brochure as the start of classes had been postponed for about a month but, as mentioned above, that course, if adopted, is likely to up set the admissions of others, who, as referred to above, might have secured admission on the dint of their merit in other Entrance Tests and such a course, in considered view of this Court, should not be adopted particularly when such students, who have not been arrayed as party-respondents, have not been heard.