Supreme Court of India
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATIONversusSURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS .
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 217
- Decided
- 18 February 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
AICTE's decision not to permit bridge courses for diploma holders with 10+1 qualifications is within its exclusive jurisdiction under the AICTE Act, and the High Court orders allowing such courses are set aside.
Summary
The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) challenged several Delhi High Court orders that permitted diploma holders with only 10+1 qualifications to enroll in a one‑year bridge course leading to a B.Tech degree. AICTE argued that allowing such bridge courses constituted a major policy shift, diluted the entry standards for engineering degrees, and fell within its exclusive statutory jurisdiction under the AICTE Act. The Supreme Court examined whether courts could interfere with AICTE's policy decisions and whether the High Court's orders could be set aside despite earlier finality. It held that AICTE's decision not to permit bridge courses for 10+1 entrants is a matter of technical education policy within its exclusive domain, and the courts must not substitute their judgment for that of the expert body. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and dismissed the writ petitions, while preserving the rights of students who had already completed the bridge course to obtain their degrees. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that judicial review of educational policy is limited to constitutional or statutory violations, not the wisdom of the policy itself.
Issues considered
- The extent of judicial intervention in AICTE's policy decisions regarding bridge courses and entry qualifications
- Whether the Delhi High Court orders permitting bridge courses for diploma holders with 10+1 qualifications are valid
- Whether AICTE can challenge subsequent court decisions despite earlier finality of similar orders
- Whether extending bridge courses to 10+1 entrants dilutes the standards of engineering education
Legislation cited
Subjects
technical educationbridge courseAICTEeducational standardsjudicial reviewpolicy jurisdictionentry qualificationdilution of standardsres judicataestoppel
Judgment
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 859
:
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION A
V.
...., SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS .
(Civil Appeal No. 4349 of 2004)
FEBRUARY 18, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.]
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987:
Section 10- Bridge course - Diploma holders with 10+2 c
.. permitted by High Court to upgrade their qualification - By
another order eligible qualification reduced to 10+1 instead
of 10+2 - The orders were meant to be one time measure
but extended for several years - Held: The cumulative effect
of the High Court's orders lead to an unintended dilution of
D
educational standards adversely affecting the standards and
quality of Engineering Degree Courses - Courts should
guard against such forays in the field of education - Education
- Maintaining of quality and standards.
In these appeals against the judgment of the High E
Court, the appellant viz., All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) has objected to the permission given
by the High Court to post diploma holders with 10+1
. entry level qualification to take the bridge course since
it enabled the diploma holders to secure a B.Tech degree F
----?°" which amounted to a major policy shift and defeated the
very purpose of diploma level education and diluted the
efficacy of the degree course.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
G
'
HELD: 1. The decision of AICTE not to permit bridge
courses for diploma holders and its decision not to
permit those who have passed 10+1 examinations
859 H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A (instead of 10+2 examination) to take the bridge course,
relate to technical education policy which fall within their
exclusive jurisdiction. Courts will not interfere in matters -
of policy. [Para 15] [870-F-G]
Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University
8 1980 (3) SCC 418; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth 1984 (4) SCC 27; State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman
Educational & Research Institute 1995(4) SCC 104;
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B.Educationa/ Society
C 2005 (3) SCC 212 and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav
Ashwin Jain 2007 (4) SCC 737, relied on.
2.1. The fact that the decisions of the Delhi High Court
were not challenged and was given effect earlier, will not
o come in the way of the present challenge. It is possible
that AICTE did not contest the earlier decision because
it was thought to be a one time measure or because it
would be applied only to a small section with reference
to a single institution, or because it would benefit only
E those who had passed the entry level examination for
engineering degree, that is, 10+2 with physics, chemistry
and mathematics. It is also possible that AICTE did not
assess or realize the effect or impact of such a decision
or the likelihood of gradual dilution. [Para 16] [871-D-F]
•
F 2.2. The fact that the earlier directions of the High
Court to permit the bridge course for diploma holders
from the Institute, had been complied with, and that those
decisions attained finality will not come in the way of
AICTE challenge any subsequent decision relating to
G other similarly placed candidates/students. It cannot
however take away the benefit extended to the petitioners
in those cases, where the decision had attained finality,
on the ground that subsequently the court has taken a
different view. [Para 16] [872-F-H]
H
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. 861
SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS.
.._ State of Maharashtra v. Digambar 1995 (4) SCC 683 and A
-
Col. B. K. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India 2006 (11)
., sec 709, relied on.
3. If the AICTE was of the view that only those
diploma holders with 10+2 (with PCM subjects) should be
B
permitted to upgrade their qualification by an ad hoc
bridge course or that such bridge course should not be
a regular or permanent feature, there is no reason to
interfere with such a decision. The courts cannot by their
orders create courses, nor permit continuance of courses
which were not created in accordance with law, or lower c
the minimum qualifications prescribed for admissions.
The High Court's decision to permit candidates who have
completed 10+1 plus four years post diploma course to
take the bridge course, cannot be sustained. [Para 17]
[873-F-H; 874-A] D
4. This is a classic case where an educational course
has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the
court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation
or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a
E
new course or programme requires examination of
various academic/technical facets which can only be
done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot
obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this
.(
case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge
course was permitted for four year Advance Diploma F
holders who had passed the entry level examination of
10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another
mandamus in another case, what was a one time measure
was extended for several years and was also extended
to Post Diploma holders. Again by another mandamus, it G
- •
was extended to those who had passed only 10+1
examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2
examination. Each direction was obviously intended to
give relief to students who wanted to better their career
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together
they lead to an unintended dilution of educational
standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality
of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard
against such forays in the field of education. [Para 18)
-..
B [874-8-E]
5.The orders of the High Court are set aside.
However, it is clarified that this order will not apply, nor
come in the way of any candidate (whether a post or
advance diploma holder from the Institute, with whatever
C entry level qualification,) who has already been admitted
to the bridge course and completed the bridge course,
in pursuance of the impugned orders of the High Court,
from either taking the examination or obtaining the
8.Tech degree. [Para 18) [874-F-G]
D
Case Law Reference:
1980 (3) sec 418 relied on Para 13
1984 (4) sec 21 relied on Para 13
E 1995(4) sec 104 relied on Para 14
2005 (3) sec 212 relied on Para 14
2001 (4) sec 737 relied on Para 15
1995 (4) sec 683 relied on Para 16
F
2006 (11) sec 109 relied on Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4349 of 2004.
G From the Judgment & Order dated 28.11.2002 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P.No. 13239
of 2002.
WITH
H Civil Appeal No.4357 of 2004, 4358 of 2004, 4368 of 2004,
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. 863
... SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS .
4369 of 2004, 4370 of 2004, 4390 of 2004, and 4409 of 2004. A
S. Chandra Shekhar and Sanjeev Sachdeva for the
Appellants.
Rajiv Mishra, (M/s. Parekh & Co.), R.C. Kaushik, Amit
Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goal and S. Srinivasan for the B
Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
ORDER
c
R.V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. The seventh respondent -
.. •
YMCA Institute of Engineering, Faridabad (for short the
'Institute'), affiliated to the State Board of Technical Education,
Haryana, was conducting Post Diploma Courses of four years
duration in various engineering disciplines for several years, D
with entry level qualification of 10+1. The respondents are post
diploma holders from the said Institute who had the entry
qualification of 10+1 when they joined the said course.
2. The Institute sought the permission of All India Council
for Technical Education -the Appellant herein ('AICTE' for short) E
to convert the aforesaid four year Post Diploma Programme
~
into an 'Advance Diploma Programme' also of four years
duration. AICTE granted approval for such conversion, by its
letter dated 26.10.1995, subject to the following conditions :
F
(i) The entry level to the course should be raised from
11th (10+1) to 12th (10+2) standard.
(ii) The duration of the course shall be 4 years after
10+2.
G
4
(iii) The course content should be modified as
suggested by AICTE in Annexure-1 to the said letter
of c..pproval.
As a consequence, the four year Post Diploma Course of the
Institute was converted to a four year Advance Diploma Course H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
.._
A from 1995.
3. On the request of the Institute, the Director, Technical
Education, Haryana and AICTE granted approval in the year
1997, for upgradation of the four year Advance Diploma Course
to a five year Engineering Degree Programme (B.Tech degree).
B As a consequence, the Institute started B. Tech programme
from the academic year 1997-98 with the permission of the
affiliating university and AICTE. From that year, the Institute
discontinued admissions to the four year Advance Diploma
Course.
c
4. In order to enable its students who had successfully
-
completed the Four Year Post/Advance Diploma Course, to
acquire degrees in engineering, the Institute wanted to
commence a one year bridge course. On its application, the ~
Government of Haryana approved a one year bridge course
D
with two extended semesters of 22 weeks each, for diploma
holders from the Institute to cover the remaining portion of the
degree course, and acquire B.Tech degree. The Director of
Technical Education, State of Haryana, addressed a letter dated
19.5.1999 to AICTE, recommending the grant of approval for
E starting the said bridge course by the Institute, for the benefit
of its students who had passed the post/advance diploma
courses during the sessions 1992-96, 1993-97 and 1994-98. )
It was stated that such admission facility to be made available
to the diploma holders will be in force only for the next two
F years.
..
5. The appellant rejected the request by letter dated
9. 7.1999 by giving the following reasons for the refusal of
permission :
G (i) There was no provision in the AICTE Rules to
approve a bridge course for diploma holders. •
(ii) Approving any bridge course would involve a major
policy shift on the part of AICTE. It will also affect
the technical education all over the country.
H
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. 865
SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS. [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.)
(iii) If diplomas were to be permitted to be converted A
into degrees through bridge courses, the very
purpose of diploma level education would be
defeated.
(iv) There was already an existing provision enabling
diploma holders to get admitted to the second year B
of the engineering programme.
6. The Director of Technical Education, State of Haryana,
reiterated the recommendation for approval, giving reasons in
support of its recommendation. The Institute and the students C
of the Advance Diploma Course also submitted
representations to AICTE and the Ministry for Human
Resources Development requesting reconsideration its
decision. AICTE therefore reconsidered and rejected the
request at its meeting held on 15.9.1999, and communicated D
the rejection by letter dated 11.11.1999.
7. Feeling aggrieved, 102 students of the Institute who had
joined the Advance Diploma Course in Engineering,
approached the Delhi High Court in December, 1999 by filing
CWP No. 7364/1999 seeking the following reliefs : (i) for E
quashing the communications dated 9. 7.1999 and 11.11.1999
of AICTE; and (ii) for a direction to the Union of India and
AICTE to accord approval for the upgradation of the four year
- Advance Diploma course in Engineering, to a B.Tech
programme, with the one year bridge course. A learned Single F
Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the said writ petition by
order dated 20.9.2000, quashed the rejection letters dated
9. 7.1999 and 11.11.1999 of the AICTE and directed AICTE to
accord approval to the Institute to have a bridge course for its
students who had studied and who were studying in the G
Advance Diploma Course.
8. Thereafter some students who had passed the erstwhile
Post Diploma Course, approached the Delhi High Court in
2001, seeking relief similar to what was granted to students of
four. years Advance Diploma course. Those petitions were H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A allowed on 28.5.2001 and 30.10.2001 and affirmed in a Letters
Patent Appeal on 21.12.2001. These subsequent orders
extended the benefit of the bridge course to even Post Diploma
holders, provided they had passed 10+2 examination (with the
subjects Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics) and successfully
B completed the four year diploma course.
9. Thereafter, other post diploma holders, who entered the
course only with a qualification of 1O+1, approached the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in CWP No.16232/2001. A learned
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said petition by
c order dated 15.3.2002 holding that the criterion relevant for
admission to the bridge course was possessing a four year
post or advance diploma, and the fact that some of them had
passed 10+2 examinations, while others had passed 10+1
examinations, before joining the posUadvance diploma should
D not affect their eligibility to be admitted to the bridge course.
He held that there cannot be discrimination between Post
Diploma holders and Advance Diploma holders, with reference
to their entry qualification for diploma course, that is, passing
either 10+2 or 10+1 examination.
E 10. The respondents herein who were also post diploma
holders but who had passed entry level examination of 10+1
(and not 10+2 examination) approached the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. By the impugned orders dated
28.11.2002, their writ petitions were allowed following its earlier
F decision dated 15.3.2002 in CWP No.16232/2001. The said
orders are challenged in these appeals by special leave.
11. AICTE's objection is to the permission given by the
-
High Court to the post diploma holders with 10+1 entry level
qualification to take the bridge course. AICTE had refused to
G
give permission for the bridge course itself, as such a course
~
enabling diploma holders to secure a B.Tech degree amounted
to a major policy shift and also defeated the very purpose of
diploma level education and diluted the efficacy of the degree
course. But when the Delhi High Court directed it to approve
H
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. 867
SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS. [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Jo
the bridge course on 20.9.2000, it did not contest the order, as A
it was intended to be a one time measure in regard to
candidates, who had done the four year advance diploma
course and whose entry level examination was the same as the
entry level examination for the engineering degree course
namely 10+2. It also accepted the subsequent decisions of B
Delhi High Court extending the benefit to four year post diploma
holders, having regard to the fact that the relief was restricted
to only those whose entry level qualification was 10+2. It is
contended when the norms and conditions were sought to be
diluted further, by permitting four year post diploma holders with c
10+1 entry level qualification, to take the bridge course, it
decided to challenge the decision to resist any further erosion.
It is submitted that if the decision is allowed to stand, it would
permit candidates who did not possess the entry level
qualification for admission to engineering degree course, to
D
secure the engineering degree without having the entry level
qualification, by a back door entry. It is submitted that extending
the benefit of the bridge course to Post Diploma holders with
entry level qualification 10+1, and equating a 10+1 plus four
year Post Diploma, to a 10+2 plus four year Advance Diploma,
would be detrimental to academic standards, and jeopardize E
the entire technical education system as it may lead to similar
demands for equivalence, lateral entry and lowering of entry
. qualifications from other institutions or universities, thereby
.. leading to a nationwide erosion of the quality of the engineering
degree courses. It is submitted that the objection of AICTE is F
to the entire process of bridge courses for diploma holders, in
particular to any attempt to lower the standards.
12. There is considerable force in the submission of the
appellant. Having regard to clauses (i) and (k) of section 10 of
G
..... the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 ('Act' for
• short], it is the function of the AICTE to consider and grant
approval for introduction of any new course or programme in
consultation with the agencies concerned, and to lay down the
norms and standards for any course including curricula,
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
...
A instructions, assessment and examinations. The decision
whether a bridge course should be permitted as a programme
for enabling diploma holders to secure engineering degree, and
if permitted, what should be the norms and standards in regard
to entry qualification, content of course instructions and manner
B of assessing the performance by examinations, are all
decisions in academic matters of technical nature. AICTE
consists of professional and technical experts in the field of
education qualified and equipped to decide on those issues.
In fact, a statutory duty is cast on them to decide these matters.
c The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or
technical background to substitute themselves in place of
statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in
academic matters involving standards and quality of technical
education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual
institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either
D
for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide
better opportunities, or because they think that one course is
equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field
of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in
education and deterioration in standards of education.
E
13. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and
role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question ..
of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the
courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle '
F of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference )'
to or connected with education, courts will step in. In Dr.
J.P.Ku/shreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University [1980
(3) SCC 418] this Court observed : ,
"Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to
G tread ... While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of
prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions
of academic bodies." "
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [1984
H
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. 869
SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS. [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
...
(4) sec 27] this court reiterated : A
" ............... .the Court should be extremely reluctant to
substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and
proper in relation to academic matters in preference to
those formulated by professional men possessing
technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to- B
day working of educational institutions and the
departments controlling them."
14. The Act has entrusted AICTE with the powers and
functions relating to (i) proper planning and co-ordinated C
development of the technical education system throughout the
country; (ii) promotion of qualitative improvement of technical
education in relation of planned quantitative growth, and (iii)
regulation of the system and proper maintenance of norms and
standards. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational
0
& Research Institute [1995 (4) SCC 104], this Court examined
the provisions of the Act and explained the scope of the duties
and responsibilities of AICTE under the Act thus :
'The aforesaid provisions of the Act including its preamble
make it abundantly clear that the Council has been E
established under the Act for coordinated and integrated
development of the technical education system at all levels
throughout the country and is enjoined to promote
qualitative improvement of such education in relation to
planned quantitative growth. The Council is also required F
to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and
standards in the technical education system .
...... ... .This duty and responsibility cast on the Council
implies that the norms and standards to be set should be
such as would prevent a lopsided or an isolated G
development of technical education in the country. For this
purpose, the norms and standards to be prescribed for the
technical education have to be such as would on the one
hand ensure development of technical educational system
in all parts of the country uniformly; that there will be a co- H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
._
A ordination in the technical education and the education
imparted in various parts of the country and will be capable
of being integrated in one system; that there will be
sufficient number of technically educated individuals and
that their growth would be in a planned manner; and that
B all institutions in the country are in a position to properly
maintain the norms and standards that may be prescribed
by the Council. The norms and standards have, therefore,
to be reasonable and ideal and at the same time,
adaptable, attainable and maintainable by institutions
throughout the country to ensure both quantitative and
c qualitative growth of the technically qualified personnel to
meet the needs of the country. Since the standards have
to be laid down on a national level, they have necessarily "'
to be uniform throughout the country without which the
coordinated and integrated development of the technical
D
education all over the country will not be possible which
will defeat one of the main objects of the statute .... "
In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B.Educational Society
[2005 (3) SCC 212], this Court reiterated:
E "AICTE Act was enacted with the object of regulating and
coordinating the development of technical education
throughout the country and also for establishment of
,l
proper and uniform norms and standard of technical
education in India."
F
15. The decision of AICTE not to permit bridge courses
for diploma holders and its decision not to permit those who
have passed 10+1 examinations (instead of 10+2 examination)
to take the bridge course, relate to technical education policy
which fall within their exclusive jurisdiction. Courts will not
G
interfere in matters of policy. This Court in Directorate of Film
Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [2007 (4) SCC 737] pointed •
out:
"Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities
H examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. 871
SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS. [RV. RAVEENCRAN, J.]
> ~
of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on A
matters of policy which the executive is entitled to
formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a
policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the
fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the
provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory B
provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere
with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on
..... the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is
available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or
soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review." c
The above observations will apply with added vigour to the field
of education.
16. The respondents submitted that the appellant had
accepted the decisions of the Delhi High Court directing
D
permission for bridge course and therefore, it is estopped from
challenging the impugned order which merely follows the
decision of Delhi High Court with a slight modification. The fact
that the decisions of the Delhi High Court were not challenged
and was given effect earlier, will not come in the way of the
present challenge. It is possible that AICTE did not contest the E
earlier decision because it was thought to be a one time
~ measure or because it would be applied only to a small section
with reference to a single institution, or because it would benefit
~
only those who had passed the entry level examination for
engineering degree, that is, 10+2 with physics, chemistry and F
mathematics. It is also possible that AICTE did not assess or
realize the effect or impact of such a decision or the likelihood
of gradual dilution. The question whether the government or a
statutory body which accepted and implemented earlier
decision of a court, can challenge subsequent decisions of the G
court following the such earlier decision, with reference to
~ different but similarly placed aggrieved persons, was
considered by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar
- 1995 (4) SCC 683 and Col. B. K. Akkara (Retd.) v.
Government of India - 2006 (11) SCC 709. This Court held H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 3 S.C.R.
A that neither the principle of res judicata nor the principle of •
estoppal, nor the principle of legitimate expectation, nor the
principle of fairness in action was attracted and there was no
bar to such challenge. The principle is stated thus in B.K.
Akkara:
B "A particular judgment of the High Court may not be
challenged by the State where the financial repercussions
are negligible or where the appeal is barred by limitation.
It may also not be challenged due to negligence or
oversight of the dealing officers or on account of wrong
-
c legal advice, or on account of the non-comprehension of
the seriousness or magnitude of the issue involved.
However, when similar matters subsequently crop up and
the magnitude of the financial _implications is realized, the
State is not prevented or barred from challenging the
D subsequent decisions or resisting subsequent writ
petitions, even though judgment in a case involving similar
issue was allowed to reach finality in the case of others.
Of course, the position would be viewed differently, if
petitioners plead and prove that the State had adopted a
E 'pick and choose' method only to exclude petitioners on
account of ma/afides or ulterior motives."
The observations with reference to financial implications,
will equally apply in other situations also, as in this case which
involve serious implications/repercussions in the field of
F education leading to deterioration of educational standards.
Therefore, the fact that the earlier directions of the High Court
to permit the bridge course for diploma holders from the
Institute, had been complied with, and that those decisions
attained finality will not come in the way of AICTE challenge any
G subsequent decision relating to other similarly placed
candidates/students. It cannot however take away the benefit
extended to the petitioners in those cases, where the decision ~
had attained finality, on the ground that subsequently the court
has taken a different view.
H
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. 873
SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS. [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
;.
~
17. It was next contended by the respondents that AICTE A
should not distinguish between those who underwent 10+2
course and those who underwent 10+1 course, as once they
were admitted and successfully completed the post diploma or
advance diploma course, they all became equal and the bridge
course should be available to all four year diploma holders. 8
AICTE countered by contending that it complied with the
dirE;lction of the Delhi High Court to permit one year bridge
course as it was intended to be a one time measure available
only for those candidates who possessed entry level
qualifications of 10+2 physics, chemistry and mathematics and c
a four year post/advance diploma. The High Court was in error
in assuming that the entry level qualification was not relevant
once a candidate secured the post/advance diploma. The issue
had to be examined with reference to admissions to a
programme which was not a separate course, but a special
D
bridge course which led to an engineering degree for which the
entry level qualification was 10+2. AICTE was of the opinion
that the norms/standards by way of minimum qualifications for
Engineering degree course should not be diluted by permitting
a lesser entry qualification of 1O+1. It was of the view that
persons not possessing the entry level qualification prescribed E
for admission to engineering degree course, cannot be
permitted to secure the engineering degree by a round about
backdoor route by undergoing a four year post/advance
diploma course and one year bridge course. These being
educational issues, they cannot be interfered, merely because F
the court thought otherwise. If the AICTE was of the view that
only those diploma holders with 10+2 (with PCM subjects)
should be permitted to upgrade their qualification by an ad hoc
bridge course or that such bridge course should not be a regular
or permanent feature, there is no reason to interfere with such G
.. a decision. The courts cannot be their orders create courses,
nor permit continuance of courses which were not created in
accordance with law, or lower the minimum qualifications
prescribed for admissions. The High Court's decision to permit
candidates who have completed 10+1 plus four years post H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A diploma course to take the bridge course, cannot be sustained. ...
18. This is a classic case where an educational course has
been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court,
without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or
assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course
B or programme requires examination of various academic/
technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like
AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or
discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus
of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four year
C Advance Diploma holders who had passed the entry level
examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another
mandamus in another case, what was a one time measure was
extended for several years and was also extended to Post
Diploma holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended
D to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the
required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was
obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better
their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But
together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational
E standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of
engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such
forays in the field of education.
18. In view of the above, we allow these appeals, set aside
the orders of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions. We
F however make it clear that our order will not apply, nor come in
the way of any candidate (whether a post or advance diploma
holder from the Institute, with whatever entry level qualification,)
who has already been admitted to the bridge course and
completed the bridge course, in pursuance of the impugned
G orders of the High Court, from either taking the examination or
obtaining the B.Tech degree.
G.N. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "technical education"Sign in to search