All India Council For Technical Edu vs Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Ors

All India Council for Technical Education ....... Appellant(s)

Vs.

Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Ors. ....... Respondent(s)

WITH

Civil Appeal No.4357 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4358 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4368 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4369 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4370 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4390 of 2004, and Civil Appeal No.4409 of 2004,

O R D E R

R. V. Raveendran J.

The seventh respondent - YMCA Institute of

Engineering, Faridabad (for short the `Institute'),

affiliated to the State Board of Technical Education, 2

Haryana, was conducting Post Diploma Courses of four years

duration in various engineering disciplines for several

years, 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) 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 :

(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.

(iii) The course content should be modified as suggested by AICTE in Annexure-I to the said letter of approval.

As a consequence, the four year Post Diploma Course of the

Institute was converted to a four year Advance Diploma

Course from 1995.

3

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). 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.

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

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 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 4

admission facility to be made available to the diploma

holders will be in force only for the next two years.

5. The appellant rejected the request by letter dated

9.7.1999 by giving the following reasons for the refusal of

permission :

(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.

(iii) If diplomas were to be permitted to be converted 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 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 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 5

request at its meeting held on 15.9.1999, and communicated

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

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 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 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 6

petitions were 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 completed the four year

diploma course.

9. Thereafter, other post diploma holders, who entered

the course only with a qualification of 10+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 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

post/advance diploma should 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.

7

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 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 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 the bridge course on

20.9.2000, it did not contest the order, as 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 8

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 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 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 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 to 9

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 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, 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 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. 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 10

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 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.

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 of law has to be interpreted,

applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with

education, courts will step in. In Dr. J.P.Kulshreshtha v.

Chancellor, Allahabad University [1980 (3) SCC 418] this

Court observed :

"Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread... While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies."

11 In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher

Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [1984

(4) SCC 27] this court reiterated :

"................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-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

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 & 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 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 12

education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is also required 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 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-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 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 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 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:

"AICTE Act was enacted with the object of regulating and coordinating the development of technical education throughout the country and also for establishment of proper and uniform norms and standard of technical education in India."

13 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 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 examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on 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 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."

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

permission for bridge course and therefore, it is estopped 14

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 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 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 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 that neither the principle of

res judicata nor the principle of estoppel, nor the

principle of legitimate expectation, nor the principle of 15

fairness in action was attracted and there was no bar to

such challenge. The principle is stated thus in B.K. Akkara:

"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 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 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 'pick and choose' method only to exclude petitioners on account of malafides 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 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 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 16

finality, on the ground that subsequently the court has

taken a different view.

17. It was next contended by the respondents that AICTE

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. AICTE countered by contending that it complied

with the direction 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 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 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 17

permitting a lesser entry qualification of 10+1. It was of

the view that persons not possessing the entry level

qualification prescribed 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 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 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 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 18

assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a 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 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 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 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 however make it clear that our order will not 19

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 orders of the High Court, from

either taking the examination or obtaining the B.Tech

degree.

__________________J [R. V. Raveendran]

_________________J [G. S. Singhvi] New Delhi;

February 18, 2009.