Supreme Court of India
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMANversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 894
- Decided
- 13 August 2019
- Disposal
- Rejected
- Bench
- UDAY UMESH LALIT
Holding
Under Section 22(1) of the UGC Act only universities, deemed‑universities or bodies specially empowered by Parliament may confer degrees; IME does not, so its certificates are not equivalent to a degree, except for candidates enrolled up to 31 May 2013, whose certificates shall be treated as equivalent for Central Government employment.
Summary
The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (IME) conducts bi‑annual examinations and awards a Certificate of Membership (AMIE). Historically, the Government of India recognised this certificate as equivalent to a degree or diploma for Central Government recruitment, but the High Court held it was not equivalent to a degree. IME sought clarification and modification of that judgment. The Supreme Court held that under Section 22(1) of the UGC Act only universities, deemed‑universities or bodies specially empowered by Parliament can confer degrees; IME, a society, does not fall within this category and its certificates cannot be treated as degrees. However, the Court recognised the earlier MHRD‑AICTE recognition for candidates enrolled up to 31 May 2013 and declared their certificates equivalent to a degree for Central Government employment. The Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification was rejected and the earlier assessment upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether IME can claim that its certificates are equivalent to a degree under the UGC Act, AICTE Act or other statutes.
- Whether the Registrar was correct in refusing to register the application for clarification and modification.
- Whether the High Court's finding that the certificates are not equivalent to a degree is legally sound.
- Whether the MHRD/AICTE recognition up to 31 May 2013 creates a statutory right of equivalence for those candidates.
- Whether IME falls within the definition of a ‘technical institution’ under the AICTE Act and the implications thereof.
Legislation cited
- All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987s. 10, s. 2(g), s. 2(h)
- Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985
- Societies Registration Act, 1860
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 22(1), s. 22(2), s. 2(f), s. 3
Subjects
degree equivalencetechnical educationUGC ActAICTE Actprofessional bodycertificate of membershipcentral government recruitmentstatutory authoritydistance educationtechnical institution
Judgment
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 175 175
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) A
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
(Miscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018) B
In
(Civil Appeal No. 17922 of 2017)
AUGUST 13, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] C
University Grants Commission Act, 1956– ss.2(f), 3, 22–
Appellant conducts bi-annual examinations such as Technician
Engineers’ Part-I & Part-II etc., and on successful completion
thereof awarded the Certificate “Associate Member of Institution
of Engineers” (AMIE) – On 26.05.76, the Government of India D
provisionally recognized a pass in the Associate Membership
Examination of the Mechanical Engineers Association of India at
par with degree in Mechanical Engineering from recognized Indian
University– Notification issued by the Central Government
recognizing the Part-I & Part-II Technician Engineers’ Examination
(T) at par with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from State E
Polytechnic – Qualifications in the said notification recognized for
recruitment to subordinate posts and services under the Government
of Punjab– Writ petition filed inter alia praying that the Certificate
of Membership issued by the appellant be declared invalid for
recruitment/promotion to the service concerning State affairs– F
Disposed of by consent order – Review Application – Vide judgment
dtd. 06.11.12, in case of the appellant, the review was allowed inter
alia holding in paragraphs 205-213 that the Membership Certificate
granted could not be treated as equivalent to Degree in
Engineering– Challenged by the appellant– SLP listed along with
similar matters, but no submissions advanced by the appellant– G
Matters decided vide order dtd. 03.11.17 – Appellant sought
clarification and modification thereof– Refused by the Registrar of
Supreme Court holding that the application sought review of the
judgment dtd. 03.11.17– Order of the Registrar under challenge in
H
175
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A the present miscellaneous application – Held: Registrar was right
in refusing to register the appellant’s application – On merits,
consistent stand of the appellant has been that it is not covered
under any of the Acts viz. the UGC Act, IGNOU Act and the AICTE
Act – In terms of s.22(1) of the UGC Act, right to confer degrees
can be exercised only by University established or incorporated by
B
or under Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act or by an institution
deemed to be University u/s.3, UGC Act or by an institution specially
empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees–
Appellant does not fall under any of the categories in s.22(1), UGC
Act – If degree can be awarded only by those institutions which
C satisfy the description given in sub-sec.(1) of s.22, UGC Act, the
mandate of Parliamentary legislation cannot be circumvented by
awarding equivalence to Certificate awarded by the appellant–
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 Degree in Mechanical
D
Engineering– Communication dtd. 26.05.76 under which the
Certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalent
to Degree in Mechanical Engineering from recognized Indian
University, does not indicate any statutory provision under which
such equivalence could be granted– However, the fact remains that
E the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was
granted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)
in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.13 as evident from
Notification dtd. 06.12.12 issued by the Central Government and
Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017 – These
communications also indicate that students who were enrolled upto
F
31.05.13 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with
MHRD office memorandum/order in course – Exception made in
favour of such candidates – Conclusions drawn in the present matter
will apply after 01.06.13 – Certificate awarded by the appellant to
candidates enrolled upto 31.05.13 be considered equivalent to
G Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment
in Central Government– No error in the assessment made by the
High Court in paragraphs 205 to 213 of its judgment – Societies
Registration Act, 1860 – University Grants Commission Act, 1956–
Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 – All India
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 – ss.2 (g), (h), 3, 10.
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. 177
ITS CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Rejecting the Miscellaneous Application No.2367 of 2018, A
the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Registrar of Supreme Court was right in
refusing to register Application for Clarification and Modification
preferred by the appellant. However, since the record did not
clearly indicate whether the Review Application was allowed by B
the High Court after hearing the appellant, in the interest of
justice, the appellant was permitted to raise all the submissions
on merits. On its own showing, the appellant “does not impart
any education but merely conducts bi-annual examinations and
awards certificates”. [Paras 30, 31] [206-D-E]
C
1.2 The appellant does not even claim to be imparting any
education through distance education mode and only conducts
bi-annual examination and awards certificates to those who qualify
such examination. Considered in the light of the decision of
Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case, the
learned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that the case of D
the appellant would be on a footing lower than the cases of deemed
to be Universities. The consistent stand of the appellant has been
that it is not covered under any of the Acts viz. the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956, Indira Gandhi National Open
University Act, 1985 and the All India Council for Technical E
Education Act, 1987. However, since it offers courses or
programmes of technical education, as rightly held by the High
Court, the appellant comes within the definition of “technical
institution” as defined in the AICTE Act. Neither does the
appellant, on its own grant Degrees in Engineering nor does it,
in its capacity as an affiliated institution to a recognized University, F
prepare students in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering.
Though it does not impart any instructions either in theory or in
practical, it holds an examination, on satisfactory clearance of
which it awards Certificates of Membership to candidates.
Nothing is clear as to under what statutory regime or under which G
legal provision can such equivalence to the Certificate issued by
the appellant be granted or conferred. No statutory provision
has been pressed into service or relied upon to suggest that given
the particular circumstances and/or, on satisfaction of certain
H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A parameters the appellant would be entitled to conferral of such
equivalence or status. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act,
right to confer degrees can be exercised only by a University
established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial
Act or a State Act or by an institution deemed to be a University
under Section 3 of the UGC Act or by an institution specially
B
empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
The idea appearing in Sub-Section (1) of said Section 22 is made
emphatically clear by Sub-Section (2) which stipulates: “Save as
provided in sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer,
or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant,
C any degree”. The intent of the Parliament is clear that it is only
that body which is referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 22,
that is competent to confer or grant degrees. The appellant does
not fall under any of these categories enumerated in Section 22(1)
of the UGC Act. There is nothing on record either in the form of
any statutory provision or any statutory regulations or any scheme
D
under which such equivalence could be granted by the MHRD.
It appears that claims made by various institutions like appellant
were considered on case to case basis and equivalence was
granted by MHRD. The first of those communications was of the
year 1976 when AICTE Act was not in force. If the mandate of
E Section 22 disentitles any authority or person other than those
specified in Section 22 (1) to award degrees, there is no power or
authority in any one including MHRD to award such equivalence.
The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved
indirectly is well settled. [Paras 35-39] [211-C-H; 212-A-C; E-G]
F 1.3 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
G 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
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. 179
ITS CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB
may attach due importance to such Certificates while considering A
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. In the present case, the communication dated 26.05.1976
B
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 C
“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
D
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 privileges could be conferred only after
express advice of AICTE and within the confines of various
statutory provisions. Consequently, neither can the appellant E
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. [Paras 40-
42] [213-G; 214-A-G]
1.4 However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the F
Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD
in consultation with AICTE 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 G
accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course.
Though it has been laid down that the Certificates issued by the
appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination
H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
C cease to have any effect. In the circumstances an exception made
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 be considered
equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose
D
of employment in Central Government. In the premises, no error
is found in the assessment made by the High Court in paragraphs
205 to 213 of its judgment. Therefore, all the submissions raised
by the appellant are dismissed and Miscellaneous Application
No. 2367 of 2018 is rejected. [Paras 44-46] [215-C-H; 216-A]
E State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder
and Others (2011) 8 SCC 737 : [2011] 11 SCR 1094 ;
Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560 : [1979]
2 SCR 282 – relied on.
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi
F Sankar Patro and Others (2018) 1 SCC 468 : [2017]
13 SCR 921 ; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 2012
SCC OnLine P&H 21066 ; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
(2000) 6 SCC 213 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 389 ; Sant
Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.
G (2010) 13 SCC 336 : [2010] 13 SCR 621 – referred
to.
Case Law Referene
[2017] 13 SCR 921 referred to Para 19
[2011] 11 SCR 1094 relied on Para 39 (A)
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. 181
ITS CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[1979] 2 SCR 282 relied on Para 39 (A) A
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 389 referred to Para 39 (A)
[2010] 13 SCR 621 referred to Para 39 (A)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : M.A. No. 2367 of 2018
in Civil Appeal No. 17922 of 2017. B
From the impugned Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2017 of the
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017.
Dhruv Mehta, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., C.A. Sundaram,
Sr. Adv. (AC), Abhishek Gupta, Arjun Singh, Ms. Diya Kapur, L.D.
Mehta, Aman Shukla, Ms. Liz Mathew, Karan Bharihoke, B.D. Das, C
Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Siddhant Sharma, Navkiran Bolay, Syed Shahid
Hussain Rizvi, Harish Pandey, G.S. Makkar, Anil Soni, S. Wasim A.
Qadri, Jubair Ahmad Khan, Zaid Ali, Tamim Qadri, Saeed Qadri, Dinkar
Adeeb, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 (arising out of Special Leave
Petition (CC) No.7390) was filed in this Court by the appellant challenging
the judgment and order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the High Court1 in
Civil Writ Petition No.12909 of 2009 and connected matters. Insofar as E
the case of the appellant was concerned, Writ Petition No.12909 of
2009 was disposed of by the High Court1 holding, that the Membership
Certificate granted by the appellants could not be treated as equivalent
to a Degree in Engineering.
2. The appellant, a Society registered under the Societies F
Registration Act, 1860 is said to have been established to promote the
profession and practice of Mechanical Engineering Professionals.
Amongst its activities, it conducts bi-annual examinations known as
Technician Engineers’ Part-I and Part-II, Automobile Technician
Engineers’ Examination Part-I and Part-II, Production Technician G
Engineers’ Part-I and Part-II, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Technician Engineers’ Examination Part-I and Part-II and Section-A
and Section-B of Associate Membership Examination in Mechanical
Engineering. On successful completion of such examinations, the
1
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A Certificate “Associate Member of Institution of Engineers” (‘AMIE’
for short) is awarded by the appellant.
3. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (“the UGC Act”,
for short) was enacted to make provisions for coordination and
determination of standards in Universities and Section 2(f) defines
B University to mean “… a University established or incorporated by or
under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any
such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be
recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made
in this behalf under this Act”. In terms of Section 3, status of “deemed
to be University” can be conferred upon an Institution for higher studies
C other than a University. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, right
to confer degrees can be exercised only by a University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act
or by an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the
UGC Act or by an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament
D to confer or grant degrees.
4. On 26.05.1976, the Government of India, Ministry of Education
and Social Welfare, Department of Education, on the recommendation
of Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications provisionally
recognized “a pass in the Associate Membership Examination of the
E Mechanical Engineers Association of India at par with a degree in
Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University/
Institution for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts and
services under the Central Government for a period of three years.”
On 06.10.1981 the Government of India, Ministry of Education and
Culture, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of
F Assessment for Educational Qualifications, decided to continue to
recognize a pass in AMIE of the appellant for the purpose of recruitment
to superior posts and services under the Central Government.
5. All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (‘the AICTE
Act’ for short) was enacted to provide for the establishment of the All
G India Council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planning
and co-ordinated development of the technical education system
throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such
education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation
and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education
H system and for matters connected therewith. The terms ‘technical
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 183
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
education’ and ‘technical institution’ are defined in Section 2 (g) & (h) A
as under:-
“(g) “technical education” means programmes of education,
research and training in engineering technology, architecture, town
planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and
such other programmes or areas as the Central Government may, B
in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare;
(h) “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 C
Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification
in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions;”
Section 10 of the AICTE Act enumerates functions of the AICTE 2
established under Section 3. Said Section 10 is as under:-
10. Functions of the Council. – It shall be the duty of the Council D
to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated
and integrated development of technical education and maintenance
of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under
this Act, the Council may –
(a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical education, E
collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the needed
growth and development in technical education;
(b) coordinate the development of technical education in the country
at all levels;
F
(c) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council such
grants on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to –
(i) technical institutions, and
(ii) Universities imparting technical education in coordination
with the Commission; G
(d) promote innovations research and development in established
and new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new
technologies to meet developmental requirements and for overall
improvement of educational processes;
2
All India Council for Technical Education H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A (e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education for
women, handicapped and weaker sections of the society;
(f) promote an effective link between technical education system
and other relevant systems including research and development
organisations, industry and the community;
B (g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical
institutions and Universities imparting technical education,
incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability;
(h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of
teachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new centres
C for offering staff development programmes including continuing
education of teachers;
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical
and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality
instructions, assessment and examinations;
D
(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees;
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for
introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with
the agencies concerned;
E (l) 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 on it for the
promotion of such profession in its field including conduct of
examinations and awarding of membership certificates;
F (m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions;
(n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of
technical education;
(o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical
institutions and Universities imparting technical education;
G
(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution;
(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses,
programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply
with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 185
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring A
compliance of the directions of the Council;
(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to set
up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the Council’s
responsibilities and to create positions of professional, technical
and supporting staff based on requirements; B
(s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offering
courses in technical education fit to receive grants;
(t) advise the Commission for declaring any institution imparting
technical education as a deemed University;
C
(u) set up 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 and 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; D
(v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed.”
6. A Notification was issued on 11.07.1988 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of
Education) to the following effect:-
E
“On the recommendations of the Board of Assessment for
Educational Qualifications, the Government of India has been
pleased to recognize the Part-I and Part-II Technician Engineers’
Examination (T) conducted by the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India) at par with a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering
F
from State Polytechnic for the purpose of employment to
subordinate posts and services under the Central Government.”
By endorsement dated 19.08.1988 issued by Government of
Punjab, Department of Education, the qualifications mentioned in the
said Notification dated 11.07.1988 were recognized for the purpose of
recruitment to subordinate posts and services under the control of G
Government of Punjab.
7. While dealing with certain complaints against the appellant,
Member Secretary, AICTE in his letter dated 27.04.2000 addressed to
Government of India, Department of Education; MHRD3 stated that
H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A many deficiencies were found in the curriculum offered by the appellant
in its programmes. Later, the recognition granted insofar as examinations
conducted and certificates issued by the appellant for the purposes of
employment under the Central Government was withdrawn by MHRD3
vide Notification dated 10.06.2002. The exercise was preceded by
hearing given to the appellant by a High Level Committee which was
B
appointed to review the recognition granted to Parts I & II of Technician
Engineers Examination conducted by the appellant and the relevant portion
of the Notification was:-
“The High Level committee for recognition of Education
Qualification in its special meeting held on 12.2.2002 and 15.5.2002
C in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
dated 31.1.2002 in the matter of Civil Writ Petition No.3570/2001
and LPA No.49-50/2002 relating to Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India), Mumbai reviewed the recognition granted to
Part-I and II of Technician Engineers Examination of the Institution
D of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai for the purpose of
employment under Central Government.
2. After giving a fair hearing to the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India), Mumbai, the High Level committee took
following decisions:
E (i) Recognition of Associated Membership Examination of
Section A & B and Part-I and II of Technician Engineers
Examination (T) of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
(India), Mumbai for the purposes of employment under
the Central Government stand withdrawn with immediate
F effect.
(ii) Withdrawal of the recognition will be effective
prospectively, i.e. students who have already got Section
A & B and Part_I and II awards from IME (India),
Mumbai will continue to be eligible for employment in
G Central Government.
(iii) IME (India), Mumbai will be at liberty to approach the
Ministry of Human Resources Development for
recognition of awards granted by them for employment
purposes in the Central Government as and when they
3
H Ministry of Human Resource Development
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 187
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
remove all deficiencies with regard to revision and A
upgradation of curriculum, examination system, procedure
for appointment and qualification of examiners, and other
related issues, as pointed out by the Group constituted by
the High Level Committee.”
8. The appellant challenged said Notification dated 10.06.2002 by B
filing Civil Writ Petition No.3907 of 2002 in the High Court of Delhi
which by its order dated 24.06.2002 had initially stayed the operation of
said Notification. However, said Writ Petition was dismissed on
07.07.2003 by the Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 584
of 2003 arising therefrom was disposed of by the Division Bench by
order dated 09.03.2004 with following observations: - C
“The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 7.7.2003 by which the writ petition was
dismissed. The short grievance in this appeal is that the recognition
of the appellant was withdrawn by notification dated 10.6.2002
for the purpose of employment under Central Government and as D
a matter of fact the notification itself mentioned that Mechanical
Engineers (India) (hereinafter referred to as “IME”), would be at
liberty to approach the Ministry of Human Resource Development
for recognition of awards granted by them for employment purposes
in the Central Government as and when they remove all E
deficiencies with regard to the revision and upgradation of
curriculum, examination system, procedure for appointment and
qualification of examiners and other related issues as pointed out
by the Group constituted by the High Level Committee.
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that F
after the appellant has removed all the deficiencies as indicated in
para (iii) of the Notification and as and when they would approach
the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education,
the same will be considered as expeditiously as possible and in
any event within three months from the date of receipt of the G
request for recognition from the appellant.
No further directions are necessary in these appeals. Both appeals
and all pending applications are disposed of accordingly.”
H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A The matter was carried further by the appellant by filing Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9387 of 2004 which was disposed of by this
Court as under:-
“Mr. Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General, states that
the application made by the Petitioner to the Government will be
B considered within six weeks from today. He states that whilst so
considering the representation, the Government will also consider,
whether the students who had joined prior to the withdrawal of
the recognition, be allowed to graduate. In view of this statement,
learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner applies for
withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave
C Petition is allowed to be withdrawn.”
9. Thereafter, the matter was re-examined and the recognition
granted for its educational qualifications and enjoyed by the appellant
was restored with effect from 16.10.2006 vide Notification dated
24.11.2006. The relevant part of the Notification was as under:-
D
“The Institute of Mechanical Engineers(India), Mumbai has been
running Section A & B of Association Membership course,
equivalent to Degree in Mechanical Engineering since 1976, vide
this Ministry’s letter No.F.18-31/71-T.2 dated 28.05.1976 and Part
I & Part II of Technical Engineers (T), equivalent to Diploma in
E Mechanical Engineering from a State Polytechnic, since 1988,
vide this Ministry’s letter No.F.1-5/87/T.7/T.13 dated 11.07.1988.
In the year 2002, while withdrawing the recognition of these
courses, Government of India allowed the IME (India), Mumbai
to approach this Ministry for recognition of their Diploma/Degree
F courses only after the removal of all the deficiencies pointed out
by AICTE. Accordingly, the above Institute submitted a request
along with the requisite material for review and consideration of
this Department. This Department got the material re-examined
by AICTE. AICTE through its Expert Committee re-examined
both the courses and submitted its recommendations with revision
G of syllabus for both the courses.
The High Level Committee for recognition of educational
qualification considered the matter in its meeting held on 16.10.2006
and on its recommendation, Govt. of India has decided the
following:-
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 189
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
(i) The recognition of the courses run by IME, Mumbai may be A
restored with effect from 16.10.2006. With this recognition IME
will run the courses based on new syllabus approved by All India
Council for Technical Education (AICTE). As per the approval,
the Technical Engineering courses Part-I & II (Diploma Level)
will have 22 papers in place of existing 14 papers and Degree
B
level course of Section A & B of Associate Membership will
include 24 papers in place of 11 papers at present. In addition to
this, there will be nine elective subjects. After completing theory
papers, students will have to undergo at least 3 months mandatory
apprenticeship/practical training/project report at an All India
Council for Technical Education approved Polytechnic for Part I C
& II of Technician Engineers Course for award of Certificate
equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and the
Apprenticeship/Practical training of the same duration in AICTE
approved Degree Colleges for award of Certificate equivalent to
Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering for Section A & B
D
of Associate Membership Course.
(ii) The students who were registered prior to 10.06.2002 for
Part I & II of Technician Engineers (Diploma Level) and Section
A & B of Associate Membership course (Degree Level) will be
allowed to complete the courses with pre revised syllabus till the
next scheduled examination, to be held in December 2006. Their E
Degree/Diploma will be recognized for employment in Central
Government. Those who do not complete their courses by that
time (December 2006), will have to follow the revised syllabus.”
10. In the year 2008, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1640 of 2008 (Kartar
Singh vs. Union of India and others) was filed in public interest before F
the High Court4 submitting inter alia that number of study centres and
illegal institutions were running in the State which were virtually selling
Degrees and Diplomas and the petition prayed for appropriate reliefs
holding Degrees and Diplomas awarded by such study centres/institutions
to be invalid for government jobs. The appellant was not a party to this G
petition.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.12909 of 2009 (Jagmohan Singh vs. State
of Punjab and others) was filed in the High Court1 to which the appellant
was a party and the petition prayed inter alia that the Certificate of
H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A Membership issued by the appellant be declared invalid for recruitment
and promotion to the service concerning State affairs. An application
was preferred by the appellant in said Writ Petition that the matter was
covered by the earlier decision of the Division Bench of the High Court
in “Tejinder Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others”. Writ
Petition (Civil)No.12909 of 2009 was thereafter disposed of by a consent
B
order dated 06.07.2011 in terms of the earlier judgment in Tejinder Singh’s
case. A Review Application was, however, preferred against said consent
order dated 06.07.2011 by original Respondent No.5 and the matter was
directed to be placed along with Writ Petition (Civil) No.1640 of 2008.
11. On 10.07.2012, a letter was issued by Government of India,
C Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher
Education to the appellant stating as under:-
“It has been decided that a review of the curriculum, mode of
delivery of the program, its duration, etc. would be carried out by
the concerned Regulator and until such a review is complete, the
D Institutions with permanent recognition will not make fresh
admissions. Alternatively, the institution has the option of realigning
its curriculum with the National Vocational Educational
Qualification Framework (NVEQF) and proceed further.”
12. By common Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2012 the matters
E were disposed of by the High Court1. Insofar as the case of the appellant
was concerned, the Review Application was allowed and in paragraphs
205 to 213 of its Judgment, the High Court1 observed:-
“205. In CWP NO.12909 of 2009, the issue is in respect of
Certificate of Membership obtained from the institute of
F Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai (respondent No.4), as a
degree for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer in
terms of the Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation (Engineering
Wing), Group ‘A’ Service Rules, 2007. In CWP No.9200 of 2012,
the petitioners claim promotion on the basis of similar membership
G from the same Institute.
206. The petitioner in CWP No.12909 of 2009 is a degree holder
from Panjab University, whereas respondent No.5 is said to have
obtained a Certificate of Membership from respondent No.4 i.e.
the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai alleging
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 191
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
the same without attending any regular classes, undertaking A
practicals and without taking any study leave from the Department.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the certificate issued by
the said respondent is not a degree in terms of Section 22 of the
UGC Act, as respondent No.4 is not authorized to confer any
right of degrees.
B
207. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.12502 of 2004
titled “Tejinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & others”
decided on 02.04.2007, has considered the question of recognition
of AMIE degree granted by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers
(India), Mumbai. It was found that the degree from the Institute
of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai is recognized by the C
Government of India vide letter dated 06.10.1981, which was
accepted by the Government of Punjab. In view of such finding,
the writ petition was allowed, as the petitioner has obtained degree
prior to its de-recognition in the year 2003.
208. A perusal of the Certificate relied upon by the petitioner in D
Tejinder Singh’s case (supra) as also the present case (Annexure
A-2) shows that the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India),
Mumbai is a Society registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. It appears that such institute is taking advantage of its
similarity in name with the Institution of Engineers established E
under Royal Charter, as discussed above. 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 F
said to be at par with the members of Institution of Engineers
established under the Statute.
209. The distinction between Institute of Mechanical Engineers
(India), Mumbai and that of an Associate Members of Institution
of Engineers, was not brought to the notice of the Court in Tejinder G
Singh’s case (supra). The scope of Institution of Engineers
established under the Royal Charter has been examined above.
210. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a
notification dated 24.11.2006, wherein the request of Institute of
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai for recognition of its
Diploma/Degree courses was examined by the Government of
India only after the removal of all the deficiencies pointed out by
AICTE. The notification is to the effect that AICTE has re-
examined both the courses and submitted its recommendation with
revision of syllabus for both the courses. The Government of
B
India decided that IME (India), Mumbai will run the courses based
on new syllabus approved by AICTE w.e.f 16.10.2006. As per
another communication produced in Court on 18.10.2012, The
Government of India has communicated to respondent No.4 to
the following effect:-
C “Please refer to this Ministry’s notification No.23-2/2001-TS.III
dated 24.11.2006 regarding Section A & B of Association
Membership course, equivalent to Degree in Mechanical
Engineering and Part I & II of Technician Engineers (T),
equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from a State
D Polytechnic. It has been decided that a review of the
curriculum, mode of delivery of the program, its duration, etc.
would be carried out by the concerned Regulator and until
such a review is complete, the Institutions with permanent
recognition will not make fresh admissions. Alternatively, the
institution has the option of realigning its curriculum with the
E National Vocation Education Qualification Framework
(NVEQF) and proceed further. This issue with the approval
of competent authority.”
211. In terms of such communication, till the review is completed
by the Regulator, which in the case of Respondent No.4 would be
F AICTE, the Institutions with permanent recognition have been
prohibited from making admission. 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
G be treated as equivalent to Degree in Engineering.
212. Even in terms of the notification dated 26.11.2006, the students
such as respondent No.5 registered prior to 10.06.2002 have been
allowed to complete the course with pre-revised syllabus till the
next scheduled examination to be held in December, 2006 and
H those, who do not complete their courses by that time will have to
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 193
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
follow the revised syllabus. Since respondent No.5 is not said to A
have completed course in terms of notification dated 24.11.2006,
he cannot claimed to be a degree-holder entitled to be promoted.
We may state that such notification can be treated as a
qualification recognized by Government of India for the purpose
of employment. Thus, we find that respondent No.5 is not qualified
B
to claim that such certificate is equivalent to a degree.
213. In view of the above, CWP No.12909 of 2009 is allowed and
CWP No.9200 of 2012 claiming the qualification from Institution
of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai as equivalent to degree
is dismissed.”
C
13. On 06.12.2012 in modification of its earlier communication
dated 10.07.2012, a Notification was issued by the Central Government,
the relevant part of which was as under:-
“i. Above order dated 10.07.2012 regarding cases of recognition
in perpetuity for equivalence in Central Government jobs, stands D
withdrawn.
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 E
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. F
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.” G
14. On 09.03.2013 the appellant filed SLP (C) No.7390 of 2013 in
this Court, challenging the aforesaid decision of the High Court dated
06.11.2012. According to the appellant, the Review Application was
allowed without giving any opportunity to the appellant. In its counter
affidavit, State of Punjab submitted that the appellant was neither a H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A University nor a deemed University nor was it conducting any technical
examination through distance mode and the Certificate granted by the
appellant was nothing more than an honour; that the appellant did not
have approval from the UGC4 or AICTE nor was it declared by State of
Punjab to be a recognized institution for the purposes of relevant service
rules and as such, the Certificate of Membership awarded by the appellant
B
could not be held to be an essential qualification; and that MHRD3 had
not granted any approval to the appellant but simply granted recognition
to the qualification only for the purposes of employment under the Central
Government.
15. The Notification dated 06.12.2012 was challenged by
C Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers before the
High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3239 of 2013. It was
submitted that though all the requisite information was supplied by said
writ petitioner, no final decision was taken by the respondents in the
matter. A Single Judge in his order dated 23.05.2013 observed:-
D “10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit that at this
stage the Court should grant protection to the petitioners to the
extent that the deadline of 31.5.2013 should not come in their way
of granting admissions and also leaving the fate of the students in
uncertainty, more particularly, for the reasons that the institutions
E are not aware as to the criteria what they have to met.
11. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
submissions. Having regard to the stand taken by counsel for the
parties, the O.M. dated 6.12.2012 qua the petitioners only with
respect to the deadline of 31.5.2013 shall remain stayed till the
F next date of hearing, however, it is made clear that the admissions,
which are made, will be subject to final orders, which will be
passed in the writ petition.”
16. The appellant also challenged the Notification dated 06.12.2012
by filing Writ Petition No.7840 of 2014 in the High Court of Delhi in
G which following order was passed by a Single Judge on 19.11.2014:-
“Keeping in view the interim order dated 23rd May, 2013 in W.P.(C)
No.3239/2013 as well as order dated 06th August, 2013 in W.P.
(C) No.945/2013, the O.M. dated 6th December, 2012 with regard
4
H University Grants Commission
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 195
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
to the deadline of 31st May, 2013 qua the petitioner shall remain A
stayed till further order of this Court.”
17. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petitions challenging
the Notification dated 06.12.2012, certain information was called for
from the appellant by AICTE and after having received responses from
the appellant and similarly situated institutions, the matter was placed B
before a High Level Committee.
18. In August 2017, a Public Notice was issued by AICTE2 to the
following effect:-
“PUBLIC NOTICE
C
(For Professional Bodies/Institutes Imparting Technical
Education)
Whereas 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 certificates/qualifications awarded by D
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
certification of equivalence of degree/diploma would be taken by
the statutory regulator (AICTE) after review. E
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 31 st F
May 2013. Thus all those students who were enrolled with these
institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013, stand
recognized.”
19. The matters arising from the decision of the High Court1 were
taken up together with the matters raising similar issues from G
Orissa and were considered and dealt with by this Court in its
decision dated 03.11.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of
2017 etc. (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar
Patro and others)5. Though Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 (arising
5
(2018) 1 SCC 468 H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A out of SLP (CC) No.7390 of 2013) preferred by the appellant
was listed along with all those matters, no submissions were
advanced on behalf of the appellant. The decision rendered on
06.11.2012 by the High Court in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab6
etc. was affirmed by this Court.
B 20. Certain applications moved by various other parties seeking
clarification of the decision dated 03.11.2017, were dealt with by this
Court in its order dated 22.01.20187.
21. Thereafter an application for clarification and modification of
the decision of this Court dated 03.11.2017 was preferred by the appellant
C praying for following reliefs:-
“(a) Clarify that the Final Judgment dated 03.11.2017 does not
apply to Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.15283 of 2013.
(b) De-tag the Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 arising out of
D Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15283 of 2017 filed by the
Applicant herein, and list it for hearing; and/or
c) Modify paragraph 55 of the Judgment to the extent that the
view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in so far
as it relates to the Applicant herein (i.e. paragraphs 205
E 2013) is set aside.”
22. The matter came up before the Registrar of this Court who
refused to register the application holding that the application for
clarification/modification was intended to seek review of the judgment
dated 03.11.2017 passed by this Court. The order of the Registrar is
F presently under challenge in M.A. No.2367 of 2018. On merits, the
submissions of the appellant are:-
“B. It is submitted that the appellant herein has merely sought to
clarify that the Final Judgment does not apply to the Appellant
institution as it is a professional body that does not impart any
G education but merely conducts bi-annual examinations and awards
certificates, and is fundamentally distinct from ‘deemed to be
universities’ which are imparting technical education through the
distance mode. … … …
6
2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21066
H 7
(2018) 2 SCC 298
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 197
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
The Subject matter of the batch of Special Leave Petitions A
considered by this Hon’ble Court, as also, the batch of petitions
before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, was the
validity of degrees granted by “Deemed to be Universities”
imparting technical education through the distance education mode
on the strength of only DEC permission, without having been
B
conferred the “Deemed University” status for technical education
by the UGC, and without approval under the AICTE Act for
imparting technical education. Further, the batch of matters
considered the inter-relations; contradictions if any, and the role
of the authorities under three central statutes i.e. University Grants
Commission Act, 1956, Indira Gandhi National Open University C
Act, 1985, and All India council for Technical Education Act, 1987,
particularly in respect of technical/professional courses offered
through the Distance Education mode.
… … …
It is submitted that the Appellant herein is not governed by either D
of the aforementioned three central statutes, and it is a professional
body that has been specifically accorded recognition by the
Government of India. It is submitted that the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has been inadvertently
upheld qua the Appellant institution, and therefore it is imperative E
that the clarification as sought by the Appellant herein, for reasons
detailed in the Application be rendered by this Hon’ble Court.”
23. This Court issued notice on 14.09.2018 to the Respondents
and requested Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel who had
appeared as Amicus Curiae in the main matter to assist this Court. F
Notices were also issued to AICTE2 and MHRD3. The learned Amicus
Curiae placed before this Court Memos 1 and 2 on 11.10.2018 and
5.12.2018.
We heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the
appellant, Mr. Karan Bharihoke, learned Advocate for the State, Mr. G
Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for MHRD3, Mr. Harish
Pandey, learned Advocate for AICTE2, apart from Mr. C. A. Sundaram,
learned Amicus Curiae.
24. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the instant matter
was completely covered by the decision of this Court in Orissa Lift
H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A Irrigation Corporation case (supra). He submitted that the stand of the
appellant itself was that neither any education was imparted by the
appellant nor did it possess any infrastructure. The following portion
from written submission filed by the appellant was relied upon:-
“That the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai
B is a non-profit organization, registered as a Society. It receives
no grant-in-aid or funding of any nature whatsoever, from the
Central or any State Government or any of its autonomous or
statutory bodies by whatever name. It is not and has never been
a teaching institution. It is a “professional body” and merely
conducts examinations in specialized engineering discipline-
C Mechanical Engineering and awards certificates to its member.
The mode of conduct of the examination followed by the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai, with basic minimum
essential exposure to engineering and technology, are set out as
under:
D i) No training is imparted directly by the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai, as only the specific
course curriculum (both theory/practical) and the study
materials are only suggested.
ii) The examination is only the qualifying exam, without
E drawing any equalization with the board/university, diploma
or degree, as the certificate awarded for the same enables
the candidates only to be confirmed in service and
promoted in their respective departments.
iii) The examinees privately study the course material and
F get practical experience and training on the job in their
respective units or in their states/UT training institutes.”
The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that though there
was no regulatory framework for grant of certificates which were
awarded by the appellant, over a period of time MHRD3 had taken
G prevaricating stand. A decision was finally taken as communicated by
public notice issued in August 2017 that all such certificates granted
prior to 2013 would be recognized. However, the validity of the
certificates pertaining to the period subsequent to 2013 was put on hold
and AICTE2 was required to consider the matter. In the light of the
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 199
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
factual aspects on record, according to the learned Amicus Curiae A
following questions arise for consideration by this Court:-
“1. Whether a mere certification without any course or training
can be treated as equivalent to a Degree/Diploma obtained pursuant
to a Technical Education course for the purposes of government
employment? B
2. Whether, if so permissible, then the AICTE approval and setting
of standards is not required prior to recognition of such
Certificate?”
25. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant
relied upon the communications issued by the Government of India from C
time to time recognizing the Certificate issued by the appellant to be at
par with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian
University for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts and services
and more particularly the communications dated 26.05.1976, 06.10.1981,
11.07.1988 and 24.11.2006. It was submitted that the exercise undertaken D
pursuant to communication dated 10.07.2012 and public notice issued in
August, 2017 put the matter beyond any doubt in so far as certificates
issued prior to 2013 were concerned and as regards period subsequent
thereto the matter was still engaging the attention of the concerned
authorities. In the circumstances it was submitted that the High Court
was not justified in observing that the certificates of Membership granted E
by the appellant could not be treated as equivalent to degrees in
engineering and as such Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 preferred by the
appellant be allowed.
26. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate also produced on record
a compilation titled, “Methodology, Norms and the Curriculum that are F
followed for various programs conducted by the Institution IME (India)”
Following extracts from said compilation are quite relevant:-
“Functions of Examinations Committee: the IME
examinations are conducted under the supervision of an
Examination Committee and by the Controller of Examinations. G
The Examination Committee is appointed by the Council to frame
the academic rules, revise the syllabuses on the advice of Advisors
or the Subject Experts Committee, overview the conduct of the
examinations, supervise the examination centers, declaration of
the results and take other decisions pertaining to the examinations.
H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A The meeting of the examination committee is also held at least 5-
6 times in a year.
IME Examinations: The institute conducts the IME examinations
twice in a year. The examinations are held in the months of June
and December. On successful completion of the academic
B requirement, the student is declared pass in TE II or Section B
(Equivalent to Diploma or Degree in Mechanical Engineering).
These courses are specially suitable for in service persons having
no resources (Money and time) for enrolment as full time students
and for those, who are age bar to get admission in the regular
courses of study.
C
After completing IME qualifications, they can seek employment
in government, public & private sectors and appear in GATE to
get admissions in the institution of higher learning in India and
abroad.
D The council has appointed academicians and leading entrepreneurs
as Advisors to help the council for carrying out the academic
activities, revision of syllabuses, evaluation of scripts, supervising
the practical training, suggesting the names of experts for academic
assignments etc.
E Eligibility for Admission to Examinations: Only student
members of the institution are allowed to enroll/appear in any of
the institution examination.
Section B (Equivalent to B.E./B.Tech. Degree) in
Mechanical Engineering: IME is conducting Section-A and
F Section-B examinations in mechanical engineering, which have
been recognized by the Government of India, State Governments
and the Universities, in India and abroad, treating at par with B.E./
B.Tech. degree in mechanical engineering. The students who
acquire the qualification from IME can apply for jobs either in
state government, central government, government undertaking
G or in private sector and people in service, on acquiring the IME
qualifications can get the benefit of promotion, if applicable.
TE Part II (Equivalent to Diploma) in Mechanical
Engineering: IME is conducting T.Eng Part I and T. Eng. Part
II examinations, as per the pattern of Section-A and Seciton-B
H examinations, leading to the award of qualification equivalent to
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 201
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
the diploma in mechanical engineering, which has also been A
recognized by the Government of India, State Governments and
the Universities, in India and abroad, treating at par with diploma
in mechanical engineering. The students who acquire the
qualification from IME can apply for jobs either in state
government, central government, government undertaking or in
B
private sector and people in service, on acquiring the IME
qualification can get the benefit of promotion, if applicable.”
………………………………………..............………………...
“Syllabus of Various Examinations:
The IME syllabus is regularly subjected to revision regularly. The C
syllabus submitted to the AICTE through the Ministry of Human
Resources Development, Government of India in 2005, which was
approved and the IME was granted permanent permission to enroll
the students and conducts the examinations, was based on the
following principles: D
It was based on model syllabus of AICTE
It incorporated the compulsory provision of conducting
practicals in an AICTE approved institution for a period of six
months and writing a practical & project report and submitting
the evaluation report. E
A student is required to appear in total of 6 papers in Part I of
T.Eng; 5 Part II of T.Eng; 12 in Section A and 11 in Section B.
A student cannot take more than 3 papers at one time in one
semester (June/December) in part I of T.Eng. examinations
F
and not more than 5 papers in Section A, B and Part II in one
semester examinations.
There have to be a gap of one year after passing Part I of
T.Eng and Section A before appearing in next higher group.
The duration to complete diploma and the degree (after G
diploma) in 3½ years.
Revisions of Syllabus: The syllabuses of the examinations, after
2005 have been revised in the year 2007 to include the subject of
Environment as per directive of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. A major revision has taken place in the year 2011-12 to H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A revise the contents in view of recent development, specially in the
filed of Computer, Design, Renewable Energy, Control and
including Disaster Management in the contents. The experts,
who have been acting as Advisors and others invited from the
grading institutions were involved in the revision of the syllabuses.
B The syllabuses revised in 2007 and 2012 and being followed, at
present, are given at Enclosure A1 and A2.
Appointment of the Examiners for Paper Setting and
Evaluation of the Answer Sheets: The Panel of the Examiners
is drawn from across the country preferably from among the
C teachers of engineering colleges/universities working/retired, from
all the regions throughout country. The Panel of the Examiners is
finalized by the Examination Committee and the appointment of
the Examiner is done by the Controller of Examinations. The
Chairman Examination Committee monitors the process regularly.
In most of the cases to maintain secrecy more than one question
D paper is got set and one is picked up by the Controller of
Examination.
Standard and Pattern of Question Paper: The paper setters
are appointed having reasonably long experience of setting question
papers in the university examinations. The question papers can
E be compared with the papers of any university, institution or society.
The question papers of the last examinations conducted by the
IME are enclosed Enclosure B.
Practical Training and Project Report: The candidates are
required to undergo practical training for 3 months and/or write
F training cum project report to complete the requirements of T.Eng./
Associate Membership examinations, after passing all the theory
papers. The candidate will have to obtain prior approval of the
IME for the choice of the institution, referee and topic for the
project work. The rules for the practical training and projects are
G displayed on the website and given in the syllabus booklet.
The IME has signed the MOU with more than 100 institutions in
different regions for the practical training and Project work, the
list is given at Enclosure C.”
…………………………………………………………………
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 203
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
“No Local Centres and not Conducting Coaching Classes: A
The institution does not recognize, allows or conduct any coaching
classes or local centre helping the candidates appearing in the
examinations. The complete information is provided online and
the candidate can contact the help line for any clarification. The
candidates are also advised through the website of the institution
B
to be aware of any such person or institution or coaching centre.
Further, the students are also regularly advised that it is neither
necessary nor required nor mandatory to submit the membership/
examination/enrolment form through coaching institutes.”
…………………………………..............……………………...
C
“Academic Activities
Professional Activities: The institution regularly organizes technical
lecture meetings, symposia, seminars and workshops, intensive
tutorials and workshop visit for the benefit of its members. The
institution has instituted various Gold & Silver Prizes to honour D
the contributions of eminent engineers in the broad areas of
engineering, sciences and technology.
The institution has brought out many monograms on topics of
interests, course material for the students and engineering bulletin/
newsletter. E
Non Formal Academic Programmes: The institution regularly
organizes or collaborates for organisation of the non formal
academic programme. During earlier years, the IME has
organised such activities in collaboration with Osmania University,
College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap F
University of Agriculture and Technology, Shrinathji Institute of
Technology and Engineering, Nathdwara etc.
The institution has set up a computer laboratory, which has been
kept open during the years 1990-2005 for the students, who were
not exposed to the computer, to enable them to learn computation
G
techniques, programming and data processing.”
27. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for MHRD3
stressed following aspects of the matter:-
1. No formal education in the nature or form of theory and/or
practicals was being imparted by the appellant; H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A 2. As found by the expert bodies, there was difference in
curriculum; and
3. Admittedly, the appellant did not have any infrastructure and
laboratories to impart any practical training.
28. Mr. Harish Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for AICTE2
B invited attention of this Court to the stand taken by the MHRD3 in pending
matters viz. Writ Petition No.7840 of 2014 in the High Court of Delhi.
The stand as appearing in the affidavit was to the following effect:-
“15. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its
decision on Civil Appeal No.17869-17870/2017 of Orissa Lift
C Irrigation Corp. Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sankar Patrao & Ors. had noted
that AICTE has always maintained that courses leading to degree
in Engineering cannot be undertaken through distance mode…….
for the present purpose, that is the final word and is binding.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed in the above judgment
D at para 38 that:-
“Technical education leading to the award of degrees in
Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as
well as practicals. The practicals form the backbone of
such education which is hands-on approach involving
E actual application of principles taught in theory under the
watchful eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face
imparting of knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced
in practical classes. The practicals thus, constitute an
integral part of the technical education system.”
F 16. While the courses for which degree/diploma is given by these
professional bodies is not exactly on distance mode, but in view of
the findings of the gap analysis of AICTE, it is observed that the
quality of courses conducted by these professional bodies is even
worse than that conducted by the Open and Distance learning
Institutes. As engineering is a subject, which requires intensive
G practical and workshop training and these professional bodies
compromise on that very aspect, giving equivalency to the courses
conducted by these bodies leads not only to compromise in the
standard of education, but also adversely affects the future of
students/participants of these courses.
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 205
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
17. It is submitted that earlier there were times, when there were A
very few Engineering Colleges and there was need to enhance
the spread of engineering education and therefore, the course run
by these professional bodies were given equivalency by MHRD.
However, at present there is excess engineering education capacity
created in the country and about 50% of the seats remain vacant
B
every year. Even some of the engineering colleges are closing
due to lack of adequate admissions. Therefore, there is no need
to continue to give equivalence, as this creates a system, where
the quality of education is not ensured and the future of students
is adversely affected.
18. Therefore, Ministry of Human Resource Development is of C
the considered view that in the interest of the future of students
and maintenance of quality of education, it is necessary that no
further equivalency is granted to those courses run by these
professional bodies.”
29. Even though the hearing was concluded, in view of the stand D
as disclosed in the affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.7840 of 2014, the
appellant was given an opportunity to reply to said affidavit. It was
submitted by the appellant in response as under:-
“(n) It is submitted that the affidavit filed by the MHRD pursuant
to the order of 19.02.2019 ought not to be considered for the E
following reasons:
- The affidavit contains nothing but a bald averment without either
referring or annexing any order/minutes or decision of the
MHRD. This is especially significant since the affidavit filed
by the MHRD before this court by another Under Secretary is F
completely contrary.
- Only an order/decision/notification in this regard may be
considered as a notification granting recognition which remains
valid cannot be reversed without an order passed after
procedure established by law. G
- There is no indication of procedural or substantive due process
having been followed.
- It is clear that there are no findings of gap analysis against the
Petitioner.
H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A - There Petitioner’s valuable fundamental right to carry on
business cannot be deprived without following due process of
law.
- In the event the MHRD withdraws the Petitioner’s recognition,
the Petitioner must have a right and an opportunity to challenge
B the same.
- The case in that regard is pending before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi and this valuable legal right including the right
of appeal cannot be taken away.”
30. At the outset, it must be stated that Civil Appeal No.17922 of
C 2017 preferred by the appellant stood disposed of by this Court on
03.11.2017. No submissions were advanced on behalf of the appellant
at the time the entire group of matters was heard and considered by this
Court. In our view, the Registrar of this Court was right in refusing to
register Application for Clarification and Modification preferred by the
D appellant. However, since the record did not clearly indicate whether
the Review Application was allowed by the High Court after hearing the
appellant, in the interest of justice, the appellant was permitted to raise
all the submissions on merits and we now proceed to consider the entire
matter.
E 31. On its own showing, the appellant “does not impart any
education but merely conducts bi-annual examinations and awards
certificates”. The compilation referred to in paragraph 26 hereinabove
also makes the position clear that the appellant “does not recognize,
allow or conduct any coaching classes or local centres helping the
candidates appearing in the examinations”.
F
32. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case5 two questions were
posed for consideration in paragraph 45 of said decision and the first of
those two questions was as under:-
“A. Whether the deemed to be universities concerned in the present
case, could start courses through distance education in subjects
G
leading to award of degrees in Engineering:
(a) Without any parameters or guidelines having been laid
down by AICTE for conduct of such courses in technical
education through distance education mode?
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 207
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
(b) Without prior approval under the AICTE Act?” A
The discussion in that behalf appearing in paragraphs 46 and 48
of the decision was:-
“46. The definition of “technical education” in Section 2(g) of the
AICTE Act shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of
education, research and training in Engineering Technology in B
general and the idea is not limited to the institutions where such
programmes of education, research and training are to be
conducted or imparted. However, the definition of “technical
institution” in Section 2(h) leaves out an institution which is a
university. The distinction between the broader concept of C
“technical education” and the limited scope of “technical
institution” is clear from Section 10 of the AICTE Act where
certain functions concern the broader facets or aspects of
technical education which by very nature must apply to every
single institution (whether university or not) where such courses
are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions D
are relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definition
are not applicable to universities. For example, functions in clauses
(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (l) and (n) are concerned with broader facets
of technical education, while functions in clauses (k), (m), (p) and
(q) deal with matters concerning technical institutions and thus E
may not apply to universities, whereas there are certain functions
as set out in clauses (g) and (o) which apply to both “technical
institutions” and “universities” imparting technical education.
Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of Section 10 deal with subjects, inter alia,
coordination of the technical education in the country at all levels;
promoting innovation, research, development, establishment of new F
technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new
technologies to meet the developmental requirements; and
promoting and effecting link between technical education and
systems and other relevant systems. AICTE is thus the sole
repository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative norms G
for “technical education”. What should be course content, what
subjects be taught and what should be the length and duration of
the courses as well as the manner in which those courses be
conducted is a part of the larger concept of “technical education”.
Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of the concept of
H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A “technical education” and must, as a matter of principle, be in the
exclusive domain of AICTE.
… … …
48. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in
Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as
B practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education
which is hands-on approach involving actual application of principles
taught in theory under the watchful eyes of demonstrators or
lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge in theory classes
is to be reinforced in practical classes. The practicals, thus,
C constitute an integral part of the technical education system. If
this established concept of imparting technical education as a
qualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case to
be substituted by distance education learning, then as a concept
AICTE ought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters
ought to be satisfied if the regular course of imparting technical
D education is in any way to be modified or altered, is for AICTE
alone to decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocal
and cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any guidelines
in the matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE.
On the other hand, it has always maintained that courses leading
E to degrees in Engineering cannot be undertaken through distance
education mode. Whether that approach is correct or not is not
the point in issue. For the present purposes, if according to AICTE
such courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode,
that is the final word and is binding—unless rectified in a manner
known to law. Even National Policy on Education while
F emphasising the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes
through distance education learning in technical and managerial
education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE will be responsible
for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards
including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring
G coordinated and integrated development of technical and
management education. In our view, whether subjects leading to
degrees in Engineering could be taught in distance education mode
or not is within the exclusive domain of AICTE. The answer to
the first limb of the first question posed by us is therefore clear
that without the guidelines having been issued in that behalf by
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 209
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
AICTE expressly permitting degree courses in Engineering through A
distance education mode, the deemed to be universities were not
justified in introducing such courses.”
33. The role of AICTE2 in Technical and Management education
was emphasized in National Policy of Education, published by the
Government of India in 1986, which was noted by this Court in Orissa B
Lift Irrigation Corporation case5. The concerned Regulations issued by
AICTE2 in the year 1994 were also considered under which no course
or programme could be introduced by any technical institution except
with the approval of AICTE2. Paragraphs 23.2 and 23.3 of the decision
had extracted relevant portions of the National Policy of Education and
the concerned Regulations of AICTE2 as under:- C
“23.2. In 1986, National Policy on Education was published by
the Government of India, Part VI of which dealt with Technical
and Management Education, Paras 6.6, 6.8 and 6.19 of the Policy
were:-
D
“6.6. In view of the present rigid entry requirements to formal
courses restricting the access of a large segment of people to
technical and managerial education, programmes through a
distance learning process, including use of the mass media will
be offered. Technical and management education programmes,
including education in polytechnics, will also be on a flexible E
modular pattern based on credits, with provision for multi-point
entry. A strong guidance and counselling service will be provided.
* * *
6.8. Appropriate formal and non-formal programmes of F
technical education will be devised for the benefit of women,
the economically and socially weaker sections, and the
physically handicapped.
* * *
6.19. The All India Council for Technical Education, which G
has been given statutory status, will be responsible for planning,
formulation and maintenance of norms and standards,
accreditation, funding of priority areas, monitoring and
evaluation, maintaining parity of certification and awards and
H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A ensuring the coordinated and integrated development of
technical and management education. Mandatory periodic
evaluation will be carried out by a duly constituted Accreditation
Board. The Council will be strengthened and it will function in
a decentralised manner with greater involvement of State
Governments and technical institutions of good quality.”
B
23.3. The AICTE (Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical
Institutions, Introduction of Courses or Programmes and Approval
of Intake Capacity of Seats for Courses or Programmes)
Regulations were issued in 1994 (“the 1994 AICTE Regulations”,
for short). Clause 4 of these Regulations was to the following
C effect:
“4.0. Requirement of grant of approval
4.1. After the commencement of these Regulations,
(a) No new Technical Institution or University Technical
D Department shall be started; or
(b) No course or programme shall be introduced by any
Technical Institution, University including a Deemed University
or University Department or College or;
(c) No Technical Institution, University or Deemed University
E
or University Department or College shall continue to admit
students for Degree or Diploma courses or programmes;
(d) No approved intake capacity of seats shall be increased or
varied;
F Except with the approval of the Council.”
34. It was laid down in said decision that AICTE2 is the sole
repository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative norms for
“technical education” and that it was within the exclusive domain of
AICTE2 to consider whether subjects leading to Degrees in Engineering
G could be taught in distance education mode or not. The issue whether
courses leading to degrees in Engineering could be taught through distance
education learning was dealt with in extenso. It was laid down that by
very nature, practical training would be an essential and integral part of
engineering courses and that until and unless a clear policy was laid
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 211
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
down by the AICTE2, no courses in engineering could be taught or A
imparted through distance education mode. It was held that in the absence
of any guidelines having been issued by AICTE2 expressly permitting
courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through distance education,
no such courses could be introduced. The consistent stand taken by the
AICTE2 was also noted in said judgment.
B
35. The point in question was again dealt with in the Order dated
22.01.20187 in paras 23 and 24 and it was stressed that conferral of
degrees in Engineering through distance education mode was never
approved in principle by AICTE. The appellant does not even claim to
be imparting any education through distance education mode and only
conducts bi-annual examination and awards certificates to those who C
qualify such examination. Considered in the light of the decision of this
Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case5, the learned Amicus
Curiae is right in his submission that the case of the appellant would be
on a footing lower than the cases of deemed to be Universities as dealt
with in that decision. D
36. The consistent stand of the appellant has been that it is not
covered under any of the Acts viz. the UGC Act, Indira Gandhi National
Open University Act, 1985 and the AICTE Act. However, since it offers
courses or programmes of technical education, as rightly held by the
High Court, the appellant comes within the definition of “technical E
institution” as defined in the AICTE Act. Neither does the appellant, on
its own grant Degrees in Engineering nor does it, in its capacity as an
affiliated institution to a recognized University, prepare students in courses
leading to Degrees in Engineering. Though it does not impart any
instructions either in theory or in practical, it holds an examination, on
satisfactory clearance of which it awards Certificates of Membership F
to candidates. The question is whether such Certificate could, as a
matter of law, be recognised as equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical
Engineering from a recognised Indian University? Nothing is clear as to
under what statutory regime or under which legal provision can such
equivalence to the Certificate issued by the appellant be granted or G
conferred. No statutory provision has been pressed into service or relied
upon to suggest that given the particular circumstances and/or, on
satisfaction of certain parameters the appellant would be entitled to
conferral of such equivalence or status.
H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A 37. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, right to confer
degrees can be exercised only by a University established or incorporated
by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or by an
institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act or
by an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer
or grant degrees. The idea appearing in Sub-Section (1) of said Section
B
22 is made emphatically clear by Sub-Section (2) which stipulates: “Save
as provided in sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer, or
grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any
degree”. The intent of the Parliament is clear that it is only that body
which is referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 22, that is competent to
C confer or grant degrees. The appellant does not fall under any of these
categories enumerated in Section 22(1) of the UGC Act.
38. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Case5, it also arose for
consideration whether a deemed to be University, without taking
appropriate prior permission could start courses leading to degrees in
D Engineering through open distance learning. That aspect of the matter
does not arise in the present case and it is also not the case of the
appellant, that it is entitled to award degrees in Engineering. Its submission
however is, having been conferred the status of being equivalent to
degrees in Engineering in respect of Certificates awarded by it, the
appellant is entitled to continue having such benefit or advantage. There
E is nothing on record either in the form of any statutory provision or any
statutory regulations or any scheme under which such equivalence could
be granted by the MHRD3. It appears that claims made by various
institutions like appellant were considered on case to case basis and
equivalence was granted by MHRD3. The first of those communications
F was of the year 1976 when AICTE2 Act was not in force. If the mandate
of Section 22 disentitles any authority or person other than those specified
in Section 22 (1) to award degrees, there is no power or authority in any
one including MHRD3 to award such equivalence.
39. The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be
G achieved indirectly is well settled and was elaborated by this Court in
following decisions:-
A) In State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder
and Others8 as under:-
8
(2011) 8 SCC 737
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 213
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
“VI. What cannot be done directly—cannot be done indirectly A
43. “21. It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be
done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning
thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally
be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the
principle of quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per B
quod devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted to
evade a law by ‘shift or contrivance’.”
(See Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh9, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath10
and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society
Ltd.11, SCC p. 344, para 21)” C
12
B) In Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh as under-:-
“5. In order to cross the hurdle imposed by Section 397(3) it was
suggested that the revision application before the High Court could
be treated as an application directed against the order of the
Sessions Judge instead of as one directed against the order of the D
Magistrate. We do not think that it is permissible to do so. What
may not be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly;
that would be an evasion of the statute. It is a “well-known principle
of law that the provisions of an Act of Parliament shall not be
evaded by shift or contrivance” (per Abbot, C.J. in Fox v. Bishop E
of Chester). “To carry out effectually the object of a Statute, it
must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing,
in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or
enjoined.” (Maxwell, 11th Edn., p. 109). When the Sessions Judge
refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate, the High
Court’s jurisdiction was invoked to avoid the order ‘of the F
Magistrate and not that of the Sessions Judge. The bar of Section
397(3) was, therefore, effectively attracted and the bar could not
be circumvented by the subterfuge of treating the revision
application as directed against the Session Judge’s order.”
40. If a degree can be awarded only by those institutions which G
satisfy the description given in sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of the UGC
9
(1979) 1 SCC 560 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 348 : AIR 1979 SC 381
10
(2000) 6 SCC 213 : AIR 2000 SC 1997
11
(2010) 13 SCC 336 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 904 : JT (2010) 11 SC 273
12
(1979) 1 SCC 560 H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
C 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
D 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)
E 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 privileges could
be conferred only after express advice of AICTE and within the confines
F 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.
G 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
H
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS 215
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
in technical subjects. The membership of such institute cannot be A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 be considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering
for the purpose of employment in Central Government.
H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A 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.
47. In the end, we express our sincere gratitude for the assistance
B rendered by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae.
Divya Pandey Application rejected.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "degree equivalence"Sign in to search