9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the recruitment rules for the promotion to the post of 'Assistant Architect' in relation to the Architects Act, 1972. 2. Legality of the promotion of non-registered architects to the post of 'Assistant Architect Class-II'. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Recruitment Rules: The petitioners, registered architects with degrees in architecture, challenged the amendments to the recruitment rules that allowed non-registered architects to be promoted to the post of 'Assistant Architect'. They argued that this was repugnant to the Architects Act, 1972, which mandates that only registered architects can use the title 'Architect'. The court examined the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged, particularly focusing on whether the rule was repugnant to any statute. The court noted that while the Architects Act prohibits non-registered individuals from using the title 'Architect', it does not bar them from performing architectural functions. The court highlighted that unlike the Medical and Legal professions, the Architects Act does not exclusively reserve architectural functions for registered architects. Therefore, the court concluded that the state government can prescribe qualifications for various posts, including those involving architectural functions, without necessarily requiring registration under the Architects Act. However, the court emphasized that such individuals cannot be designated as 'Architects' or 'Assistant Architects' unless they are registered under the Architects Act. 2. Legality of the Promotion of Non-Registered Architects: The petitioners contended that the promotion of non-registered architects to the post of 'Assistant Architect' was invalid and sought to quash the promotions of respondents who were not registered architects. The court reiterated that while non-registered individuals can perform architectural functions, they cannot be titled 'Architects' or 'Assistant Architects'. The court upheld the validity of the recruitment rules but directed that the state government must cease using the titles 'Architects' or 'Assistant Architects' for individuals who are not registered under the Architects Act. The court also directed the state to give preference to registered architects for posts involving architectural functions, as mandated by Section 35(2) of the Architects Act. Conclusion: The petition was allowed in part with the following directions: 1. The state government must cease using the titles 'Architects' or 'Assistant Architects' for posts not requiring registration under the Architects Act. 2. If the state wishes to continue using these titles, it must prescribe that appointees or promotees be registered architects. 3. The state must give preference to registered architects for posts involving architectural functions. 4. The state must comply with these directions within four months from the receipt of the order.
|
