9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gramme' also of four years duration. AICTE granted approval for such conversion, by its letter dated 26.10.1995, subject to the following conditions : (i) The entry level to the course should be raised from 11th (10+1) to 12th (10+2) standard. (ii) The duration of the course shall be 4 years after 10+2. (iii) The course content should be modified as suggested by AICTE in Annexure-I to the said letter of approval. As a consequence, the four year Post Diploma Course of the Institute was converted to a four year Advance Diploma Course from 1995. 3. On the request of the Institute, the Director, Technical Education, Haryana and AICTE granted approval in the year 1997, for upgradation of the four year Advance Diploma Course to a five year Engineering Degree Programme (B.Tech degree). As a consequence, the Institute started B. Tech programme from the academic year 1997-98 with the permission of the affiliating university and AICTE. From that year, the Institute discontinued admissions to the four year Advance Diploma Course. 4. In order to enable its students who had successfully completed the Four Year Post/Advance Diploma Course, to acquire degrees in engineering, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gramme, with the one year bridge course. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 20.9.2000, quashed the rejection letters dated 9.7.1999 and 11.11.1999 of the AICTE and directed AICTE to accord approval to the Institute to have a bridge course for its students who had studied and who were studying in the Advance Diploma Course. 8. Thereafter some students who had passed the erstwhile Post Diploma Course, approached the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking relief similar to what was granted to students of four years Advance Diploma course. Those petitions were allowed on 28.5.2001 and 30.10.2001 and affirmed in a Letters Patent Appeal on 21.12.2001. These subsequent orders extended the benefit of the bridge course to even Post Diploma holders, provided they had passed 10+2 examination (with the subjects Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics) and successfully completed the four year diploma course. 9. Thereafter, other post diploma holders, who entered the course only with a qualification of 10+1, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.16232/2001. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said petition by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for admission to engineering degree course, to secure the engineering degree without having the entry level qualification, by a back door entry. It is submitted that extending the benefit of the bridge course to Post Diploma holders with entry level qualification 10+1, and equating a 10+1 plus four year Post Diploma, to a 10+2 plus four year Advance Diploma, would be detrimental to academic standards, and jeopardize the entire technical education system as it may lead to similar demands for equivalence, lateral entry and lowering of entry qualifications from other institutions or universities, thereby leading to a nationwide erosion of the quality of the engineering degree courses. It is submitted that the objection of AICTE is to the entire process of bridge courses for diploma holders, in particular to any attempt to lower the standards. 12. There is considerable force in the submission of the appellant. Having regard to clauses (i) and (k) of section 10 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 [`Act' for short], it is the function of the AICTE to consider and grant approval for introduction of any new course or programme in consultation with the agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. 14. The Act has entrusted AICTE with the powers and functions relating to (i) proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country; (ii) promotion of qualitative improvement of technical education in relation of planned quantitative growth, and (iii) regulation of the system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational Research Institute [1995 (4) SCC 104], this Court examined the provisions of the Act and explained the scope of the duties and responsibilities of AICTE under the Act thus : The aforesaid provisions of the Act including its preamble make it abundantly clear that the Council has been established under the Act for coordinated and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is also required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review. The above observations will apply with added vigour to the field of education. 16. The respondents submitted that the appellant had accepted the decisions of the Delhi High Court directing permission for bridge course and therefore, it is estopped from challenging the impugned order which merely follows the decision of Delhi High Court with a slight modification. The fact that the decisions of the Delhi High Court were not challenged and was given effect earlier, will not come in the way of the present challenge. It is possible that AI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the earlier directions of the High Court to permit the bridge course for diploma holders from the Institute, had been complied with, and that those decisions attained finality will not come in the way of AICTE challenge any subsequent decision relating to other similarly placed candidates/students. It cannot however take away the benefit extended to the petitioners in those cases, where the decision had attained finality, on the ground that subsequently the court has taken a different view. 17. It was next contended by the respondents that AICTE should not distinguish between those who underwent 10+2 course and those who underwent 10+1 course, as once they were admitted and successfully completed the post diploma or advance diploma course, they all became equal and the bridge course should be available to all four year diploma holders. AICTE countered by contending that it complied with the direction of the Delhi High Court to permit one year bridge course as it was intended to be a one time measure available only for those candidates who possessed entry level qualifications of 10+2 physics, chemistry and mathematics and a four year post/advance diploma. The High Court was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
