2009 Supreme(SC) 311

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
All India Council for Technical Education
Versus
Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Others
Civil Appeal No.4349 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No.4357 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4358 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4368 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4369 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4370 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4390 of 2004, and Civil Appeal No.4409 of 2004
Decided On : 18-02-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should keep off on questions of educational policy or academic matters.
Even if earlier decision of a court is not challenged, State is not estopped from challenging subsequent such directions, neither the principle of res judicata will apply.
Course created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance is not permissible.

Headnote:(a) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 – Section 10(i) and (k) – AICTE statutory expert body to decide matters of technical education – Courts are not equipped to decide technical courses not visualize their repercussions – Interference by courts will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education – Courts should keep off on questions of educational policy or academic matters. (Para 12)

       (1980) 3 SCC 418; (1984) 4 SCC 27; (1995) 4 SCC 104; (2005) 3 SCC 212; (2007) 4 SCC 737 – Relied upon

       (b) Administration of Justice – Res judicata and estoppel – AICTE accepting earlier decision of the High Court of allowing the bridge course – Not estopped from challenging subsequent such directions, neither the principle of res judicata will apply – There may be many reasons for accepting one decision at a given point of time like the decision being one time measure – Benefits availed by parties to earlier decision cannot be taken away. (Para 16)

       (1995) 4 SCC 683; (2006) 11 SCC 709 – Relied upon

       (c) Education law – Technical education – Diploma and Degree engineering courses – Entry level qualification for Diploma courses 10+1 – Same for Degree courses 10+2 – One year bridge course for Diploma holders to acquire Degree – Initially High Court only those Diploma holders who had 10+2 qualification – Later allowing also those with 10+1 – Erroneously holding that once a student completes the Diploma course his entry qualification becomes irrelevant – Thus High Court lowering the requirement of entry level qualification for degree course – Not sustainable. (Para 17)

       (d) Education law – Technical education – AICTE rejecting bridge course – Course created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance – Court abrogating powers of AICTE – Not permissible. (Para 18)

       Facts of the case:

       The four year Post Diploma Course of the YMCA Institute of Engineering, Faridabad was converted to a four year Advance Diploma Course from 1995.

       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.

       In order to enable its students who had successfully completed the Four Year Post/ Advance Diploma Course, to acquire degrees in engineering, the Institute wanted to commence a one year bridge course. On its application, the Government of Haryana approved a one year bridge course with two extended semesters of 22 weeks each, for diploma holders from the Institute to cover the remaining portion of the degree course, and acquire B.Tech degree. The Director of Technical Education, State of Haryana, addressed a letter dated 19.5.1999 to AICTE, recommending the grant of approval for starting the said bridge course by the Institute, for the benefit of its students who had passed the post/advance diploma courses during the sessions 1992-96, 1993-97 and 1994-98. It was stated that such admission facility to be made available to the diploma holders will be in force only for the next two years.

       The AICTE rejected the request.

       Students of the Institute who had joined the Advance Diploma Course in Engineering, approached the Delhi High Court.

       A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the said writ petition.

       Subsequent petitions of similarly situated students were also allowed.

       

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result:

       Appeals allowed.