Back
UDAY UMESH LALIT, DEEPAK GUPTA
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
The certificate awarded by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (IME) cannot generally be regarded as a valid degree in Mechanical Engineering. It is recognized as a certificate of membership or qualification, not as a formal academic degree. The institution does not have approval from statutory authorities such as the AICTE or UGC to confer degrees, and its certificates are not deemed equivalent to a degree in engineering.
Recognition of such certificates as equivalent to a degree was granted only up to a specific date (31.05.2013). After this date, the recognition was withdrawn, and certificates issued subsequently are not considered valid as equivalent to a formal degree in Mechanical Engineering.
There is a limited exception for candidates who enrolled before the recognition was withdrawn; their certificates may still be recognized for employment purposes in the Central Government.
In conclusion, unless the certificate was obtained before the recognition was withdrawn and is specifically recognized for employment purposes, it does not constitute a valid degree in Mechanical Engineering.
JUDGMENT
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 Court [High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh] in Civil Writ Petition No.12909 of 2009 and connected matters. Insofar as the case of the appellant was concerned, Writ Petition No.12909 of 2009 was disposed of by the High Court [High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh] 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 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 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 Membersh
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based solely on the provided descriptions. The list primarily contains references to the case "Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) vs. State of Punjab [(2019) 16 SCC 95]" and related citations, with no direct mention of subsequent judicial treatment such as overruling or reversal. Therefore, based on the information available, there are no cases clearly identified as bad law.
Followed/Referenced Cases:
Rajesh Pathak VS State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue & Forest, through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 197, Shree Rajesh Pathak, a proprietary concern through its proprietor Rajesh Ramlal Pathak VS State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue and Forest, through its Principal Secretary - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 651, IN THE MATTER OF: The Institution Of Civil Engineers (India) VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2343, P. E. Saravanan VS State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 801, Pawan Kumar Pundir VS State of Haryana - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1038, Mahendra Kumar Sonber S/o Shri Raghu Ram Sonber VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 615, Mahendra Kumar Sonber S/o Shri Raghu Ram Sonber VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 710, Suneel Kumar Pandhare, S/o Late Shri Gajanand Rao Pandhare VS State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Upper Secretary Water Resources Department - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 289: These cases cite or refer to the Supreme Court judgment in "Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) vs. State of Punjab [(2019) 16 SCC 95]". The repeated references suggest that the 2019 SCC case is considered authoritative and is being followed or relied upon in subsequent judgments. The language such as "as held in" and "the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred" indicates adherence to the principles laid down in that case.
State of Tamil Nadu VS K. Shyam Sunder - 2011 8 Supreme 613, ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. VS RABI SANKAR PATRO - 2017 8 Supreme 397: These cases discuss principles and legal doctrines, including the prohibition of indirect actions contrary to law and the application of regulations, without indicating any deviation from or negative treatment of the SCC 2019 case or other precedents.
Uncertain Cases:
All listed cases seem to reference or rely upon the SCC 2019 case or legal principles without indicating any negative treatment such as criticism, questioning, or overruling. Since there is no explicit language suggesting that any case has been overruled or invalidated, treatment remains generally supportive or explanatory.
The last case (ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. VS RABI SANKAR PATRO - 2017 8 Supreme 397) discusses regulatory enforcement and procedural aspects, but does not suggest any negative judicial treatment of prior cases.
No cases are explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. All references appear to be consistent with the principles established in the SCC 2019 judgment or are discussing related legal doctrines without indicating any negative treatment or judicial disapproval.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
