Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. Dharmadhikari, G.S. Patel, JJ.
Priyanka Mangesh Shinde - Appellant
Vs.
All India Council For Technical Education - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6870 of 2019; Writ Petition (L) No. 843 of 2019
Decided On : 05-07-2019
Gayatri Singh, Adv., Kartikya Bhadhur, Adv., Sangram Chinappa, Adv., Kaustub R Gidh, Adv., Abhijeet A Joshi, Adv., Ashwini A Purav, Adv., Rui Rodrigues, Adv., Pavan S Patil, Adv., Mihir Desai, Adv., Pranav Samant, Adv., Kranti L.C., Adv., Kedar Dighe, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – All India Council for Technical Education Act - Section 2(b),2(g) and 2(h ) and 23 - All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approval for Technical Institutions) Regulations – World court have fashioned for ourselves today is remarkable most of all for its dizzying complexity - This complexity has its own social consequences and repercussions - One of these is the intensity and ferocity of competition in virtually every aspect of court lives; and education higher education and professional qualifications in particular is no exception - Merit gains its reward by placement in the best institutions of higher learning - Those who rank lower in merit have narrower and perhaps less optimal choices - Regulation on this scale demands an across-the-board flattening, so that all may be assessed by a common measure - Young petitioners before us in these two writ petitions brought under Article 226 of Constitution of India are all studying engineering - But they are in the final year of a three-year diploma course, not the four-year degree course; and that, precisely, is problem they bring to court - Successful candidates are then enrolled in a four-year degree course - There is a decided preference for those with degrees over those with diplomas - Diploma students taking the lateral entry into the second year engineering degree course would finally have a 10+3+3 education, in aggregate the same as those who directly enrolled in the engineering degree course, following the 10+2+4 pattern - In other words, prior to the impugned Notification, each engineering degree institute had a provisioned intake of 20% of its second-year seats for laterally entering engineering diploma holders who had finished the three-year diploma - Now, this is reduced to 10% - Petitioner students are aggrieved by this halving - Whether a particular expectation is reasonable or legitimate is to be adjudged in its context and is necessarily fact-dependent – Held, finally, and this may be determinative, court note that no college or technical institute has come forward to challenge this change - Institutes governed by AICTE Regulations accept the policy change, and therefore its correctness and wisdom - Policy does not operate only for students - It operates to regulate institutes and colleges as well - Court are unable to hold for the petitioners on ground of legitimate expectations - Court find no merit in these petitions - But before court part with them, court must hasten to clarify, lest we be misunderstood, that court are not unsympathetic to petitioner students before court - But court cannot find in their favour if it means compromising on quality standards and a policy change intended to promote a more equitable distribution of student intake - That the world is so fiercely competitive may be regrettable, but court can do nothing to change it – Court respect the petitioners dreams, hopes and aspirations of gaining engineering degrees from colleges of renown - It is not our intention to impede or in any way imperil these aspirations -Court duty is first and foremost to the law and to the wider public interest, one that court explicitly recognize as underlying policy change - Courts are often said to be in loco parentis vis-`-vis students and children - This case is no different, and it is in precisely that role that court wish them all the best and every success in their careers as engineers - Court trust they will constantly remain in the pursuit of excellence their chosen field demands - Petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Patel, J.
A. INTRODUCTION
The world we have fashioned for ourselves today is remarkable most of all for its dizzying complexity. We are wont to yearn for the apparent simplicity and straightforwardness of an era long lost to time. This complexity has its own social consequences and repercussions. One of these is the intensity and ferocity of competition in virtually every aspect of our lives; and education - higher education and professional qualifications in particular - is no exception. There are more educational opportunities now than ever before, and a bewildering array of specializations and super specializations. Engineering is no exception. The sheer number of persons seeking degrees in higher or professional education has forced more and more regulation, and, with it, the establishing of regulatory and supervisory authorities under dedicated statutes. It is the duty of the State to make provision for educational opportunities, but these are not all necessarily run by the State at its cost. This makes it imperative to have overall regulations and supervision. Throughout, the emphasis is - at least ostensibly - on the pursuit of excellence. Merit gains its reward by placement in the best institutions of higher learning. Those who rank lower in merit have narrower and perhaps less optimal choices. Regulation on this scale demands an across-the-board 'flattening', so that all may be assessed by a common measure. This has led to the advent of what are called 'common tests', and these are applied in medicine, engineering, law and other disciplines.
B. THE TWO ROUTES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION
2. The young petitioners before us in these two writ petitions brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are all studying engineering. But they are in the final year of a three-year diploma course, not the four-year degree course; and that, precisely, is the problem they bring to us. All of them aspire to a full-fledged engineering degree. Normally, a graduate degree in engineering requires a student to take a competitive centralized test administered after the 12th standard. Successful candidates are then enrolled in a four-year degree course. This is therefore a total of 16 years of education, on the 10+2+4 paradigm (ten years in school, two years in what is or used to be called junior college, and then four years in the engineering degree course). The other 'route' is for a student to directly enrol after finishing school, i.e. completing the 10th standard, in a three-year diploma course. This earns the student a diploma, not a degree, and the total education is 10+3, or 13 years. Assuming a student completes school at the age of 16, an engineering degree will require him to study for another six years, until the age of 22. A diploma in engineering, on the other hand, can be obtained at the age of 19. Therefore, if two students complete school together, and one takes the diploma course, he enters the workforce three years ahead of his classmate who chose to do two further years of school or college, then took the very competitive exam, and obtained admission to a four-year engineering degree course. This is where market forces begin to operate. A diploma holder may, technically, have three years' greater work experience than one who takes the degree course (which finishes later), but the job opportunities for the two are not the same. There is a decided preference for those with degrees over those with diplomas. For this reason, and given the education-length disparity, engineering diploma students are allowed what is called a 'lateral entry'. After completing the three-year diploma course, they can enrol 'laterally' in the second year of the four-year engineering course. In the result, they spend exactly the same time in engineering education; only the component break-up is different. Diploma students taking the lateral entry into the second year engineering degree course would finally have a 10+3+3 education,
