AICTE regulations have the force of law and are binding on all concerned, including the State. The State cannot lay down a policy or guideline in conflict with any regulation of AICTE. The policy of the State needs to be in conformity with the regulation or direction of AICTE.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The writ petitioners assail an order dated April 4, 2014 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A.322 of 2012.

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal was pleased to negate the claim for modified career advancement scheme as prayed for by the writ petitioners.

3. The claim was negated by the Tribunal on the ground that, the condition of participation in a refresher course was introduced by the All India Council for the Technical Education (AICTE) and was incorporated in Government Order dated October 24, 2007 as well as in Government Order dated September 13, 2010. The Tribunal noted the Government Order dated November 28, 2011 which spoke of grant of benefit of selection grade notionally with effect from the date of entitlement even without participation in the training programme as laid down in the Government Order dated September 13, 2010. The Tribunal agreed with the contention that it was not mandatory for the State Government to accept all recommendations of AICTE in regard to pay scale or other conditions of service in their entirety in respect of Polytechnic Institutions under the control of the State Government.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, any regulation issued by the AICTE is binding upon the State Government. He submits that, AICTE Regulations are issued under the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. He relies upon (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 104 (State of Tamil Nadu & another vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and ors.), (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 385 (Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others), (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 484 (Gelus Ram Sahu and others vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh and others), order dated March 31, 2016 passed by WP 30843(W) of 2014 (Tarun Kumar Khanra & ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & ors.), judgment and order dated July 20, 2018 passed in FMA 2801 of 2016 (The Director, Directorate of Technical Education and Training, Government of West Bengal) v. Tarun Kumar Khanra & ors. and the order dated April 19, 2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14606-14607/2019 (The Director, Directorate of Technical Education and Training Govt. of West Bengal & ors. vs. Tarun Kumar Khanra & ors.) in support of his contention that regulations of AICTE are binding upon the State.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court to the Regulation issued by the AICTE dated March 5, 2010. He submits that such Regulation was accepted by the State on September 13, 2010. He refers to a Circular issued by the State dated June 8, 2011 as well as the notification dated June 10, 2016. He contends that, State accepted all Regulations of AICTE. Therefore, there was no question of the State not granting the modified career advancement scheme to the petitioners.

6. Learned Senior Advocate for the State submits that, the so-called acceptance dated June 8, 2021, was issued by the Directorate of Technical Education & Training, Government of West Bengal, who was not authorised to issue such circular. Such circular does not bind the State. He contends that, all Regulations of AICTE are not binding on the State. State is required to look after the financial aspect. State can formulate its own Rule. In support of his contention he draws the attention of the Court to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gelus Ram Sahu and others (supra).

7. The first petitioner is the Association of teaching staff employed in Polytechnic Colleges within the State of West Bengal both Government and sponsored. The other petitioners are persons who hold offices of the first petitioner.

8. The petitioners approached the Tribunal by way of the Original Application being O.A.322 of 2012 complaining that the State was not acting in te