Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Manohar Prasad Saha, S/o Late Shri D.R. Saha - Petitioner
Versus
The Institution of Engineers (India), through its Secretary and Ors. – Respondent
WP No. 2374 of 2003
Decided On : 26-07-2016
For the Petitioner: Dr. N.K. Shukla, Ms. Vijay Laxmi Saraf.
For the Respondent: Shri Ashish Surana, Shri N.K. Vyas.
Headnote:
Limitation Act, 1908 - Government of India Act, 1935 - Section 88 - Constitution of India - Article 12 – Jurisdiction - Arbitrary and illegal – Employment and service - Facts of case in brief are that petitioner obtained Diploma in Civil Engineering from Polytechnic College in and was employed as Sub Engineer in the Water Resources Department - Degree of Civil Engineering or any equivalent degree being necessary for career growth petitioner applied before respondent No.1 for registration as studentship which was granted - After being registered petitioner appeared in different summer and winter examinations to winter when he cleared A section examination – Thereafter petitioner got himself registered with the Referee as required under bye-laws – Subsequently petitioner appeared in B section examination from winter to summer but could clear all subjects – Held, In so far as relief for continuing old policy in respect of petitioner to allow him to appear in B section examination for a further period of five years is concerned it is to be seen that petitioner was registered as studentship in May but could not clear both sections till when subject amendment in bye-laws was incorporated giving years time to students to complete studentship - Petitioner thereafter continued to appear in summer or winter examination for a further period of years and as a matter of fact he was allowed to appear in B section examination however he could not complete B section examination therefore it is not a case where respondents have acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner – Moreover validity of the bye-laws have not been challenged in specific terms - Had respondent No.1 was arbitrary in dealing with petitioner he would not have been allowed to appear in further examination even after expiry of six years period - It is also to be seen that in his application for examination re-registration for B section examination petitioner had submitted undertaking that exemption in subjects secured during stipulated period as well as in extended period in B section examination shall be forfeited once his application for examination for re-registration is accepted by Institution and he shall not claim in future to carry forward such exemptions – Thus while accepting the re-registration for appearing in Winter examination petitioner has forfeited his claim to secure any future exemptions and thus he has no right to claim any fresh attempt for clearing B section examination of AMIE course - Writ petition is dismissed
1. The petitioner, working as Sub Engineer (Diploma Holder), in the Department of Water Resources, has preferred this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent No.1 to the effect that the AMIE Course, which is governed by the old policy (including the petitioner), may be continued to be governed under the old policy till such students, who have acquired 'A' Section and appeared in 'B' Section, complete the Section 'B' Examination or in the alternative, the respondent No.1 be directed to extend the period of 2 years for a further period of 5 years to clear the remaining papers including the 3 papers of the petitioner.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner obtained the Diploma in Civil Engineering from Polytechnic College, Raigarh in 1977 and was employed as Sub Engineer in the Water Resources Department in 1979. Degree of Civil Engineering or any equivalent degree being necessary for career growth, the petitioner applied before the respondent No.1 for registration as studentship, which was granted on 03.05.1979.
3. After being registered, the petitioner appeared in different summer and winter examinations from 1980 to 1982 and from 1982 to winter 1987 when he cleared ‘A’ section examination. Thereafter, the petitioner got himself registered with the Referee on 27.7.1988 as required under the bye-laws. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in ‘B’ section examination from winter 1988 to summer 1993, but could clear all the subjects. At this point of time, the bye-laws were amended and the time limit of 6 years was fixed to clear ‘B’ section examination. The amendment was made effective from 19.9.1993. Till winter 1999 examination, the petitioner could not clear all the papers
4. As requested by the petitioner on 23.08.1999, he was allowed extension of two years for passing the remaining papers. During this extended period, he could clear only two papers i.e. Design and Manufacturing and Structural Design and was unsuccessful in the remaining three papers. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for re-registration for Section 'B' examination for 6 years and continued to appear in summer and winter 2002 examination. Out of four papers, in which he appeared, he could pass only one paper i.e. Management of System.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the change in policy restraining the time limit for passing the Section 'B' examination within 6 years, is arbitrary and illegal. He would submit that the students, who were enrolled contrary to the amendment made effective on 19.09.1993, will be governed by the old policy and the time limit for passing Section 'B' examination would not apply to the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would argue that the said respondent not being creature of any statute nor being under the control of any State Government or the Central Government, this petition is not maintainable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, because it is not covered within the definition 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
7. On merits of the writ petition, it is argued that the amendment on 19.09.1993 is with an object of screening meritorious students, who would complete their AMIE Course within the stipulated time, therefore, if the petitioner could complete Section 'A' examination in 10 years and could not pass 10 subjects of Section 'B' examination in 12 years, he is blaming himself. The petitioner having failed to pass the examination in 22 years, he is not entitled for any further time. He would submit that the change in policy has reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, therefore, it is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The policy is for screening meritorious students from amongst the candidates appearing in the examination.
Maintainability of writ petition :
8. The respondent No.1 has raised the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, therefore
