Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
IN THE MATTER OF:
The Institution Of Civil Engineers (India) – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Anr - Respondents
W.P.(C) 945 of 2013, CM APPL. 1792 of 2013 and CM APPL. 42365 of 2019, W.P.(C) 3239 of 2013 and CM APPL. 6125 of 2013, W.P.(C) 3479 of 2013, CM APPL. 6577 of 2013 and CM APPL. 13816 of 2013, W.P.(C) 4865 of 2013, W.P.(C) 6226 of 2013 and CM APPL. 13635 of 2013, CM APPL. 17140 of 2016, CM APPL. 8792 of 2018 and CM APPL. 43225 of 2019, W.P.(C) 3154 of 2014, W.P.(C) 1711 of 2015
Decided on : 13-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Pramod Jalan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Mr. Anil Soni, Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Ms. Priya Singh, Advocate.
The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a related matter was considered final and binding, and the court declined to carve out any further exception beyond the enrollment up to 31.05.2013.
Headnote:
OM - Challenge to office memorandum dated 06.12.2012 - Societies Act, 1860 - Section A & B of the Associate Membership Course - Part-I & II of Technical Engineers courses - Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) vs. State of Punjab & Ors, (2019) 16 SCC 95 - AICTE - W.P.(C) 7840/2014 - W.P.(C) 4059/2019 - Equivalence of Certificates - Enrollment up to 31.05.2013
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Society registered under the Societies Act, 1860, challenged the office memorandum dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) withdrawing its earlier order and restricting permanent recognition of the petitioner till 31.05.2013. The petitioner sought to extend the benefit to the students who were enrolled by the petitioner-institution till the passing of the clarificatory order by the court on 11.02.2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the controversy had been put to rest by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) vs. State of Punjab & Ors, (2019) 16 SCC 95, and declined to further carve out any exception for the students who were enrolled by the petitioner-institution during the operation of the interim order passed by the court.
Issues: Challenge to the office memorandum dated 06.12.2012 restricting permanent recognition of the petitioner - Benefit extension to students enrolled by the petitioner-institution
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that no further exception needs to be carved out except in favor of candidates who enrolled up to 31.05.2013. The court also emphasized that granting relief to the petitioner-institute would create ambiguity and uncertainty on the issue which has been irrefutably decided by the Apex Court.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
1. This batch of petitions relates to a common issue and, therefore, is being decided by a common order. For the purpose of facts, the averments made in W.P.(C) No. 945/2013 are being referred to.
2. These petitions seek to challenge the office memorandum dated 06.12.2012 (impugned OM) issued by respondent No. 1 - Ministry of Human Resource Development (in short, MHRD). The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Act, 1860 and is imparting education in the field of engineering discipline since 2007-2008. On 06.11.2007, the MHRD decided to give recognition to the Section A & B of the Associate Membership Course, equivalent to Degree and Part-I & II of Technical Engineers courses conducted by petitioner, w.e.f. academic session 2007-2008.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of an order dated 10.07.2012, the petitioner was communicated that a decision is taken not to further renew the courses. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4290 of 2012 before this court. It is further stated that on 06.12.2012, respondent No.1/MHRD issued impugned OM withdrawing its earlier order dated 10.07.2012 and restricting permanent recognition of the petitioner till 31.05.2013. In view thereto, the petitioner-institution had to withdraw its earlier petition seeking liberty to file the present petition. Accordingly, the petitioner-institution has filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned OM.
4. This court vide order dated 06.08.2013, directed the respondent No.1/MHRD to file the counter affidavit and had stayed the operation of the impugned OM till further orders with respect to the deadline of 31.05.2013 qua the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the interim order passed by this court continued to remain in operation till passing of the order by this court on 11.02.2020. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/MHRD, however, states that the entire controversy is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), through its Chairman vs. State of Punjab & Ors, (2019) 16 SCC 95.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present writ petitions will have to be examined from a different perspective so as to render complete justice, especially keeping in mind the fact that till the order was clarified by this court on 11.02.2020, the institution continued to grant admission to various students. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further points out that the case which was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with respect to the recognition of other institutions. It is submitted that the interim order is operated in favour of the petitioner - institution and the admissions were granted in accordance with the protection granted by this court. This court should extend the benefit to the students who were enrolled by the petitioner - institution till the passing of the clarificatory order by this court on 11.02.2020. It is also submitted that the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court relates to temporary recognition, whereas, in W.P.(C) 3239/2013 and W.P.(C) 6226/2013, the institutions have permanent recognition. On the basis of the curriculum of the University, which is stated to have been approved, certain distinctions are sought to be drawn by the learned counsel appearing in W.P. (C) 3239/2013 and W.P. (C) 6226/2013. He further states that W.P. (C) 6226/2013 is to be separately heard from the present batch of petitions. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not informed about granting of admission to students beyond cut-off date as per interim order passed by this court; therefore, there was no occasion for the Hon’ble Supreme Court to deal with the said aspect.
6. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the responden
