Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Shivam Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
All India Council For Technical Education – Respondent
W.P.(C) 8397 of 2022
Decided On : 02-06-2023
AICTE Regulations - Admission through Lateral Entry - Section 10(b), (o) and (v) of the AICTE Act, 1987 - Summary of the Acts and Sections: The court considered the petition seeking admission through lateral entry to the B.Tech. programme for diploma holders in engineering and technology under the AICTE Regulations, 2007. The Regulations were framed under Section 10(b), (o) and (v) of the AICTE Act, 1987, which empowers AICTE to provide guidelines for admission to technical institutions and universities imparting technical education. The court held that the Regulations, 2007 are enabling and directory in nature and cannot be considered mandatory. The Universities are entitled to lay down higher standards than those laid down by AICTE, and the Regulations, 2007 cannot be forced upon the Universities to compulsorily provide for admission through lateral entry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, diploma holders/final year students of a three-year diploma course in engineering, sought admission to the second year B.Tech. programme in Public Universities through lateral entry as per the AICTE Regulations, 2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the AICTE Regulations, 2007 are enabling and directory in nature and cannot be considered mandatory. It held that the Universities are entitled to lay down higher standards than those laid down by AICTE, and the Regulations, 2007 cannot be forced upon the Universities to compulsorily provide for admission through lateral entry.
Issues: The main issue was whether the AICTE Regulations, 2007 are mandatory or directory in nature and whether the Universities are obligated to provide admission through lateral entry as per the Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the AICTE Regulations, 2007 are enabling and directory in nature and cannot be considered mandatory. It emphasized that the Universities are entitled to lay down higher standards than those laid down by AICTE, and the Regulations, 2007 cannot be forced upon the Universities to compulsorily provide for admission through lateral entry.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court declined to issue any mandatory directions against the respondents to mandatorily provide for admission through lateral entry.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, especially respondent nos.3 to 9 to provide admission through the lateral entry process to second year, B.Tech. programme for diploma holders in engineering and technology.
2. The facts of the case would show that the petitioners are diploma holders/final year students of three year diploma course in engineering. The petitioners seek admission to second year B.Tech. programme in respondent nos.3 to 9-Public Universities through lateral entry process as per the guidelines laid down by the respondent no.1-All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as `AICTE') for admission of students in the Degree Engineering Programme through the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Admission of Students in Degree Engineering Programmes through Lateral Entry Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `Regulations, 2007').
3. The respondent no.1 is a statutory body established under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as `AICTE Act, 1987') with an object to provide and promote proper planning and coordinated development of technical education in India. The respondent no.2 is the Government of NCT of Delhi. The respondent nos.3 to 9 are Public Universities established either under the State Acts or under the Central Acts.
4. During the course of submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that respondent no.9-Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University which is established under the State Act, viz., Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Act, 1998 is fully complying with the Regulations, 2007. Therefore, no grievance against the said University remains to be agitated.
5. He submits that so far as the respondent nos.3 and 6 are concerned, the Universities have also started to partially comply with the Regulations, 2007. However, the manner in which the admissions through lateral entry process are being granted is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. The respondent nos.4, 5, 7 and 8 are not complying with the Regulations, 2007 at all. He submits that the grievance against respondent nos. 3 to 8 is required to be adjudicated on merits.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Regulations, 2007 are framed by respondent no.1-AICTE in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section(1) of Section 23 read with Section 10(b), (o) and (v) of the AICTE Act, 1987. According to him, bare reading of the Regulations, 2007 would indicate that the same is binding on all technical institutions and Universities either Government, Government aided or private (self-financing) for conducting courses/programmes inter alia in the field of technical education, training and research in Engineering, Technology, etc. According to him, the Universities set up under the State Act or Central Act are specifically covered under the Regulations, 2007. Therefore, there is no escape for the respondent-Universities from providing admission in accordance with the Regulations, 2007.
7. He further submits that the Regulations, 2007 have been framed by the respondent no.1-AICTE while keeping in mind various disparities which were prevalent on account of the admission being granted to diploma holders like the petitioners in the first year of the course. By the time they are admitted in first year, their batchmates, who were with them in class X, are already one session ahead to such candidates. According to him, the Regulations, 2007 ensures that by the time the candidates like the petitioners get into B.Tech. programme, they already have three years experience and, therefore, they are granted admission directly in second year so as to ensure that they do not suffer loss of one year. He also states that having completed three year diploma, if again they have to be admitted in first y
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 ....
State-imposed conditions for educational affiliation that contradict AICTE approval undermine institutional autonomy and are unconstitutional.
The amendment to recruitment rules for vocational instructors is valid and consistent with central guidelines, asserting state competence to legislate on education within constitutional limits.
The AICTE has the authority to prescribe both qualifications and methods of appointment for teaching staff in technical institutions, as it relates to maintaining educational standards.
Section 19 (1) of the AICTE Act which provides that one of the functions of the AICTE is to lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities staff pattern, s....
The State cannot compel minority institutions to share seats; it must ensure transparent, merit-based admissions without compromising minority character.
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
