Back
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, S. MANU
Ajal Ramakrishnan, S/o. Ramakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Athira I. C. , D/o. Chandrasekharan Nair – Respondent
ORDER :
A. Muhamed Mustaque, A.C.J.
These matters have been placed before the Full Bench on a reference order passed by a Division Bench doubting the proposition of law laid down in Suresh v. State of Kerala (2021 (1) KLT 566) and Haridas v. Athira (2021 (1) KLT 546). The point of law involved for consideration is, on the power of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to fix and stipulate the mode or method of appointment of teaching staff in technical institutions. In Suresh’s case and Haridas’s case (supra), the Division Bench was of the view that the power of AICTE includes the power to prescribe qualification, method of appointment etc. of teaching staff in Engineering Colleges and Technical Institutions. The Division Bench referred to Section 10 of the AICTE Act to hold that, the power conferred under the statutory provision includes all such steps to be taken as they think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education, particularly noting the power under Section 10(i), the Division Bench, in no uncertain terms declared that AICTE have the power to lay down norms and standards as to the staff pattern, staff qualific
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.
Statutory recruitment rules under Article 309 of the Constitution prevail over executive instructions, allowing states to set qualifications independently.
The qualifications prescribed under the Special Rules for Associate Professor posts supplement rather than undermine the minimum standards set by the Council Regulation 2013, ensuring qualified candi....
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.
State-imposed conditions for educational affiliation that contradict AICTE approval undermine institutional autonomy and are unconstitutional.
The state can prescribe additional qualifications for teacher recruitment without violating central educational standards.
The court established that AICTE Regulations, particularly regarding the age of superannuation for faculty, are mandatory and must be adhered to by recognized institutions, prevailing over conflictin....
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 ....
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
