IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 qualification etc. The Division Bench in the reference order, notes the power of the State to make Rules as per Entry 41, Public Services of List-II State List r/w Entry 25, General Education of Concurrent List and also notes the power under Article 309 of the Constitution to frame Rules, was of the view that the power of the AICTE to prescribe qualification to achieve a standard of education cannot extend to prescribing a method of appointment, which falls in the domain of the State. The Division Bench was of the view that the method of appointment has nothing to do with the standard of education or quality of education, which is the prerogative of the AICTE.

2. To understand the legal issue, we shall refer to the facts at a bare minimum.

AICTE by notification dated 01/03/2019, issued a notification in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 23 r/w Section 10(g), (h) and (i) of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 fixing minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in the technical institution. This notification is referred to as Technical Education (Diploma) Regulation, 2019. The notification prescribes cadre structure and mode of appointment. As per the notification, the post of lecturer will have to be filled by a qualified hand by direct recruitment. An original application was filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal by candidates, who are included in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission for the post of lecturer in different branches of engineering colleges and polytechnics under the Technical Education department in the State. They approached the Tribunal aggrieved by an action by the department to fill up vacancies of lectures following the Special Rules, mainly Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules 2010, in the ratio of 13:7 between direct recruitment and by transfer. The applicant contended before the Tribunal in light of AICTE regulations that the only method of appointment is by direct recruitment. The Tribunal directed to fill all the vacancies of lecturers by direct recruitment discarding the special rules. The petitioners in these cases working as Workshop Instructor/Demonstrator/Instructor Gr.II etc. in the Technical Education Department approached the Tribunal to review the order. The Tribunal dismissed the review petition. Accordingly, the petitioners approached this Court.

3. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, the Division Bench noted the judgment of another Division Bench in Suresh’s case and Haridas’s case (supra) in the same line of view taken by the Tribunal. This is how the Division Bench doubted the proposition laid down in Suresh’s case and Haridas’s case (supra).

SUBMISSIONS

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. P