INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. on 13 August 2019

[2019] 10 S.C.R. 175

INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

v.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

(Miscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018)

In

(Civil Appeal No. 17922 of 2017)

AUGUST 13, 2019

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

University Grants Commission Act, 1956– ss.2(f), 3, 22–Appellant conducts bi-annual examinations such as TechnicianEngineers’ Part-I & Part-II etc., and on successful completionthereof awarded the Certificate “Associate Member of Institutionof Engineers” (AMIE) – On 26.05.76, the Government of Indiaprovisionally recognized a pass in the Associate MembershipExamination of the Mechanical Engineers Association of India atpar with degree in Mechanical Engineering from recognized IndianUniversity– Notification issued by the Central Governmentrecognizing the Part-I & Part-II Technician Engineers’ Examination(T) at par with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from StatePolytechnic – Qualifications in the said notification recognized forrecruitment to subordinate posts and services under the Governmentof Punjab– Writ petition filed inter alia praying that the Certificateof Membership issued by the appellant be declared invalid forrecruitment/promotion to the service concerning State affairs–Disposed of by consent order – Review Application – Vide judgmentdtd. 06.11.12, in case of the appellant, the review was allowed interalia holding in paragraphs 205-213 that the Membership Certificategranted could not be treated as equivalent to Degree inEngineering– Challenged by the appellant– SLP listed along withsimilar matters, but no submissions advanced by the appellant–Matters decided vide order dtd. 03.11.17 – Appellant soughtclarification and modification thereof– Refused by the Registrar ofSupreme Court holding that the application sought review of thejudgment dtd. 03.11.17– Order of the Registrar under challenge in

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe present miscellaneous application – Held: Registrar was rightin refusing to register the appellant’s application – On merits,consistent stand of the appellant has been that it is not coveredunder any of the Acts viz. the UGC Act, IGNOU Act and the AICTEAct – In terms of s.22(1) of the UGC Act, right to confer degreescan be exercised only by University established or incorporated byBor under Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act or by an institutiondeemed to be University u/s.3, UGC Act or by an institution speciallyempowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees–Appellant does not fall under any of the categories in s.22(1), UGCAct – If degree can be awarded only by those institutions whichCsatisfy the description given in sub-sec.(1) of s.22, UGC Act, themandate of Parliamentary legislation cannot be circumvented byawarding equivalence to Certificate awarded by the appellant–Neither can the appellant claim, as a matter of right to be entitled toconfer any degree nor can it claim that Certificate awarded by it

Conclusion

must be reckoned to be equivalent to Degree in MechanicalDEngineering– Communication dtd. 26.05.76 under which theCertificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalentto Degree in Mechanical Engineering from recognized IndianUniversity, does not indicate any statutory provision under whichsuch equivalence could be granted– However, the fact remains thatEthe equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant wasgranted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.13 as evident fromNotification dtd. 06.12.12 issued by the Central Government andPublic Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017 – Thesecommunications also indicate that students who were enrolled uptoF31.05.13 would be eligible for consideration in accordance withMHRD office memorandum/order in course – Exception made infavour of such candidates – Conclusions drawn in the present matterwill apply after 01.06.13 – Certificate awarded by the appellant tocandidates enrolled upto 31.05.13 be considered equivalent toGDegree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employmentin Central Government– No error in the assessment made by theHigh Court in paragraphs 205 to 213 of its judgment – SocietiesRegistration Act, 1860 – University Grants Commission Act, 1956–Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 – All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education Act, 1987 – ss.2 (g), (h), 3, 10.H

Rejecting the Miscellaneous Application No.2367 of 2018,the Court HELD: 1.1 The Registrar of Supreme Court was right inrefusing to register Application for Clarification and Modificationpreferred by the appellant. However, since the record did notclearly indicate whether the Review Application was allowed bythe High Court after hearing the appellant, in the interest ofjustice, the appellant was permitted to raise all the submissionson merits. On its own showing, the appellant “does not impartany education but merely conducts bi-annual examinations andawards certificates”. [Paras 30, 31] [206-D-E]

1.2 The appellant does not even claim to be imparting anyeducation through distance education mode and only conductsbi-annual examination and awards certificates to those who qualifysuch examination. Considered in the light of the decision ofSupreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case, thelearned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that the case ofthe appellant would be on a footing lower than the cases of deemedto be Universities. The consistent stand of the appellant has beenthat it is not covered under any of the Acts viz. the UniversityGrants Commission Act, 1956, Indira Gandhi National OpenUniversity Act, 1985 and the All India Council for TechnicalEducation Act, 1987. However, since it offers courses orprogrammes of technical education, as rightly held by the HighCourt, the appellant comes within the definition of “technicalinstitution” as defined in the AICTE Act. Neither does theappellant, on its own grant Degrees in Engineering nor does it,in its capacity as an affiliated institution to a recognized University,prepare students in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering.Though it does not impart any instructions either in theory or inpractical, it holds an examination, on satisfactory clearance ofwhich it awards Certificates of Membership to candidates.Nothing is clear as to under what statutory regime or under whichlegal provision can such equivalence to the Certificate issued bythe appellant be granted or conferred. No statutory provisionhas been pressed into service or relied upon to suggest that giventhe particular circumstances and/or, on satisfaction of certain A

B

C

D

EFG

178SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A

B

C

D

EFG

178SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aparameters the appellant would be entitled to conferral of suchequivalence or status. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act,right to confer degrees can be exercised only by a Universityestablished or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a ProvincialAct or a State Act or by an institution deemed to be a Universityunder Section 3 of the UGC Act or by an institution speciallyBempowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.The idea appearing in Sub-Section (1) of said Section 22 is madeemphatically clear by Sub-Section (2) which stipulates: “Save asprovided in sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer,or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant,Cany degree”. The intent of the Parliament is clear that it is onlythat body which is referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 22,that is competent to confer or grant degrees. The appellant doesnot fall under any of these categories enumerated in Section 22(1)of the UGC Act. There is nothing on record either in the form of any statutory provision or any statutory regulations or any schemeDunder which such equivalence could be granted by the MHRD.It appears that claims made by various institutions like appellantwere considered on case to case basis and equivalence wasgranted by MHRD. The first of those communications was of theyear 1976 when AICTE Act was not in force. If the mandate ofESection 22 disentitles any authority or person other than thosespecified in Section 22 (1) to award degrees, there is no power orauthority in any one including MHRD to award such equivalence.The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be achievedindirectly is well settled. [Paras 35-39] [211-C-H; 212-A-C; E-G]

F1.3 If a degree can be awarded only by those institutionswhich satisfy the description given in sub-Section (1) of Section22 of the UGC Act, the mandate of a Parliamentary legislationcannot be circumvented or nullified by awarding equivalence to aCertificate issued and awarded by the appellant. What is the value of that certificate will be considered by each employer as andGwhen the occasion arises. The appellant would certainly be entitledto award Certificate of Membership to its Members. Whatweightage the Certificates must have is for the individualemployers to consider in a given case. The concerned employer H

may attach due importance to such Certificates while consideringthe worth and ability of the concerned candidates but to say thatthe Certificates are equivalent to a degree and as such all thecandidates who hold such Certificates are entitled to derive theadvantages which a degree holder can, is completely a differentissue. In the present case, the communication dated 26.05.1976under which the Certificate issued by the appellant wasrecognized to be equivalent to a Degree in MechanicalEngineering from a recognized Indian University, does not indicateany statutory provision under which such equivalence could begranted or conferred. This point becomes more crucial, as afterthe enactment of AICTE Act, the entirety of the field concerning“technical education” is kept in the domain of AICTE by theParliament. Section 10 of the AICTE Act entitles AICTE notonly to lay down norms and standards for courses, curriculumand such other facets of “technical education” but also entitles itunder clause (l) to advise the Central Government in respect ofgrant of charter to any professional body or institution in the fieldof technical education conferring powers, rights and privilegesetc. Going by the width of the power, after the enactment ofAICTE Act, even such privileges could be conferred only afterexpress advice of AICTE and within the confines of variousstatutory provisions. Consequently, neither can the appellantclaim, as a matter of right to be entitled to confer any degree norcan it claim that Certificate awarded by it must be reckoned to beequivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering. [Paras 40-42] [213-G; 214-A-G]

1.4 However, the fact remains that the equivalence to theCertificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRDin consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.2013 as is evident fromNotification dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Central Governmentand Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017. Thesecommunications also indicate that all those students who wereenrolled upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration inaccordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course.Though it has been laid down that the Certificates issued by theappellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination AB

CDE

F

G

H

180SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 10 S.C.R.

Ato its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to aDegree, an exception needs to be made in favour of studentsenrolled up to 31.05.2013 and benefit in terms of the Notificationdated 06.12.2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to beextended to such candidates. The candidates had opted to enrollthemselves so that they could appear at the examinationsBconducted by the appellant under a regime which was put in placeby the Central Government itself and the course content as wellas the curriculum were reviewed by the AICTE. However, theaforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear thatafter 01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence wouldCcease to have any effect. In the circumstances an exception madein favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and declarethat the conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after01.06.2013. The Certificate awarded by the appellant to suchcandidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 shall be considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purposeDof employment in Central Government. In the premises, no erroris found in the assessment made by the High Court in paragraphs205 to 213 of its judgment. Therefore, all the submissions raisedby the appellant are dismissed and Miscellaneous ApplicationNo. 2367 of 2018 is rejected. [Paras 44-46] [215-C-H; 216-A]EState of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunderand Others (2011) 8 SCC 737 : [2011] 11 SCR 1094 ;Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560 : [1979]2 SCR 282 – relied on.

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. RabiFSankar Patro and Others (2018) 1 SCC 468 : [2017]13 SCR 921 ; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 2012SCC OnLine P&H 21066 ; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath(2000) 6 SCC 213 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 389 ; SantLal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.G(2010) 13 SCC 336 : [2010] 13 SCR 621 – referredto.

Case Law Referene

[2017] 13 SCR 921referred toPara 19[2011] 11 SCR 1094relied onPara 39 (A)H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : M.A. No. 2367 of 2018in Civil Appeal No. 17922 of 2017.

B

From the impugned Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2017 of theSupreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017.

Dhruv Mehta, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., C.A. Sundaram,Sr. Adv. (AC), Abhishek Gupta, Arjun Singh, Ms. Diya Kapur, L.D.Mehta, Aman Shukla, Ms. Liz Mathew, Karan Bharihoke, B.D. Das,Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Siddhant Sharma, Navkiran Bolay, Syed ShahidHussain Rizvi, Harish Pandey, G.S. Makkar, Anil Soni, S. Wasim A.Qadri, Jubair Ahmad Khan, Zaid Ali, Tamim Qadri, Saeed Qadri, DinkarAdeeb, Advs. for the appearing parties.

C

D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 (arising out of Special LeavePetition (CC) No.7390) was filed in this Court by the appellant challengingthe judgment and order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the High Court[1] inCivil Writ Petition No.12909 of 2009 and connected matters. Insofar asthe case of the appellant was concerned, Writ Petition No.12909 of2009 was disposed of by the High Court[1] holding, that the MembershipCertificate granted by the appellants could not be treated as equivalentto a Degree in Engineering.

E

F

E

F

2. The appellant, a Society registered under the SocietiesRegistration Act, 1860 is said to have been established to promote theprofession and practice of Mechanical Engineering Professionals.Amongst its activities, it conducts bi-annual examinations known asTechnician Engineers’ Part-I and Part-II, Automobile TechnicianEngineers’ Examination Part-I and Part-II, Production TechnicianEngineers’ Part-I and Part-II, Refrigeration and Air ConditioningTechnician Engineers’ Examination Part-I and Part-II and Section-Aand Section-B of Associate Membership Examination in MechanicalEngineering. On successful completion of such examinations, the G

1 High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh H

ACertificate “Associate Member of Institution of Engineers” (‘AMIE’for short) is awarded by the appellant.

3. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (“the UGC Act”,for short) was enacted to make provisions for coordination anddetermination of standards in Universities and Section 2(f) definesBUniversity to mean “… a University established or incorporated by orunder a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes anysuch institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, berecognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations madein this behalf under this Act”. In terms of Section 3, status of “deemedto be University” can be conferred upon an Institution for higher studiesCother than a University. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, rightto confer degrees can be exercised only by a University established orincorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Actor by an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of theUGC Act or by an institution specially empowered by an Act of ParliamentDto confer or grant degrees.

4. On 26.05.1976, the Government of India, Ministry of Educationand Social Welfare, Department of Education, on the recommendationof Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications provisionallyrecognized “a pass in the Associate Membership Examination of theEMechanical Engineers Association of India at par with a degree inMechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University/Institution for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts andservices under the Central Government for a period of three years.”On 06.10.1981 the Government of India, Ministry of Education andCulture, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board ofFAssessment for Educational Qualifications, decided to continue torecognize a pass in AMIE of the appellant for the purpose of recruitmentto superior posts and services under the Central Government.

5. All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (‘the AICTEAct’ for short) was enacted to provide for the establishment of the AllGIndia Council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planningand co-ordinated development of the technical education systemthroughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of sucheducation in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulationand proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical educationHsystem and for matters connected therewith. The terms ‘technical education’ and ‘technical institution’ are defined in Section 2 (g) & (h)as under:- “(g) “technical education” means programmes of education,research and training in engineering technology, architecture, townplanning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts andsuch other programmes or areas as the Central Government may,in consultation with the Council, by notification in the OfficialGazette, declare; (h) “technical institution” means an institution, not being aUniversity, which offers courses or programmes of technicaleducation, and shall include such other institutions as the CentralGovernment may, in consultation with the Council, by notificationin the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions;”

Section 10 of the AICTE Act enumerates functions of the AICTE[2]established under Section 3. Said Section 10 is as under:-

10. Functions of the Council. – It shall be the duty of the Councilto take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinatedand integrated development of technical education and maintenanceof standards and for the purposes of performing its functions underthis Act, the Council may –

(a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical education,collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the neededgrowth and development in technical education; (b) coordinate the development of technical education in the countryat all levels;

(c) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council suchgrants on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to –

(i) technical institutions, and

(ii) Universities imparting technical education in coordinationwith the Commission; (d) promote innovations research and development in establishedand new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of newtechnologies to meet developmental requirements and for overallimprovement of educational processes; 2 All India Council for Technical Education

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education forwomen, handicapped and weaker sections of the society; (f) promote an effective link between technical education systemand other relevant systems including research and developmentorganisations, industry and the community; (g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technicalinstitutions and Universities imparting technical education,incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability; (h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training ofteachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new centresfor offering staff development programmes including continuingeducation of teachers;

(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physicaland instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, qualityinstructions, assessment and examinations; (j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees; (k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and forintroduction of new courses or programmes in consultation withthe agencies concerned;

(l) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charterto any professional body or institution in the field of technicaleducation conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for thepromotion of such profession in its field including conduct ofexaminations and awarding of membership certificates; (m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions; (n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation oftechnical education; (o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technicalinstitutions and Universities imparting technical education; (p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution; (q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses,programmes to such technical institutions which fail to complywith the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuringcompliance of the directions of the Council; (r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to setup new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the Council’sresponsibilities and to create positions of professional, technicaland supporting staff based on requirements; (s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offeringcourses in technical education fit to receive grants; (t) advise the Commission for declaring any institution impartingtechnical education as a deemed University;

(u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conductevaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis ofguidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to makerecommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission orto other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of theinstitution or the programme;

(v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed.”

6. A Notification was issued on 11.07.1988 by the Government ofIndia, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department ofEducation) to the following effect:- “On the recommendations of the Board of Assessment forEducational Qualifications, the Government of India has beenpleased to recognize the Part-I and Part-II Technician Engineers’Examination (T) conducted by the Institution of MechanicalEngineers (India) at par with a Diploma in Mechanical Engineeringfrom State Polytechnic for the purpose of employment tosubordinate posts and services under the Central Government.”

By endorsement dated 19.08.1988 issued by Government ofPunjab, Department of Education, the qualifications mentioned in thesaid Notification dated 11.07.1988 were recognized for the purpose ofrecruitment to subordinate posts and services under the control ofGovernment of Punjab.

7. While dealing with certain complaints against the appellant,Member Secretary, AICTE in his letter dated 27.04.2000 addressed toGovernment of India, Department of Education; MHRD[3] stated that A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amany deficiencies were found in the curriculum offered by the appellantin its programmes. Later, the recognition granted insofar as examinationsconducted and certificates issued by the appellant for the purposes ofemployment under the Central Government was withdrawn by MHRD[3]vide Notification dated 10.06.2002. The exercise was preceded byhearing given to the appellant by a High Level Committee which wasBappointed to review the recognition granted to Parts I & II of TechnicianEngineers Examination conducted by the appellant and the relevant portionof the Notification was:- “The High Level committee for recognition of EducationQualification in its special meeting held on 12.2.2002 and 15.5.2002Cin pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhidated 31.1.2002 in the matter of Civil Writ Petition No.3570/2001and LPA No.49-50/2002 relating to Institution of MechanicalEngineers (India), Mumbai reviewed the recognition granted toPart-I and II of Technician Engineers Examination of the InstitutionDof Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai for the purpose ofemployment under Central Government.

2. After giving a fair hearing to the Institution of MechanicalEngineers (India), Mumbai, the High Level committee tookfollowing decisions:

E

(i) Recognition of Associated Membership Examination ofSection A & B and Part-I and II of Technician EngineersExamination (T) of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers(India), Mumbai for the purposes of employment underthe Central Government stand withdrawn with immediateeffect.

F

(ii) Withdrawal of the recognition will be effectiveprospectively, i.e. students who have already got SectionA & B and Part_I and II awards from IME (India),Mumbai will continue to be eligible for employment inCentral Government.G

(iii) IME (India), Mumbai will be at liberty to approach theMinistry of Human Resources Development forrecognition of awards granted by them for employmentpurposes in the Central Government as and when they H3 Ministry of Human Resource Development

remove all deficiencies with regard to revision andupgradation of curriculum, examination system, procedurefor appointment and qualification of examiners, and otherrelated issues, as pointed out by the Group constituted bythe High Level Committee.”

8. The appellant challenged said Notification dated 10.06.2002 byfiling Civil Writ Petition No.3907 of 2002 in the High Court of Delhiwhich by its order dated 24.06.2002 had initially stayed the operation ofsaid Notification. However, said Writ Petition was dismissed on07.07.2003 by the Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 584of 2003 arising therefrom was disposed of by the Division Bench byorder dated 09.03.2004 with following observations: - “The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learnedSingle Judge dated 7.7.2003 by which the writ petition wasdismissed. The short grievance in this appeal is that the recognitionof the appellant was withdrawn by notification dated 10.6.2002for the purpose of employment under Central Government and asa matter of fact the notification itself mentioned that MechanicalEngineers (India) (hereinafter referred to as “IME”), would be atliberty to approach the Ministry of Human Resource Developmentfor recognition of awards granted by them for employment purposesin the Central Government as and when they remove alldeficiencies with regard to the revision and upgradation ofcurriculum, examination system, procedure for appointment andqualification of examiners and other related issues as pointed outby the Group constituted by the High Level Committee.

Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits thatafter the appellant has removed all the deficiencies as indicated inpara (iii) of the Notification and as and when they would approachthe Government of India, Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment, Department of Secondary and Higher Education,the same will be considered as expeditiously as possible and inany event within three months from the date of receipt of therequest for recognition from the appellant.

No further directions are necessary in these appeals. Both appealsand all pending applications are disposed of accordingly.”

A

BC

DE

FG

A

The matter was carried further by the appellant by filing SpecialLeave Petition (Civil) No. 9387 of 2004 which was disposed of by thisCourt as under:- “Mr. Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General, states thatthe application made by the Petitioner to the Government will beconsidered within six weeks from today. He states that whilst soconsidering the representation, the Government will also consider,whether the students who had joined prior to the withdrawal ofthe recognition, be allowed to graduate. In view of this statement,learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner applies forwithdrawal of the Special Leave Petition. The Special LeavePetition is allowed to be withdrawn.”

B

C

9. Thereafter, the matter was re-examined and the recognitiongranted for its educational qualifications and enjoyed by the appellantwas restored with effect from 16.10.2006 vide Notification dated24.11.2006. The relevant part of the Notification was as under:- D

“The Institute of Mechanical Engineers(India), Mumbai has beenrunning Section A & B of Association Membership course,equivalent to Degree in Mechanical Engineering since 1976, videthis Ministry’s letter No.F.18-31/71-T.2 dated 28.05.1976 and PartI & Part II of Technical Engineers (T), equivalent to Diploma inEMechanical Engineering from a State Polytechnic, since 1988,vide this Ministry’s letter No.F.1-5/87/T.7/T.13 dated 11.07.1988.In the year 2002, while withdrawing the recognition of thesecourses, Government of India allowed the IME (India), Mumbaito approach this Ministry for recognition of their Diploma/DegreeFcourses only after the removal of all the deficiencies pointed outby AICTE. Accordingly, the above Institute submitted a requestalong with the requisite material for review and consideration ofthis Department. This Department got the material re-examinedby AICTE. AICTE through its Expert Committee re-examinedboth the courses and submitted its recommendations with revisionGof syllabus for both the courses.

The High Level Committee for recognition of educationalqualification considered the matter in its meeting held on 16.10.2006and on its recommendation, Govt. of India has decided thefollowing:- H

(i) The recognition of the courses run by IME, Mumbai may berestored with effect from 16.10.2006. With this recognition IMEwill run the courses based on new syllabus approved by All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education (AICTE). As per the approval,the Technical Engineering courses Part-I & II (Diploma Level)will have 22 papers in place of existing 14 papers and Degreelevel course of Section A & B of Associate Membership willinclude 24 papers in place of 11 papers at present. In addition tothis, there will be nine elective subjects. After completing theorypapers, students will have to undergo at least 3 months mandatoryapprenticeship/practical training/project report at an All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education approved Polytechnic for Part I& II of Technician Engineers Course for award of Certificateequivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and theApprenticeship/Practical training of the same duration in AICTEapproved Degree Colleges for award of Certificate equivalent toBachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering for Section A & Bof Associate Membership Course.

(ii) The students who were registered prior to 10.06.2002 forPart I & II of Technician Engineers (Diploma Level) and SectionA & B of Associate Membership course (Degree Level) will beallowed to complete the courses with pre revised syllabus till thenext scheduled examination, to be held in December 2006. TheirDegree/Diploma will be recognized for employment in CentralGovernment. Those who do not complete their courses by thattime (December 2006), will have to follow the revised syllabus.”

10. In the year 2008, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1640 of 2008 (KartarSingh vs. Union of India and others) was filed in public interest beforethe High Court[4] submitting inter alia that number of study centres andillegal institutions were running in the State which were virtually sellingDegrees and Diplomas and the petition prayed for appropriate reliefsholding Degrees and Diplomas awarded by such study centres/institutionsto be invalid for government jobs. The appellant was not a party to thispetition.

Writ Petition (Civil) No.12909 of 2009 (Jagmohan Singh vs. Stateof Punjab and others) was filed in the High Court[1] to which the appellantwas a party and the petition prayed inter alia that the Certificate of

ABCD

E

F

G

H

AMembership issued by the appellant be declared invalid for recruitmentand promotion to the service concerning State affairs. An applicationwas preferred by the appellant in said Writ Petition that the matter wascovered by the earlier decision of the Division Bench of the High Courtin “Tejinder Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others”. WritPetition (Civil)No.12909 of 2009 was thereafter disposed of by a consentBorder dated 06.07.2011 in terms of the earlier judgment in Tejinder Singh’scase. A Review Application was, however, preferred against said consentorder dated 06.07.2011 by original Respondent No.5 and the matter wasdirected to be placed along with Writ Petition (Civil) No.1640 of 2008.

11. On 10.07.2012, a letter was issued by Government of India,CMinistry of Human Resource Development, Department of HigherEducation to the appellant stating as under:- “It has been decided that a review of the curriculum, mode ofdelivery of the program, its duration, etc. would be carried out bythe concerned Regulator and until such a review is complete, theDInstitutions with permanent recognition will not make freshadmissions. Alternatively, the institution has the option of realigningits curriculum with the National Vocational EducationalQualification Framework (NVEQF) and proceed further.”

12. By common Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2012 the mattersEwere disposed of by the High Court[1]. Insofar as the case of the appellantwas concerned, the Review Application was allowed and in paragraphs205 to 213 of its Judgment, the High Court[1] observed:- “205. In CWP NO.12909 of 2009, the issue is in respect ofCertificate of Membership obtained from the institute ofFMechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai (respondent No.4), as adegree for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer interms of the Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation (EngineeringWing), Group ‘A’ Service Rules, 2007. In CWP No.9200 of 2012,the petitioners claim promotion on the basis of similar membershipfrom the same Institute.G

206. The petitioner in CWP No.12909 of 2009 is a degree holderfrom Panjab University, whereas respondent No.5 is said to haveobtained a Certificate of Membership from respondent No.4 i.e.the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai alleging H

the same without attending any regular classes, undertakingpracticals and without taking any study leave from the Department.It is the contention of the petitioner that the certificate issued bythe said respondent is not a degree in terms of Section 22 of theUGC Act, as respondent No.4 is not authorized to confer anyright of degrees.

207. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.12502 of 2004titled “Tejinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & others”decided on 02.04.2007, has considered the question of recognitionof AMIE degree granted by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers(India), Mumbai. It was found that the degree from the Instituteof Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai is recognized by theGovernment of India vide letter dated 06.10.1981, which wasaccepted by the Government of Punjab. In view of such finding,the writ petition was allowed, as the petitioner has obtained degreeprior to its de-recognition in the year 2003.

208. A perusal of the Certificate relied upon by the petitioner inTejinder Singh’s case (supra) as also the present case (AnnexureA-2) shows that the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India),Mumbai is a Society registered under the Societies RegistrationAct, 1860. It appears that such institute is taking advantage of itssimilarity in name with the Institution of Engineers establishedunder Royal Charter, as discussed above. The Institute ofMechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai is a registered Societyand is thus a Technical Institution and is required to obtain approvalfrom AICTE in respect of its courses in technical subjects. Themembership of such institute cannot be treated as equivalent to adegree, as the candidate qualified from such institute cannot besaid to be at par with the members of Institution of Engineersestablished under the Statute.

209. The distinction between Institute of Mechanical Engineers(India), Mumbai and that of an Associate Members of Institutionof Engineers, was not brought to the notice of the Court in TejinderSingh’s case (supra). The scope of Institution of Engineersestablished under the Royal Charter has been examined above.

210. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to anotification dated 24.11.2006, wherein the request of Institute of

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai for recognition of itsDiploma/Degree courses was examined by the Government ofIndia only after the removal of all the deficiencies pointed out byAICTE. The notification is to the effect that AICTE has re-examined both the courses and submitted its recommendation withrevision of syllabus for both the courses. The Government ofIndia decided that IME (India), Mumbai will run the courses basedon new syllabus approved by AICTE w.e.f 16.10.2006. As peranother communication produced in Court on 18.10.2012, TheGovernment of India has communicated to respondent No.4 tothe following effect:- “Please refer to this Ministry’s notification No.23-2/2001-TS.IIIdated 24.11.2006 regarding Section A & B of AssociationMembership course, equivalent to Degree in MechanicalEngineering and Part I & II of Technician Engineers (T),equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from a StatePolytechnic. It has been decided that a review of thecurriculum, mode of delivery of the program, its duration, etc.would be carried out by the concerned Regulator and untilsuch a review is complete, the Institutions with permanentrecognition will not make fresh admissions. Alternatively, theinstitution has the option of realigning its curriculum with theNational Vocation Education Qualification Framework(NVEQF) and proceed further. This issue with the approvalof competent authority.”

211. In terms of such communication, till the review is completedby the Regulator, which in the case of Respondent No.4 would beAICTE, the Institutions with permanent recognition have beenprohibited from making admission. There is no document producedor alleged that Respondent No.4 has permanent recognition fromany Council or Board in respect of its courses. Therefore, thedegrees or the membership granted by respondent No.4 cannotbe treated as equivalent to Degree in Engineering.

212. Even in terms of the notification dated 26.11.2006, the studentssuch as respondent No.5 registered prior to 10.06.2002 have beenallowed to complete the course with pre-revised syllabus till thenext scheduled examination to be held in December, 2006 andthose, who do not complete their courses by that time will have to

follow the revised syllabus. Since respondent No.5 is not said tohave completed course in terms of notification dated 24.11.2006,he cannot claimed to be a degree-holder entitled to be promoted.We may state that such notification can be treated as aqualification recognized by Government of India for the purposeof employment. Thus, we find that respondent No.5 is not qualifiedto claim that such certificate is equivalent to a degree.

213. In view of the above, CWP No.12909 of 2009 is allowed andCWP No.9200 of 2012 claiming the qualification from Institutionof Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai as equivalent to degreeis dismissed.”

13. On 06.12.2012 in modification of its earlier communicationdated 10.07.2012, a Notification was issued by the Central Government,the relevant part of which was as under:- “i. Above order dated 10.07.2012 regarding cases of recognitionin perpetuity for equivalence in Central Government jobs, standswithdrawn.

ii. All those students who are enrolled with the institutions withpermanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible forconsideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in force pertaining to their course for equivalence in CentralGovernment jobs. However, these concerned orders will ceaseto have effect from 01.06.2013 onwards.

iii. After 31.05.2013, based on the review by the regulator i.e.AICTE, a decision on continuation of the certification ofequivalence of degree/diploma shall be taken by statutory regulator.

iv. Statutory regulators should review the fresh proposals/extensionas per their statute and regulations.

2. In case, the institution desires to opt for realigning curriculumwith NVEQF, it is advised to use this transition period upto30.05.2013 for necessary action in this regard.”

14. On 09.03.2013 the appellant filed SLP (C) No.7390 of 2013 inthis Court, challenging the aforesaid decision of the High Court dated06.11.2012. According to the appellant, the Review Application wasallowed without giving any opportunity to the appellant. In its counteraffidavit, State of Punjab submitted that the appellant was neither a

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AUniversity nor a deemed University nor was it conducting any technicalexamination through distance mode and the Certificate granted by theappellant was nothing more than an honour; that the appellant did nothave approval from the UGC[4] or AICTE nor was it declared by State ofPunjab to be a recognized institution for the purposes of relevant servicerules and as such, the Certificate of Membership awarded by the appellantBcould not be held to be an essential qualification; and that MHRD[3] hadnot granted any approval to the appellant but simply granted recognitionto the qualification only for the purposes of employment under the CentralGovernment.

15. The Notification dated 06.12.2012 was challenged byCInstitution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers before theHigh Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3239 of 2013. It wassubmitted that though all the requisite information was supplied by saidwrit petitioner, no final decision was taken by the respondents in thematter. A Single Judge in his order dated 23.05.2013 observed:-

D“10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit that at thisstage the Court should grant protection to the petitioners to theextent that the deadline of 31.5.2013 should not come in their wayof granting admissions and also leaving the fate of the students inuncertainty, more particularly, for the reasons that the institutionsEare not aware as to the criteria what they have to met.11. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered theirsubmissions. Having regard to the stand taken by counsel for theparties, the O.M. dated 6.12.2012 qua the petitioners only withrespect to the deadline of 31.5.2013 shall remain stayed till theFnext date of hearing, however, it is made clear that the admissions,which are made, will be subject to final orders, which will bepassed in the writ petition.”

16. The appellant also challenged the Notification dated 06.12.2012by filing Writ Petition No.7840 of 2014 in the High Court of Delhi inGwhich following order was passed by a Single Judge on 19.11.2014:- “Keeping in view the interim order dated 23[rd] May, 2013 in W.P.(C)No.3239/2013 as well as order dated 06[th] August, 2013 in W.P.(C) No.945/2013, the O.M. dated 6[th] December, 2012 with regard H4 University Grants Commission to the deadline of 31[st] May, 2013 qua the petitioner shall remainstayed till further order of this Court.”

17. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petitions challengingthe Notification dated 06.12.2012, certain information was called forfrom the appellant by AICTE and after having received responses fromthe appellant and similarly situated institutions, the matter was placedbefore a High Level Committee.

18. In August 2017, a Public Notice was issued by AICTE[2] to thefollowing effect:- “PUBLIC NOTICE

(For Professional Bodies/Institutes Imparting TechnicalEducation)

Whereas MHRD, Govt. of India, through an order (vide OMNo.11-15/2011-AR (TS.II) dated 06.12.2012) withdrew therecognition granted to all certificates/qualifications awarded byprofessional bodies/institutions in the field of technical education.The MHRD further stipulated that from 01.06.2013 onwards thecourses for equivalence will cease to have effect for employmentin Central Government and the decision on the continuation of thecertification of equivalence of degree/diploma would be taken bythe statutory regulator (AICTE) after review.

Accordingly, the Council in its 52[nd] Emergent Meeting held onAugust 03,2017 decided to recognize equivalence for all purposesincluding Higher Education & Employment to Technical Coursesconducted by various Professional Bodies/Institutions which wereduly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31[st]May 2013. Thus all those students who were enrolled with theseinstitutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013, standrecognized.”

19. The matters arising from the decision of the High Court[1] weretaken up together with the matters raising similar issues fromOrissa and were considered and dealt with by this Court in itsdecision dated 03.11.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of2017 etc. (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi SankarPatro and others)[5]. Though Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 (arising 5 (2018) 1 SCC 468

A

B

C

DE

F

G

Aout of SLP (CC) No.7390 of 2013) preferred by the appellantwas listed along with all those matters, no submissions wereadvanced on behalf of the appellant. The decision rendered on06.11.2012 by the High Court in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab[6]etc. was affirmed by this Court.

B20. Certain applications moved by various other parties seekingclarification of the decision dated 03.11.2017, were dealt with by thisCourt in its order dated 22.01.2018[7].

21. Thereafter an application for clarification and modification ofthe decision of this Court dated 03.11.2017 was preferred by the appellantCpraying for following reliefs:- “(a) Clarify that the Final Judgment dated 03.11.2017 does notapply to Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 arising out of SpecialLeave Petition (Civil) No.15283 of 2013.

(b) De-tag the Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 arising out ofDSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No.15283 of 2017 filed by theApplicant herein, and list it for hearing; and/or

c)Modify paragraph 55 of the Judgment to the extent that theview taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in so faras it relates to the Applicant herein (i.e. paragraphs 205E2013) is set aside.”

22. The matter came up before the Registrar of this Court whorefused to register the application holding that the application forclarification/modification was intended to seek review of the judgmentdated 03.11.2017 passed by this Court. The order of the Registrar isFpresently under challenge in M.A. No.2367 of 2018. On merits, thesubmissions of the appellant are:- “B. It is submitted that the appellant herein has merely sought toclarify that the Final Judgment does not apply to the Appellantinstitution as it is a professional body that does not impart anyGeducation but merely conducts bi-annual examinations and awardscertificates, and is fundamentally distinct from ‘deemed to beuniversities’ which are imparting technical education through thedistance mode.… ……

6 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21066H7 (2018) 2 SCC 298 (2018) 2 SCC 298

7 (2018) 2 SCC 298 (2018) 2 SCC 298

The Subject matter of the batch of Special Leave Petitionsconsidered by this Hon’ble Court, as also, the batch of petitionsbefore the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, was thevalidity of degrees granted by “Deemed to be Universities”imparting technical education through the distance education modeon the strength of only DEC permission, without having beenconferred the “Deemed University” status for technical educationby the UGC, and without approval under the AICTE Act forimparting technical education. Further, the batch of mattersconsidered the inter-relations; contradictions if any, and the roleof the authorities under three central statutes i.e. University GrantsCommission Act, 1956, Indira Gandhi National Open UniversityAct, 1985, and All India council for Technical Education Act, 1987,particularly in respect of technical/professional courses offeredthrough the Distance Education mode.

…

…

…

It is submitted that the Appellant herein is not governed by eitherof the aforementioned three central statutes, and it is a professionalbody that has been specifically accorded recognition by theGovernment of India. It is submitted that the judgment of theHon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has been inadvertentlyupheld qua the Appellant institution, and therefore it is imperativethat the clarification as sought by the Appellant herein, for reasonsdetailed in the Application be rendered by this Hon’ble Court.”

23. This Court issued notice on 14.09.2018 to the Respondentsand requested Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel who hadappeared as Amicus Curiae in the main matter to assist this Court.Notices were also issued to AICTE[2] and MHRD[3]. The learned AmicusCuriae placed before this Court Memos 1 and 2 on 11.10.2018 and5.12.2018.

We heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for theappellant, Mr. Karan Bharihoke, learned Advocate for the State, Mr.Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for MHRD[3], Mr. HarishPandey, learned Advocate for AICTE[2], apart from Mr. C. A. Sundaram,learned Amicus Curiae.

24. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the instant matterwas completely covered by the decision of this Court in Orissa Lift

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AIrrigation Corporation case (supra). He submitted that the stand of theappellant itself was that neither any education was imparted by theappellant nor did it possess any infrastructure. The following portionfrom written submission filed by the appellant was relied upon:- “That the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), MumbaiBis a non-profit organization, registered as a Society. It receivesno grant-in-aid or funding of any nature whatsoever, from theCentral or any State Government or any of its autonomous orstatutory bodies by whatever name. It is not and has never beena teaching institution. It is a “professional body” and merelyconducts examinations in specialized engineering discipline-CMechanical Engineering and awards certificates to its member.The mode of conduct of the examination followed by the Institutionof Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai, with basic minimumessential exposure to engineering and technology, are set out asunder:

D

i)No training is imparted directly by the Institution ofMechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai, as only the specificcourse curriculum (both theory/practical) and the studymaterials are only suggested.

ii)The examination is only the qualifying exam, withoutEdrawing any equalization with the board/university, diplomaor degree, as the certificate awarded for the same enablesthe candidates only to be confirmed in service andpromoted in their respective departments.

iii)The examinees privately study the course material andFget practical experience and training on the job in theirrespective units or in their states/UT training institutes.”

The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that though therewas no regulatory framework for grant of certificates which wereawarded by the appellant, over a period of time MHRD[3] had takenGprevaricating stand. A decision was finally taken as communicated bypublic notice issued in August 2017 that all such certificates grantedprior to 2013 would be recognized. However, the validity of thecertificates pertaining to the period subsequent to 2013 was put on holdand AICTE[2] was required to consider the matter. In the light of the H

factual aspects on record, according to the learned Amicus Curiaefollowing questions arise for consideration by this Court:- “1. Whether a mere certification without any course or trainingcan be treated as equivalent to a Degree/Diploma obtained pursuantto a Technical Education course for the purposes of governmentemployment?

2. Whether, if so permissible, then the AICTE approval and settingof standards is not required prior to recognition of suchCertificate?”

Facts

25. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellantrelied upon the communications issued by the Government of India fromtime to time recognizing the Certificate issued by the appellant to be atpar with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized IndianUniversity for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts and servicesand more particularly the communications dated 26.05.1976, 06.10.1981,11.07.1988 and 24.11.2006. It was submitted that the exercise undertakenpursuant to communication dated 10.07.2012 and public notice issued inAugust, 2017 put the matter beyond any doubt in so far as certificatesissued prior to 2013 were concerned and as regards period subsequentthereto the matter was still engaging the attention of the concernedauthorities. In the circumstances it was submitted that the High Courtwas not justified in observing that the certificates of Membership grantedby the appellant could not be treated as equivalent to degrees inengineering and as such Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 preferred by theappellant be allowed.

26. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate also produced on recorda compilation titled, “Methodology, Norms and the Curriculum that arefollowed for various programs conducted by the Institution IME (India)”Following extracts from said compilation are quite relevant:- “Functions of Examinations Committee: the IMEexaminations are conducted under the supervision of anExamination Committee and by the Controller of Examinations.The Examination Committee is appointed by the Council to framethe academic rules, revise the syllabuses on the advice of Advisorsor the Subject Experts Committee, overview the conduct of theexaminations, supervise the examination centers, declaration ofthe results and take other decisions pertaining to the examinations.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

The meeting of the examination committee is also held at least 5-6 times in a year.

IME Examinations: The institute conducts the IME examinationstwice in a year. The examinations are held in the months of Juneand December. On successful completion of the academicrequirement, the student is declared pass in TE II or Section B(Equivalent to Diploma or Degree in Mechanical Engineering).

These courses are specially suitable for in service persons havingno resources (Money and time) for enrolment as full time studentsand for those, who are age bar to get admission in the regularcourses of study.

After completing IME qualifications, they can seek employmentin government, public & private sectors and appear in GATE toget admissions in the institution of higher learning in India andabroad.

The council has appointed academicians and leading entrepreneursas Advisors to help the council for carrying out the academicactivities, revision of syllabuses, evaluation of scripts, supervisingthe practical training, suggesting the names of experts for academicassignments etc.

Eligibility for Admission to Examinations: Only studentmembers of the institution are allowed to enroll/appear in any ofthe institution examination.

Section B (Equivalent to B.E./B.Tech. Degree) inMechanical Engineering: IME is conducting Section-A andSection-B examinations in mechanical engineering, which havebeen recognized by the Government of India, State Governmentsand the Universities, in India and abroad, treating at par with B.E./B.Tech. degree in mechanical engineering. The students whoacquire the qualification from IME can apply for jobs either instate government, central government, government undertakingor in private sector and people in service, on acquiring the IMEqualifications can get the benefit of promotion, if applicable.

TE Part II (Equivalent to Diploma) in MechanicalEngineering: IME is conducting T.Eng Part I and T. Eng. PartII examinations, as per the pattern of Section-A and Seciton-Bexaminations, leading to the award of qualification equivalent to the diploma in mechanical engineering, which has also beenrecognized by the Government of India, State Governments andthe Universities, in India and abroad, treating at par with diplomain mechanical engineering. The students who acquire thequalification from IME can apply for jobs either in stategovernment, central government, government undertaking or inprivate sector and people in service, on acquiring the IMEqualification can get the benefit of promotion, if applicable.”

………………………………………..............………………...

“Syllabus of Various Examinations:

The IME syllabus is regularly subjected to revision regularly. Thesyllabus submitted to the AICTE through the Ministry of HumanResources Development, Government of India in 2005, which wasapproved and the IME was granted permanent permission to enrollthe students and conducts the examinations, was based on thefollowing principles:

It was based on model syllabus of AICTE

It incorporated the compulsory provision of conductingpracticals in an AICTE approved institution for a period of sixmonths and writing a practical & project report and submittingthe evaluation report.

A student is required to appear in total of 6 papers in Part I ofT.Eng; 5 Part II of T.Eng; 12 in Section A and 11 in Section B.

A student cannot take more than 3 papers at one time in onesemester (June/December) in part I of T.Eng. examinationsand not more than 5 papers in Section A, B and Part II in onesemester examinations.

There have to be a gap of one year after passing Part I ofT.Eng and Section A before appearing in next higher group.

The duration to complete diploma and the degree (afterdiploma) in 3½ years.

Revisions of Syllabus: The syllabuses of the examinations, after2005 have been revised in the year 2007 to include the subject ofEnvironment as per directive of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia. A major revision has taken place in the year 2011-12 to

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

revise the contents in view of recent development, specially in thefiled of Computer, Design, Renewable Energy, Control andincluding Disaster Management in the contents. The experts,who have been acting as Advisors and others invited from thegrading institutions were involved in the revision of the syllabuses.

The syllabuses revised in 2007 and 2012 and being followed, atpresent, are given at Enclosure A1 and A2.

Appointment of the Examiners for Paper Setting andEvaluation of the Answer Sheets: The Panel of the Examinersis drawn from across the country preferably from among theteachers of engineering colleges/universities working/retired, fromall the regions throughout country. The Panel of the Examiners isfinalized by the Examination Committee and the appointment ofthe Examiner is done by the Controller of Examinations. TheChairman Examination Committee monitors the process regularly.In most of the cases to maintain secrecy more than one questionpaper is got set and one is picked up by the Controller ofExamination.

Standard and Pattern of Question Paper: The paper settersare appointed having reasonably long experience of setting questionpapers in the university examinations. The question papers canbe compared with the papers of any university, institution or society.The question papers of the last examinations conducted by theIME are enclosed Enclosure B.

Practical Training and Project Report: The candidates arerequired to undergo practical training for 3 months and/or writetraining cum project report to complete the requirements of T.Eng./Associate Membership examinations, after passing all the theorypapers. The candidate will have to obtain prior approval of theIME for the choice of the institution, referee and topic for theproject work. The rules for the practical training and projects aredisplayed on the website and given in the syllabus booklet.

The IME has signed the MOU with more than 100 institutions indifferent regions for the practical training and Project work, thelist is given at Enclosure C.”

…………………………………………………………………

“No Local Centres and not Conducting Coaching Classes:The institution does not recognize, allows or conduct any coachingclasses or local centre helping the candidates appearing in theexaminations. The complete information is provided online andthe candidate can contact the help line for any clarification. Thecandidates are also advised through the website of the institutionto be aware of any such person or institution or coaching centre.Further, the students are also regularly advised that it is neithernecessary nor required nor mandatory to submit the membership/examination/enrolment form through coaching institutes.”

…………………………………..............……………………...

“Academic Activities

Professional Activities: The institution regularly organizes technicallecture meetings, symposia, seminars and workshops, intensivetutorials and workshop visit for the benefit of its members. Theinstitution has instituted various Gold & Silver Prizes to honourthe contributions of eminent engineers in the broad areas ofengineering, sciences and technology.

The institution has brought out many monograms on topics ofinterests, course material for the students and engineering bulletin/newsletter.

Non Formal Academic Programmes: The institution regularlyorganizes or collaborates for organisation of the non formalacademic programme. During earlier years, the IME hasorganised such activities in collaboration with Osmania University,College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana PratapUniversity of Agriculture and Technology, Shrinathji Institute ofTechnology and Engineering, Nathdwara etc.

The institution has set up a computer laboratory, which has beenkept open during the years 1990-2005 for the students, who werenot exposed to the computer, to enable them to learn computationtechniques, programming and data processing.”

27. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for MHRD[3]stressed following aspects of the matter:-

1. No formal education in the nature or form of theory and/orpracticals was being imparted by the appellant;

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

2. As found by the expert bodies, there was difference incurriculum; and

3. Admittedly, the appellant did not have any infrastructure andlaboratories to impart any practical training.

28. Mr. Harish Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for AICTE[2]invited attention of this Court to the stand taken by the MHRD[3] in pendingmatters viz. Writ Petition No.7840 of 2014 in the High Court of Delhi.The stand as appearing in the affidavit was to the following effect:- “15. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in itsdecision on Civil Appeal No.17869-17870/2017 of Orissa LiftIrrigation Corp. Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sankar Patrao & Ors. had notedthat AICTE has always maintained that courses leading to degreein Engineering cannot be undertaken through distance mode…….for the present purpose, that is the final word and is binding.Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed in the above judgmentat para 38 that:- “Technical education leading to the award of degrees inEngineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory aswell as practicals. The practicals form the backbone ofsuch education which is hands-on approach involvingactual application of principles taught in theory under thewatchful eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to faceimparting of knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforcedin practical classes. The practicals thus, constitute anintegral part of the technical education system.”

16. While the courses for which degree/diploma is given by theseprofessional bodies is not exactly on distance mode, but in view ofthe findings of the gap analysis of AICTE, it is observed that thequality of courses conducted by these professional bodies is evenworse than that conducted by the Open and Distance learningInstitutes. As engineering is a subject, which requires intensivepractical and workshop training and these professional bodiescompromise on that very aspect, giving equivalency to the coursesconducted by these bodies leads not only to compromise in thestandard of education, but also adversely affects the future ofstudents/participants of these courses.

17. It is submitted that earlier there were times, when there werevery few Engineering Colleges and there was need to enhancethe spread of engineering education and therefore, the course runby these professional bodies were given equivalency by MHRD.However, at present there is excess engineering education capacitycreated in the country and about 50% of the seats remain vacantevery year. Even some of the engineering colleges are closingdue to lack of adequate admissions. Therefore, there is no needto continue to give equivalence, as this creates a system, wherethe quality of education is not ensured and the future of studentsis adversely affected.

18. Therefore, Ministry of Human Resource Development is ofthe considered view that in the interest of the future of studentsand maintenance of quality of education, it is necessary that nofurther equivalency is granted to those courses run by theseprofessional bodies.”

29. Even though the hearing was concluded, in view of the standas disclosed in the affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.7840 of 2014, theappellant was given an opportunity to reply to said affidavit. It wassubmitted by the appellant in response as under:- “(n) It is submitted that the affidavit filed by the MHRD pursuantto the order of 19.02.2019 ought not to be considered for thefollowing reasons:

- The affidavit contains nothing but a bald averment without eitherreferring or annexing any order/minutes or decision of theMHRD. This is especially significant since the affidavit filedby the MHRD before this court by another Under Secretary iscompletely contrary.

- Only an order/decision/notification in this regard may beconsidered as a notification granting recognition which remainsvalid cannot be reversed without an order passed afterprocedure established by law.

- There is no indication of procedural or substantive due processhaving been followed.

- It is clear that there are no findings of gap analysis against thePetitioner.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A- There Petitioner’s valuable fundamental right to carry onbusiness cannot be deprived without following due process oflaw.

- In the event the MHRD withdraws the Petitioner’s recognition,the Petitioner must have a right and an opportunity to challengeBthe same.

- The case in that regard is pending before the Hon’ble HighCourt of Delhi and this valuable legal right including the rightof appeal cannot be taken away.”

30. At the outset, it must be stated that Civil Appeal No.17922 ofC2017 preferred by the appellant stood disposed of by this Court on03.11.2017. No submissions were advanced on behalf of the appellantat the time the entire group of matters was heard and considered by thisCourt. In our view, the Registrar of this Court was right in refusing toregister Application for Clarification and Modification preferred by theDappellant. However, since the record did not clearly indicate whetherthe Review Application was allowed by the High Court after hearing theappellant, in the interest of justice, the appellant was permitted to raiseall the submissions on merits and we now proceed to consider the entirematter.

E31. On its own showing, the appellant “does not impart anyeducation but merely conducts bi-annual examinations and awardscertificates”. The compilation referred to in paragraph 26 hereinabovealso makes the position clear that the appellant “does not recognize,allow or conduct any coaching classes or local centres helping thecandidates appearing in the examinations”.F32. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case[5 ]two questions wereposed for consideration in paragraph 45 of said decision and the first ofthose two questions was as under:- “A. Whether the deemed to be universities concerned in the presentcase, could start courses through distance education in subjectsGleading to award of degrees in Engineering:

(a) Without any parameters or guidelines having been laiddown by AICTE for conduct of such courses in technicaleducation through distance education mode?

H

(b) Without prior approval under the AICTE Act?”

The discussion in that behalf appearing in paragraphs 46 and 48of the decision was:-

“46. The definition of “technical education” in Section 2(g) of theAICTE Act shows that the emphasis is on the programmes ofeducation, research and training in Engineering Technology ingeneral and the idea is not limited to the institutions where suchprogrammes of education, research and training are to beconducted or imparted. However, the definition of “technicalinstitution” in Section 2(h) leaves out an institution which is auniversity. The distinction between the broader concept of“technical education” and the limited scope of “technicalinstitution” is clear from Section 10 of the AICTE Act wherecertain functions concern the broader facets or aspects oftechnical education which by very nature must apply to everysingle institution (whether university or not) where such coursesare conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functionsare relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definitionare not applicable to universities. For example, functions in clauses(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (l) and (n) are concerned with broader facetsof technical education, while functions in clauses (k), (m), (p) and(q) deal with matters concerning technical institutions and thusmay not apply to universities, whereas there are certain functionsas set out in clauses (g) and (o) which apply to both “technicalinstitutions” and “universities” imparting technical education.Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of Section 10 deal with subjects, inter alia,coordination of the technical education in the country at all levels;promoting innovation, research, development, establishment of newtechnologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of newtechnologies to meet the developmental requirements; andpromoting and effecting link between technical education andsystems and other relevant systems. AICTE is thus the solerepository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative normsfor “technical education”. What should be course content, whatsubjects be taught and what should be the length and duration ofthe courses as well as the manner in which those courses beconducted is a part of the larger concept of “technical education”.Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of the concept of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

“technical education” and must, as a matter of principle, be in theexclusive domain of AICTE.

…

……

48. Technical education leading to the award of degrees inEngineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well aspracticals. The practicals form the backbone of such educationwhich is hands-on approach involving actual application of principlestaught in theory under the watchful eyes of demonstrators orlecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge in theory classesis to be reinforced in practical classes. The practicals, thus,constitute an integral part of the technical education system. Ifthis established concept of imparting technical education as aqualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case tobe substituted by distance education learning, then as a conceptAICTE ought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parametersought to be satisfied if the regular course of imparting technicaleducation is in any way to be modified or altered, is for AICTEalone to decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocaland cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any guidelinesin the matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE.On the other hand, it has always maintained that courses leadingto degrees in Engineering cannot be undertaken through distanceeducation mode. Whether that approach is correct or not is notthe point in issue. For the present purposes, if according to AICTEsuch courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode,that is the final word and is binding—unless rectified in a mannerknown to law. Even National Policy on Education whileemphasising the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmesthrough distance education learning in technical and managerialeducation, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE will be responsiblefor planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standardsincluding maintenance of parity of certification and ensuringcoordinated and integrated development of technical andmanagement education. In our view, whether subjects leading todegrees in Engineering could be taught in distance education modeor not is within the exclusive domain of AICTE. The answer tothe first limb of the first question posed by us is therefore clearthat without the guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree courses in Engineering throughdistance education mode, the deemed to be universities were notjustified in introducing such courses.”

33. The role of AICTE[2] in Technical and Management educationwas emphasized in National Policy of Education, published by theGovernment of India in 1986, which was noted by this Court in OrissaLift Irrigation Corporation case[5]. The concerned Regulations issued byAICTE[2] in the year 1994 were also considered under which no courseor programme could be introduced by any technical institution exceptwith the approval of AICTE[2]. Paragraphs 23.2 and 23.3 of the decisionhad extracted relevant portions of the National Policy of Education andthe concerned Regulations of AICTE[2] as under:- “23.2. In 1986, National Policy on Education was published bythe Government of India, Part VI of which dealt with Technicaland Management Education, Paras 6.6, 6.8 and 6.19 of the Policywere:- “6.6. In view of the present rigid entry requirements to formalcourses restricting the access of a large segment of people totechnical and managerial education, programmes through adistance learning process, including use of the mass media willbe offered. Technical and management education programmes,including education in polytechnics, will also be on a flexiblemodular pattern based on credits, with provision for multi-pointentry. A strong guidance and counselling service will be provided.

*

*

*

6.8. Appropriate formal and non-formal programmes oftechnical education will be devised for the benefit of women,the economically and socially weaker sections, and thephysically handicapped.

***

6.19. The All India Council for Technical Education, whichhas been given statutory status, will be responsible for planning,formulation and maintenance of norms and standards,accreditation, funding of priority areas, monitoring andevaluation, maintaining parity of certification and awards and

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

ensuring the coordinated and integrated development oftechnical and management education. Mandatory periodicevaluation will be carried out by a duly constituted AccreditationBoard. The Council will be strengthened and it will function ina decentralised manner with greater involvement of StateGovernments and technical institutions of good quality.”

B

23.3. The AICTE (Grant of Approval for Starting New TechnicalInstitutions, Introduction of Courses or Programmes and Approvalof Intake Capacity of Seats for Courses or Programmes)Regulations were issued in 1994 (“the 1994 AICTE Regulations”,for short). Clause 4 of these Regulations was to the followingeffect:

C

“4.0. Requirement of grant of approval

4.1. After the commencement of these Regulations, (a) No new Technical Institution or University TechnicalDepartment shall be started; or D

(b) No course or programme shall be introduced by anyTechnical Institution, University including a Deemed Universityor University Department or College or;

(c) No Technical Institution, University or Deemed Universityor University Department or College shall continue to admitstudents for Degree or Diploma courses or programmes; E

(d) No approved intake capacity of seats shall be increased orvaried; FExcept with the approval of the Council.”

34. It was laid down in said decision that AICTE[2]is the solerepository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative norms for“technical education” and that it was within the exclusive domain ofAICTE[2]to consider whether subjects leading to Degrees in Engineeringcould be taught in distance education mode or not. The issue whethercourses leading to degrees in Engineering could be taught through distanceeducation learning was dealt with in extenso. It was laid down that byvery nature, practical training would be an essential and integral part ofengineering courses and that until and unless a clear policy was laid G

H

down by the AICTE[2], no courses in engineering could be taught orimparted through distance education mode. It was held that in the absenceof any guidelines having been issued by AICTE[2]expressly permittingcourses leading to Degrees in Engineering through distance education,no such courses could be introduced. The consistent stand taken by theAICTE[2] was also noted in said judgment.

35. The point in question was again dealt with in the Order dated22.01.2018[7] in paras 23 and 24 and it was stressed that conferral ofdegrees in Engineering through distance education mode was neverapproved in principle by AICTE. The appellant does not even claim tobe imparting any education through distance education mode and onlyconducts bi-annual examination and awards certificates to those whoqualify such examination. Considered in the light of the decision of thisCourt in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case[5], the learned AmicusCuriae is right in his submission that the case of the appellant would beon a footing lower than the cases of deemed to be Universities as dealtwith in that decision.

36. The consistent stand of the appellant has been that it is notcovered under any of the Acts viz. the UGC Act, Indira Gandhi NationalOpen University Act, 1985 and the AICTE Act. However, since it offerscourses or programmes of technical education, as rightly held by theHigh Court, the appellant comes within the definition of “technicalinstitution” as defined in the AICTE Act. Neither does the appellant, onits own grant Degrees in Engineering nor does it, in its capacity as anaffiliated institution to a recognized University, prepare students in coursesleading to Degrees in Engineering. Though it does not impart anyinstructions either in theory or in practical, it holds an examination, onsatisfactory clearance of which it awards Certificates of Membershipto candidates. The question is whether such Certificate could, as amatter of law, be recognised as equivalent to a Degree in MechanicalEngineering from a recognised Indian University? Nothing is clear as tounder what statutory regime or under which legal provision can suchequivalence to the Certificate issued by the appellant be granted orconferred. No statutory provision has been pressed into service or reliedupon to suggest that given the particular circumstances and/or, onsatisfaction of certain parameters the appellant would be entitled toconferral of such equivalence or status.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A37. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, right to conferdegrees can be exercised only by a University established or incorporatedby or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or by aninstitution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act orby an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to conferor grant degrees. The idea appearing in Sub-Section (1) of said SectionB22 is made emphatically clear by Sub-Section (2) which stipulates: “Saveas provided in sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer, orgrant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, anydegree”. The intent of the Parliament is clear that it is only that bodywhich is referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 22, that is competent toCconfer or grant degrees. The appellant does not fall under any of thesecategories enumerated in Section 22(1) of the UGC Act.

38. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Case[5], it also arose forconsideration whether a deemed to be University, without takingappropriate prior permission could start courses leading to degrees inDEngineering through open distance learning. That aspect of the matterdoes not arise in the present case and it is also not the case of theappellant, that it is entitled to award degrees in Engineering. Its submissionhowever is, having been conferred the status of being equivalent todegrees in Engineering in respect of Certificates awarded by it, theappellant is entitled to continue having such benefit or advantage. ThereEis nothing on record either in the form of any statutory provision or anystatutory regulations or any scheme under which such equivalence couldbe granted by the MHRD[3]. It appears that claims made by variousinstitutions like appellant were considered on case to case basis andequivalence was granted by MHRD[3]. The first of those communicationsFwas of the year 1976 when AICTE[2] Act was not in force. If the mandateof Section 22 disentitles any authority or person other than those specifiedin Section 22 (1) to award degrees, there is no power or authority in anyone including MHRD[3] to award such equivalence.

39. The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot beGachieved indirectly is well settled and was elaborated by this Court infollowing decisions:-

A) In State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunderand Others[8] as under:- 8 (2011) 8 SCC 737H

“VI. What cannot be done directly—cannot be done indirectly

43. “21. It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot bedone directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaningthereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legallybe effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on theprinciple of quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne perquod devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted toevade a law by ‘shift or contrivance’.”

(See Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh[9], M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[10]and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing SocietyLtd.[11], SCC p. 344, para 21)”

B) In Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh[12]as under-:- “5. In order to cross the hurdle imposed by Section 397(3) it wassuggested that the revision application before the High Court couldbe treated as an application directed against the order of theSessions Judge instead of as one directed against the order of theMagistrate. We do not think that it is permissible to do so. Whatmay not be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly;that would be an evasion of the statute. It is a “well-known principleof law that the provisions of an Act of Parliament shall not beevaded by shift or contrivance” (per Abbot, C.J. in Fox v. Bishopof Chester). “To carry out effectually the object of a Statute, itmust be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing,in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited orenjoined.” (Maxwell, 11th Edn., p. 109). When the Sessions Judgerefused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate, the HighCourt’s jurisdiction was invoked to avoid the order ‘of theMagistrate and not that of the Sessions Judge. The bar of Section397(3) was, therefore, effectively attracted and the bar could notbe circumvented by the subterfuge of treating the revisionapplication as directed against the Session Judge’s order.”

40. If a degree can be awarded only by those institutions whichsatisfy the description given in sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of the UGC

9 (1979) 1 SCC 560 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 348 : AIR 1979 SC 38110 (2000) 6 SCC 213 : AIR 2000 SC 1997

11 (2010) 13 SCC 336 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 904 : JT (2010) 11 SC 273

12 (1979) 1 SCC 560

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

AAct, the mandate of a Parliamentary legislation cannot be circumventedor nullified by awarding equivalence to a Certificate issued and awardedby the appellant. What is the value of that certificate will be consideredby each employer as and when the occasion arises. The appellant wouldcertainly be entitled to award Certificate of Membership to its Members.What weightage the Certificates must have is for the individual employersBto consider in a given case. The concerned employer may attach dueimportance to such Certificates while considering the worth and abilityof the concerned candidates but to say that the Certificates are equivalentto a degree and as such all the candidates who hold such Certificatesare entitled to derive the advantages which a degree holder can, isCcompletely a different issue.

41. In the present case, the communication dated 26.05.1976 underwhich the Certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to beequivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognizedIndian University, does not indicate any statutory provision under whichDsuch equivalence could be granted or conferred. This point becomesmore crucial, as after the enactment of AICTE Act, the entirety of thefield concerning “technical education” is kept in the domain of AICTEby the Parliament. Section 10 of the AICTE Act entitles AICTE notonly to lay down norms and standards for courses, curriculum and suchother facets of “technical education” but also entitles it under clause (l)Eto advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to anyprofessional body or institution in the field of technical educationconferring powers, rights and privileges etc. Going by the width of thepower, after the enactment of AICTE Act, even such privileges couldbe conferred only after express advice of AICTE and within the confinesFof various statutory provisions.

42. Consequently, neither can the appellant claim, as a matter ofright to be entitled to confer any degree nor can it claim that Certificateawarded by it must be reckoned to be equivalent to a Degree inMechanical Engineering.G43. The High Court[1] was, therefore, right in observing:- “… … the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai isa registered Society and is thus a Technical Institution and isrequired to obtain approval from AICTE in respect of its courses H

in technical subjects. The membership of such institute cannot betreated as equivalent to a degree, as the candidate qualified fromsuch institute cannot be said to be at par with the members ofInstitution of Engineers established under the Statute. (para 208)

…

…

…

… …There is no document produced or alleged that RespondentNo.4 has permanent recognition from any Council or Board inrespect of its courses. Therefore, the degrees or the membershipgranted by respondent No.4 cannot be treated as equivalent toDegree in Engineering.” (para 211)

44. However, the fact remains that the equivalence to theCertificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD[3] inconsultation with AICTE[2]upto 31.05.2013 as is evident from Notificationdated 06.12.2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Noticeissued by AICTE in August, 2017. These communications also indicatethat all those students who were enrolled upto 31.05.2013 would beeligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we have laid down that the Certificates issuedby the appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination toits Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a Degree, anexception needs to be made in favour of students enrolled up to 31.05.2013and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 06.12.2012 and PublicNotice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. Thecandidates had opted to enroll themselves so that they could appear atthe examinations conducted by the appellant under a regime which wasput in place by the Central Government itself and the course content aswell as the curriculum were reviewed by the AICTE. However, theaforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear that after01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease tohave any effect.

45. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour ofsuch candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and declare that the conclusionsdrawn in the present matter will apply after 01.06.2013. The Certificateawarded by the appellant to such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013shall be considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineeringfor the purpose of employment in Central Government.

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

216SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A46. In the premises, we do not find any error in the assessmentmade by the High Court[1] in paragraphs 205 to 213 of its judgment. We,therefore, dismiss all the submissions raised by the appellant and rejectMiscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018. No costs.

47. In the end, we express our sincere gratitude for the assistanceBrendered by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae.

Divya Pandey

Application rejected.

C

D

E

F

G

H