Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4349 OF 2004

All India Council for Technical Education ……. Appellant(s) Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Ors.     ….… Respondent(s)

WITH Civil Appeal No.4357 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4358 of 2004,  Civil Appeal No.4368 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4369 of 2004,  Civil Appeal No.4370 of 2004, Civil Appeal No.4390 of 2004,  and Civil Appeal No.4409 of 2004,  

O R D E R

R. V. Raveendran J.

The  seventh  respondent  –  YMCA  Institute  of Engineering,  Faridabad  (for  short  the  ‘Institute’), affiliated  to  the  State  Board  of  Technical  Education,

Haryana, was conducting Post Diploma Courses of four years duration  in  various  engineering  disciplines  for  several years,  with  entry  level  qualification  of  10+1.  The respondents  are  post  diploma  holders  from  the  said Institute who had the entry qualification of 10+1 when they joined the said course.  

2. The  Institute  sought  the  permission  of  All  India Council  for  Technical  Education  –  the  Appellant  herein (‘AICTE’ for short) to convert the aforesaid four year Post Diploma Programme into an ‘Advance Diploma Programme’ also of  four  years  duration.  AICTE  granted  approval  for  such conversion, by its letter dated 26.10.1995, subject to the following conditions :   

(i) The entry level to the course should be raised from 11th (10+1) to 12th (10+2) standard.  

(ii) The duration of the course shall be 4 years after 10+2.  

(iii) The  course  content  should  be  modified  as suggested  by  AICTE  in  Annexure-I  to  the  said letter of approval.  

As a consequence, the four year Post Diploma Course of the Institute  was  converted  to  a  four  year  Advance  Diploma Course from 1995.  

2

3. On  the  request  of  the  Institute,  the  Director, Technical Education, Haryana and AICTE granted approval in the year 1997, for upgradation of the four year Advance Diploma Course to a five year Engineering Degree Programme (B.Tech degree). As a consequence, the Institute started B. Tech  programme  from  the  academic  year  1997-98  with  the permission of the affiliating university and AICTE. From that  year,  the  Institute  discontinued  admissions  to  the four year Advance Diploma Course.  

4. In order to enable its students who had successfully completed  the  Four  Year  Post/Advance  Diploma  Course,  to acquire  degrees  in  engineering,  the  Institute  wanted  to commence a one year bridge course. On its application, the Government  of  Haryana  approved  a  one  year  bridge  course with two extended semesters of 22 weeks each, for diploma holders from the Institute to cover the remaining portion of  the  degree  course,  and  acquire  B.Tech  degree.  The Director  of  Technical  Education,  State  of  Haryana, addressed a letter dated 19.5.1999 to AICTE, recommending the grant of approval for starting the said bridge course by the Institute, for the benefit of its students who had passed the post/advance diploma courses during the sessions 1992-96,  1993-97  and  1994-98.  It  was  stated  that  such

3

admission  facility  to  be  made  available  to  the  diploma holders will be in force only for the next two years.  

5. The  appellant  rejected  the  request  by  letter  dated 9.7.1999 by giving the following reasons for the refusal of permission :  (i) There was no provision in the AICTE Rules to

approve a bridge course for diploma holders. (ii) Approving  any  bridge  course  would  involve  a

major policy shift on the part of AICTE. It will also affect the technical education all over the country.

(iii) If  diplomas  were  to  be  permitted  to  be converted into degrees through bridge courses, the  very  purpose  of  diploma  level  education would be defeated.  

(iv) There  was  already  an  existing  provision enabling diploma holders to get admitted to the second year of the engineering programme.

6. The Director of Technical Education, State of Haryana, reiterated the recommendation for approval, giving reasons in  support  of  its  recommendation.  The  Institute  and  the students  of  the  Advance  Diploma  Course  also  submitted representations  to  AICTE  and  the  Ministry  for  Human Resources  Development  requesting  reconsideration  its decision.  AICTE  therefore  reconsidered  and  rejected  the

4

request at its meeting held on 15.9.1999, and communicated the rejection by letter dated 11.11.1999.    

7. Feeling aggrieved, 102 students of the Institute who had  joined  the  Advance  Diploma  Course  in  Engineering, approached the Delhi High Court in December, 1999 by filing CWP No.7364/1999 seeking the following reliefs : (i) for quashing the communications dated 9.7.1999 and 11.11.1999 of AICTE; and (ii) for a direction to the Union of India and AICTE to accord approval for the upgradation of the four  year  Advance  Diploma  course  in  Engineering,  to  a B.Tech  programme,  with  the  one  year  bridge  course.  A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 20.9.2000, quashed the rejection  letters  dated  9.7.1999  and  11.11.1999  of  the AICTE  and  directed  AICTE  to  accord  approval  to  the Institute to have a bridge course for its students who had studied  and  who  were  studying  in  the  Advance  Diploma Course.  

8. Thereafter some students who had passed the erstwhile Post  Diploma  Course,  approached  the  Delhi  High  Court  in 2001,  seeking  relief  similar  to  what  was  granted  to students  of  four  years  Advance  Diploma  course.  Those

5

petitions  were  allowed  on  28.5.2001  and  30.10.2001  and affirmed in a Letters Patent Appeal on 21.12.2001. These subsequent orders extended the benefit of the bridge course to even Post Diploma holders, provided they had passed 10+2 examination  (with  the  subjects  Physics,  Chemistry  and Mathematics)  and  successfully  completed  the  four  year diploma course.   

9. Thereafter,  other  post  diploma  holders,  who  entered the course only with a qualification of 10+1, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.16232/2001. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said petition  by  order  dated  15.3.2002  holding  that  the criterion relevant for admission to the bridge course was possessing a four year post or advance diploma, and the fact that some of them had passed 10+2 examinations, while others  had  passed  10+1  examinations,  before  joining  the post/advance diploma should not affect their eligibility to be admitted to the bridge course. He held that there cannot be discrimination between Post Diploma holders and Advance Diploma  holders,  with  reference  to  their  entry qualification for diploma course, that is, passing either 10+2 or 10+1 examination.  

6

10. The  respondents  herein  who  were  also  post  diploma holders but who had passed entry level examination of 10+1 (and  not  10+2  examination)  approached  the  Punjab  and Haryana  High  Court.  By  the  impugned  orders  dated 28.11.2002, their writ petitions were allowed following its earlier decision dated 15.3.2002 in CWP No.16232/2001. The said orders are challenged in these appeals by special leave.  

11. AICTE’s objection is to the permission given by the High  Court  to  the  post  diploma  holders  with  10+1  entry level qualification to take the bridge course. AICTE had refused to give permission for the bridge course itself, as such a course enabling diploma holders to secure a B.Tech degree amounted to a major policy shift and also defeated the very purpose of diploma level education and diluted the efficacy  of  the  degree  course.  But  when  the  Delhi  High Court  directed  it  to  approve  the  bridge  course  on 20.9.2000, it did not contest the order, as it was intended to be a one time measure in regard to candidates, who had done the four year advance diploma course and whose entry level  examination  was  the  same  as  the  entry  level examination  for  the  engineering  degree course namely 10+2.  It  also  accepted  the   subsequent   decisions   of

7

Delhi High Court extending the benefit to four year post diploma  holders,  having  regard  to  the  fact  that the  relief  was  restricted to only those whose entry level  qualification  was  10+2.  It  is  contended  when  the norms and conditions were sought to be diluted further, by permitting four year post diploma holders with 10+1 entry level qualification, to take the bridge course, it decided to challenge the decision to resist any further erosion. It is submitted that if the decision is allowed to stand, it would permit candidates who did not possess the entry level qualification for admission to engineering degree course, to secure the engineering degree without having the entry level qualification, by a back door entry. It is submitted that extending the benefit of the bridge course to Post Diploma holders with entry level qualification 10+1,  and equating a 10+1 plus four year Post Diploma, to a 10+2 plus four year Advance Diploma, would be detrimental to academic standards,  and  jeopardize  the  entire  technical  education system as it may lead to similar demands for equivalence, lateral  entry  and  lowering  of  entry  qualifications  from other institutions or universities, thereby leading to a nationwide erosion of the quality of the engineering degree courses. It is submitted that the objection of AICTE is to

8

the entire process of bridge courses for diploma holders, in particular to any attempt to lower the standards.   12. There is considerable force in the submission of the appellant. Having regard to clauses (i) and (k) of section 10 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 [‘Act’ for short], it is the function of the AICTE to consider  and  grant  approval  for  introduction  of  any  new course  or  programme  in  consultation  with  the  agencies concerned, and to lay down the norms and standards for any course  including  curricula,  instructions,  assessment  and examinations. The decision whether a bridge course should be permitted as a programme for enabling diploma holders to secure engineering degree, and if permitted, what should be the norms and standards in regard to entry qualification, content of course instructions and manner of assessing the performance by examinations, are all decisions in academic matters of technical nature. AICTE consists of professional and technical experts in the field of education qualified and  equipped  to  decide  on  those  issues.  In  fact,  a statutory duty is cast on them to decide these matters. The courts  are  neither  equipped  nor  have  the  academic  or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions

9

in  academic  matters  involving  standards  and  quality  of technical  education.  If  the  courts  start  entertaining petitions  from  individual  institutions  or  students  to permit  courses  of  their  choice,  either  for  their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities,  or  because  they  think  that  one  course  is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to  chaos  in  education  and  deterioration  in  standards  of education.  

13. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a  question  of  educational  policy  or  an  issue  involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, courts will step in. In Dr. J.P.Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University [1980 (3) SCC 418] this Court observed :  

“Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread… While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.”

10

In  Maharashtra  State  Board  of  Secondary  and  Higher Secondary  Education  v.  Paritosh  Bhupeshkumar  Sheth [1984 (4) SCC 27] this court reiterated :

“…………….the  Court  should  be  extremely  reluctant  to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and  proper  in  relation  to  academic  matters  in preference  to  those  formulated  by  professional  men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.”

14. The  Act  has  entrusted  AICTE  with  the  powers  and functions relating to (i) proper planning and co-ordinated development  of  the  technical  education  system  throughout the country; (ii) promotion of qualitative improvement of technical  education  in  relation  of  planned  quantitative growth,  and  (iii)  regulation  of  the  system  and  proper maintenance of norms and standards. In State of Tamil Nadu v.  Adhiyaman  Educational  &  Research  Institute [1995  (4) SCC 104], this Court examined the provisions of the Act and explained the scope of the duties and responsibilities of AICTE under the Act thus :  

“The  aforesaid  provisions  of  the  Act  including  its preamble make it abundantly clear that the Council has been  established  under  the  Act  for  coordinated  and integrated  development  of  the  technical  education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined  to  promote  qualitative  improvement  of  such

11

education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is also required to regulate and ensure proper  maintenance  of  norms  and  standards  in  the technical education system.  ……….This duty and responsibility cast on the Council implies that the norms and standards to be set should be such as would prevent a lopsided or an isolated development of technical education in the country. For this purpose, the norms and standards to be prescribed for the technical education have to be such as would on  the  one  hand  ensure  development  of  technical educational  system  in  all  parts  of  the  country uniformly; that there will be a co-ordination in the technical  education  and  the  education  imparted  in various parts of the country and will be capable of being integrated in one system; that there will be sufficient number of technically educated individuals and that their growth would be in a planned manner; and  that all  institutions in  the country  are in  a position to properly maintain the norms and standards that may be prescribed by the Council. The norms and standards have, therefore, to be reasonable and ideal and  at  the  same  time,  adaptable,  attainable  and maintainable by institutions throughout the country to ensure both quantitative and qualitative growth of the technically qualified personnel to meet the needs of the country. Since the standards have to be laid down on  a  national  level,  they  have  necessarily  to  be uniform  throughout  the  country  without  which  the coordinated  and  integrated  development  of  the technical education all over the country will not be possible which will defeat one of the main objects of the statute. …”

In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B.Educational Society [2005 (3) SCC 212], this Court reiterated:

“AICTE Act was enacted with the object of regulating and  coordinating  the  development  of  technical education  throughout  the  country  and  also  for establishment of proper and uniform norms and standard of technical education in India.”  

12

15. The decision of AICTE not to permit bridge courses for diploma holders and its decision not to permit those who have passed 10+1 examinations (instead of 10+2 examination) to take the bridge course, relate to technical education policy  which  fall  within  their  exclusive  jurisdiction. Courts will not interfere in matters of policy. This Court in  Directorate  of  Film  Festivals  v.  Gaurav  Ashwin  Jain [2007 (4) SCC 737] pointed out:

“Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining  the  correctness,  suitability  and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to  the  executive  on  matters  of  policy  which  the executive  is  entitled  to  formulate.  The  scope  of judicial  review  when  examining  a  policy  of  the Government  is  to  check  whether  it  violates  the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory  provision  or  manifestly  arbitrary.  Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or  wiser  alternative  is  available.  Legality  of  the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.”

The above observations will apply with added vigour to the field of education.     

16. The  respondents  submitted  that  the  appellant  had accepted the decisions of the Delhi High Court directing permission for bridge course and therefore, it is estopped

13

from challenging the impugned order which merely follows the  decision  of  Delhi  High  Court  with  a  slight modification. The fact that the decisions of the Delhi High Court  were  not  challenged  and  was  given  effect  earlier, will not come in the way of the present challenge. It is possible that AICTE did not contest the earlier decision because it was thought to be a one time measure or because it would be applied only to a small section with reference to a single institution, or because it would benefit only those  who  had  passed  the  entry  level  examination  for engineering degree, that is, 10+2 with physics, chemistry and mathematics. It is also possible that AICTE did not assess or realize the effect or impact of such a decision or the likelihood of gradual dilution. The question whether the  government  or  a  statutory  body  which  accepted  and implemented  earlier  decision  of  a  court,  can  challenge subsequent  decisions  of  the  court  following  the  such earlier decision, with reference to different but similarly placed aggrieved persons, was considered by this Court in State of Maharashtra v.  Digambar – 1995 (4) SCC 683 and Col. B. K. Akkara (Retd.) v.  Government of India – 2006 (11) SCC 709. This Court held that neither the principle of res  judicata  nor  the  principle  of  estoppel,  nor  the principle of legitimate expectation, nor the principle of

14

fairness in action was attracted and there was no bar to such challenge. The principle is stated thus in B.K. Akkara:

“A particular judgment of the High Court may not be challenged  by  the  State  where  the  financial repercussions are negligible or where the appeal is barred by limitation. It may also not be challenged due to negligence or oversight of the dealing officers or on account of wrong legal advice, or on account of the non-comprehension of the seriousness or magnitude of the issue involved. However, when similar matters subsequently  crop  up  and  the  magnitude  of  the financial implications is realized, the State is not prevented  or  barred  from  challenging  the  subsequent decisions or resisting subsequent writ petitions, even though judgment in a case involving similar issue was allowed to reach finality in the case of others. Of course, the position would be viewed differently, if petitioners plead and prove that the State had adopted a 'pick and choose' method only to exclude petitioners on account of malafides or ulterior motives.”

The observations with reference to financial implications, will equally apply in other situations also, as in this case which involve serious implications/repercussions  in the  field  of  education  leading  to  deterioration  of educational standards. Therefore, the fact that the earlier directions of the High Court to permit the bridge course for diploma holders from the Institute, had been complied with, and that those decisions attained finality will not come in the way of AICTE challenge any subsequent decision relating to other similarly placed candidates/students. It cannot  however  take  away  the  benefit  extended  to  the petitioners in those cases, where the decision had attained

15

finality,  on  the  ground  that  subsequently  the  court  has taken a different view.

17. It was next contended by the respondents that AICTE should  not  distinguish  between  those  who  underwent  10+2 course and those who underwent 10+1 course, as once they were admitted and successfully completed the post diploma or advance diploma course, they all became equal and the bridge course should be available to all four year diploma holders.  AICTE  countered  by  contending  that  it  complied with the direction of the Delhi High Court to permit one year bridge course as it was intended to be a one time measure available only for those candidates who possessed entry level qualifications of 10+2 physics, chemistry and mathematics and a four year post/advance diploma. The High Court  was  in  error  in  assuming  that  the  entry  level qualification was not relevant once a candidate secured the post/advance diploma.  The issue had to be examined with reference  to  admissions  to  a  programme  which  was  not  a separate course, but a special bridge course which led to an  engineering  degree  for  which  the  entry  level qualification was 10+2. AICTE was of the opinion that the norms/standards  by  way  of  minimum  qualifications  for Engineering  degree  course  should  not  be  diluted  by

16

permitting a lesser entry qualification of 10+1. It was of the  view  that  persons  not  possessing  the  entry  level qualification  prescribed  for  admission  to  engineering degree  course,  cannot  be  permitted  to  secure  the engineering  degree  by  a  round  about  backdoor  route  by undergoing a four year post/advance diploma course and one year bridge course.  These being educational issues, they cannot  be  interfered,  merely  because  the  court  thought otherwise. If the AICTE was of the view that only those diploma  holders  with  10+2  (with  PCM  subjects)  should  be permitted  to  upgrade  their  qualification  by  an  ad  hoc bridge course or that such bridge course should not be a regular  or  permanent  feature,  there  is  no  reason  to interfere with such a decision. The courts cannot be their orders create courses, nor permit continuance of courses which were not created in accordance with law, or lower the minimum qualifications prescribed for admissions. The High Court’s decision to permit candidates who have completed 10+1 plus four years post diploma course to take the bridge course, cannot be sustained.

18. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without  any  prior  statutory  or  academic  evaluation  or

17

assessment  or  acceptance.  Granting  approval  for  a  new course  or  programme  requires  examination  of  various academic/technical  facets  which  can  only  be  done  by  an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken  over  or  discharged  by  courts.  In  this  case,  for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted  for  four  year  Advance  Diploma  holders  who  had passed  the  entry  level  examination  of  10+2  with  PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one time measure was extended for several years and was also extended to Post Diploma holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an  ad hoc  measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely  affecting  the  standards  and  quality  of engineering  degree  courses.  Courts  should  guard  against such forays in the field of education.  

18. In  view  of  the  above,  we  allow  these  appeals,  set aside the orders of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions. We however make it clear that our order will not

18

apply, nor come in the way of any candidate (whether a post or advance diploma holder from the Institute, with whatever entry level qualification,) who has already been admitted to the bridge course and completed the bridge course, in pursuance of the impugned orders of the High Court, from either  taking  the  examination  or  obtaining  the  B.Tech degree.   

__________________J [R. V. Raveendran]

_________________J [G. S. Singhvi]

New Delhi; February 18, 2009.

19