MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      1 Reportable

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.2367 OF 2018  

IN  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017

INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN         …Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.           …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 (arising out of Special Leave Petition

(CC)  No.7390)  was  filed  in  this  Court  by  the  appellant  challenging  the

judgment and order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the High Court1 in Civil Writ

Petition No.12909 of 2009 and connected matters.  Insofar as the case of the

1 High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      2 appellant was concerned, Writ Petition No.12909 of 2009 was disposed of by

the  High  Court1 holding,  that  the  Membership  Certificate  granted  by  the

appellants could not be treated as equivalent to a Degree in Engineering.   

2. The appellant,  a  Society registered under the Societies  Registration

Act,  1860 is  said  to  have  been  established  to  promote  the  profession  and

practice of Mechanical Engineering Professionals.  Amongst its activities, it

conducts  bi-annual examinations known as Technician Engineers’ Part-I and

Part-II,  Automobile  Technician  Engineers’ Examination  Part-I  and  Part-II,

Production  Technician  Engineers’ Part-I  and  Part-II,  Refrigeration  and  Air

Conditioning  Technician  Engineers’  Examination  Part-I  and  Part-II  and

Section-A  and  Section-B  of  Associate  Membership  Examination  in

Mechanical Engineering.  On successful completion of such examinations, the

Certificate “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 and determination of

standards in Universities and Section 2(f) defines University to mean “… a

University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial

Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      3 with  the  University  concerned,  be  recognized  by  the  Commission  in

accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act”.  In terms

of Section 3, status of “deemed to be University” can be conferred upon an

Institution for  higher  studies other  than a  University.   In  terms of  Section

22(1) of the UGC Act,  right to confer degrees can be exercised only by a

University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial

Act or a State Act or by an institution deemed to be a University under Section

3 of  the UGC Act  or  by an institution specially empowered by an Act  of

Parliament to confer or grant degrees.

4. On 26.05.1976, the Government of India, Ministry of Education and

Social Welfare, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of

Assessment for Educational Qualifications provisionally recognized  “a pass

in  the  Associate  Membership  Examination  of  the  Mechanical  Engineers

Association of India at par with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a

recognized  Indian  University/Institution  for  the  purpose  of  recruitment  to

superior posts and services under the Central Government for  a period of

three years.”   On 06.10.1981 the Government of India, Ministry of Education

and Culture, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of

Assessment for Educational Qualifications, decided to continue to recognize a

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      4 pass in AMIE of the appellant for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts

and services under the Central Government.  

5. All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (‘the AICTE Act’

for  short)  was  enacted  to  provide  for  the  establishment  of  the  All  India

Council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planning and co-

ordinated  development  of  the  technical  education  system  throughout  the

country,  the  promotion  of  qualitative  improvement  of  such  education  in

relation  to  planned  quantitative  growth  and  the  regulation  and  proper

maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system 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, town planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other programmes or areas as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare;

(h) “technical  institution”  means  an  institution,  not being  a  University,  which  offers  courses  or programmes of technical education, and shall include such  other  institutions  as  the  Central  Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in  the  Official  Gazette,  declare  as  technical institutions;”

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      5 Section 10 of  the AICTE Act enumerates functions of  the AICTE2

established under Section 3.  Said Section 10 is as under:-

10. Functions of the Council. – It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under this 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  needed  growth  and  development  in technical education;

(b) coordinate  the  development  of  technical education in the country at all levels;

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

(i) technical institutions, and (ii) Universities imparting technical education

in coordination with the Commission;

(d) promote innovations research and development in established  and  new  technologies,  generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet developmental  requirements  and  for  overall improvement of educational processes;  

(e)  formulate  schemes  for  promoting  technical education  for  women,  handicapped  and  weaker sections of the society;  

(f)  promote  an  effective  link  between  technical education  system  and  other  relevant  systems

2 All India Council for Technical Education

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      6 including  research  and  development  organisations, industry and the community;  

(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical  institutions  and  Universities  imparting technical  education,  incorporating  norms  and mechanisms for enforcing accountability;  

(h)  formulate  schemes  for  the  initial  and in-service training of teachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new centres for offering staff development programmes  including  continuing  education  of teachers;  

(i)  lay  down  norms  and  standards  for  courses, curricula,  physical  and  instructional  facilities,  staff pattern,  staff  qualifications,  quality  instructions, assessment and examinations;  

(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees;  

(k)  grant  approval  for  starting  new  technical institutions  and  for  introduction  of  new courses  or programmes  in  consultation  with  the  agencies concerned;  

(l) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the  field  of  technical  education  conferring  powers, rights and privileges on it for the promotion of such profession  in  its  field  including  conduct  of examinations  and  awarding  of  membership certificates;  

(m)  lay  down  norms  for  granting  autonomy  to technical institutions;  

(n)  take  all  necessary  steps  to  prevent commercialisation of technical education;

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      7

(o)  provide  guidelines  for  admission  of  students  to technical  institutions  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 comply with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such  other  steps  as  may  be  necessary  for  ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council;  

(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to  set  up new organisations  to  ensure  effective discharge  of  the  Council’s  responsibilities  and  to create  positions  of  professional,  technical  and supporting staff based on requirements;  

(s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types  offering  courses  in  technical  education  fit  to receive grants;  

(t)  advise  the  Commission  for  declaring  any institution imparting technical education as a deemed University;  

(u)  set  up  a  National  Board  of  Accreditation  to periodically  conduct  evaluation  of  technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms  and  standards  specified  by  it  and  to  make recommendation  to  it,  or  to  the  Council,  or  to  the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of the institution or the programme;  

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

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      8

6. A Notification was issued on 11.07.1988 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) to the

following effect:-

“On the recommendations of the Board of Assessment for  Educational  Qualifications,  the  Government  of India  has  been  pleased  to  recognize  the  Part-I  and Part-II  Technician  Engineers’  Examination  (T) conducted by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India)  at  par  with  a  Diploma  in  Mechanical Engineering from State Polytechnic for the purpose of employment to subordinate posts and services under the Central Government.”

By endorsement  dated 19.08.1988 issued by Government  of  Punjab,

Department of Education, the qualifications mentioned in the said Notification

dated  11.07.1988  were  recognized  for  the  purpose  of  recruitment  to

subordinate posts and services under the control of Government of Punjab.

7. While dealing with certain complaints against the appellant, Member

Secretary, AICTE in his letter dated 27.04.2000 addressed to Government of

India, Department of Education; MHRD3 stated that many deficiencies were

found in the curriculum offered by the appellant in its programmes.  Later, the

recognition granted insofar as examinations conducted and certificates issued

by  the  appellant  for  the  purposes  of  employment  under  the  Central 3 Ministry of Human Resource Development

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      9 Government was withdrawn by MHRD3 vide Notification dated 10.06.2002.

The exercise was preceded by hearing given to the appellant by a High Level

Committee which was appointed to review the recognition granted to Parts I

& II of Technician Engineers Examination conducted by the appellant and the

relevant portion of the Notification was:-

“The  High  Level  committee  for  recognition  of Education Qualification in its special meeting held on 12.2.2002  and  15.5.2002  in  pursuance  of  the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 31.1.2002  in  the  matter  of  Civil  Writ  Petition No.3570/2001  and  LPA No.49-50/2002  relating  to Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai reviewed the recognition granted to Part-I and II  of Technician Engineers Examination of the Institution of  Mechanical  Engineers  (India),  Mumbai  for  the purpose of employment under Central Government.

2. After  giving a fair  hearing  to  the  Institution of Mechanical  Engineers  (India),  Mumbai,  the  High Level committee took following decisions:

(i) Recognition of Associated Membership Exami- nation  of  Section  A & B and Part-I  and II  of Technician Engineers Examination (T) of the In- stitution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mum- bai  for  the  purposes of employment under the Central Government stand withdrawn with im- mediate effect.

(ii) Withdrawal of the recognition will be effective prospectively, i.e. students who have already got

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      10 Section A & B and Part_I and II  awards from IME (India), Mumbai will continue to be eligi- ble for employment in Central Government.

(iii) IME (India),  Mumbai  will  be  at  liberty to ap- proach the Ministry of Human Resources Devel- opment  for  recognition  of  awards  granted  by them for  employment  purposes  in  the  Central Government as and when they remove all defi- ciencies with regard to revision and upgradation of  curriculum,  examination  system,  procedure for appointment and qualification of examiners, and other related issues, as pointed out by  the Group constituted by the High Level Commit- tee.”

8. The appellant challenged said Notification dated 10.06.2002 by filing

Civil Writ Petition No.3907 of 2002 in the High Court of Delhi which by its

order dated 24.06.2002 had initially stayed the operation of said Notification.

However,  said  Writ  Petition  was  dismissed  on  07.07.2003  by  the  Single

Judge.  Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 584 of 2003 arising therefrom was

disposed of by the Division Bench by order dated 09.03.2004 with following

observations: -

“The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7.7.2003 by which the writ petition was dismissed.  The short grievance in this appeal  is  that  the  recognition  of  the  appellant  was withdrawn  by  notification  dated  10.6.2002  for  the purpose  of  employment  under  Central  Government and  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  notification  itself

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      11 mentioned  that  Mechanical  Engineers  (India) (hereinafter referred to as “IME”), would be at liberty to  approach  the  Ministry  of  Human  Resource Development  for  recognition  of  awards  granted  by them  for  employment  purposes  in  the  Central Government as and when they remove all deficiencies with  regard  to  the  revision  and  upgradation  of curriculum,  examination  system,  procedure  for appointment and qualification of examiners and other related issues as pointed out by the Group constituted by the High Level Committee.

Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Union  of  India submits  that  after the appellant has removed all  the deficiencies  as  indicated  in  para  (iii)  of  the Notification and as  and when they would approach the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Human Resource  Development,  Department  of  Secondary and Higher Education, the same will be considered as expeditiously  as  possible  and  in  any  event  within three months from the date of receipt of the request for recognition from the appellant.

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

The matter was carried further by the appellant by filing Special Leave

Petition (Civil)  No. 9387 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court as

under:-  “Mr. Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General, states that the application made by the Petitioner to the Government will be considered within six weeks from today.  He states that whilst so considering the representation,  the  Government  will  also  consider, whether  the  students  who  had  joined  prior  to  the withdrawal of the recognition, be allowed to graduate.

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      12 In  view  of  this  statement,  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the Petitioner applies for withdrawal of the  Special  Leave  Petition.   The  Special  Leave Petition is allowed to be withdrawn.”

9. Thereafter, the matter was re-examined and the recognition granted for

its educational qualifications and enjoyed by the appellant was restored with

effect from 16.10.2006 vide Notification dated 24.11.2006.  The relevant part

of the Notification was as under:-

“The  Institute  of  Mechanical  Engineers(India), Mumbai  has  been  running  Section  A  &  B  of Association Membership course, equivalent to Degree in  Mechanical  Engineering  since  1976,  vide  this Ministry’s letter No.F.18-31/71-T.2 dated 28.05.1976 and  Part  I  &  Part  II  of  Technical  Engineers  (T), equivalent  to  Diploma  in  Mechanical  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  these  courses,  Government  of  India allowed  the  IME (India),  Mumbai  to  approach  this Ministry  for  recognition  of  their  Diploma/Degree courses only after the removal of all the deficiencies pointed  out  by  AICTE.   Accordingly,  the  above Institute submitted a request along with the requisite material  for  review  and  consideration  of  this Department.   This  Department  got  the  material  re- examined  by  AICTE.   AICTE  through  its  Expert Committee  re-examined  both  the  courses  and submitted  its  recommendations  with  revision  of syllabus for both the courses.   

The  High  Level  Committee  for  recognition  of educational qualification considered the matter in its

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      13 meeting  held  on  16.10.2006  and  on  its recommendation,  Govt.  of  India  has  decided  the following:-

(i) The  recognition  of  the  courses  run  by IME,  Mumbai  may  be  restored  with  effect  from 16.10.2006.  With this recognition IME will run the courses based on new syllabus approved by All India Council 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 Degree level course of Section A &  B  of  Associate  Membership  will  include  24 papers in place of 11 papers at present.  In addition to this,  there  will  be  nine  elective  subjects.   After completing  theory  papers,  students  will  have  to undergo  at  least  3  months  mandatory apprenticeship/practical  training/project  report  at  an All India Council  for Technical Education approved Polytechnic for Part  I & II of Technician Engineers Course for award of Certificate equivalent to Diploma in  Mechanical  Engineering  and  the Apprenticeship/Practical training of the same duration in  AICTE  approved  Degree  Colleges  for  award  of Certificate  equivalent  to  Bachelors  Degree  in Mechanical  Engineering  for  Section  A  &  B  of Associate Membership Course.

(ii) The students who were registered prior to 10.06.2002 for  Part  I  & II  of  Technician Engineers (Diploma  Level)  and  Section  A &  B  of  Associate Membership course (Degree Level) will be allowed to complete the courses with pre revised syllabus till the next scheduled examination, to be held in December 2006.  Their Degree/Diploma will be recognized for employment in Central Government.  Those who do not  complete  their  courses  by  that  time (December 2006), will have to follow the revised syllabus.”

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      14 10. In the year 2008, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1640 of 2008 (Kartar Singh

vs.  Union of India and others) was filed in public interest before the High

Court  submitting  inter  alia that  number  of  study  centres  and  illegal

institutions were running in the State which were virtually selling Degrees and

Diplomas and the petition prayed for appropriate reliefs holding Degrees and

Diplomas  awarded  by  such  study  centres/institutions  to  be  invalid  for

government jobs.  The appellant was not a party to this petition.   

Writ Petition (Civil) No.12909 of 2009 (Jagmohan Singh vs.  State of

Punjab and others) was filed in the High Court1 to which the appellant was a

party and the petition prayed  inter alia  that the Certificate of Membership

issued by the appellant be declared invalid for recruitment and promotion to

the  service  concerning State  affairs.   An application  was  preferred  by the

appellant  in  said  Writ  Petition  that  the  matter  was  covered  by  the  earlier

decision  of  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  in  “Tejinder  Singh  vs.

Punjab State Electricity Board and others”.  Writ Petition (Civil)No.12909 of

2009 was thereafter disposed of by a consent order dated 06.07.2011 in terms

of the earlier judgment in Tejinder Singh’s case.  A Review Application was,

however, preferred against  said consent order dated 06.07.2011 by original

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      15 Respondent No.5 and the matter was directed 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, Ministry

of Human Resource Development,  Department of  Higher Education to the

appellant stating as under:-  

“It has been decided that a review of the curriculum, mode  of  delivery  of  the  program,  its  duration,  etc. would be carried out by the concerned Regulator and until such a review is complete, the Institutions with permanent  recognition  will  not  make  fresh admissions.   Alternatively,  the  institution  has  the option of realigning its curriculum with the National Vocational  Educational  Qualification  Framework (NVEQF) and proceed further.”   

12. By common Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2012 the matters were

disposed of  by the High Court1.   Insofar  as  the case of  the appellant  was

concerned, the Review Application was allowed and in paragraphs 205 to 213

of its Judgment, the High Court1 observed:- “205.  In  CWP NO.12909  of  2009,  the  issue  is  in respect of  Certificate of  Membership obtained from the institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai (respondent No.4), as a degree for promotion to the post  of  Sub  Divisional  Engineer  in  terms  of  the Punjab  Water  Supply  and  Sanitation  (Engineering Wing),  Group  ‘A’ Service  Rules,  2007.   In  CWP No.9200 of 2012, the petitioners claim promotion on

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      16 the  basis  of  similar  membership  from  the  same Institute.

206. The petitioner in CWP No.12909 of 2009 is  a degree  holder  from  Panjab  University,  whereas respondent No.5 is said to have obtained a Certificate of Membership from respondent No.4 i.e. the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai alleging the same  without  attending  any  regular  classes, undertaking practicals  and without taking any study leave from the Department.  It is the contention of the petitioner  that  the  certificate  issued  by  the  said respondent is not a degree in terms of Section 22 of the UGC Act, as respondent No.4 is not authorized to confer any right of degrees.

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

208. A perusal of the Certificate relied upon by the petitioner in Tejinder Singh’s case (supra) as also the present case (Annexure A-2) shows that the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It appears that such institute is taking advantage of its similarity  in  name with the  Institution of Engineers established under Royal Charter, as discussed above. The  Institute  of  Mechanical  Engineers  (India), Mumbai is a registered Society and is thus a Technical

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      17 Institution  and  is  required  to  obtain  approval  from AICTE in respect of its courses in technical subjects. The membership of such institute cannot be treated as equivalent to a degree, as the candidate qualified from such  institute  cannot  be  said  to  be  at  par  with  the members of Institution of Engineers established under the Statute.

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

210. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a notification dated 24.11.2006, wherein the request of Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai for  recognition  of  its  Diploma/Degree  courses  was examined by the Government of India only after the removal of all the deficiencies pointed out by AICTE. The notification is to the effect that AICTE has re- examined  both  the  courses  and  submitted  its recommendation with revision of syllabus for both the courses.  The Government of India decided that IME (India),  Mumbai will  run the courses based on new syllabus approved by AICTE w.e.f  16.10.2006.   As per  another  communication  produced  in  Court  on 18.10.2012,  The  Government  of  India  has communicated  to  respondent  No.4  to  the  following effect:-

“Please refer to this Ministry’s notification No.23-2/2001-TS.III  dated  24.11.2006 regarding  Section  A & B  of  Association Membership course, equivalent to Degree in Mechanical Engineering and Part I & II of Technician Engineers (T), equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      18 a State  Polytechnic.   It  has  been decided that a review of the curriculum, mode of delivery of the program, its duration, etc. would  be  carried  out  by  the  concerned Regulator  and  until  such  a  review  is complete,  the  Institutions  with permanent recognition  will  not  make  fresh admissions.   Alternatively,  the  institution has the option of realigning its curriculum with  the  National  Vocation  Education Qualification  Framework  (NVEQF)  and proceed  further.   This  issue  with  the approval of competent authority.”

211. In terms of such communication, till the review is completed by the Regulator, which in the case of Respondent  No.4  would  be  AICTE,  the  Institutions with  permanent  recognition  have  been  prohibited from  making  admission.   There  is  no  document produced  or  alleged  that  Respondent  No.4  has permanent recognition from any Council or Board in respect of its courses.  Therefore, the degrees or the membership  granted  by  respondent  No.4  cannot  be treated as equivalent to Degree in Engineering.

212. Even  in  terms  of  the  notification  dated 26.11.2006,  the  students  such  as  respondent  No.5 registered prior to 10.06.2002 have been allowed to complete the course with pre-revised syllabus till the next scheduled examination to be held in December, 2006 and those, who do not complete their courses by that  time  will  have  to  follow  the  revised  syllabus. Since respondent No.5 is not said to have 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 a qualification recognized by Government of India for the purpose of employment.   Thus, we find that respondent No.5 is not qualified to claim that such certificate is equivalent to a degree.  

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      19

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

13. On  06.12.2012  in  modification  of  its  earlier  communication  dated

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 recognition  in  perpetuity  for  equivalence in  Central Government jobs, stands withdrawn.

ii. All  those  students  who  are  enrolled  with  the institutions  with  permanent  recognition  upto 31.05.2013  would  be  eligible  for  consideration  in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in force  pertaining  to  their  course  for  equivalence  in Central Government jobs.  However, these concerned orders  will  cease  to  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  of  equivalence  of  degree/diploma  shall be taken by statutory regulator.

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

2. In  case,  the  institution  desires  to  opt  for realigning curriculum with NVEQF, it  is  advised to

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      20 use  this  transition  period  upto  30.05.2013  for necessary action in this regard.”

14. On 09.03.2013 the appellant filed SLP (C) No.7390 of 2013 in this

Court, challenging the aforesaid decision of the High Court dated 06.11.2012.

According  to  the  appellant,  the  Review  Application  was  allowed  without

giving any opportunity to the appellant.  In its counter affidavit, State of

Punjab  submitted  that  the  appellant  was  neither  a  University  nor  a

deemed  University  nor  was  it  conducting  any  technical  examination

through distance mode and the Certificate granted by the appellant was

nothing more than an honour; that the appellant did not have approval

from the UGC4 or AICTE nor was it declared by State of Punjab to be a

recognized institution for the purposes of relevant service rules and as

such, the Certificate of Membership awarded by the appellant could not

be held to be an essential qualification; and that MHRD3 had not granted

any  approval  to  the  appellant  but  simply  granted  recognition  to  the

qualification  only  for  the  purposes  of  employment  under  the  Central

Government.   

4 University Grants Commission

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      21 15. The Notification dated 06.12.2012 was challenged by Institution of

Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers before the High Court of Delhi

in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3239 of 2013.  It was submitted that though all the

requisite information was supplied by said writ petitioner, no final decision

was taken by the respondents in the matter.  A Single Judge in his order dated

23.05.2013 observed:-

“10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit that at this stage the Court should grant protection to the  petitioners  to  the  extent  that  the  deadline  of 31.5.2013 should not come in their way of granting admissions and also leaving the fate of the students in uncertainty, more particularly, for the reasons that the institutions are not aware as to the criteria what they have to met.

11. I  have  heard  counsel  for  the  parties  and considered their  submissions.   Having regard to the stand taken by counsel for the parties, the O.M. dated 6.12.2012 qua the petitioners only with respect to the deadline of 31.5.2013 shall remain stayed till the next date  of  hearing,  however,  it  is  made  clear  that  the admissions, which are made, will be subject to final orders, which will be passed in the writ petition.”

16. The appellant also challenged the Notification dated 06.12.2012 by

filing Writ Petition No.7840 of 2014 in the High Court of Delhi in which

following order was passed by a Single Judge on 19.11.2014:-

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      22 “Keeping in view the interim order dated 23rd May, 2013 in W.P.(C) No.3239/2013 as well as order dated 06th August, 2013 in W.P. (C) No.945/2013, the O.M. dated 6th December, 2012 with regard to the deadline of  31st May,  2013  qua  the  petitioner  shall  remain stayed till further order of this Court.”

17. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petitions challenging the

Notification dated 06.12.2012, certain information was called for  from the

appellant by AICTE and after having received responses from the appellant

and similarly situated institutions, the matter was placed before a High Level

Committee.  

18. In  August  2017,  a  Public  Notice  was  issued  by  AICTE2 to  the

following effect:-

“PUBLIC NOTICE

(For Professional Bodies/Institutes Imparting Technical Education)

Whereas  MHRD,  Govt.  of  India,  through  an  order (vide  OM  No.11-15/2011-AR  (TS.II)  dated 06.12.2012) withdrew the recognition granted to  all certificates/qualifications  awarded  by  professional bodies/institutions in the field of technical education. The MHRD further  stipulated that  from 01.06.2013 onwards  the  courses  for  equivalence  will  cease  to have  effect  for  employment  in  Central  Government and  the  decision  on  the  continuation  of  the certification of equivalence of degree/diploma would be  taken  by  the  statutory  regulator  (AICTE)  after review.

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      23

Accordingly,  the  Council  in  its  52nd Emergent Meeting held on August 03,2017 decided to recognize equivalence  for  all  purposes  including  Higher Education  &  Employment  to  Technical  Courses conducted by various Professional Bodies/Institutions which  were  duly  recognized  by  MHRD  with permanent recognition upto 31st May 2013.  Thus all those  students  who  were  enrolled  with  these institutions  with  permanent  recognition  upto 31.05.2013, stand recognized.”

19. The matters arising from the decision of the High Court1 were taken

up  together  with  the  matters  raising  similar  issues  from Orissa  and  were

considered and dealt with by this Court in its decision dated 03.11.2017 in

Civil  Appeal  Nos.17869-17870  of  2017  etc.  (Orissa  Lift  Irrigation

Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and others)5.  Though Civil Appeal

No.17922 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CC) No.7390 of 2013) preferred by

the appellant was listed along with all  those matters,  no submissions were

advanced on behalf of the appellant.  The decision rendered on 06.11.2012 by

the High Court in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab6 etc. was affirmed by this

Court.   

5 (2018) 1 SCC 468 6 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21066

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      24 20. Certain  applications  moved  by  various  other  parties  seeking

clarification of the decision dated 03.11.2017, were dealt with by this Court in

its order dated 22.01.20187.

21. Thereafter  an  application  for  clarification  and  modification  of  the

decision of this Court dated 03.11.2017 was preferred by the appellant praying

for following reliefs:-

“(a) Clarify that the Final Judgment dated 03.11.2017 does  not  apply  to  Civil  Appeal  No.17922  of 2017  arising  out  of  Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No.15283 of 2013.

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

c) Modify  paragraph  55  of  the  Judgment  to  the extent  that  the  view taken  by  the  Punjab  and Haryana High Court in so far as it relates to the Applicant  herein  (i.e.  paragraphs  205-2013)  is set aside.”

22. The matter came up before the Registrar of this Court who refused to

register  the  application  holding  that  the  application  for

clarification/modification was intended to seek review of the judgment dated

03.11.2017 passed by this Court.  The order of the Registrar is presently under 7 (2018) 2 SCC 298

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      25 challenge  in  M.A.  No.2367  of  2018.   On  merits,  the  submissions  of  the

appellant are:-

“B. It is submitted that the appellant herein has merely sought to clarify that the Final Judgment does not  apply  to  the  Appellant  institution  as  it  is  a professional body that does not impart any education but  merely  conducts  bi-annual  examinations  and awards certificates, and is fundamentally distinct from ‘deemed  to  be  universities’  which  are  imparting technical education through the distance mode.

…   … …

The Subject matter of the batch of Special Leave Petitions considered by this  Hon’ble Court,  as also, the batch of petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, was the validity of degrees granted  by  “Deemed  to  be  Universities”  imparting technical  education  through  the  distance  education mode  on  the  strength  of  only  DEC  permission, without  having  been  conferred  the  “Deemed University”  status  for  technical  education  by  the UGC, and without approval under the AICTE Act for imparting technical education.  Further, the batch of matters  considered the  inter-relations;  contradictions if  any,  and  the  role  of  the  authorities  under  three central  statutes  i.e.  University  Grants  Commission Act,  1956,  Indira  Gandhi  National  Open University Act,  1985,  and  All  India  council  for  Technical Education  Act,  1987,  particularly  in  respect  of technical/professional  courses  offered  through  the Distance Education mode.

…   … …

It is submitted that the Appellant herein is not governed by either of the aforementioned three central

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      26 statutes,  and it  is  a professional body that has been specifically accorded recognition by the Government of  India.   It  is  submitted  that  the  judgment  of  the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has been inadvertently upheld qua the Appellant institution, and therefore  it  is  imperative  that  the  clarification  as sought by the Appellant herein, for reasons detailed in the Application be rendered by this Hon’ble Court.”

23. This  Court  issued  notice  on  14.09.2018  to  the  Respondents  and

requested Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel who had appeared as

Amicus Curiae in the main matter to assist  this Court.   Notices were also

issued to AICTE2 and MHRD3.  The learned Amicus Curiae placed before this

Court Memos 1 and 2 on 11.10.2018 and 5.12.2018.  

We  heard  Mr.  Dhruv  Mehta,  learned  Senior  Advocate  for  the

appellant,  Mr.  Karan  Bharihoke,  learned  Advocate  for  the  State,  Mr.  Ajit

Kumar  Sinha,  learned  Senior  Advocate  for  MHRD3,  Mr.  Harish  Pandey,

learned  Advocate  for  AICTE2,  apart  from  Mr.  C.  A.  Sundaram,  learned

Amicus Curiae.

24. According  to the  learned  Amicus  Curiae,  the  instant  matter  was

completely  covered  by the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Orissa  Lift  Irrigation

Corporation case (supra).   He submitted that the stand of the appellant itself

was  that  neither  any  education  was  imparted  by  the  appellant  nor  did  it

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      27 possess any infrastructure.  The following portion from written submission

filed by the appellant was relied upon:-

“That  the  Institution  of  Mechanical  Engineers (India),  Mumbai  is  a  non-profit  organization, registered as a Society.  It receives no grant-in-aid or funding of any nature whatsoever, from the Central or any State  Government  or  any of  its  autonomous or statutory bodies by whatever name.  It is not and has never been a teaching institution.  It is a “professional body”  and  merely  conducts  examinations  in specialized  engineering  discipline-Mechanical Engineering  and  awards  certificates  to  its  member. The mode of  conduct of the examination followed by the  Institution  of  Mechanical  Engineers  (India), Mumbai,  with basic minimum essential  exposure to engineering and technology, are set out as under:

i) No  training  is  imparted  directly  by the  Institution  of  Mechanical Engineers  (India),  Mumbai,  as  only the specific  course  curriculum (both theory/practical)  and  the  study materials are only suggested.

ii) The  examination  is  only  the qualifying  exam,  without  drawing any  equalization  with  the board/university,  diploma  or  degree, as  the  certificate  awarded  for  the same enables the  candidates  only to be confirmed in service and promoted in their respective departments.

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

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      28

The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that though there was no

regulatory framework for  grant  of  certificates which were awarded by the

appellant,  over a period of time MHRD3 had taken prevaricating stand.  A

decision was finally taken as communicated by public notice issued in August

2017 that  all  such certificates  granted prior  to  2013 would be  recognized.

However, the validity of the certificates pertaining to the period subsequent to

2013 was put on hold and AICTE2 was required to consider the matter.  In the

light of the factual aspects on record, according to the learned Amicus Curiae

following questions arise for consideration by this Court:-

“1. Whether a mere certification without any course or  training  can  be  treated  as  equivalent  to  a Degree/Diploma  obtained  pursuant  to  a  Technical Education  course  for  the  purposes  of  government employment?

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

25. Mr.  Dhruv Mehta,  learned Senior Advocate for  the appellant  relied

upon the communications issued by the Government of India from time to

time recognizing the Certificate issued by the appellant to be at par with a

degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University for the

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      29 purpose of recruitment to superior posts and services and more particularly the

communications dated 26.05.1976, 06.10.1981, 11.07.1988 and 24.11.2006.

It  was  submitted  that  the  exercise  undertaken  pursuant  to  communication

dated 10.07.2012 and public  notice issued in  August,  2017 put  the matter

beyond any doubt in so far as certificates issued prior to 2013 were concerned

and as regards period subsequent thereto the matter was still  engaging the

attention of the concerned authorities.  In the circumstances it was submitted

that  the  High Court  was  not  justified  in  observing  that  the  certificates  of

Membership granted by the appellant could not be treated as equivalent to

degrees in engineering and as such Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 preferred

by the appellant be allowed.

26. Mr.  Mehta,  learned  Senior  Advocate  also  produced  on  record  a

compilation  titled,  “Methodology,  Norms  and  the  Curriculum  that  are

followed  for  various  programs  conducted  by  the  Institution  IME  (India)”

Following extracts from said compilation are quite relevant:-

“Functions of Examinations Committee:  the IME examinations are conducted under the supervision of an Examination Committee and by the Controller of Examinations.   The  Examination  Committee  is appointed by the Council to frame the academic rules, revise the syllabuses on the advice of Advisors or the Subject Experts Committee, overview the conduct of

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      30 the examinations, supervise the examination centers, declaration  of  the  results  and  take  other  decisions pertaining to the examinations.  The meeting of the examination committee is also held at least 5-6 times in a year.

IME Examinations: The institute conducts the IME examinations twice in a year.  The examinations are held  in  the  months  of  June  and  December.   On successful  completion  of  the  academic  requirement, 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 having no resources (Money and time)  for  enrolment  as  full  time  students  and  for those, who are age bar to get admission in the regular courses of study.

After  completing  IME qualifications,  they  can  seek employment in government, public & private sectors and  appear  in  GATE  to  get  admissions  in  the institution of higher learning in India and abroad.

The council has appointed academicians and leading entrepreneurs  as  Advisors  to  help  the  council  for carrying  out  the  academic  activities,  revision  of syllabuses,  evaluation  of  scripts,  supervising  the practical training, suggesting the names of experts for academic assignments etc.

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

Section B (Equivalent  to  B.E./B.Tech.  Degree)  in Mechanical  Engineering: IME  is  conducting Section-A and Section-B examinations in mechanical engineering,  which  have  been  recognized  by  the Government  of  India,  State  Governments  and  the Universities, in India and abroad, treating at par with

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      31 B.E./B.Tech. degree in mechanical engineering.  The students who acquire the qualification from IME can apply  for  jobs  either  in  state  government,  central government,  government  undertaking  or  in  private sector  and people  in  service,  on acquiring  the  IME qualifications  can  get  the  benefit  of  promotion,  if applicable.

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

………………………………………………………...

“Syllabus of Various Examinations:

The IME syllabus  is  regularly subjected to revision regularly.   The  syllabus  submitted  to  the  AICTE through  the  Ministry  of  Human  Resources Development,  Government  of  India  in  2005,  which was  approved and the  IME was  granted  permanent permission  to  enroll  the  students  and  conducts  the examinations, was based on the following principles:

 It was based on model syllabus of AICTE

 It  incorporated  the  compulsory  provision  of conducting  practicals  in  an  AICTE  approved

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      32 institution for a period of six months and writing a practical & project report and submitting the evaluation report.

 A student  is  required  to  appear  in  total  of  6 papers in Part I of T.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 one semester (June/December) in part I of  T.Eng.  examinations  and  not  more  than  5 papers  in  Section  A,  B  and  Part  II  in  one semester examinations.

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

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

Revisions  of  Syllabus: The  syllabuses  of  the examinations, after 2005 have been revised in the year 2007  to  include  the  subject  of  Environment  as  per directive of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  A major revision has taken place in the year 2011-12 to revise  the  contents  in  view of  recent  development, specially in the filed of Computer, Design, Renewable Energy, Control and including Disaster Management in the contents.  The experts, who have been acting as Advisors  and  others  invited  from  the  grading institutions  were  involved  in  the  revision  of  the syllabuses.

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

Appointment of the Examiners for Paper Setting and Evaluation of the Answer Sheets: The Panel of

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      33 the  Examiners  is  drawn  from  across  the  country preferably  from among  the  teachers  of  engineering colleges/universities  working/retired,  from  all  the regions  throughout  country.   The  Panel  of  the Examiners is finalized by the Examination Committee and the appointment of the Examiner is done by the Controller  of  Examinations.   The  Chairman Examination  Committee  monitors  the  process regularly.  In most of the cases to maintain secrecy more than one question paper is  got set  and one is picked up by the Controller of Examination.

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

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

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

……………………………………………………… …………

“No Local Centres and not Conducting Coaching Classes: The institution does not recognize, allows or

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      34 conduct any coaching classes or local centre helping the  candidates  appearing  in  the  examinations.   The complete  information  is  provided  online  and  the candidate  can  contact  the  help  line  for  any clarification.  The candidates are also advised through the website of the institution to be aware of any such person or institution or coaching centre.  Further, the students  are also regularly advised that  it  is  neither necessary nor required nor mandatory to submit the membership/examination/enrolment  form  through coaching institutes.”  

………………………………………………………...

“Academic Activities

Professional  Activities:   The  institution  regularly organizes  technical  lecture  meetings,  symposia, seminars  and  workshops,  intensive  tutorials  and workshop visit  for the benefit  of its members.  The institution has instituted various Gold & Silver Prizes to honour the contributions of eminent engineers in the  broad  areas  of  engineering,  sciences  and technology.

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

Non Formal Academic Programmes:  The institution regularly organizes or collaborates for organisation of the non formal academic programme.  During earlier years,  the  IME  has  organised  such  activities  in collaboration  with  Osmania  University,  College  of Technology  and  Engineering,  Maharana  Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Shrinathji Institute of Technology and Engineering, Nathdwara etc.

The  institution  has  set  up  a  computer  laboratory, which has been kept open during the years 1990-2005 for  the  students,  who  were  not  exposed  to  the

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      35 computer,  to  enable  them  to  learn  computation techniques, programming and data processing.”  

27. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for MHRD3 stressed

following aspects of the matter:-

1. No  formal  education  in  the  nature  or  form  of  theory  and/or

practicals was being imparted by the appellant;

2. As found by the expert bodies, there was difference in curriculum;

and

3. Admittedly,  the  appellant  did  not  have  any  infrastructure  and

laboratories to impart any practical training.

28. Mr.  Harish Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for AICTE2 invited

attention of this Court to the stand taken by the MHRD3 in pending matters

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  its  decision  on  Civil  Appeal No.17869-17870/2017 of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd.  Vs.  Rabi Sankar Patrao & Ors.  had noted that AICTE has always maintained  that courses leading to degree in Engineering cannot be undertaken through distance mode……. for  the  present  purpose,  that  is the  final  word  and  is  binding.   Hon’ble  Supreme

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      36 Court has also observed in the above judgment at para 38 that:-

“Technical  education  leading  to  the award of degrees in Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as practicals.   The  practicals  form  the backbone  of  such  education  which  is hands-on  approach  involving  actual application of principles taught in theory under the watchful eyes of Demonstrators or  Lecturers.   Face  to  face  imparting  of knowledge  in  theory  classes  is  to  be reinforced  in  practical  classes.   The practicals thus, constitute an integral part of the technical education system.”

16. While  the  courses  for  which degree/diploma is given by these professional bodies is not exactly on distance mode, but in view of the findings of the gap analysis of AICTE, it is observed that  the  quality  of  courses  conducted  by  these professional bodies is even worse than that conducted by  the  Open  and  Distance  learning  Institutes.   As engineering  is  a  subject,  which  requires  intensive practical  and  workshop  training  and  these professional bodies compromise on that very aspect, giving equivalency to the courses conducted by these bodies leads not only to compromise in the standard of education, but also adversely affects the future of students/participants of these courses.

17. It is submitted that earlier there were times, when there were very few Engineering Colleges and there was  need  to  enhance  the  spread  of  engineering education  and  therefore,  the  course  run  by  these professional  bodies  were  given  equivalency  by MHRD.   However,  at  present  there  is  excess engineering education capacity created in the country and about 50% of the seats remain vacant every year.

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      37 Even some of the engineering colleges are closing due to lack of adequate admissions.  Therefore, there is no need to continue to give equivalence, as this creates a system, where the quality of education is not ensured and the future of students is adversely affected.

18. Therefore,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource Development  is  of  the  considered  view that  in  the interest of the future of students and maintenance of quality  of  education,  it  is  necessary  that  no  further equivalency is granted to those courses run by these professional bodies.”

29. Even  though  the  hearing  was  concluded,  in  view  of  the  stand  as

disclosed in the affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.7840 of 2014, the appellant

was given an opportunity to reply to said affidavit.  It was submitted by the

appellant in response as under:-

“(n)  It  is  submitted  that  the  affidavit  filed  by  the MHRD pursuant to the order of 19.02.2019 ought not to be considered for the following reasons:

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

- Only an order/decision/notification in this regard may  be  considered  as  a  notification  granting recognition  which  remains  valid  cannot  be reversed without an order passed after procedure established by law.

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      38 - There  is  no  indication  of  procedural  or

substantive due process having been followed.

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

- There Petitioner’s valuable fundamental right to carry  on  business  cannot  be  deprived  without following due process of law.

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

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

30. At the outset, it must be stated that Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017

preferred by the appellant stood disposed of by this Court on 03.11.2017.  No

submissions were advanced on behalf of the appellant at the time the entire

group of matters was heard and considered by this Court. In our view, the

Registrar  of  this  Court  was  right  in  refusing  to  register  Application  for

Clarification and Modification preferred by the appellant.  However, since the

record did not clearly indicate whether the Review Application was allowed

by the High Court after hearing the appellant, in the interest of justice, the

appellant was permitted to raise all the submissions on merits and we now

proceed to consider the entire matter.

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      39

31. On its own showing, the appellant “does not impart any education but

merely  conducts  bi-annual  examinations  and  awards  certificates”.   The

compilation referred to in paragraph 26 hereinabove also makes the position

clear that the appellant “does not recognize, allow or conduct any coaching

classes or local centres helping the candidates appearing in the examinations”.

32. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case5  two questions were posed

for consideration in paragraph 45 of said decision and the first of those two

questions was as under:- “A. Whether the deemed to be universities concerned in  the  present  case,  could  start  courses  through distance  education  in  subjects  leading  to  award  of degrees in Engineering:

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

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

The discussion in that behalf appearing in paragraphs 46 and 48 of the

decision was:-

“46. The  definition  of  “technical  education”  in Section  2(g)  of  the  AICTE  Act  shows  that  the

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      40 emphasis is on the programmes of education, research and  training  in  Engineering  Technology  in  general and the idea is not limited to the institutions where such programmes of education, research and training are  to  be  conducted  or  imparted.  However,  the definition  of  “technical  institution”  in  Section  2(h) leaves  out  an  institution  which  is  a  university.  The distinction between the broader concept of “technical education”  and  the  limited  scope  of  “technical institution” is clear from Section 10 of the AICTE Act where certain functions concern the broader facets or aspects of technical education which by very nature must  apply  to  every  single  institution  (whether university or not) where such courses are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions are relatable  to  technical  institutions  alone,  which  by definition  are  not  applicable  to  universities.  For example, functions in clauses (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (l) and (n) are concerned with broader facets of technical education, while functions in clauses (k), (m), (p) and (q) deal with matters concerning technical institutions and thus may not apply to universities, whereas there are certain functions as set out in clauses (g) and (o) which  apply  to  both  “technical  institutions”  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  new  technologies, generation,  adoption  and  adaptation  of  new technologies to meet the developmental requirements; and promoting and effecting link between technical education  and  systems  and  other  relevant  systems. AICTE is  thus  the  sole  repository  of  power  to  lay down parameters or qualitative norms for “technical education”.  What  should  be  course  content,  what subjects be taught and what should be the length and duration of the courses as well as the manner in which those  courses  be  conducted  is  a  part  of  the  larger concept  of  “technical  education”.  Any  idea  or

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      41 innovation in that field is also a part of the concept of “technical  education”  and  must,  as  a  matter  of principle, be in the exclusive domain of AICTE.

…   … …

48. Technical  education  leading  to  the  award  of degrees  in  Engineering  consists  of  imparting  of lessons in theory as well as practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands- on approach involving actual application of principles taught  in  theory  under  the  watchful  eyes  of demonstrators or lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge  in  theory  classes  is  to  be  reinforced  in practical  classes.  The  practicals,  thus,  constitute  an integral part of the technical education system. If this established concept of imparting technical education as a qualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance education learning,  then  as  a  concept  AICTE  ought  to  have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters ought to be  satisfied  if  the  regular  course  of  imparting technical education is in any way to be modified or altered, is  for AICTE alone to decide. The decision must  be  specific  and  unequivocal  and  cannot  be inferred merely because of absence of any guidelines in the matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be  undertaken  through  distance  education  mode. Whether  that  approach  is  correct  or  not  is  not  the point in issue. For the present purposes, if according to  AICTE  such  courses  ought  not  to  be  taught  in distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding—unless rectified in a manner known to law. Even  National  Policy  on  Education  while emphasising the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes  through  distance  education  learning  in technical and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19  that  AICTE  will  be  responsible  for  planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      42 including maintenance of  parity  of  certification and ensuring coordinated and integrated development  of technical  and  management  education.  In  our  view, whether  subjects  leading  to  degrees  in  Engineering could be taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of AICTE. The answer to the  first  limb  of  the  first  question  posed  by  us  is therefore clear that without the guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree  courses  in  Engineering  through  distance education mode, the deemed to be universities were not justified in introducing such courses.”

33. The  role  of  AICTE2 in  Technical  and  Management  education  was

emphasized in National Policy of Education, published by the Government of

India  in  1986,  which  was  noted  by  this  Court  in  Orissa  Lift  Irrigation

Corporation case5.  The concerned Regulations issued by AICTE2 in the year

1994 were also considered under which no course or programme could be

introduced by any technical institution except with the approval of AICTE2.

Paragraphs 23.2 and 23.3 of the decision had extracted relevant portions of

the National Policy of Education and the concerned Regulations of AICTE2 as

under:-

“23.2.  In  1986,  National  Policy  on  Education  was published  by  the  Government  of  India,  Part  VI  of which  dealt  with  Technical  and  Management Education,  Paras  6.6,  6.8  and  6.19  of  the  Policy were:-

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      43 “6.6.  In  view  of  the  present  rigid  entry requirements to formal courses restricting the access of a large segment of people to technical  and  managerial  education, programmes  through  a  distance  learning process,  including use of the mass media will be offered. Technical and management education  programmes,  including education in polytechnics, will also be on a flexible modular pattern based on credits, with  provision  for  multi-point  entry.  A strong  guidance  and  counselling  service will be provided.

* * *

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

* * * 6.19. The All India Council for Technical Education, which has been given statutory status,  will  be  responsible  for  planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards, accreditation, funding of priority areas,  monitoring  and  evaluation, maintaining  parity  of  certification  and awards  and ensuring  the  coordinated  and integrated  development  of  technical  and management  education.  Mandatory periodic evaluation will be carried out by a duly constituted Accreditation Board. The Council  will  be  strengthened  and  it  will function  in  a  decentralised  manner  with greater involvement of State Governments and technical institutions of good quality.”

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      44

23.3.  The  AICTE  (Grant  of  Approval  for  Starting New Technical  Institutions,  Introduction  of  Courses or Programmes and Approval of 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 following effect:

“4.0. Requirement of grant of approval 4.1.  After  the  commencement  of  these Regulations,

(a)  No  new  Technical  Institution  or University  Technical  Department  shall  be started; or

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

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

(d)  No approved intake  capacity  of  seats shall be increased or varied; Except with the approval of the Council.”

34. It was laid down in said decision that AICTE2 is the sole repository of

power to lay down parameters or qualitative norms for “technical education”

and that it was within the exclusive domain of AICTE2 to consider whether

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      45 subjects  leading  to  Degrees  in  Engineering  could  be  taught  in  distance

education  mode  or  not. The  issue  whether  courses  leading  to  degrees  in

Engineering could be taught through distance education learning was dealt

with in extenso.  It was laid down that by very nature, practical training would

be an essential  and integral  part  of  engineering courses and that  until  and

unless a clear policy was laid down by the AICTE2, no courses in engineering

could be taught or imparted through distance education mode.  It was held that

in the absence of  any guidelines having been issued by AICTE2 expressly

permitting  courses  leading  to  Degrees  in  Engineering  through  distance

education, no such courses could be introduced.  The consistent stand taken

by the AICTE2 was also noted in said judgment.   

35. The  point  in  question  was  again  dealt  with  in  the  Order  dated

22.01.20187 in paras 23 and 24 and it was stressed that conferral of degrees in

Engineering  through  distance  education  mode  was  never  approved  in

principle by AICTE.  The appellant does not even claim to be imparting any

education  through  distance  education  mode  and  only  conducts  bi-annual

examination and awards certificates to those who qualify such examination.

Considered in the light of the decision of this Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      46 Corporation case5, the learned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that

the  case  of  the  appellant  would  be  on  a  footing  lower  than  the  cases  of

deemed to be Universities as dealt with in that decision.  

36. The consistent stand of the appellant has been that it is not covered

under  any  of  the  Acts  viz.   the  UGC Act,  Indira  Gandhi  National  Open

University Act, 1985 and the AICTE Act.  However, since it offers courses or

programmes of technical education, as rightly held by the High Court,  the

appellant comes within the definition of “technical institution” as defined in

the  AICTE  Act.   Neither  does  the  appellant,  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 in

practical, it holds an examination, on satisfactory clearance of which it awards

Certificates  of  Membership  to  candidates.   The  question  is  whether  such

Certificate could, as a matter of law, be recognised as equivalent to a Degree

in Mechanical Engineering from a recognised Indian University?  Nothing is

clear as to under what statutory regime or under which legal provision can

such  equivalence  to  the  Certificate  issued  by  the  appellant  be  granted  or

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      47 conferred.  No statutory provision has been pressed into service or relied upon

to suggest that given the particular circumstances and/or, on satisfaction of

certain  parameters  the  appellant  would  be  entitled  to  conferral  of  such

equivalence or status.  

37. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, right to confer degrees can

be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a

Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or by an institution deemed to be a

University  under  Section 3 of  the UGC Act  or  by an institution  specially

empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.   The idea

appearing in Sub-Section (1) of said Section 22 is made emphatically clear by

Sub-Section (2)  which stipulates:  “Save as provided in sub-section (1),  no

person or  authority  shall  confer,  or  grant,  or  hold himself  or  itself  out  as

entitled to confer or grant, any degree”.  The intent of the Parliament is clear

that it is only that body which is referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 22,

that is competent to confer or grant degrees.  The appellant does not fall under

any of these categories enumerated in Section 22(1) of the UGC Act.

38. In  Orissa  Lift  Irrigation  Corporation  Case5,  it  also  arose  for

consideration whether a deemed to be University, without taking appropriate

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      48 prior permission could start courses leading to degrees in Engineering through

open distance learning.  That aspect of the matter does not arise in the present

case and it is also not the case of the appellant, that it is entitled to award

degrees in Engineering.  Its submission however is, having been conferred the

status of being equivalent to degrees in Engineering in respect of Certificates

awarded by it,  the appellant  is  entitled to continue having such benefit  or

advantage.  There is nothing on record either in the form of any statutory

provision  or  any  statutory  regulations  or  any  scheme  under  which  such

equivalence could be granted by the MHRD3.  It appears that claims made by

various institutions like appellant were considered on case to case basis and

equivalence was granted by MHRD3.  The first of those communications was

of  the  year  1976 when AICTE2 Act  was  not  in  force.   If  the  mandate  of

Section 22 disentitles any authority or person other than those specified in

Section 22 (1) to award degrees, there is no power or authority in any one

including MHRD3 to award such equivalence.   

39. The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved

indirectly  is  well  settled  and  was  elaborated  by  this  Court  in  following

decisions:-

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      49

A) In State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder and Others8  

as under:-

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

43. “21.  It  is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law  to  be  done,  cannot  legally  be  effected  by  an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the principle of quando  aliquid  prohibetur,  prohibetur  et  omne  per quod  devenitur  ad  illud.  An  authority  cannot  be permitted to evade a law by ‘shift or contrivance’.” (See  Jagir  Singh v.  Ranbir  Singh9,  M.C.  Mehta v. Kamal Nath10 and  Sant Lal Gupta v.  Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.11, SCC p. 344, para 21)”

B) In Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh12 as under:-

“5. In order to cross the hurdle imposed by Section 397(3) it was suggested that the revision application before  the  High  Court  could  be  treated  as  an application directed against the order of the Sessions Judge instead of as one directed against the order of the Magistrate. We do not think that it is permissible to do so. What may not be done directly cannot be

8 (2011) 8 SCC 737 9 (1979) 1SCC 560 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 348 : AIR 1979 SC 381 10 (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

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      50 allowed  to  be  done  indirectly;  that  would  be  an evasion of the statute. It is a “well-known principle of law that the provisions of an Act of Parliament shall not  be  evaded by shift  or  contrivance”  (per  Abbot, C.J.  in  Fox v.  Bishop  of  Chester).  “To  carry  out effectually the object of a Statute, it must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect  or  circuitous  manner  that  which  it  has prohibited or enjoined.” (Maxwell, 11th Edn., p. 109). When the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate, the High Court’s jurisdiction was invoked to avoid the order ‘of the Magistrate and not  that  of  the  Sessions  Judge.  The  bar  of  Section 397(3) was, therefore, effectively attracted and the bar could  not  be  circumvented  by  the  subterfuge  of treating the revision application as directed against the Session Judge’s order.”

40. If a degree can be awarded only by those institutions which satisfy the

description  given  in  sub-Section  (1)  of  Section  22  of  the  UGC  Act,  the

mandate of a Parliamentary legislation cannot be circumvented or nullified by

awarding equivalence to a Certificate issued and awarded by the appellant.

What is the value of that certificate will be considered by each employer as

and when the occasion arises.  The appellant would certainly be entitled to

award  Certificate  of  Membership  to  its  Members.   What  weightage  the

Certificates must have is for the individual employers to consider in a given

case. The concerned employer may attach due importance to such Certificates

while considering the worth and ability of the concerned candidates but to say

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      51 that the Certificates are equivalent to a degree and as such all the candidates

who  hold  such  Certificates  are  entitled  to  derive  the  advantages  which  a

degree holder can, is completely a different issue.  41. In the present case, the communication dated 26.05.1976 under which

the Certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalent to a

Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University, does

not indicate any statutory provision under which such equivalence could be

granted or conferred.  This point becomes more crucial, as after the enactment

of AICTE Act, the entirety of the field concerning “technical education” is

kept in the domain of AICTE by the Parliament.  Section 10 of the AICTE Act

entitles  AICTE  not  only  to  lay  down  norms  and  standards  for  courses,

curriculum and such other facets of “technical education” but also entitles it

under  clause  (l)  to  advise  the  Central  Government  in  respect  of  grant  of

charter  to  any  professional  body  or  institution  in  the  field  of  technical

education conferring powers, rights and privileges etc.  Going by the width of

the power, after the enactment of AICTE Act, even such privileges could be

conferred  only  after  express  advice  of  AICTE and  within  the  confines  of

various statutory provisions.  

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      52 42. Consequently, neither can the appellant claim, as a matter of right to

be entitled to confer any degree nor can it claim that Certificate awarded by it

must be reckoned to be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering.   

43. The High Court1 was, therefore, right in observing:-

“… … the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai is a registered Society and is thus a Technical Institution  and  is  required  to  obtain  approval  from AICTE in respect of its courses in technical subjects. The membership of such institute cannot be treated as equivalent to a degree, as the candidate qualified from such  institute  cannot  be  said  to  be  at  par  with  the members of Institution of Engineers established under the Statute.  (para 208)

…   … …

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

44. However,  the  fact  remains  that  the  equivalence  to  the  Certificates

awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD3 in consultation with

AICTE2 upto 31.05.2013 as is  evident  from Notification dated 06.12.2012

issued by the Central  Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in

August,  2017.  These communications also indicate that all  those students

who were enrolled upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for  consideration in

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      53 accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course.   Though we

have laid down that  the Certificates  issued by the appellant  on successful

completion of its bi-annual examination to its Members cannot be considered

to be equivalent to a Degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of

students enrolled up to 31.05.2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification

dated 06.12.2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such

candidates.  The candidates had opted to enroll themselves so that they could

appear at the examinations conducted by the appellant under a regime which

was put in place by the Central Government itself and the course content as

well  as  the  curriculum  were  reviewed  by  the  AICTE.   However,  the

aforementioned  Notification  and  Public  Notice  were  clear  that  after

01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease to have

any effect.   

45. In  the  circumstances  we  do  make  an  exception  in  favour  of  such

candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in

the present matter will apply after 01.06.2013.  The Certificate awarded by

the appellant to such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 shall be considered

equivalent  to  a  Degree  in  Mechanical  Engineering  for  the  purpose  of

employment in Central Government.

MA NO.2367 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.17922 OF 2017 INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)  THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                      54 46. In the premises, we do not find any error in the assessment made by

the High Court1 in paragraphs 205 to 213 of its judgment.  We, therefore,

dismiss all the submissions raised by the appellant and reject Miscellaneous

Application No. 2367 of 2018.  No costs.

47. In the end, we express our sincere gratitude for the assistance rendered

by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae.

.………..…..……..……J.                                                                                (Uday Umesh Lalit)

..………….……………J.                            (Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi; August 13, 2019.