L.P.A.No. 901 and 902 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Date of decision:06.05. 2008 L.P.A. No. 901 of 2002 in C.W.P.No. 16232 of 2001 All India Council for Technical Education .....Appellant Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others .....Respondents L.P.A. No. 902 of 2002 in C.W.P.No. 16649 of 2001 All India Council for Technical Education .....Appellant Vs. Bijender Singh and others .....Respondents .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Garewal Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary Present: Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. I.S.Gill, Advocate for respondent No.15 (in L.P.A. No.901 of 2002) and for respondent No.6 ( in L.P.A. No. 902 of 2002) ..... K.S.GAREWAL, J. All India Council for Technical Education has filed these two Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dated March 15, 2002 in CWP No. 16232 of 2001 and CWP No. 16649 of 2001. The appellant Council has been created by an Act of Parliament known as All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 for proper L.P.A.No. 901 and 902 of 2002 2 planning and co-ordinated development in the field of Technical Education system. The Council had given guidelines on June 15, 1992 for admission to Engineering Degree and Engineer Diploma Procedures. It has been stated that no new Engineering or Management Course can be started without the prior approval of the Council. YMCA Institute of Engineering, Faridabad respondent No.15 had been established in 1969 for conducting Engineering Courses leading to grant of Post Diploma after 4 years. The candidates who had done 10+1 or equivalent were eligible for admission. In 1996 the nomenclature of the Post Diploma Course was changed to Advance Diploma Course and candidates who had done 10+2 or equivalent were eligible for admission. Later some Post Diploma holders as well as Advanced Diploma holders filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court for a Bridge Course so that they could come at par with their counter-parts getting qualifying in B. Tech. Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions with a condition that the candidates must possess 10+2. However, some candidates who had done 10+1 or Matric filed writ petitions to seek admissions in the Bridge Course. These petitions were allowed by the Hon'ble Single Judge vide the judgment dated March 15, 2002 which have been appealed against. The learned Single Judge has considered the whole matter in great detail and come to the conclusion that the Bridge Course was only to upgrade the qualification possessed by the petitioners. All petitioners have passed Post Diploma Certificate but some had done 10+2 and while some others 10+1. The learned Single Judge was of the view that after having obtained Post Diploma, the earlier qualifications possessed by the Diploma holders became insignificant. The Bridge Course entitled upgradation of L.P.A.No. 901 and 902 of 2002 3 the Post Diploma Certificate to a degree in Engineering. Finally, it was concluded that the solitary objection raised by the Council for denying admission to the Bridge Course to the candidates was that they did not possess 10+2, this was found to have no nexus with the Bridge Course. In appeal the petitioners' counsel argued on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Dharam Bir 1998(3) RSJ 363. In this case the respondent had been appointed as senior instructor in 1957, promoted to Supervisor instructor in 1959 and thereafter promoted to foreman and group instructor. In 1976 he was promoted Principal Class II which was a newly created post. In 1985 the Government framed recruitment rules requiring direct recruitment and promotion in the proportion 75%--25%. Thereafter, when the matter came up for consideration for respondent's propomtion it was found that he did not possess a degree or a diploma in Engineering and could not be promoted to the post of Principal instead he was promoted as Vice Principal. The matter came up before the Administrative Tribunal who found him eligible to be promoted as Principal on the ground that the educational qualification of degree or diploma was applicable only for purposes of direct recruitment and not for promotion. However, the apex court held that there was a mandatory requirement for every candidate to possess the essential educational qualification. This could not be altered or amended. The experience gained by the respondent for having worked on the post in question over a decade could not be equated with the educational qualification required to be possessed by him for promotion to the higher post. The order of the Tribunal was set aside. L.P.A.No. 901 and 902 of 2002 4 Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Division Bench of this Court in Doraha Institute of Management and Technology Vs. State of Punjab 2002(4) S.C.T. 766 (DB). This case related to the provision of minimum qualification for M.C.A. Programme as the Bachelor Degree of 3 years duration but with Mathematics upto 10+2 level. Apparently the challenge by the petitioner was on the ground that minimum qualification requiring knowledge of Mathematics upto 10+2 level could not be accepted as minimum qualification was a Bachelor Degree. Therefore, what the candidate had done before acquiring the said degree cannot be a relevant criteria. The Division Bench did not accept this contention and dismissed the petition. Lastly reference is made to State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Lata Arun AIR 2002 SC 2642. The candidate had sought admission in a nursing course in 1990 which required candidates to have passed Ist year of Three Year Degree Course or 10+2, preference would be given to candidates with science subjects. The candidate applied for admission to the course claiming that she possessed Madhyama certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in 1984 which ceased to be recognized with with effect from 1985. The candidate got provisional admission which was subsequently cancelled on the ground that she did not have the prescribed educational qualification. The Court came to the conclusion that the candidate was not eligible for admission because equivalence of a particular qualification with another as prescribed by the authority was a question which related to matters in the realm of policy decisions to be taken by Nursing Council. The Court cannot decide this question. Furthermore, it was found that the candidate did not possess the recognized L.P.A.No. 901 and 902 of 2002 5 qualification. She possessed a certificate which was issued in 1984 but the recognition of the certificate was deleted in 1985. It is quite clear that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is clearly distinguishable. In the present case the students who have done Post Diploma had sought to join Bridge Course to bring them upto the level of an Engineering Degree. The students had joined the Diploma Course either after 10+1 or 10+2. There was no controversy regarding candidates who have done 10+2 but with regard to candidates who have only done 10+1, the argument was that they had studied one year less and on this ground they could not get the benefit of Bridge Course. We are unable to agree to the above contentions because the Bridge Course by its nature is a course designed to bridge the gap in knowledge between an Advance Diploma Holders and an Engineering student. If a person has obtained an Advance Diploma he has come upto prescribed educational standard. If he was validly admitted to the Diploma Course, be it Advance Diploma or Post Diploma, this is only a question of nomenclature. After that person has successfully completed the course and is awarded a Diploma, he cannot be discriminated for having studied one year less at the Secondary level. Since the candidates were eligible to join Diploma Course and had successfully completed it they would be eligible to take Bridge Course and qualify as Engineering Graduates. The judgments cited before us related to non-fulfilment of eligibility qualification. In the Madhya Pradesh case the candidates did not possess an Engineering Degree and was found to be ineligible. In the Rajasthan case the candidate possessed a degree which was not recognized L.P.A.No. 901 and 902 of 2002 6 and was found to be ineligible. In Doraha Institute case it was held that having passed Mathematics upto 10+2 was an essential qualification for joining MCA. In the present case we are only concerned with the Bridge Course for Diploma Holders. We cannot revert to the educational qualification possessed by the candidates for eligibility to the Bridge Course because when they joined the Diploma Course they were eligible for admission, and they had successfully qualified for being awarded the Diploma. They cannot be discriminated against after they had completed the Diploma Course on the ground that they had studied one year less at the secondary level. We find no merit in these appeal and the same are hereby dismissed. ( K.S.GAREWAL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE May 06,2008 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not: