C.W.P.No.4576 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4576 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.4.2011 Amit Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for Mr.H.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Rao, Advocate for Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondent No.3. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Sukhvinder Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.4. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-1 which is a decision taken by All India Council for Technical Education to the following effect :- “a) Entry Qualification for both the programmes are not same. C.W.P.No.4576 of 2003 (O&M) -2- b) The curriculum & number of years spent beyond 10th standard are not same. c) The exposure to basic science courses i.e. Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics will not be upto the same level since students in latter course would not have gone through basic science courses at plus two level. d) The Bridge Course leading to Degree was specifically designed for Post/Advanced Diploma Course where the Entry qualification was 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics & duration of Diploma was 4 years at YMCA Institute of Engg. & Tech., Faridabad. However, in the present case the Entry Qualification is 10+3 and duration of Diploma is 2 years. To re-emphasize, the study of basic science subjects (Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics) at plus two level is totally missing. Besides, the total number of years of study in the former cited course is 16 years and in the latter course it is 15 years. The All India Council for Technical Education had prescribed the necessary qualification in order to enable the students who have done Post Diploma to join the Bridge Course so as to bring them upto the level of an Engineering Degree. The decision also reflected that the students who had done their Diploma after 10+2 would be eligible for the Bridge Course and not the ones who had done their Diploma after 10+1. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.5.2008 passed in LPA No.901 of 2002 had C.W.P.No.4576 of 2003 (O&M) -3- negated the decision of All India Council for Technical Education and held that such a condition was discriminatory. The instant writ petition was directed to be listed after the decision of the aforesaid LPA. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the matter is no longer res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others, 2009 Service Cases Today 615 has observed in paras 13, 14 & 15 as under :- “13. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, courts will step in. In Dr.J.P.Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University (1980(3) SCC 418) this Court observed : “Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread... While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.” In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984(4)SCC 27) this court reiterated : “.........the Court should be extremely reluctant to C.W.P.No.4576 of 2003 (O&M) -4- substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.” 14. The Act has entrusted AICTE with the powers and functions relating to (i) proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country; (ii) promotion of qualitative improvement of technical education in relation of planned quantitative growth, and (iii) regulation of the system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995(4) SCC 104), this Court examined the provisions of the Act and explained the scope of the duties and responsibilities of AICTE under the Act thus : “The aforesaid provisions of the Act including its preamble make it abundantly clear that the Council has been established under the Act for coordinated and integrated development of the technical education system at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to promote qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is also C.W.P.No.4576 of 2003 (O&M) -5- required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system. ..........This duty and responsibility cast on the Council implies that the norms and standards to be set should be such as would prevent a lopsided or an isolated development of technical education in the country. For this purpose, the norms and standards to be prescribed for the technical education have to be such as would on the one hand ensure development of technical educational system in all parts of the country uniformly; that there will be a co-ordination in the technical education and the education imparted in various parts of the country and will be capable of being integrated in one system; that there will be sufficient number of technically educated individuals and that their growth would be in a planned manner, and that all institutions in the country are in a position to properly maintain the norms and standards that may be prescribed by the Council. The norms and standards have, therefore, to be reasonable and ideal and at the same time, adaptable attainable and maintainable by institutions throughout the country to ensure both quantitative and qualitative growth of the C.W.P.No.4576 of 2003 (O&M) -6- technically qualified personnel to meet the needs of the country. Since the standards have to be laid down on a national level, they have necessarily to be uniform throughout the country without which the coordinated and integrated development of the technical education all over the country will not be possible which will defeat one of the main objects of the statute...” In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B.Educational Society, 2005(2)SCT 102; (2005(3)SCC 212), this Court reiterated: “AICTE Act was enacted with the object of regulating and coordinating the development of technical education throughout the country and also for establishment of proper and uniform norms and standard of technical education in India.” 15. The decision of AICTE not to permit bridge courses for diploma holders and its decision not to permit those who have passed 10+1 examinations (instead of 10+2 examination) to take the bridge course, relate to technical education policy which fall within their exclusive jurisdiction. Courts will not interfere in matters of policy. This Court in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain (2007(4)SCC 737) pointed out : “Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate C.W.P.No.4576 of 2003 (O&M) -7- Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor any courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamentals rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, if the subject of judicial review.” The above observations will apply with added vigour to the field of education.” The aforesaid observations leave no room for doubt that the All India Council for Technical Education was very well within its right to prescribe the qualification and it was not within the domain of the Courts to prescribe otherwise. As a consequence thereof, the instant writ petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. 25.4.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss