AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nita Chowdhury, J
None appeared for the applicant even on revised call and this matter has already argued in detail by the respondents' counsel and has given the Orders based on which the similar matter has been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex court and a Coordinate Bench. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate this case by invoking the provisions of Rule 15 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and heard learned counsel for the respondents further.
By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) quash and set aside the order dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed by the respondents with all consequential benefits;
(ii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."
The applicant is aggrieved by order dated 10.5.2016 vide which his request for appearing in the LDCE for the post of STA-B was rejected on the ground of being ineligible as the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering obtained by the applicant from J.R.N.Rajasthan Vidypeeth University through distance mode is not valid as the said University has been accorded provisional recognition for one academic year 2007-08 and the same only mentions about institutional recognition and nothing about course recognition.
The moot question for consideration in this case is whether the diploma in engineering acquired through distance mode has the approval of AICTE? The applicant has not placed on record any document which proves that the said diploma acquired by the applicant from the said University is actually approved by the AICTE.
Counsel for the respondents has produced before us the Order passed by the Allahabad Bench in OA No.1315/2013 decided on 20.11.2017 in which the applicant was also an aspirant for the post of STA-B but his candidature was not considered for the said post on the basis of the diploma of engineering acquired by him through distance mode and Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 3.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No.17869-17870/2017 (ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD vs. RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS.), especially the following relevant paras of the said judgment:-
"36. The definition of "Technical Education" in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act shows that the 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 sub-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 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.
In Bharathidasan (supra) the issue was whether a University established under a State Law, within its area of operation, was entitled to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself without any approval of AICTE. The requirement of grant of approval under Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act being specific in respect of technical institutions alone, the conclusion was arrived at that the AICTE could not insist upon such grant of approval when a University wished to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself. The discussion in Bharathidasan shows that this Court accepted the role of AICTE in laying down norms and standards in technical education system which is evident from following portions from paragraph Nos.10 and 16.
"10..................A careful scanning-through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action......................
16............We also place on record the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, which, in our view, even otherwise is the correct position of law, that the challenge of the appellant with reference to the Regulation in question and claim of AICTE that the appellant University should seek and obtain prior approval of AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or programme in technical education does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by AICTE for the purpose of ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards............."
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 the 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 emphasizing 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 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 the 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."observed as under:-
"17. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above case, since AICTE has decided that the courses relating to technical education should not be taught in distance education mode, it is binding on all including Universities. Hence, in this case the diploma certificate acquired by the applicant from IGNOU is not acceptable as per law."
We have carefully perused the pleadings of this case as also the aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal and are of the considered view that the present case is squarely covered by the said Order of this Tribunal as in the same very issue as raised in this case was adjudicated and on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, the case was dismissed by the said Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal.
In view of the above, for parity of reasoning, the present OA is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.