Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) through Its Chairman vs State of Punjab & Ors.

31.05.13 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course – Exception made in favour of such candidates – Conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after 01.06.13 – Certificate awarded by the appellant to candidates enrolled upto 31.05.13 be considered equivalent to Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in Central Government– No error in the assessment made by the High Court in paragraphs 205 to 213 of its judgment – Societies Registration Act, 1860 – University Grants Commission Act, 1956– Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 – All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 – ss.2 (g), (h), 3, 10. Rejecting the Miscellaneous Application No.2367 of 2018, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Registrar of Supreme 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. On its own showing, the appellant “does not impart any education but merely conducts bi-annual examinations and awards certificates”. [Paras 30, 31] [206-D-E]

1.2 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 Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case, 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. The consistent stand of the appellant has been that it is not covered under any of the Acts viz. the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 and the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 MHRD. It appears that claims made by various institutions like appellant were considered on case to case basis and equivalence was granted by MHRD. The first of those communications was of the year 1976 when AICTE 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 MHRD to award such equivalence. The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly is well settled. [Paras 35-39] [211-C-H; 212-A-C; E-G]

1.3 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 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. 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. 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. [Paras 4042] [213-G; 214-A-G]

1.4 However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE 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 accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though it has been 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. In the circumstances an exception made 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. In the premises, no error is found in the assessment made by the High Court in paragraphs

205 to 213 of its judgment. Therefore, all the submissions raised by the appellant are dismissed and Miscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018 is rejected. [Paras 44-46] [215-C-H; 216-A] State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder and Others (2011) 8 SCC 737 : [2011] 11 SCR 1094 ; Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560 : [1979]

2 SCR 282 – relied on.

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others (2018) 1 SCC 468 : [2017]

13 SCR 921 ; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21066 ; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 389 ; Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 13 SCC 336 : [2010] 13 SCR 621 – referred to.

Case Law Referene

referred to

Para 19

relied on

Para 39 (A)

relied on

Para 39 (A)

[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 389

referred to

Para 39 (A)

referred to

Para 39 (A)