Technical education standards cannot be lowered by court direction where expert statutory approval governs course eligibility.

In technical education policy, courts will not substitute their view for that of the expert statutory authority when deciding whether to introduce or approve a bridge course. The scheme vests the authority with control over course approval, entry qualifications, and academic standards, and a court cannot direct a course that would dilute the minimum eligibility prescribed for engineering degree programmes. The High Court's direction allowing 10+1 post-diploma holders to take the bridge course was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could direct approval of a bridge course enabling post-diploma holders with 10+1 entry qualification to obtain a B.Tech degree.

Analysis: The statutory scheme entrusts AICTE with the function of approving new courses and laying down norms and standards for technical education. The decision whether a bridge course should be introduced, and what entry qualification and academic standards should govern it, falls within the domain of academic and technical policy. Courts are not equipped to substitute their views for those of the expert body in such matters, particularly where the direction would dilute the minimum entry qualification prescribed for engineering degree courses and affect standards in technical education.

Conclusion: The High Court's direction permitting 10+1 post-diploma holders to take the bridge course could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of technical education policy and standards, the court will not substitute its own view for that of the expert statutory authority, and it cannot direct creation or continuation of a course that lowers the minimum eligibility qualification fixed by that authority.

---