TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>AICTE's Authority Upheld by Supreme Court in Technical Education Regulation Case</h1> <h3>All India Council for Technical Education Versus Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has the authority to regulate technical education standards and ... Whether High Court's decision to permit candidates who have completed 10+1 plus four years post diploma course to take the bridge course, cannot be sustained? Issues Involved:1. Conversion of Post Diploma Programme to Advance Diploma Programme.2. Upgradation to a five-year Engineering Degree Programme (B.Tech).3. Approval of a one-year bridge course for diploma holders.4. AICTE's refusal to approve the bridge course.5. Court orders directing AICTE to approve the bridge course.6. Eligibility criteria for the bridge course (10+1 vs. 10+2 entry qualification).7. AICTE's challenge to the High Court's decisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Conversion of Post Diploma Programme to Advance Diploma Programme:The YMCA Institute of Engineering, Faridabad, initially conducted a four-year Post Diploma Course with an entry qualification of 10+1. In 1995, the Institute sought and received approval from AICTE to convert this course into a four-year Advance Diploma Programme, subject to raising the entry level to 10+2 and modifying the course content as suggested by AICTE.2. Upgradation to a Five-Year Engineering Degree Programme (B.Tech):In 1997, the Institute received approval from the Director of Technical Education, Haryana, and AICTE to upgrade the four-year Advance Diploma Course to a five-year B.Tech programme. Consequently, the Institute began offering the B.Tech programme from the academic year 1997-98 and discontinued the Advance Diploma Course.3. Approval of a One-Year Bridge Course for Diploma Holders:To enable students who completed the four-year Post/Advance Diploma Course to acquire a B.Tech degree, the Institute proposed a one-year bridge course. The Government of Haryana approved this bridge course, and the Director of Technical Education recommended AICTE to grant approval for the bridge course for students who completed the diploma courses during the sessions 1992-96, 1993-97, and 1994-98.4. AICTE's Refusal to Approve the Bridge Course:AICTE rejected the request for the bridge course on several grounds:- No provision in AICTE Rules for such a course.- Approval would involve a major policy shift and affect technical education nationwide.- It would defeat the purpose of diploma level education.- Existing provisions allowed diploma holders to be admitted to the second year of the engineering programme.5. Court Orders Directing AICTE to Approve the Bridge Course:102 students of the Institute filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which quashed AICTE's rejection and directed it to approve the bridge course. Subsequent petitions by other students were also allowed, extending the benefit of the bridge course to Post Diploma holders with entry qualifications of 10+2.6. Eligibility Criteria for the Bridge Course (10+1 vs. 10+2 Entry Qualification):The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed petitions from post diploma holders with a 10+1 entry qualification, ruling that the criterion for admission to the bridge course should be the possession of a four-year post or advance diploma, irrespective of whether the entry qualification was 10+1 or 10+2.7. AICTE's Challenge to the High Court's Decisions:AICTE challenged the High Court's decisions, arguing that permitting candidates with a 10+1 entry qualification to take the bridge course would lower academic standards and jeopardize the technical education system. AICTE contended that such decisions should be within its exclusive jurisdiction as they involve technical education policy.Judgment Analysis:The Supreme Court held that AICTE, being a statutory body with professional and technical expertise, is entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining norms and standards in technical education. The Court emphasized that educational policy decisions, such as the approval of bridge courses, fall within AICTE's exclusive jurisdiction and should not be interfered with by courts. The Court noted that the High Court's decisions led to an unintended dilution of educational standards and emphasized the importance of maintaining uniform entry qualifications for engineering degree courses.The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and dismissed the writ petitions. However, it clarified that candidates who had already been admitted to and completed the bridge course pursuant to the High Court's orders would not be affected by this judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
