https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173038 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. en-us Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173038 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173038