ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION versus SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS .

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 18-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 859 
: 
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION 
A 
V. 
...., 
SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS . 
(Civil Appeal No. 4349 of 2004) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2009 
B 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] 
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987: 
Section 10- Bridge course - Diploma holders with 10+2 c 
.. 
permitted by High Court to upgrade their qualification - By 
another order eligible qualification reduced to 10+1 instead 
of 10+2 - The orders were meant to be one time measure 
but extended for several years - Held: The cumulative effect 
of the High Court's orders lead to an unintended dilution of D 
educational standards adversely affecting the standards and 
quality of Engineering Degree Courses - Courts should 
guard against such forays in the field of education - Education 
- Maintaining of quality and standards. 
In these appeals against the judgment of the High 
E 
Court, the appellant viz., All India Council for Technical 
Education (AICTE) has objected to the permission given 
by the High Court to post diploma holders with 10+1 
.. 
entry level qualification to take the bridge course since 
it enabled the diploma holders to secure a B.Tech degree 
F 
----?°" 
which amounted to a major policy shift and defeated the 
very purpose of diploma level education and diluted the 
efficacy of the degree course. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
G 
' 
HELD: 1. The decision of AICTE not to permit bridge 
courses for diploma holders and its decision not to 
permit those who have passed 10+1 examinations 
859 
H 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A (instead of 10+2 examination) to take the bridge course, 
relate to technical education policy which fall within their 
exclusive jurisdiction. Courts will not interfere in matters 
-
of policy. [Para 15] [870-F-G] 
8 
Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University 
1980 (3) SCC 418; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary 
and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar 
Sheth 1984 (4) SCC 27; State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman 
Educational & Research Institute 1995(4) SCC 104; 
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B.Educationa/ Society 
C 2005 (3) SCC 212 and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav 
Ashwin Jain 2007 (4) SCC 737, relied on. 
2.1. The fact that the decisions of the Delhi High Court 
were not challenged and was given effect earlier, will not 
o come in the way of the present challenge. It is possible 
that AICTE did not contest the earlier decision because 
it was thought to be a one time measure or because it 
would be applied only to a small section with reference 
to a single institution, or because it would benefit only 
E those who had passed the entry level examination for 
engineering degree, that is, 10+2 with physics, chemistry 
and mathematics. It is also possible that AICTE did not 
assess or realize the effect or impact of such a decision 
F 
or the likelihood of gradual dilution. [Para 16] [871-D-F] 
2.2. The fact that the earlier directions of the High 
Court to permit the bridge course for diploma holders 
from the Institute, had been complied with, and that those 
decisions attained finality will not come in the way of 
AICTE challenge any subsequent decision relating to 
G other similarly placed candidates/students. It cannot 
however take away the benefit extended to the petitioners 
in those cases, where the decision had attained finality, 
on the ground that subsequently the court has taken a 
different view. [Para 16] [872-F-H] 
H 
• 
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. 
861 
SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN & ORS. 
.._ 
State of Maharashtra v. Digambar 1995 (4) SCC 683 and 
A 
Col. B. K. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India 2006 ( 11) 
-
sec 709, relied on. 
., 
3. If the AICTE was of the view that only those 
diploma holders with 10+2 (with PCM subjects) should be 
B 
permitted to upgrade their qualification by an ad hoc 
bridge course or that such bridge course should not be 
a regular or permanent feature, there is no reason to 
interfere with such a decision. The courts cannot by their 
orders create courses, nor permit continuance of courses c 
which were not created in accordance with law, or lower 
the minimum qualifications prescribed for admissions. 
The 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. [Para 17] 
[873-F-H; 874-A] 
D 
4. This is a classic case where an educational course 
ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.