AICTE Regulations Prevails Over State Rules Framed Under Kerala Public Service Act: Kerala HC

The Court was hearing an Original Petition placed before the Full Bench on a reference order passed by a Division Bench doubting the proposition of law laid down in Suresh v. State of Kerala (2021) and Haridas v. Athira (2021).

The bench of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, Justice Shobha Annamma Eapen and Justice S. Manu observed, “we all are of the view that the method of appointment is inextricably connected with the standard or quality of education in technical institutions…We are of the view that the regulation framed under the Central enactment would prevail over the Rules framed under the Kerala Public Service Act.”

Advocate P. Nandakumar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Raghul Sudheesh appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The AICTE, through a notification, sets qualifications and recruitment procedures for teachers in technical institutions. The regulation mandated that the post of lecturer must be filled through direct recruitment. Candidates listed by the Kerala Public Service Commission for lecturer positions in engineering colleges and polytechnics challenged the state's plan to fill vacancies following the Special Rules, mainly Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules 2010 using a 13:7 ratio between direct recruitment and transfer. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal ruled in favour of direct recruitment, ignoring the special rules. The Petitioners, who were already employed as instructors in the Technical Education Department, sought a review of that decision, but it was dismissed. They then approached the High Court, where a Division Bench questioned earlier judgments in similar cases, prompting further review.

In the present case, the point of law involved for consideration is the power of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to fix and stipulate the mode or method of appointment of teaching staff in technical institutions.

The Court noted that in Suresh’s case and Haridas’s case the Division Bench was of the view that the power of AICTE includes the power to prescribe qualification, method of appointment etc. of teaching staff in Engineering Colleges and Technical Institutions.

The Court observed, “If the method of appointment would have a bearing on standards of learning to be imparted in technical education, the court cannot say that such a prescription of the method of appointment is beyond the power of AICTE. While it may be true that the AICTE Act does not explicitly grant authority to prescribe a mode of appointment in technical institutions, the ACITE believes that the method of appointment is integral to the quality of education to be imparted in a technical institution, the court cannot judicially review the wisdom of an expert body.”

The Court mentioned the decision in Baharul Islam and Others v. Indian Medical Association and Others and quoted, “Although, Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India is in the Concurrent List which gives powers to both the Union as well as the State Legislatures to pass laws on the subject of ‘Education’, it is significant to note that any such law to be made by the State Legislature is subject to, inter alia, Entry 66 of List I or the Union List of the Seventh Schedule.”

Accordingly, the bench said that the conflict is not incidental to the matter of appointment and being directly in conflict, the Court will have to resolve such conflict by placing reliance on Article 246 of the Constitution of India.

Finally, the Court said that the law laid down in Suresh’s case and Haridas’s case is correct law and does not require any reconsideration.

Cause Title: Ajal Ramakrishnan v. Athira I.C. (Neutral Citation: 2024:IO:KER:36)

Appearance:

Appellant:  Advocates P. Nandakumar, Amrutha Sanjeev

Respondent: Advocates Raghul Sudheesh, KJ Glaxon, J Lakshmi, Amal Jees Alex, Standing Counsels Sajith Kumar V and PC Sasidharan 

Click here to read/download Judgment