AICTE Regulations 2007 Cannot Be Forced Upon Universities To Compulsorily Provide For Admission Through Lateral Entry: Delhi HC
While clarifying that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Admission of Students in Degree Engineering Programmes through Lateral Entry Regulations, 2007 (Regulations, 2007) could not be forced upon the Universities to compulsorily provide for admission through lateral entry, the Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking direction to the Respondents to provide admission through the lateral entry process to second year, B.Tech. programme for diploma holders in engineering and technology.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated that “Having considered the source of power to frame the Regulations, 2007 and the language employed in the Regulations, 2007, this court is of the opinion that the Regulations, 2007 are enabling and directory in nature and cannot be considered to be mandatory. If the Universities or technical institutions to whom the Regulations, 2007 applies decides to go for admission through lateral entry, the Regulations, 2007 would be the minimum threshold criteria to be adhered to, subject to any other higher standards to be prescribed by respective Universities.”
Advocate Rishabh Kapur appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Standing Counsel Anil Soni appeared for the Respondent.
In a brief background, the Petitioner who was a diploma holder/final year students of three-year diploma course in engineering, had sought admission to second year B.Tech. program in Public Universities through a lateral entry process as per the guidelines laid down by AICTE for admission of students in the Degree Engineering Program through the Regulations, 2007.
After considering the submission and referring to the judgment of Abhijay v. A.I.C.T.E [W.P.(C)-2293-94/2006], wherein it was held that if the Regulations, 2007 were independently considered, the same would not result in any converse opinion, the Bench observed that this view was taken keeping in mind the binding precedents of the Supreme Court of India and the source of power exercised by the AICTE in framing the Regulations, 2007 which were framed in exercise of power under sub-Section (1) of Section 23 read with Section 10(b), (o) and (v) of the AICTE Act, 1987.
The Bench elucidated that Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987 calls upon the AICTE to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education, maintenance of standards, and for the purpose of performing its functions under the AICTE Act, 1987.
“A source of the power which was exercised in framing the Regulations, 2007 was itself in the nature of guideline. It was not a case where any of the Universities were granting admission through lateral entry in defiance of the Regulations, 2007. No doubt, the Universities could not dilute the basic minimum standard laid down under the provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. However, the Universities were entitled to lay down higher standards than the ones laid down by the AICTE”, added the Bench.
While stating that the purpose of the Regulations, 2007 was to provide for admission to diploma holders and B.Sc. graduates into second year degree program in engineering and technology through lateral entry, the High Court said that it is up-to the Universities to evolve a mechanism in accordance with the Regulations, 2007 or with a higher standard to provide a mode for such students.
“If the Universities decided to grant admission through lateral entry, they had to mandatorily follow the Regulations, 2007 or any higher standards can be prescribed by the Universities. However, the very nature of the Regulations, 2007 and the purpose for which these were enacted, could not be construed to be mandatory in nature to mean that all institutions must grant admission through lateral entry”, added the Bench.
Since the source of the power of framing the Regulations, 2007 itself was directory in nature and all the Universities were set up by their independent Acts either of the State or of the Central Government, therefore, the High Court concluded that AICTE in order to lay down uniform criteria enabling all institutions to grant admission directly in second year B.Tech. program had framed the threshold criteria and the same could not be construed as mandatory.
Cause Title: Shivam Chaudhary and Ors. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 4021]
Click here to read/download Judgment
