Summary
The institution could award membership certificates but could not demand that they be treated as engineering degrees. Governmental equivalence could not bypass the statutory limits on degree-conferral and technical-education standards. The Court nevertheless protected candidates enrolled up to 31 May 2013 under the government-created regime, recognising their certificates as degree-equivalent for Central Government employment. The miscellaneous application was rejected, subject to that express exception.
Issues
- Whether the institution could claim degree equivalence for certificates awarded through its examinations.
- Whether candidates enrolled under the earlier governmental recognition regime required protection.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(g), 2(h) and 10, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987The institution fell within the technical-institution framework; norms and professional privileges could not bypass AICTE’s statutory role. (¶¶ 5, 32–36, 41)
- Section 22(1)–(2), University Grants Commission Act, 1956Degree-conferral was confined to the specified statutory categories, which did not include the applicant; equivalence could not circumvent that restriction. (¶ 37–42)
Held
- The Registrar correctly refused to register what sought clarification or modification of an already disposed appeal. Nevertheless, uncertainty about hearing at the High Court review stage led the Court to consider all substantive submissions in the interests of justice. (¶ 30)
- The applicant imparted no instruction and merely conducted examinations. Its position could not escape the technical-education standards emphasised in Orissa Lift Irrigation; it fell within the statutory definition of technical institution. (¶ 31–36)
- The applicant belonged to none of the categories entitled to confer degrees. No statutory basis for the asserted governmental degree equivalence was shown. What the statute prohibited directly could not be achieved indirectly through equivalence. (¶ 37–42)
- Employers may assess the value of membership certificates when judging a candidate’s ability, but that differs from treating every certificate holder as entitled to all advantages of an engineering degree. (¶ 40)
- Candidates enrolled up to 31 May 2013 had relied on a government-created regime with AICTE-reviewed content. An express exception protected their certificates as equivalent to a mechanical-engineering degree for Central Government employment; the adverse conclusions applied after 1 June 2013. (¶ 44–45)
Result
MA No. 2367/2018 rejected without costs. Express protection granted to candidates enrolled up to 31 May 2013: their certificates are degree-equivalent for Central Government employment.