In W.P.(C) 8397 of 2022- DEL HC- Delhi High Court refuses to mandatorily direct AICTE to provide admission through lateral entry to second year, B.Tech. programme for diploma holders in engineering and technology
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav [02-06-2023]

Read Order: Shivam Chaudhary v. All India Council for Technical Educations

Simran Singh

New Delhi, June 3, 2023: The Delhi High Court has 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.”

The Court clarified 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 and therefore, was not inclined to interfere with the instant writ petition or to issue any mandatory directions against the respondents to mandatorily provide for admission through lateral entry.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner were diploma holders/final year students of three year diploma course in engineering. The petitioners sought admission to second year B.Tech. programme in Public Universities through lateral entry process as per the guidelines laid down by AICTE for admission of students in the Degree Engineering Programme through the Regulations, 2007. Issues for consideration was that whether the Regulations, 2007 was mandatory or directory in nature

The Court referred to Abhijay v. A.I.C.T.E. and observed that Division Bench of this court, had stated that if the Regulations, 2007 were independently considered, the same would not result in any converse opinion. This legal position was based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education.

The Bench stated 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. 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.

The Court stated that Sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the AICTE Act, 1987 required that the Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make Regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the All Indian Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE, 1987) and the rules generally, to carry out the purpose of the AICTE Act, 1987. It was provided for framing of guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education.

“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.”

The Court stated that the purpose of the Regulations, 2007 was to provide for admission to diploma holders and B.Sc. graduates into second year degree programme in engineering and technology through lateral entry. It was upto the Universities to evolve a mechanism in accordance with the Regulations, 2007 or with a higher standard to provide a mode for such students.

“However, the same could not be forced upon the Universities to mandatorily have the provision of lateral entry. It was thus understood that 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.”

The Bench stated that in the instant case the Universities had taken categorical stand that they were not under an obligation to grant admission through lateral entry. The decision relied upon by the petitioner were, therefor, distinguishable on facts. “ While interpreting a particular provision to be mandatory or directory, regard must be had to the context, subject matter and object of the statutory provision in question. A careful consideration of the entire scope of the enactment and the reasons behind it need to be considered. The intent of the legislature needed to be given weightage over the language deployed in the statute. The consequence which would follow from construing the legislation, one way or the other, was one of the important parameters. A relative impact on other existing enactments was also required to be considered.”

The Court stated that in the instant case, the source of power of framing the Regulations, 2007 itself was directory in nature. All the Universities were set up by their independent Acts either of the State or of the Central Government. The Regulations, 2007 nowhere provided for any consequence in case of their non-compliance. It was thus seen that AICTE, in order to lay down uniform criteria enabling all institutions to grant admission directly in second year B.Tech. programme, had framed the threshold criteria and the same could not be construed as mandatory.