# INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 10 S.C.R. 175
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-08-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 17922 of 2017
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, Deepak Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/institution-of-mechanical-engineers-india-through-its-chairman-v-state-of-33120
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

University Grants Commission Act, 1956- ss.2(f), 3, 22Appellant conducts bi-annual examinations such as Technician
Engineers' Part-I & Part-II etc., and on successful completion
thereof awarded the Certificate "Associate Member of Institution
of Engineers" (AMIE) - On 26.05.76, the Government of India
provisionally recognized a pass in the Associate Membership
Examination of the Mechanical Engineers Association of India at
par with degree in Mechanical Engineering from recognized Indian
University- Notification issued by the Central Government
recognizing the Part-I & Part-II Technician Engineers' Examination
(T) at par with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from State
Polytechnic - Qualifications in the said notification recognized for
recruitment to subordinate posts and services under the Government
of Punjab- Writ petition filed inter alia praying that the Certificate
of Membership issued by the appellant be declared invalid for
recruitment/promotion to the service concerning State affairsDisposed of by consent order - Review Application - Vide judgment
dtd. 06.11.12, in case of the appellant, the review was allowed inter
alia holding in paragraphs 205-213 that the Membership Certificate
granted could not be treated as equivalent to Degree in
Engineering- Challenged by the appellant- SLP listed along with
similar matters, but no submissions advanced by the appellantMatters decided vide order dtd. 03.11.17 - Appellant sought
clarification and modification thereof- Refused by the Registrar of
Supreme Court holding that the application sought review of the
judgment dtd. 03.11.17- Order of the Registrar under challenge in
 [2019] 10 S.C.R. 175
175
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
the present miscellaneous application - Held: Registrar was right
in refusing to register the appellant's application - On merits,
consistent stand of the appellant has been that it is not covered
under any of the Acts viz. the UGC Act, IGNOU Act and the AICTE
Act - In terms of s.22(1) of the UGC Act, right to confer degrees
can be exercised only by University established or incorporated by
or under Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act or by an institution
deemed to be University u/s.3, UGC Act or by an institution specially
empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degreesAppellant does not fall under any of the categories in s.22(1), UGC
Act - If degree can be awarded only by those institutions which
satisfy the description given in sub-sec.(1) of s.22, UGC Act, the
mandate of Parliamentary legislation cannot be circumvented by
awarding equivalence to Certificate awarded by the appellantNeither can the appellant claim, as a matter of right to be entitled to
confer any degree nor can it claim that Certificate awarded by it
must be reckoned to be equivalent to Degree in Mechanical
Engineering- Communication dtd. 26.05.76 under which the
Certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalent
to Degree in Mechanical Engineering from recognized Indian
University, does not indicate any statutory provision under which
such equivalence could be granted- However, the fact remains that
the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was
granted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)
in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.13 as evident from
Notification dtd. 06.12.12 issued by the Central Government and
Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017 - These
communications also indicate that students who were enrolled upto
31.05.13 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with
MHRD office memorandum/order in course - Exception made in
favour of such candidates - Conclusions drawn in the present matter
will apply after 01.06.13 - Certificate awarded by the appellant to
candidates enrolled upto 31.05.13 be considered equivalent to
Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment
in Central Government- No error in the assessment made by the
High Court in para

## Text

_Characters 0–39,934 of 93,667. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39934 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
175
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA)
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
(Miscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018)
In
(Civil Appeal No. 17922 of 2017)
AUGUST 13, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
University Grants Commission Act, 1956- ss.2(f), 3, 22Appellant conducts bi-annual examinations such as Technician
Engineers' Part-I & Part-II etc., and on successful completion
thereof awarded the Certificate "Associate Member of Institution
of Engineers" (AMIE) - On 26.05.76, the Government of India
provisionally recognized a pass in the Associate Membership
Examination of the Mechanical Engineers Association of India at
par with degree in Mechanical Engineering from recognized Indian
University- Notification issued by the Central Government
recognizing the Part-I & Part-II Technician Engineers' Examination
(T) at par with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from State
Polytechnic - Qualifications in the said notification recognized for
recruitment to subordinate posts and services under the Government
of Punjab- Writ petition filed inter alia praying that the Certificate
of Membership issued by the appellant be declared invalid for
recruitment/promotion to the service concerning State affairsDisposed of by consent order - Review Application - Vide judgment
dtd. 06.11.12, in case of the appellant, the review was allowed inter
alia holding in paragraphs 205-213 that the Membership Certificate
granted could not be treated as equivalent to Degree in
Engineering- Challenged by the appellant- SLP listed along with
similar matters, but no submissions advanced by the appellantMatters decided vide order dtd. 03.11.17 - Appellant sought
clarification and modification thereof- Refused by the Registrar of
Supreme Court holding that the application sought review of the
judgment dtd. 03.11.17- Order of the Registrar under challenge in
 [2019] 10 S.C.R. 175
175
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
the present miscellaneous application - Held: Registrar was right
in refusing to register the appellant's application - On merits,
consistent stand of the appellant has been that it is not covered
under any of the Acts viz. the UGC Act, IGNOU Act and the AICTE
Act - In terms of s.22(1) of the UGC Act, right to confer degrees
can be exercised only by University established or incorporated by
or under Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act or by an institution
deemed to be University u/s.3, UGC Act or by an institution specially
empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degreesAppellant does not fall under any of the categories in s.22(1), UGC
Act - If degree can be awarded only by those institutions which
satisfy the description given in sub-sec.(1) of s.22, UGC Act, the
mandate of Parliamentary legislation cannot be circumvented by
awarding equivalence to Certificate awarded by the appellantNeither can the appellant claim, as a matter of right to be entitled to
confer any degree nor can it claim that Certificate awarded by it
must be reckoned to be equivalent to Degree in Mechanical
Engineering- Communication dtd. 26.05.76 under which the
Certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalent
to Degree in Mechanical Engineering from recognized Indian
University, does not indicate any statutory provision under which
such equivalence could be granted- However, the fact remains that
the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was
granted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)
in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.13 as evident from
Notification dtd. 06.12.12 issued by the Central Government and
Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017 - These
communications also indicate that students who were enrolled upto
31.05.13 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with
MHRD office memorandum/order in course - Exception made in
favour of such candidates - Conclusions drawn in the present matter
will apply after 01.06.13 - Certificate awarded by the appellant to
candidates enrolled upto 31.05.13 be considered equivalent to
Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment
in Central Government- No error in the assessment made by the
High Court in paragraphs 205 to 213 of its judgment - Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - University Grants Commission Act, 1956Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 - All India
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 - ss.2 (g), (h), 3, 10.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
Rejecting the Miscellaneous Application No.2367 of 2018,
the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Registrar of Supreme Court was right in
refusing to register Application for Clarification and Modification
preferred by the appellant. However, since the record did not
clearly indicate whether the Review Application was allowed by
the High Court after hearing the appellant, in the interest of
justice, the appellant was permitted to raise all the submissions
on merits. On its own showing, the appellant "does not impart
any education but merely conducts bi-annual examinations and
awards certificates". [Paras 30, 31] [206-D-E]
1.2 The appellant does not even claim to be imparting any
education through distance education mode and only conducts
bi-annual examination and awards certificates to those who qualify
such examination. Considered in the light of the decision of
Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case, the
learned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that the case of
the appellant would be on a footing lower than the cases of deemed
to be Universities. The consistent stand of the appellant has been
that it is not covered under any of the Acts viz. the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956, Indira Gandhi National Open
University Act, 1985 and the All India Council for Technical
Education Act, 1987. However, since it offers courses or
programmes of technical education, as rightly held by the High
Court, the appellant comes within the definition of "technical
institution" as defined in the AICTE Act. Neither does the
appellant, on its own grant Degrees in Engineering nor does it,
in its capacity as an affiliated institution to a recognized University,
prepare students in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering.
Though it does not impart any instructions either in theory or in
practical, it holds an examination, on satisfactory clearance of
which it awards Certificates of Membership to candidates.
Nothing is clear as to under what statutory regime or under which
legal provision can such equivalence to the Certificate issued by
the appellant be granted or conferred. No statutory provision
has been pressed into service or relied upon to suggest that given
the particular circumstances and/or, on satisfaction of certain
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR.
ITS CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
parameters the appellant would be entitled to conferral of such
equivalence or status. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act,
right to confer degrees can be exercised only by a University
established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial
Act or a State Act or by an institution deemed to be a University
under Section 3 of the UGC Act or by an institution specially
empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
The idea appearing in Sub-Section (1) of said Section 22 is made
emphatically clear by Sub-Section (2) which stipulates: "Save as
provided in sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer,
or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant,
any degree". The intent of the Parliament is clear that it is only
that body which is referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 22,
that is competent to confer or grant degrees. The appellant does
not fall under any of these categories enumerated in Section 22(1)
of the UGC Act. There is nothing on record either in the form of
any statutory provision or any statutory regulations or any scheme
under which such equivalence could be granted by the MHRD.
It appears that claims made by various institutions like appellant
were considered on case to case basis and equivalence was
granted by MHRD. The first of those communications was of the
year 1976 when AICTE Act was not in force. If the mandate of
Section 22 disentitles any authority or person other than those
specified in Section 22 (1) to award degrees, there is no power or
authority in any one including MHRD to award such equivalence.
The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved
indirectly is well settled. [Paras 35-39] [211-C-H; 212-A-C; E-G]
1.3 If a degree can be awarded only by those institutions
which satisfy the description given in sub-Section (1) of Section
22 of the UGC Act, the mandate of a Parliamentary legislation
cannot be circumvented or nullified by awarding equivalence to a
Certificate issued and awarded by the appellant. What is the value
of that certificate will be considered by each employer as and
when the occasion arises. The appellant would certainly be entitled
to award Certificate of Membership to its Members. What
weightage the Certificates must have is for the individual
employers to consider in a given case. The concerned employer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
179
may attach due importance to such Certificates while considering
the worth and ability of the concerned candidates but to say that
the Certificates are equivalent to a degree and as such all the
candidates who hold such Certificates are entitled to derive the
advantages which a degree holder can, is completely a different
issue. In the present case, the communication dated 26.05.1976
under which the Certificate issued by the appellant was
recognized to be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical
Engineering from a recognized Indian University, does not indicate
any statutory provision under which such equivalence could be
granted or conferred. This point becomes more crucial, as after
the enactment of AICTE Act, the entirety of the field concerning
"technical education" is kept in the domain of AICTE by the
Parliament. Section 10 of the AICTE Act entitles AICTE not
only to lay down norms and standards for courses, curriculum
and such other facets of "technical education" but also entitles it
under clause (l) to advise the Central Government in respect of
grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the field
of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges
etc. Going by the width of the power, after the enactment of
AICTE Act, even such privileges could be conferred only after
express advice of AICTE and within the confines of various
statutory provisions. Consequently, neither can the appellant
claim, as a matter of right to be entitled to confer any degree nor
can it claim that Certificate awarded by it must be reckoned to be
equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering. [Paras 4042] [213-G; 214-A-G]
1.4 However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the
Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD
in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.2013 as is evident from
Notification dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Central Government
and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017. These
communications also indicate that all those students who were
enrolled upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in
accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course.
Though it has been laid down that the Certificates issued by the
appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR.
ITS CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a
Degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of students
enrolled up to 31.05.2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification
dated 06.12.2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be
extended to such candidates. The candidates had opted to enroll
themselves so that they could appear at the examinations
conducted by the appellant under a regime which was put in place
by the Central Government itself and the course content as well
as the curriculum were reviewed by the AICTE. However, the
aforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear that
after 01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would
cease to have any effect. In the circumstances an exception made
in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and declare
that the conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after
01.06.2013. The Certificate awarded by the appellant to such
candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 shall be considered
equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose
of employment in Central Government. In the premises, no error
is found in the assessment made by the High Court in paragraphs
205 to 213 of its judgment. Therefore, all the submissions raised
by the appellant are dismissed and Miscellaneous Application
No. 2367 of 2018 is rejected. [Paras 44-46] [215-C-H; 216-A]
State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder
and Others (2011) 8 SCC 737 : [2011] 11 SCR 1094 ;
Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560 : [1979]
2 SCR 282 - relied on.
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi
Sankar Patro and Others (2018) 1 SCC 468 : [2017]
13 SCR 921 ; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 2012
SCC OnLine P&H 21066 ; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
(2000) 6 SCC 213 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 389 ; Sant
Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.
(2010) 13 SCC 336 : [2010] 13 SCR 621 - referred
to.
Case Law Referene
[2017] 13 SCR 921
referred to
Para 19
[2011] 11 SCR 1094
relied on
Para 39 (A)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
181
[1979] 2 SCR 282
relied on
Para 39 (A)
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 389
referred to
Para 39 (A)
[2010] 13 SCR 621
referred to
Para 39 (A)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : M.A. No. 2367 of 2018
in Civil Appeal No. 17922 of 2017.
From the impugned Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2017 of the
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017.
Dhruv Mehta, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., C.A. Sundaram,
Sr. Adv. (AC), Abhishek Gupta, Arjun Singh, Ms. Diya Kapur, L.D.
Mehta, Aman Shukla, Ms. Liz Mathew, Karan Bharihoke, B.D. Das,
Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Siddhant Sharma, Navkiran Bolay, Syed Shahid
Hussain Rizvi, Harish Pandey, G.S. Makkar, Anil Soni, S. Wasim A.
Qadri, Jubair Ahmad Khan, Zaid Ali, Tamim Qadri, Saeed Qadri, Dinkar
Adeeb, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Civil Appeal No.17922 of 2017 (arising out of Special Leave
Petition (CC) No.7390) was filed in this Court by the appellant challenging
the judgment and order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the High Court1 in
Civil Writ Petition No.12909 of 2009 and connected matters. Insofar as
the case of the appellant was concerned, Writ Petition No.12909 of
2009 was disposed of by the High Court1 holding, that the Membership
Certificate granted by the appellants could not be treated as equivalent
to a Degree in Engineering.
2. The appellant, a Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 is said to have been established to promote the
profession and practice of Mechanical Engineering Professionals.
Amongst its activities, it conducts bi-annual examinations known as
Technician Engineers' Part-I and Part-II, Automobile Technician
Engineers' Examination Part-I and Part-II, Production Technician
Engineers' Part-I and Part-II, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Technician Engineers' Examination Part-I and Part-II and Section-A
and Section-B of Associate Membership Examination in Mechanical
Engineering. On successful completion of such examinations, the
1 High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR.
ITS CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
Certificate "Associate Member of Institution of Engineers" ('AMIE'
for short) is awarded by the appellant.
3. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 ("the UGC Act",
for short) was enacted to make provisions for coordination and
determination of standards in Universities and Section 2(f) defines
University to mean "... a University established or incorporated by or
under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any
such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be
recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made
in this behalf under this Act". In terms of Section 3, status of "deemed
to be University" can be conferred upon an Institution for higher studies
other than a University. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, right
to confer degrees can be exercised only by a University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act
or by an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the
UGC Act or by an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament
to confer or grant degrees.
4. On 26.05.1976, the Government of India, Ministry of Education
and Social Welfare, Department of Education, on the recommendation
of Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications provisionally
recognized "a pass in the Associate Membership Examination of the
Mechanical Engineers Association of India at par with a degree in
Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University/
Institution for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts and
services under the Central Government for a period of three years."
On 06.10.1981 the Government of India, Ministry of Education and
Culture, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of
Assessment for Educational Qualifications, decided to continue to
recognize a pass in AMIE of the appellant for the purpose of recruitment
to superior posts and services under the Central Government.
5. All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 ('the AICTE
Act' for short) was enacted to provide for the establishment of the All
India Council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planning
and co-ordinated development of the technical education system
throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such
education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation
and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education
system and for matters connected therewith. The terms 'technical
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
183
education' and 'technical institution' are defined in Section 2 (g) & (h)
as under:-
"(g) "technical education" means programmes of education,
research and training in engineering technology, architecture, town
planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and
such other programmes or areas as the Central Government may,
in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare;
(h) "technical institution" means an institution, not being a
University, which offers courses or programmes of technical
education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central
Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification
in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions;"
Section 10 of the AICTE Act enumerates functions of the AICTE2
established under Section 3. Said Section 10 is as under:-
10. Functions of the Council. - It shall be the duty of the Council
to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated
and integrated development of technical education and maintenance
of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under
this Act, the Council may -
(a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical education,
collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the needed
growth and development in technical education;
(b) coordinate the development of technical education in the country
at all levels;
(c) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council such
grants on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to -
(i) technical institutions, and
(ii) Universities imparting technical education in coordination
with the Commission;
(d) promote innovations research and development in established
and new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new
technologies to meet developmental requirements and for overall
improvement of educational processes;
2 All India Council for Technical Education
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
(e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education for
women, handicapped and weaker sections of the society;
(f) promote an effective link between technical education system
and other relevant systems including research and development
organisations, industry and the community;
(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical
institutions and Universities imparting technical education,
incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability;
(h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of
teachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new centres
for offering staff development programmes including continuing
education of teachers;
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical
and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality
instructions, assessment and examinations;
(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees;
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for
introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with
the agencies concerned;
(l) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter
to any professional body or institution in the field of technical
education conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for the
promotion of such profession in its field including conduct of
examinations and awarding of membership certificates;
(m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions;
(n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of
technical education;
(o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical
institutions and Universities imparting technical education;
(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution;
(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses,
programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply
with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring
compliance of the directions of the Council;
(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to set
up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the Council's
responsibilities and to create positions of professional, technical
and supporting staff based on requirements;
(s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offering
courses in technical education fit to receive grants;
(t) advise the Commission for declaring any institution imparting
technical education as a deemed University;
(u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct
evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of
guidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to make
recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission or
to other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of the
institution or the programme;
(v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed."
6. A Notification was issued on 11.07.1988 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of
Education) to the following effect:-
"On the recommendations of the Board of Assessment for
Educational Qualifications, the Government of India has been
pleased to recognize the Part-I and Part-II Technician Engineers'
Examination (T) conducted by the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India) at par with a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering
from State Polytechnic for the purpose of employment to
subordinate posts and services under the Central Government."
By endorsement dated 19.08.1988 issued by Government of
Punjab, Department of Education, the qualifications mentioned in the
said Notification dated 11.07.1988 were recognized for the purpose of
recruitment to subordinate posts and services under the control of
Government of Punjab.
7. While dealing with certain complaints against the appellant,
Member Secretary, AICTE in his letter dated 27.04.2000 addressed to
Government of India, Department of Education; MHRD3 stated that
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
many deficiencies were found in the curriculum offered by the appellant
in its programmes. Later, the recognition granted insofar as examinations
conducted and certificates issued by the appellant for the purposes of
employment under the Central Government was withdrawn by MHRD3
vide Notification dated 10.06.2002. The exercise was preceded by
hearing given to the appellant by a High Level Committee which was
appointed to review the recognition granted to Parts I & II of Technician
Engineers Examination conducted by the appellant and the relevant portion
of the Notification was:-
"The High Level committee for recognition of Education
Qualification in its special meeting held on 12.2.2002 and 15.5.2002
in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
dated 31.1.2002 in the matter of Civil Writ Petition No.3570/2001
and LPA No.49-50/2002 relating to Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India), Mumbai reviewed the recognition granted to
Part-I and II of Technician Engineers Examination of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai for the purpose of
employment under Central Government.
2. After giving a fair hearing to the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India), Mumbai, the High Level committee took
following decisions:
(i)
Recognition of Associated Membership Examination of
Section A & B and Part-I and II of Technician Engineers
Examination (T) of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
(India), Mumbai for the purposes of employment under
the Central Government stand withdrawn with immediate
effect.
(ii)
Withdrawal of the recognition will be effective
prospectively, i.e. students who have already got Section
A & B and Part_I and II awards from IME (India),
Mumbai will continue to be eligible for employment in
Central Government.
(iii) IME (India), Mumbai will be at liberty to approach the
Ministry of Human Resources Development for
recognition of awards granted by them for employment
purposes in the Central Government as and when they
3 Ministry of Human Resource Development
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
187
remove all deficiencies with regard to revision and
upgradation of curriculum, examination system, procedure
for appointment and qualification of examiners, and other
related issues, as pointed out by the Group constituted by
the High Level Committee."
8. The appellant challenged said Notification dated 10.06.2002 by
filing Civil Writ Petition No.3907 of 2002 in the High Court of Delhi
which by its order dated 24.06.2002 had initially stayed the operation of
said Notification. However, said Writ Petition was dismissed on
07.07.2003 by the Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 584
of 2003 arising therefrom was disposed of by the Division Bench by
order dated 09.03.2004 with following observations: -
"The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 7.7.2003 by which the writ petition was
dismissed. The short grievance in this appeal is that the recognition
of the appellant was withdrawn by notification dated 10.6.2002
for the purpose of employment under Central Government and as
a matter of fact the notification itself mentioned that Mechanical
Engineers (India) (hereinafter referred to as "IME"), would be at
liberty to approach the Ministry of Human Resource Development
for recognition of awards granted by them for employment purposes
in the Central Government as and when they remove all
deficiencies with regard to the revision and upgradation of
curriculum, examination system, procedure for appointment and
qualification of examiners and other related issues as pointed out
by the Group constituted by the High Level Committee.
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that
after the appellant has removed all the deficiencies as indicated in
para (iii) of the Notification and as and when they would approach
the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education,
the same will be considered as expeditiously as possible and in
any event within three months from the date of receipt of the
request for recognition from the appellant.
No further directions are necessary in these appeals. Both appeals
and all pending applications are disposed of accordingly."
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
The matter was carried further by the appellant by filing Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9387 of 2004 which was disposed of by this
Court as under:-
"Mr. Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General, states that
the application made by the Petitioner to the Government will be
considered within six weeks from today. He states that whilst so
considering the representation, the Government will also consider,
whether the students who had joined prior to the withdrawal of
the recognition, be allowed to graduate. In view of this statement,
learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner applies for
withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave
Petition is allowed to be withdrawn."
9. Thereafter, the matter was re-examined and the recognition
granted for its educational qualifications and enjoyed by the appellant
was restored with effect from 16.10.2006 vide Notification dated
24.11.2006. The relevant part of the Notification was as under:-
"The Institute of Mechanical Engineers(India), Mumbai has been
running Section A & B of Association Membership course,
equivalent to Degree in Mechanical Engineering since 1976, vide
this Ministry's letter No.F.18-31/71-T.2 dated 28.05.1976 and Part
I & Part II of Technical Engineers (T), equivalent to Diploma in
Mechanical Engineering from a State Polytechnic, since 1988,
vide this Ministry's letter No.F.1-5/87/T.7/T.13 dated 11.07.1988.
In the year 2002, while withdrawing the recognition of these
courses, Government of India allowed the IME (India), Mumbai
to approach this Ministry for recognition of their Diploma/Degree
courses only after the removal of all the deficiencies pointed out
by AICTE. Accordingly, the above Institute submitted a request
along with the requisite material for review and consideration of
this Department. This Department got the material re-examined
by AICTE. AICTE through its Expert Committee re-examined
both the courses and submitted its recommendations with revision
of syllabus for both the courses.
The High Level Committee for recognition of educational
qualification considered the matter in its meeting held on 16.10.2006
and on its recommendation, Govt. of India has decided the
following:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
189
(i) The recognition of the courses run by IME, Mumbai may be
restored with effect from 16.10.2006. With this recognition IME
will run the courses based on new syllabus approved by All India
Council for Technical Education (AICTE). As per the approval,
the Technical Engineering courses Part-I & II (Diploma Level)
will have 22 papers in place of existing 14 papers and Degree
level course of Section A & B of Associate Membership will
include 24 papers in place of 11 papers at present. In addition to
this, there will be nine elective subjects. After completing theory
papers, students will have to undergo at least 3 months mandatory
apprenticeship/practical training/project report at an All India
Council for Technical Education approved Polytechnic for Part I
& II of Technician Engineers Course for award of Certificate
equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and the
Apprenticeship/Practical training of the same duration in AICTE
approved Degree Colleges for award of Certificate equivalent to
Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering for Section A & B
of Associate Membership Course.
(ii) The students who were registered prior to 10.06.2002 for
Part I & II of Technician Engineers (Diploma Level) and Section
A & B of Associate Membership course (Degree Level) will be
allowed to complete the courses with pre revised syllabus till the
next scheduled examination, to be held in December 2006. Their
Degree/Diploma will be recognized for employment in Central
Government. Those who do not complete their courses by that
time (December 2006), will have to follow the revised syllabus."
10. In the year 2008, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1640 of 2008 (Kartar
Singh vs. Union of India and others) was filed in public interest before
the High Court4 submitting inter alia that number of study centres and
illegal institutions were running in the State which were virtually selling
Degrees and Diplomas and the petition prayed for appropriate reliefs
holding Degrees and Diplomas awarded by such study centres/institutions
to be invalid for government jobs. The appellant was not a party to this
petition.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.12909 of 2009 (Jagmohan Singh vs. State
of Punjab and others) was filed in the High Court1 to which the appellant
was a party and the petition prayed inter alia that the Certificate of
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
Membership issued by the appellant be declared invalid for recruitment
and promotion to the service concerning State affairs. An application
was preferred by the appellant in said Writ Petition that the matter was
covered by the earlier decision of the Division Bench of the High Court
in "Tejinder Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others". Writ
Petition (Civil)No.12909 of 2009 was thereafter disposed of by a consent
order dated 06.07.2011 in terms of the earlier judgment in Tejinder Singh's
case. A Review Application was, however, preferred against said consent
order dated 06.07.2011 by original Respondent No.5 and the matter was
directed to be placed along with Writ Petition (Civil) No.1640 of 2008.
11. On 10.07.2012, a letter was issued by Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher
Education to the appellant stating as under:-
"It has been decided that a review of the curriculum, mode of
delivery of the program, its duration, etc. would be carried out by
the concerned Regulator and until such a review is complete, the
Institutions with permanent recognition will not make fresh
admissions. Alternatively, the institution has the option of realigning
its curriculum with the National Vocational Educational
Qualification Framework (NVEQF) and proceed further."
12. By common Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2012 the matters
were disposed of by the High Court1. Insofar as the case of the appellant
was concerned, the Review Application was allowed and in paragraphs
205 to 213 of its Judgment, the High Court1 observed:-
"205. In CWP NO.12909 of 2009, the issue is in respect of
Certificate of Membership obtained from the institute of
Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai (respondent No.4), as a
degree for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer in
terms of the Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation (Engineering
Wing), Group 'A' Service Rules, 2007. In CWP No.9200 of 2012,
the petitioners claim promotion on the basis of similar membership
from the same Institute.
206. The petitioner in CWP No.12909 of 2009 is a degree holder
from Panjab University, whereas respondent No.5 is said to have
obtained a Certificate of Membership from respondent No.4 i.e.
the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai alleging
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
the same without attending any regular classes, undertaking
practicals and without taking any study leave from the Department.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the certificate issued by
the said respondent is not a degree in terms of Section 22 of the
UGC Act, as respondent No.4 is not authorized to confer any
right of degrees.
207. A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.12502 of 2004
titled "Tejinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & others"
decided on 02.04.2007, has considered the question of recognition
of AMIE degree granted by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers
(India), Mumbai. It was found that the degree from the Institute
of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai is recognized by the
Government of India vide letter dated 06.10.1981, which was
accepted by the Government of Punjab. In view of such finding,
the writ petition was allowed, as the petitioner has obtained degree
prior to its de-recognition in the year 2003.
208. A perusal of the Certificate relied upon by the petitioner in
Tejinder Singh's case (supra) as also the present case (Annexure
A-2) shows that the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India),
Mumbai is a Society registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. It appears that such institute is taking advantage of its
similarity in name with the Institution of Engineers established
under Royal Charter, as discussed above. The Institute of
Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai is a registered Society
and is thus a Technical Institution and is required to obtain approval
from AICTE in respect of its courses in technical subjects. The
membership of such institute cannot be treated as equivalent to a
degree, as the candidate qualified from such institute cannot be
said to be at par with the members of Institution of Engineers
established under the Statute.
209. The distinction between Institute of Mechanical Engineers
(India), Mumbai and that of an Associate Members of Institution
of Engineers, was not brought to the notice of the Court in Tejinder
Singh's case (supra). The scope of Institution of Engineers
established under the Royal Charter has been examined above.
210. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a
notification dated 24.11.2006, wherein the request of Institute of
INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) THR. ITS
CHAIRMAN v. STATE OF PUNJAB [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai for recognition of its
Diploma/Degree courses was examined by the Government of
India only after the removal of all the deficiencies pointed out by
AICTE. The notification is to the effect that AICTE has reexamined both the courses and submitted its recommendation with
revision of syllabus for both the courses. The Government of
India decided that IME (India), Mumbai will run the courses based
on new syllabus approved by AICTE w.e.f 16.10.2006. As per
another communication produced in Court on 18.10.2012, The
Government of India has communicated to respondent No.4 to
the following effect:-
"Please refer to this Ministry's notification No.23-2/2001-TS.III
dated 24.11.2006 regarding Section A & B of Association
Membership course, equivalent to Degree in Mechanical
Engineering and Part I & II of Technician Engineers (T),
equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from a State
Polytechnic. It has been decided that a review of the
curriculum, mode of delivery of the program, its duration, etc.
would be carried out by the concerned Regulator and until
such a review is complete, the Institutions with permanent
recognition will not make fresh admissions.