High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed by the petitioner to Set aside the letter of the Council of Architecture wherein it arbitrarily rejected the application of the petitioner for registration as an architect in India.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner had obtained a Degree of Master of Arts with Honours in Architecture from the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, after four years of rigorous training. The Degree obtained by the petitioner has full prescription and validation from Architectural Registration Board and Royal Institute of British Architects of United Kingdom, making the petitioner a Part-I qualified Architect. The Central Government issued a list of architectural qualifications granted by the Universities or other institutions outside India as recognised qualifications for registration under the Architects Act, 1972. The petitioner in order to register himself as an Architect in India had applied to respondent No.1 under Section 26 of the Act of 1972 for registration, since the petitioner was desirous to return to India and to work here. However, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the qualification possessed by the petitioner, i.e., Degree of Master of Arts with Honours in Architecture awarded by the University of Edinburgh is not a recognised qualification as per the Schedule of Act of 1972 and therefore the petitioner could not be registered as an Architect in India.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of Nirupa Puliyel v. Council of Architecture and Anr., wherein the Court while interpreting the term ‘degree’ in entry 6 to the Schedule of Act of 1972 had held that the said entries are wide enough to be that of a Bachelor’s degree or a Master’s degree. Thus, so long as the student is awarded a Degree in Architecture from any of the specified Universities in United Kingdom, the qualification as required for being registered as an Architect in India would be met. It was submitted that the nomenclature is totally irrelevant as the degree possessed by the petitioner, i.e., Master’s of Arts with Honours in Architecture is a Degree in Architecture. The denial of the registration as an Architect in the country is in violation of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. The action of the respondents/state must be just and fair and not arbitrary.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent No.1 has no role to play with regard to inclusion of a particular qualification of a foreign University in the Schedule to the Act of 1972. Counsel for the respondent drawn the Court’s attention to Section 15 of the Act of 1972 to contend that it is the Central Government which after consultation with the Council directs through a notification in the Official Gazette for the inclusion of any qualification in the subject of Architecture granted by a University located outside India.
He stated that noting the qualification obtained by the petitioner being M.A. (Hons.) in Architecture as different from a Degree in Architecture as is stipulated in the notification issued by the Government of India in the year 1973 and also in the year 2012, even then the petitioner having done a course for a duration of four years, would not meet the requirements of the schedule and as such the petitioner was not registered as an Architect by the respondent No.1.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that in this case, the petitioner has obtained a degree of Master of Arts with Honours in Architecture, being a course with a duration of four years. Whether it can be construed to be a Degree in Architecture in conformity with Clause 6 as reproduced above, shall be an issue.
HC stated that the degrees recognised/specified by the UGC are India specific, which can be awarded by Indian institutions and not foreign ones which nomenclature can be different from the one prescribed by the UGC. The submission that the Degree from a foreign institute cannot be recognised mechanically, but requires an assessment of the Course content, duration entry qualifications and other qualitative assessment, etc., or follows a regime of reciprocity with foreign Institutes, or is subject of a formal Government to Government Treaty, or understanding is appealing.
HC opined that in view of the fact that the B.Arch. Degree awarded under the University system in India is of a duration of five years after 10+2, and the M.A.(Hons) degree possessed by the petitioner is an under graduate degree with a course duration of four years. HC opined that the Judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Nirupa Puliyel v. Council of Architecture and Anr is clearly distinguishable on facts.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “in the given facts and with the paucity of expert information/opinion on the subject matter concerned, coupled with the fact that the power ultimately vests with the Central Government in consultation with the respondent No.1 in terms of Section 15 of the Act of 1972 to recognise a degree awarded by a Foreign University, this Court directs that appropriate shall be for the petitioner to provide the information as sought for by respondent No.1 in terms of its letter dated February 18, 2019 within a period of six weeks from today. The respondent No.1 shall examine the petitioner’s request under Section 15 of the Act of 1972 and proceed thereafter in accordance with law.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Case Title: Siddhartha Thomas v. Council of Architecture & Anr.
Case Details: W.P.(C) 11420/2019
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
