Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 704 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.J. Kochar, J.

1. All the above petitions are being disposed of by the common Judgment and Order as the issue involved in the petitions is the common one.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the communication dated 9-3-2000 issued by the Registrar - respondent No. 2 refusing to grant renewal of Registration of the petitioners permitting them to act as Architects.The petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ to quash and set aside the said communication and directions to the respondent No. 2 to renew the registration of the petitioners by accepting the renewal fee as per the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Architects Act, 1972.

3. The petitioners, young lady architects, were conferred a Degree of Bachelor of Architecture by the Nagpur University. Respondent No. 3 - the Council of Architecture functioning under Section 3 of the Architects Act, 1972, had recognized the said Degrees conferred by the Nagpur University in 1989. The petitioners were registered with the respondent No. 3 in or around 1992 and thereafter they have been prosecuting their career as Architects. They are also registered as the Members of the Indian Institutes of Architects and therefore, the petitioners have claimed that they are qualified and eligible to carry on their profession as Architects in accordance with law. The petitioners' registration under Section 23 of the Architects Act, 1972, is required, to be renewed annually under Section 27 of the Act on payment of renewal fees. According to the petitioners, they have satisfied and complied with all the lawfully prescribed conditions under the provisions of the Architects Act and, therefore, they are entitled to carry on their profession as Architects as guaranteed, under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have challenged the act of the respondent No. 3 refusing to renew the registration of the petitioners by impugned order dated 9-3-2000 being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, they are bona fide Degree Holders of the Nagpur University which has been recognized by respondent No. 3 under the Act and, therefore, the refusal on the part of the respondent No. 3 to renew the registration of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners got lateral admissions directly in the fourth and fifth year B.Arch. programme being offered by the Nagpur University after undergoing 4 years B. Tech. (House and Interior Course) from the same University. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 3 has erroneously presumed that the petitioners have not undergone the course as stipulated in the Minimum: Standard of Architectural Education Regulations, 1983 (Regulations on Undergraduate Architectural Education) laid down by the Council of Architecture with the prior approval of the Central Government. According to the petitioners, they have successfully undergone 4 years B. Tech. (HID) Course from the Nagpur University and thereafter they were admitted to the 5 years B. Arch. Degree Course of the same University and, therefore, it can not be said that the petitioners have not undergone 5 years Undergraduate programme in Architect as per the said Regulation. According to the petitioners, the four years B. Tech. (HID) Degree Course has been recognized by the Nagpur University and that has been held to be eligibility for getting admission to the fourth year of B. Arch. Degree Course. The petitioners have further submitted that the 4 years B. Tech. Course has identical course for the first, three years which the three years of the B. Tech. Degree Course has prescribed. According to the petitioners, the three years syllabus of B. Tech. is equivalent verbatim with the three years of B. Arch. syllabus and there is no difference of any nature. The Course of B. Tech. is not inferior or is not less in any manner but on the contrary the students have to spend 4 years to get the Degree of B. Tech. whereafter they become eligible to get admission for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. for the fourth and final fifth year. From 1989 onwards, the respondent No. 3 have been registering all such graduates holding the Degree of B. Arch. and the petitioners have been practising the profession of Architect without any hindrance or without any problems.

4. Shri S. V. Manohar, the learned counsel has taken us through the prescribed syllabus for the four years of the B. Tech. and three years of the B. Arch. and has submitted that in fact the students have studied the same subject for first four years in the B. Tech. while the very same subjects are the syllabus of the first three years of the Degree Course of the B. Arch. The Degree of the B. Tech. and the Degree of the B. Arch. are the recognized Degrees conferred by the Nagpur University. According to Shri Manohar, the refusal to renew the membership of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not undergone five years Degree Course of the B. Arch. is totally baseless and erroneous. Shri Manohar has strenuously submitted that the B. Tech. Course of four years is a Degree Course validly prescribed by the Nagpur University as a prescribed qualification to get admission in the fourth year of the B. Arch. Degree Course. The petitioners who have successfully undergone the course of B. Tech. became eligible to get admission for the five years Degree Course of the B. Arch. The respondent No. 3 has termed such admissions as lateral admissions and it purports that the lateral admissions in the fourth and fifth year of the B. Arch. Course is not equivalent to undergoing the five years course of B. Arch. of the Nagpur University and, therefore, according to the respondent No. 3 such Bachelors of Architecture are not holding the recognized degree under the Act, as per respondent No. 3 to deny renewal of the registration of the membership of the respondent No. 3.

5. According to Shri L. K. Khamborkar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, justified the action of the respondent No. 3 in refusing to renew the registration of the petitioners as according to him, the petitioners have not successfully completed the Architectural Course of five years as prescribed under the Act. The learned counsel submits that a candidate to become eligible to be registered as the Member of the Council has to undergo five years Degree Course of the Bachelor of Architecture from the first year to fifth year. He submits that in the case of the petitioners, they have not completed five years of the Degree Course of the B. Arch. as they got admissions in the fourth and fifth year of the Course and, therefore, they cannot be registered as the practising Architects under the Law. Shri Khamborkar further submitted that the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur University is without any authority and, therefore, it could not prescribe the B. Tech. as the eligibility for admission to the fourth and fifth year of the Degree Course of the Architecture. In nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioners who have not undergone the studies from the first year to fifth year at a stretch in the College of Architecture, they cannot be recognized as Bachelor of Architecture. Since the Nagpur University had no power and jurisdiction to prescribe the B. Tech. as a step stone to get admission in the fourth year of the Degree Course of the Architecture, the said Ordinance is null and void and, therefore, the lateral admissions of the petitioners cannot be termed as lawful to be recognized as eligibility criteria for the registration of the petitioners as the members of the respondent No. 3 Council. The learned counsel fairly admitted that all the petitioners were registered initially under a bona fide belief held by the authorities of the Council that the petitioners were bona fide graduates from the Nagpur University holding the Degree of B. Arch. having undergone the five years course as prescribed. According to the learned counsel, the officers of the Council were not aware of the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur University and, therefore, they were admitting the students in the category of the petitioners who had taken the benefit of lateral admissions.

6. He also tried to argue that the petitioners and all such similarly placed Graduates had not disclosed and had suppressed the fact that they were B. Tech. and thereafter they got lateral admission in the fourth year course of B. Arch. when they came to know about this fact, they legally refused to renew the registration of the petitioners, submits the learned counsel. According to Shri Khamborkar, the Course of Architecture is a technical subject and its only All India Council for Technical Education established under the Act 1987 had authority to prescribe the curricula or the course for technical education for the technical Institutions established under the Act. According to him, the Nagpur University had no business to prescribe the syllabus of the Technical Education of the Architecture and that it was the exclusive function or duty of the All India Council For Technical Education established under Section 3 of the Act,

7. Shri B. G. Kuikarni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 - Nagpur University countered the submissions of the counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that Nagpur University had no power and jurisdiction to promulgate the Ordinance to prescribe the eligibility for the Degree Course of Architecture. He fully supported the case of the petitioners and pointed out that the B. Tech. (HID) Course of four years was equivalent to three years course of Bachelor of Architecture. The Act has empowered the Nagpur University to pass an appropriate Ordinance under sections 39 and 40 and it has after considering all the facts and circumstances prescribed the B. Tech. (HID) Course of four years as eligibility for admission to the Degree Course of the B. Tech. in the fourth and fifth year of the B. Arch. He further submitted that when the respondent No. 3 - Council had pointed out for the first time in the year 1999 or so that the lateral admissions were not recognized for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. the Nagpur University has discontinued the same from 2000 onwards and lateral admissions have not been permitted as an eligibility to get admission to the fourth year of the B. Arch. This has been deleted by the Nagpur University.

8. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has summarised his submissions as under:

(A) The Council has no authority to de-recognise the Degree of Bachelor of Architecture. Its only the Central Government that has such power.

(B) The refusal to renew the registration by the respondent No. 3 amounts to disqualification of the petitioners and such disqualification can be only for a proved misconduct and for no other reason a duly qualified Bachelor of Architecture can be refused to be registered or refused to be renewed.

(C) The respondent No. 3 could not refuse to renew the registration of the petitioners who were already registered and if at all the Council had decided not to recognise the candidates who had lateral admissions in the B. Arch. such a Rule cannot be made applicable retrospectively in respect of the petitioners and all such similarly placed Bachelors of Architecture, It would be open to the Council to enforce its decision prospectively but not in respect of those who have already registered and were practising the profession of Architect.

(D) The four years Course of B. Tech. (H.I.D.) is identical with the three years Course of B. Arch. verbatim and there is no difference of any nature between these two curriculums and the prescribed syllabus.

(E) The B. Tech. Examinations and also B. Arch. Examination are conducted by the Nagpur University.

(F) The Nagpur University had introduced the B. Tech. (HID) Course specially for the girls students to give them the facility and scope for their future career as it best suited the girls.

9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel of both sides. We have also carefully gone through the proceedings. We are not inclined to dwell any more on the technical and fine law points raised by the learned counsel for the Council as they are not tenable. It is, however, an admitted position that the lateral admission to the fourth and fifth years Course to B. Arch. have been discontinued by the Nagpur University. The last batch of 1999 was the batch of lateral admissions and thereafter there is no batch of the students who have passed their B. Tech. (HID and who were admitted in the fourth year of B. Arch. Course. The petitioners and all other similarly placed Bachelors of Architecture are the bona fide Graduates of the Nagpur University. All of them had bona fide pursued their B. Tech. (HID) Course for four years as prescribed by the Nagpur University itself. Further the Nagpur University itself has permitted them to get admissions for the fourth year course of B. Arch. and to complete the Graduation of the B. Arch. after undergoing two years of the said Course. The Nagpur University has prescribed the B. Tech. (HID) Degree Course as eligibility to get admission in the fourth year of the B. Arch. Degree. All these students including, the petitioners have bona fide got admission in the fourth year and fifth year of the B. Arch. Degree Course and have successfully acquired the B. Arch. Degree. There is absolutely no fraud or suppression or any such stigma in the entire process. It is not that the Nagpur University is not a recognized Institution having no power or authority to prescribe the syllabus and to prescribe the eligibility qualification for admissions. The Nagpur University has lawfully, promulgated the Ordinance and has prescribed the syllabus for the two courses which the students bona fide believed and accepted and got admission in the B. Arch. One cannot find any fault with the petitioners and all other similarly placed Bachelors of Architecture. It cannot be believed that the respondent No. 3- Council was not aware of the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur University as was tried to be canvassed by the learned counsel. It is totally ridiculous, and absurd, to say that the Council of Architecture was not aware of the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur University prescribing the eligibility criteria for the admissions to the courses of the B. Arch. The said Ordinance was in enforcement for more than a decade and if the Management of the Council did not know of the ordinance which was lawfully promulgated and which was gazetted in the Government Gazette, they have to thank themselves. We must observe that there is something wrong with the administration of the Council when it feigned ignorance of the law. Such a conduct on the part of the Council is contrary to the functions and duty of the Council as laid down under Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987 which requires the Council to take all such steps to ensure coordinated and integrated development of the technical education and for that purpose it has to undertake survey in the various fields of the technical education, collect data on all related matters and coordinate the development of technical education in the country at all levels. It, therefore, cannot be accepted that the Council did not know that the lateral admissions to the course of the B. Arch. was available and was permissible under the Nagpur University. We are not able to believe this bald and unfounded submissions of the learned counsel for the Council that the office bearers of the Council were not aware of the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur University under Section 40 read with Section 39 of the Nagpur University Act. Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987 enumerated about. 22 functions and duties of the Council and the basic one underlying all of them is the coordination and development of the technical education all over the country, in the Universities and in all such other Institutions. We, therefore, can safely presume that the responsible office bearers of this Council were very well aware of the Ordinance of the Nagpur University at the relevant time and they accept the same without any objection and/or acquiesce. It would not be legally permissible for the Council to go back and seek to cancel the registration of the petitioners retrospectively. It cannot put back the hands of the clock after a decade or so. It is certainly empowered to announce and regulate the revised course and deny the registration on the basis of the newly introduced programme in accordance with the law. It cannot one fine morning get up and withdraw the recognised qualifications of the Architects and refuse to register them or renew their registration. It must announce its new revised eligibility criteria well in advance in accordance with law and well known procedure or manner.

10. Secondly, the Council had recognized the B. Arch. Degree of the students who got the lateral admissions from 1989 onwards. They registered them in the year 1992 and registration continued till 1999. In the year 1999, for the first time, the Council appears to have refused to renew the said registrations on the purported ground of lateral admission to the fourth year course being in violation of the Regulation. The Council has continued the registration of all such students upto 1999. The petitioners and similarly placed B. Arch. students have been lawfully practicing since then. It cannot be said that they are quack and bogus Graduates from any bogus University or unrecognized Institution. They have been carrying on their profession lawfully and honourably after their successful pursuit of the two degree courses of the Nagpur University. They have been renewing their registration only till 1999. Furthermore, as far as the subjects and competence of the petitioners and other similarly placed Architects, it can not be said that they have not learnt the subjects of the first three years course of the B. Arch. There is no dispute that the B. Tech. (HID) Course is equivalent to the three years course of the B. Arch. In fact, they have spent one year more in the subjects. The Council is all of a sudden trying to disqualify and derecognise them after the period of 10 years which is not a small period in the career of the professionals. Most of the petitioners might have established themselves comfortably and might have taken off in their profession by 1999. To de- recognise or to disqualify them at this stage would not be in the interest of justice at all and it will not be equitable to do so. There is no element of fraud or illegality at any stage, though the learned counsel for the Council tried to argue that the petitioners had not disclosed that they were lateral admissions in the fourth year course of B. Arch. They have filled up the prescribed forms as per the requirements and they have not suppressed any material from the Council. It was for the Council to have asked the applicants if the Council had any doubt about the fact of their admissions and the fact of their becoming B. Arch. After completing the course. The Nagpur University has validly accepted the B. Tech. (HID) Course as the eligibility for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. and the students of the B. Tech. students got admissions to the B. Arch. Degree Course in accordance with law. We do not find any suppression or fraud or any dishonesty on the part of the petitioners. Their degrees are not spurious nor are they from a fake University. These degrees were and are genuine and bona fide degrees conferred on them by the Nagpur University and, therefore, the Council initially recognized the fact of the Ordinance and also the fact of the lateral admissions in the B. Arch. Course and registered, the petitioners on the "architects" as holders of the recognized qualifications under the Architects Act, but for the reasons best known to it, in and from the year 1999 the Council changed its mind and refused to renew the registration on the ground of lateral admissions of the students of the B. Tech. (HID) to B. Arch. Degree Course. In our considered opinion the decision of the Council to refuse to renew the registration of the petitioners is unreasonable and arbitrary and is contrary to the provisions of the Architect Act, The Petitioners are the architects holding recognized qualifications as included in the Schedule at item 1 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the Act recognises even diplomas of many specified Institutes also.

11. Further since the lateral admission qualifications have been discontinued by the University itself, it will not be in the interest of the petitioners and similarly placed B. Arch. Graduates who bona fide passed their B. Arch. Graduation on the basis of the lateral admissions to deprive them of their qualification to practice the profession of B. Arch. From 1999 onwards, the Nagpur University as also both the counsels have agreed that B. Tech. (HID) Course will not be held to be eligible for admission to the fourth year and fifth year of B. Arch. course. We, therefore, allow the petitions and quash and set aside the impugned communication of the respondent No. 3 refusing to renew the registration on the alleged ground of lateral admissions to the course of the B. Arch. We hold that the petitioners and all similarly placed B. Arch. Graduates are lawfully entitled to be registered with respondent No. 3 and they are lawfully entitled to practice the profession of Architecture. We have followed the "doctrine of defacto" while granting this relief. Respondent No. 3 - Council shall renew their registration and shall never discontinue their registration on this ground on their being B. Arch. on account of lateral admission.

12. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses A and B. The respondent No. 3 shall renew the registration of the petitioners and all other similarly placed B. Arch. Graduates forthwith and shall continue to renew their registration unless there is a breach of other regulations committed by them. No order as to costs.