Sujata Milind Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 12659 Bom

                                                                   10-wp3612-21.doc

vai

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                          WRIT PETITION NO.3612 OF 2021


      Mrs.Sujata M. Patil                                 ...Petitioner
            V/s.
      State of Maharashtra & Ors.                         ...Respondents


      Mr.M.A. Adenwala for the Petitioner.

      Mr.N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for the State - Respondent No.1.

      Mr.Sameer P. Khedekar for the Respondent No.2.

      Mr.Arvind Kothari for the Respondent No.3 - College.

      Mr.R.V. Govilkar i/b Mr.Mihir Govilkar for the Respondent No.4.

                                     CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
                                             R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2021.

P.C. :-

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 12 th February,

2021 passed by the respondent no.2. rejecting the application form

for admission for five years LLB course filed by the petitioner. It is

the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has passed SSC and

thereafter passed Technician Engineering Examination under new

revised syllabus approved by AICTE and recognized by the

10-wp3612-21.doc

Department of Education of the Ministry of Human Resource

Developing, Government of India which is at par with a Diploma

Mechanical Engineering. It is the case of the petitioner that the said

diploma obtained by the petitioner is equivalent to Mechanical

Engineering diploma issued by the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers (India) for the purpose of appearing in CET examination

and thereafter to obtain an admission in five years integrated law

course.

2. The petitioner submitted her application online along with

certificate of diploma in Mechanical Engineering and was allotted

registration No.6414416 . It is the case of the petitioner that after

scrutiny of the said application form, the respondent no.2 permitted

the petitioner to appear for CET examination. On 27 th November,

2020, the petitioner was declared successful in the said CET

examination subject to fulfilling eligibility criteria mentioned in the

Maharashtra LLB (5 years (Integrated Course). The CET issued a

letter dated 9th February, 2021 to the petitioner i.e. provisional

allotment letter. The clause nos.4 and 5 of the allotment letter are

relevant which would be discussed in the later part of the judgment.

3. Since the petitioner was not granted admission, the

petitioner filed this petition. Mr.Adenwala, learned counsel for the

petitioner invited our attention to some of the correspondence

10-wp3612-21.doc

exchanged between the parties and would submit that after passing

SSC, his client obtained a diploma certificate from Institution of

Mechanical Engineers (India) certifying that the petitioner had passed

II year of the Technical Engineering examination held in December,

2014 having roll No.100058. He submits that the diploma obtained by

the petitioner from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) is

equivalent to degree in Mechanical Engineering and thus the

petitioner ought to have been granted admission. He submits that in

any event the respondent no.2 had already allowed the petitioner to

appear for CET examination and thus the admission to the petitioner

could not have refused by the respondent no.3 college.

4. Learned counsel invited our attention to the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Institution of Mechanical

Engineers (India) vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 16 SCC 95 and

would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment

has protected all enrollment granted up to 31 st May, 2013 in respect

of the diploma issued by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

(India) in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the enrollment of

the petitioner was prior to 31st May, 2013 and thus the respondent

no.3 could not have refused admission on the ground that the

diploma obtained by the petitioner was not equivalent to 10+2

certificate or degree. He also relied upon a public notice annexed at

10-wp3612-21.doc

page 58 of the writ petition stating that on 1 st June, 2013 onwards

courses for equivalence will cease to have effect for employment in

Central Government and the decision on continuation of the

certification of equivalence of degree / diploma would be taken by the

statutory regulator (AICTE) after review. AICTE decided to recognize

equivalence for all purposes including Higher Education &

Employment to Technical Courses conducted by various Professional

Bodies / Institutions which were duly recognized by MHRD with

permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013. Thus all those students

who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition

upto 31st May, 2013 stand recognized.

5. Mr.Govilkar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 on

the other hand submits that the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

(India) is not a recognized institution and is not affiliated to the

respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 thus cannot issue any

certificate of equivalence of the diploma obtained by the petitioner

with the degree of Engineering or any other said course. He invited

our attention to various paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the said judgment has clearly held that the said Institution of

Mechanical Engineers (India) did not impart any education, merely

conducts bi-annual examinations and award certificates. He relied

10-wp3612-21.doc

upon paragraph 49 of the said judgment, and submits that in that

case, the procedure of equivalence to the certificates awarded by

the said Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) granted by MHRD

in consultation with AICTE upto 31 st May, 2013 was followed as is

evident from Notification dated 6th December, 2012 issued by the

Central Government and public notice issued by AICTE in August,

2017. He submits that in any event the protection granted by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment was not for granting any

admission in LLB course by declaring the said diploma granted by

the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) as equivalent to the

degree in Engineering. He submits that the said protection was

granted for the purpose of employment in the Central Government

and not for granting any admission for the LLB course.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 invited our

attention to clause 6 of the notification dated 8th October, 2020 issued

by the Higher & Technical Department which prescribed the

conditions for granting admission in undergraduate course in law. He

submits that the petitioner not having obtained 10+2 higher

education passing certificate or first degree certificate after passing

studies in Distance or Correspondence method is not eligible for the

LLB course and is thus not entitled for getting admission in the said

five years LLB course .

10-wp3612-21.doc

7. Mr.Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3

states that the petitioner being not qualified and the diploma

obtained by the petitioner being not equivalent to diploma in

Engineering or degree course, the respondent no.3 rightly rejected

the application of the petitioner for admission.

8. A perusal of the record indicates that it is not in dispute

that for obtaining an admission in five years LLB course, the

eligibility criteria was 10+2 higher education certificate or first degree

certificate after passing studies in Distance or correspondence

method. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has

obtained 10+2 higher education certificate or any degree issued by

the University. Reliance is placed on the certificate issued by the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) certifying that the

petitioner has passed Part-II Technician Engineering examination on

10th December, 2014.

9. A perusal of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Technical Engineers

(India) (supra) clearly indicates that the petitioner therein was the

same institution i.e. Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India)

impugning the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court

holding that the membership certificate granted by the appellant

could not be treated as equivalent decree in Engineering.

10-wp3612-21.doc

10. In paragraph 36 of the judgment, it is held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that on its own showing, the appellant does not

impart any education but merely conducts bi-annual examinations

and awards certificates. The appellant did not recognize, allow or

conduct any coaching classes or local centres helping the candidates

appearing in the examinations. In paragraph 41 of the said judgment,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that consistent stand of the

appellant had been that it was not covered under any of the Act viz.,

UGC Act, the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 and

the AICTE Act.

11. It is held that it does not impart any instructions either in

theory or in practical, it holds an examination, on satisfactory

clearance of which it awards certificates or membership to

candidates. The question considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

was whether such certificate could as a matter of law, be recognized

as equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a

recognized Indian University.

12. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that neither can

the petitioner therein 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.

However in paragraph 49 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme

10-wp3612-21.doc

Court noticed that the equivalence to the certificates awarded by the

appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE upto

31st May, 2013 as is evident from Notification dated 6 th

December,2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Notice

issued by AICTE in August 2017. It is held that these

communications also indicate that all those students who were

enrolled upto 31st May, 2013 would be eligible for consideration in

accordance with MHRD office memorandum / order in course.

13. In paragraph 50 of the judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that in these circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court made

an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31 st May,

2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in that matter will apply

after 1st June, 2013. The certificate awarded by the appellant to such

candidates enrolled upto 31st May, 2013 shall be considered

equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of

employment in the Central Government.

14. In our view, the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India)

(supra) supports the case of the respondents and not the petitioner.

In that matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that the

consulting process of equivalence between MHRD and AICTE was

carried out. No such process had taken place between the said

10-wp3612-21.doc

institution and AICTE. Clauses 4 and 5 of the provisional letter of

allotment would indicate the conditional allotment.

15. In our view, since the said Institution of Mechanical

Engineers (India) is not recognized nor affiliated to AICTE, diploma

issued by the said Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) cannot

be compared or considered equivalent to diploma in Engineering or

diploma degree for getting admission in college. The relaxation was

granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while exercising powers

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Reliance placed by the

petitioner on the public notice is misplaced.

16. In our view, the petitioner not having been eligible to get

admission, in view of not having 10+2 certificate or first degree

certificate which was mandatory requirement for getting the

admission in five years LLB course,the admission to the petitioner

has been rightly rejected by the respondents. Even otherwise, the

centralized admission process is already over on 10 th April, 2021.

The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No

order as to costs.

(R.I. CHAGLA, J.)                                 (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)