Delhi High Court
Ms. Nisha vs Union Of India And Others on 26 November, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~ 3, 8, 11-15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: November 22, 2012
Judgment Pronounced on: November 26, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 6100/2012 & CM No.16465/2012
MS. NISHA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.S.S.Pandey, and Mr.H.S.Tewari,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam,
Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for AICTE.
AND
W.P.(C) 6185/2012 & CM No.16618/2012
MS. SONAM DUBEY ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate with Ms.
R.Archana, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam,
Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for
UOI.
WP(C)s No.6100, 6185, 6186, 6187, 6487, 4722 & 7237/2012 Page 1 of 20
AND
W.P.(C) 6186/2012 & CM No.16620/2012
MS. VANDANA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate with
Ms.R.Archana, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Aditya
Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for UOI.
Mr.Mayank Manish, Adv. with Mr. Amitesh Kumar,
Advocate for AICTE.
AND
W.P.(C) 6187/2012 & CM No.16622/2012
YUVRAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.S.S.Pandey, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam,
Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr.Mayank Manish, Adv. with Mr. Amitesh Kumar,
Advocate for AICTE.
AND
W.P.(C) 6487/2012 & CM No.17205/2012
DINESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.S.S.Pandey, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam,
Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for
UOI.
WP(C)s No.6100, 6185, 6186, 6187, 6487, 4722 & 7237/2012 Page 2 of 20
AND
W.P.(C) 7237/2012 & CM No.18665/2012
MS. PALLAVI BISHNOI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.S.S.Pandey, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Mr.Aditya
Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for UOI.
AND
W.P.(C) 4722/2012
AISHVERYA RANJAN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.S.S.Pandey, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam,
Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for
UOI.
Mr.Ashwani K.Dubey, Advocate for R-4 with
Mr.Sambhav Srivastava, Section Officer, Equivalence
Division, Association of Indian University.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The writ petitioners of WP(C) No.6100/2012 (Nisha), WP(C)
No.6185/2012 (Sonam), WP(C) No.6186/2012 (Vandana) and WP(C)
No.7237/2012 (Pallavi) have a degree in „B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONICS‟ from recognized universities and claim that the degree is
equivalent to the degree „B.Tech. ELECTRICAL‟.
2. The writ petitioners of WP(C) No.4722/2012 (Aishverya
Ranjan) and WP(C) No.6187/2012 (Yuvaraj Singh) have a degree in
„B.Tech. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY‟ from recognized universities
and claim that the degree is equivalent to the degree „B.Tech. COMPUTER
SCIENCE‟.
3. Dinesh Kumar the writ petitioner of WP(C) No.6487/2012 has
a degree in „B.Tech. INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL‟ from a
recognized university and claims equivalence with the degree „B.Tech.
ELECTRONIC AND INSTRUMENTATION‟.
4. Responding to advertisements issued by the Indian Army and
published in the Employment News, the writ petitioners submitted online
applications by availing the drop down facility from the website of the
Indian Army, meaning thereby that the form of the application in PDF
format could be filled up online without altering any columns but only
filling up relevant information against the different columns; and all of them
successfully cleared the selection process, which includes the Physical
Endurance Test; but find themselves without letters offering appointment
being issued.
5. Since the writ petitioners were claiming equivalence and apart
from the argument that the proof of a pudding lies in the eating; highlighting
that the respondents had indicated its requirement for eligible candidates
having degree in B.Tech. ELECTRICAL, B.Tech. COMPUTER SCIENCE
and B.Tech. ELECTRONIC AND INSTRUMENTATION respectively,
from which one could safely conclude that the selection test was geared to
determine the merit of the candidates in the said branch; and the petitioners
having come out with flying colours would be proof that the degrees they
possess are equivalent to what the respondents want, we had firstly required
the Association of Indian Universities to enrich us with their opinion with
reference to the case of Aishverya Ranjan i.e. render an opinion to us
whether degree in B.Tech. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY obtained by
Aishverya Ranjan was equivalent to the degree of B.Tech. COMPUTER
SCIENCE but were pained to note that the Association of Indian
Universities, under signatures of its Section Officer (Evaluation) Shri
Sambhav Srivastava, gave an opinion that the two degrees are equivalent,
and with reference to his certificate when called upon to give clarifications
in Court, as recorded in the order dated September 12, 2012, stated that he
has issued the certificate simply incorporating the opinion of
Prof.A.K.Mehrotra, the director of Shri Ramswaroop Memorial Group of
Professional Colleges affiliated to G.B.Technical University.
6. We were pained at the fact that a body admittedly recognized
(and for which learned counsel for the respondents made the statement) to
certify on issue of equivalence of degrees awarded by different universities
for purpose of further academic studies had rendered an opinion which was
so callous.
7. While issuing notice in WP(C) No.6100/2012 filed by
Ms.Nisha, we had noted that with the proliferation of privatization in
education and the need to have course curriculum commensurate to the
needs of the growing industry one finds a perceptible shift from the
hithertofore regimented courses to inter-disciplinary courses, having mixed
and merged subjects, taught in the universities both private as also
universities established by the States and the Centre. We had noted large
number of writ petitions being filed by young children, who having obtained
degrees, were facing problems with respect to the classification of the
degree obtained by them and thus had issued a notice to the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India to help us in resolving the issue. We
had also sought assistance from the All India Council for Technical
Education to guide us for the reason learned Additional Solicitor General
informed us that relating to diplomas/degrees in technical education on the
subject of equivalence said body was competent to opine upon.
8. As recorded in the order dated October 12, 2012 in WP(C)
No.6100/2012, Dr.Yashpal Singh, Director (Planning and Policy) AICTE
assured this Court that AICTE would submit a report within 10 days on the
subject whether B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS degree is
equivalent to a B.Tech. ELECTRICAL degree; a degree in B.Tech.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY is equivalent to a degree in B.Tech.
COMPUTER SCIENCE; and a degree in B.Tech. INSTRUMENTATION
AND CONTROL is equivalent to a degree in B.Tech. ELECTRONIC AND
INSTRUMENTATION.
9. A two member committee comprising Dr.Y.B.Joshi, Director
Walchand College of Engineering, Sangli and Prof.D.V.L.N.Somayajulu,
Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, NIT, Warangal, A.P. was
constituted by AICTE and has opined that the degree of B.Tech.
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS is not equivalent to the B.Tech.
ELECTRICAL degree but the degree in B.Tech. INSTRUMENTATION
AND CONTROL is equivalent to the degree B.Tech. ELECTRONICS AND
INSTRUMENTATION and that the degree in B.Tech. INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY is equivalent to the degree B.Tech. COMPUTER
SCIENCE.
10. In rendering the opinion, the report of the two member
committee would indicate, that the learned professors have acted as
mechanists and not as analysts. They have mechanically compared the
syllabus and course contents of the two courses of which equivalence was to
be opined upon, and wherever complete identity in syllabus and course
contents have been found, it has been opined that the two courses are
equivalent.
11. The aforesaid is evident from the fact that the committee has
opined on the subject of equivalence of the degree B.Tech
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL with B.Tech. ELECTRONICS
AND INSTRUMENTATION in the following words:-
"1. a. Syllabus and Course contents of B.Tech.
Instrumentation and Control Engineering degree of
G.B. Technical University, Lucknow is same as
B.Tech. Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering
degree of G.B. Technical University, Lucknow.
b. Therefore, B.Tech. Instrumentation and Control
Engineering degree of G.B. Technical University,
Lucknow is equivalent to B.Tech. Electronics and
Instrumentation Engineering degree of G.B. Technical
University, Lucknow.
2. a. Syllabus and Course content of B.Tech. Instrumentation
and Control Engineering degree of M.D. University,
Rohtak is same as B.Tech. Electronics and
Instrumentation Engineering degree of M.D.
University, Rohtak.
b. Therefore, B.Tech. Instrumentation and Control
Engineering degree of M.D. University, Rohtak is
equivalent to B.Tech. Electronics and Instrumentation
Engineering degree of M.D. University, Rohtak."
12. Similarly, pertaining to the degree B.Tech. INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY and B.Tech. COMPUTER SCIENCE, the opinion is as
under:-
"1. a. Syllabus for first two years is common for both the
programmes;
Electives I and II are also common for both the
programmes;
Out of four subjects listed in Electives III listed in CSE
and IT, three are common and Out of four subjects
listed in Electives IV in CSE and IT, only one course is
different;
Out of four labs listed in Elective III laboratory in CSE
and IT, only one laboratory is different;
Systems programming course is offered in CSE but not
in IT;
Information and ERP system is offered in IT but not in
CSE;
Some courses offered as electives in IT and the same
are offered as core for CSE and vice versa.
b. Based on the above observations B.Tech. Information
Technology degree of Mangalayatan University,
Aligarh (UP) is equivalent to B.Tech. Computer
Science Engineering degree of Mangalayatan
University, Aligarh (UP)."
13. As regards the degree B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONICS and the degree B.Tech. ELECTRICAL, the opinion reads
as under:-
1. a. Syllabus and Course content for first year and second
year of B.Tech. Electrical and Electronics Engineering
degree of U.P.Technical University, Lucknow is same
as B.Tech. Electrical Engineering degree of
U.P.Technical University, Lucknow.
b. There is 20% to 30% variation in Syllabus and Course
content for third year and fourth year of B.Tech.
Electrical and Electronics Engineering degree of U.P.
Technical University, Lucknow and B.Tech. Electrical
Engineering degree of U.P. Technical University,
Lucknow and B.Tech. Electrical Engineering degree of
U.P. Technical University, Lucknow.
c. Therefore, B.Tech. Electrical and Electronics
Engineering degree of U.P.Technical University,
Lucknow is not equivalent to B.Tech. Electrical
Engineering degree of U.P.Technical University,
Lucknow."
14. It would be useful if we would put in a tabular form the course
contents of the degree B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS as
also the degree B.Tech. ELECTRICAL, and for which we highlight the
syllabus and the course contents of U.P.Technical University Uttrakhand at
Dehradun. We have highlighted in bold print wherever the course
content in a particular semester is different. The tabular chart is as
under:-
COURSE CURRICULUM FOR COURSE CURRICULUM Remarks
ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS FOR ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING ENGINEERING
1st SEMESTER (1st Year) 1st SEMESTER (1st Year) Same
Mathematics -I Mathematics -I Same
Engg, Physics/Engg.Chemistry Engg, Same
Physics/Engg.Chemistry
Basic Technical Communication -I Basic Technical Same
Communication -I
Basic Electrical Basic Technical Same
Engineering/Mechanical Engineering Engineering/Mechanical
Engineering
Fundamental of Computer & Fundamental of Computer & Same
Programming Programming/Fundamental of
Electronics
Environmental Studies Environmental Studies Same
PRACTICAL LABS PRACTICAL LABS
Physics/Chemistry Physics/Chemistry Same
Basic Electrical Basic Electrical Same
Engineering/Mechanical Engineering Engineering/Mechanical
Engineering
Fundamental of Computer & Fundamental of Computer & Same
Programming Programming
Workshop Practice/Engineering Workshop Same
Drawing Practice/Engineering Drawing
2nd SEMESTER (1st Year) 2nd SEMESTER (1st Year)
Mathematics-II Mathematics-II Same
Chemistry/Physics Chemistry/Physics Same
Advanced Technical Communication Advanced Technical Same
Communication
Basic Mechanical Basic Mechanical Same
Engineering/Electrical Engineering Engineering/Electrical
Engineering
Fundamentals of Electronic Fundamentals of Electronic Same
Engineering Engineering
Environmental Studies Environmental Studies Same
PRACTICAL LABS PRACTICAL LABS
Chemistry/Physics Chemistry/Physics Same
Electrical Engg.Lab Electrical Engg.Lab Same
Basic Mechanical Basic Mechanical Same
Engineering/Electrical Engineering Engineering/Electrical
Engineering
Fundamentals of Electronic Fundamentals of Electronic Same
Engineering Engineering
3rd SEMESTER (3nd Year) 3rd SEMESTER (3nd Year)
Mathematics-III Mathematics-III Same
Network Analysis & Synthesis Network Analysis & Same
Synthesis
Electrical Measurements and Electrical Measurements and Same
Measuring Instruments Measuring Instruments
Solid State Devices and Circuits Solid State Devices and Same
Circuits
Pulse and Digital Electronics Pulse and Digital Electronics Same
PRACTICAL LABS. PRACTICAL LABS.
Network Lab. Network Lab. Same
Electrical Measurement Lab. Electrical Measurement Lab. Same
Analog & Digital Lab-1 Analog & Digital Lab-1 Same
4th SEMESTER (2nd Year) 4th SEMESTER (2nd Year)
Electromechanical Energy Electromechanical Energy Same
Conversion-I Conversion-I
Power Station Practice Power Station Practice Same
Electrical & Electronics Engineering Electrical & Electronics Same
Materials Engineering Materials
Microprocessors Microprocessors Same
Electromagnetic Field Theory Electromagnetic Field Theory Same
PRACTICAL LABS. PRACTICAL LABS.
Electromechanical Energy Electromechanical Energy Same
Conversion-I Lab. Conversion-I Lab.
Microprocessor Lab. Microprocessor Lab. Same
Electrical Simulation Lab. Electrical Simulation Lab. Same
5th SEMESTER (3RD Year) 5th SEMESTER (3RD Year)
Electromechanical Energy Electromechanical Energy Same
Conversion-II Conversion-II
System Engineering Control System Similar
(Semester
6th)
Applied & Electronic Applied Instrumentation Course
Instrumentation content is
same
Fundamental of Power System Elements of Power System Course
content is
the same
Digital Signal Processing Digital Signal Processing Same
Concepts of Programming & OOPS Subject
not
related to
Core
Branch
PRACTICAL LABS. PRACTICAL LABS.
EMEC-II Lab. Electromechanical Energy Same
Conversion-II Lab
Applied Instrumentation Lab Transducers Lab Subject
matter of
the
practical
is the
same
Concepts of Programming & OOPS Not
Lab. related to
Core
Branch
th rd th rd
6 SEMESTER (3 Year) 6 SEMESTER (3 Year)
Power System Analysis Power System Analysis Same
Control System Control System Same
(semester
5th)
Electrical Machine Design EMEC-I +EMEC-II Course
content is
the same
Principles of Management Industrial Economics & Course
Principles of Management content is
the same
Power Electronics Power Electronics Same
Data Structures Using C++ Fundamentals of Computer Basic
Programming covered
in 1st
year.
PRACTICAL LABS. PRACTICAL LABS.
Control System Lab. Control System Lab. Same
Power Electronics Lab Power Electronics Lab Same
Data Structures Using C++Lab. Fundamentals of Computer Basic
Programming Lab. covered in
1st year.
7th SEMESTER (4th Year) 7th SEMESTER (4th Year)
Power System Operation and Control Power & Control in Power Same
System
Electric Drives Electrical Drives Same
Neural Network and Fuzzy Logic Neural Network and Fuzzy Same
Logic (Elective-I)
Utilization of Electrical Energy and Utilization of Electrical Same
Traction (Elective-I) Energy and Traction
(Elective-I)
PRACTICAL LABS. PRACTICAL LABS.
Power System Lab Power System Lab Same
Electric Drives Lab Electric Drives Lab Same
Industrial Training Seminar Industrial Training Seminar Exam
based on
Industrial
Training
Minor Project Minor Project Students
choice
th th th th
8 SEMESTER(4 Year) 8 SEMESTER(4 Year)
Instrumentation and Process Applied Instrumentation Covered
Control +Telemetry & Data in both
Transmission subjects
(semester
6th & 8th )
EHV AC & DC Transmission High Voltage AC and DC Course
Transmission (Elective) content is
same
High Voltage Engineering (Elective-II) High Voltage Engineering Same
Power Quality(Elective-III) Power Quality (Elective-III) Same
PRACTICAL LABS. PRACTICAL LABS.
Instrumentation Lab. Transducers Lab Similar
+Telemetry Lab practicals
(semester
6th & 8th)
Major Project Major Project Depending
on
students
15. Now, it would be apparent that the experts have acted as
mechanists. The reason for their opinion has been culled by us in para 13
above. They have found complete parity in course curriculum in the 1st and
the 2nd year i.e. the first four semesters and have found 20% to 30%
variations in the syllabus and course curriculum in the 3 rd and 4th year. But,
the experts have ignored that pertaining to the 5th semester whereas the writ
petitioners had the second subject „System Engineering‟ and those who
pursued the electrical course had the payer „Control System‟, but that would
be of no consequence inasmuch as the petitioners have studied „Control
System‟ as a subject in their 6th semester. The next course of the 5th
semester which is apparently different is that the petitioners have studied
„Applied & Electronic Instrumentation‟ as against „Applied Instrumentation‟
by those who studied only Electrical. But the experts over looked the fact
that the course content is the same. Similarly, the 3rd purported different
subjects studied in the 5th semester, being, the petitioners studying
„Fundamental of Power System‟, students doing the Electrical course had
the subject with the caption „Fundamental of Power System‟, the experts
over looked that the course content is the same. The experts further over
looked that the petitioner did an additional paper of „Concepts of
Programming and OOP‟s, which the students doing the Electrical course did
not study. The so called difference in the practicals, as highlighted
hereinabove is just a different nomenclature of the same subject matter, and
we note that the petitioners did three practicals as against only two by those
who had the degree in Electricals. As regards the 6th semester, as noted
hereinabove the difference is only in the nomenclature and not the course
content. Similar is the position pertaining to two papers of 8th semester.
16. The experts have over looked the fact that the core subjects of
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING branch are :
(a) Electromechanical Energy conversion-I
(b) Electromechanical Energy conversion-II
(c) Power Electronics
(d) Electrical Drives
(e) High Voltage AC and DC Transmission
(f) Fundamentals of Power System
(g) Operation & Control in Power System.
All other subjects are supportive subjects. The core subjects of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering branch are also the same.
17. Now, two subjects being equivalent would mean having the
same or similar curriculum; or to put it differently would have a equivalence
relationship i.e. between elements of their sets there is near symmetry.
Equivalence and complete identity are two different things.
18. As a matter of fact, the experts overlooked the fact that every
constituent element of the B.Tech.ELECTRICAL course was included in the
B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS course, which in fact is a
little deeper course, and indeed, today the subject of ELECTRICAL is
rendered more and more obsolete unless infused with ELECTRONICS and
this explains why the degree course in B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONICS subsumes the entirety of the B.Tech. ELECTRICAL
course; and imparts extra knowledge.
19. We need not note various decisions on the points where the
Courts have held that the matter pertaining to the equivalence being an area
of expert opinion should be left to the experts and Courts should not readily
indulge in voyagerism, but at the same time the Courts have held that the
expert opinion must show that the experts have applied the known principles
in the field of expert knowledge. We are pained to state that the experts in
the instant case have acted as mechanists and have not evidenced the use of
the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise in the discharge of their
functions. We only highlight the decision reported as AIR 1975 SC 1631
Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors.v. UOI & ors. where the Court observed that
only where the decision on equivalence is shown to be based on extraneous
or irrelevant considerations the Court would reach out its lethal arm and
strike down the decision.
20. The tabular form chart reproduced by us hereinabove and our
comments thereon in the subsequent paragraphs compel us to hold that the
degree B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS is equivalent to the
degree B.Tech. ELECTRICAL.
21. It assumes importance to note that advertisements issued for
employment by the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force treat B.Tech.
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS equivalent to B.Tech.
ELECTRICAL. All Public Sector Undertakings which employ personnel
versed and conversant with ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING such as
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bharat
Heavy Electrical Ltd., National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Gas
Authority of India Ltd. also treat the two degrees as equivalent.
22. Surprisingly, when it comes to males, the instant
advertisements pursuant way to the lady petitioners have applied, would
reveal that both degrees i.e. B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS
as also B.Tech. ELECTRICAL are listed as the eligible educational
qualification. As a matter of fact the original advertisement published in
January 20, 2012 made no distinction between males and females as regards
the degree and only the corrigendum issued on February 11, 2012 did so, by
which time many people had applied online.
23. A very feeble attempt was made to justify retaining B.Tech.
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC and B.Tech. ELECTRIC as equivalent
degrees for men and different for women, by urging that ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING covers subjects relating to ELECTRICAL SUB SYSTEM
AND CONTROL, an area of knowledge imparted very minimal to the
students having discipline ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICAL and thus
employability for the latter is minimal in peace areas. The argument was
advanced to justify retention of equivalence of the two subjects for males,
who as per the respondents would be deployed in operation areas and not the
females.
24. The justification is a simple ruse inasmuch we have noted
hereinabove that the degree course B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONICS subsumes the entire course B.Tech. ELECTRICAL and
teaches something more.
25. Now, the Air Force uses equal number of electrical equipment
and even the Indian Navy does so. There was no justification forth coming
as to why said two branches of the Armed Forces do not draw any such
distinction.
26. It was then urged by the respondents that the petitioners could
not have even applied for the post inasmuch in the advertisements it was
clearly indicated as to what degree was treated as the essential degree. It was
urged that the writ petitioners, by submitting their applications tried to over
reach the advertisement inviting applications.
27. As regards the writ petitioners who had the degree of B.Tech.
in ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS, we have already noted above that
the original advertisement made eligible even said degree holders till the
corrigendum was published in Employment News on February 11, 2012.
But, the web page of the site of the Indian Army, which we accessed in
Court at the hearing held on November 22, 2012, evidenced that the
corrigendum was not even put on the website. We did so in Court
inasmuch as the writ petitioners informed that when they accessed the
website pursuant to the advertisement dated January 20, 2012,
notwithstanding they did so after February 11, 2012, the website continued
display the eligibility qualifications as originally entered. Indeed, the
position is as stated by the petitioners.
28. The position which therefore emerges is that due to complete
identity in the course curriculum of the degrees B.Tech. INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY and B.Tech. COMPUTER SCIENCE and the degrees
B.Tech. INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL and B.Tech.
ELECTRONIC AND INSTRUMENTATION, even the experts panel
constituted by AICTE has opined equivalence and as regards B.Tech.
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS and B.Tech. ELECTRICAL, though
the experts have opined to the contrary, we find equivalence. The further
position which emerges is that as regards males, the Indian Army treats
B.Tech. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC and B.Tech. ELECTRICAL
as equivalent degrees. Further position emerges that the Indian Navy and
the Indian Air Force treats the two degrees as equivalent and so do all other
Public Sector Undertakings. The further position which emerges is that all
writ petitioners succeeded with merit, and we highlight that the young lady
writ petitioners found themselves in the select list for 35 posts from amongst
11,000 candidates; we presume that the selection process was to test the
knowledge in the field of ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING and the success
of the lady writ petitioners holding degree in ELECTRIC AND
ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING is proof of what we have held herein above
that the degree course undertaken by them has subsumed within, the degree
course in ELECTRIC ENGINEERING.
29. Thus, the facts of the instant case attract the law declared by the
Supreme Court in its opinion in Mohammed Sujat Ali‟s case (supra)
justifying the arm of this Court to be extended to declare that the writ
petitioners were eligible; having the requisite educational qualifications for
the posts advertised and accordingly we issue a mandamus to the
respondents to proceed ahead with the selection process pertaining to the
writ petitioners keeping in view their merit position in the select list against
the post which they had applied for.
30. We note that learned counsel for the respondents had conceded
that the number of persons issued letters of appointment exceed more than
three times the vacancies which were advertised and the reason is a shortage
of officers in the Indian Army, and for which the young petitioners who
were present in Court had drawn our attention to the newspaper report
published on November 15, 2012 in the daily newspaper „The Pioneer‟ that
the shortage of officers in the Indian Army is 12,000; indeed learned counsel
for the respondents did not refute said position; meaning thereby that the
induction of the petitioners would not adversely affect the persons who have
been issued letters of appointment notwithstanding many of them being
lower in the merit position to the writ petitioners.
31. We have highlighted in our interim orders as also in para 7
above that commensurate to the needs of the growing industry one finds a
perceptible shift from the hithertofore regimented courses to inter-
disciplinary courses; having mixed and merges subjects. A large number of
writ petitions are being filed on the subject of equivalence. Our experience
in the instant writ petitions of seeking expert opinion first from the
Association of the Indian Universities and then from the All Council for
Technical Education has left us saddened and without any guidance.
Accordingly we direct that a copy of this decision would be sent to the
Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development with a direction that
the Government of India would constitute a committee of experts in the field
of technical education which would gather the course curriculum of all the
technical degrees recognized by the UGC and would accord equivalence
which would be displayed on the website of UGC, AICTE and the Ministry
of Human Resources Development.
32. An affidavit would be filed by the Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resources Development in WP(C) No.6100/2012 disclosing the
names of the members constituting the committee of experts and the task
assigned to the committee and for which purpose we direct that though
WP(C) No.6100/2012 is disposed of by issuing the mandamus as above, it
would be listed for directions before the Roster Bench on April 09, 2013, to
ensure compliance by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources
Development.
33. No costs.
CMs No.16465/2012 and 18372/2012 in WP(C) No.6100/2012; CM
No.16618/2012 in WP(C) No.6185/2012; CM No.16620/2012 in WP(C)
No.6186/2012; CM No.16622/2012 in WP(C) No.6187/2012; CM
No.17205/2012 in WP(C) No.6487/2012; and CM No.18665/2012 in WP(C)
No.7237/2012
Since the writ petitions stand disposed of, instant applications
stand disposed of as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 26, 2012
dk
