Delhi High Court
Siddhartha Thomas vs Council Of Architecture & Anr. on 2 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: March 02, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 11420/2019
SIDDHARTHA THOMAS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Bhushan and
Mr. Devesh Agnihotri, Advs.
versus
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Adv. for CoA
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Adv.
for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: -
a. Set aside the letter dated 11.12.2018 Ref. No.
CA/28/2018/Regn. of the Council of Architecture wherein it
arbitrarily rejected the application of the petitioner for
registration as an architect in India.
b. Direct the Respondents to hold that degree of M.A. Hons,
in Architecture granted by University of Edinburgh, U.K. is
recognized architectural qualification in India and is
sufficient to enrol the petitioner as an architect in India.
c. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to enrol the petitioner in their
register as M.A. Hons., in Architecture in order to allow him to
practiseas an architect in India.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:02.03.2022
19:04:12
d. Issue such other writ, direction or order, which this Hon'ble
court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
that 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. It is his
submission that vide notification dated February 21, 1973 and also
December 20, 2012, 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 ('Act of 1972', for short). According
to him, the said qualifications added to the Schedule of the Act of 1972
"a Degree" from the University of Edinburgh, as recognised for the
purpose of the said Act. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to
entry 6 of the said notification which reads as under:
"Degree of Architecture awarded by the Universities of
Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool,
London, Manchester, Sheffield and Wales."
3. He states that 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, vide letter dated November 29, 2018,
since the petitioner was desirous to return to India and to work here.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:02.03.2022
19:04:12
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. He submitted, in fact, the University of Edinburgh
provides M.A. (Hons.) Degree in Architecture, which is a bachelor /
under-graduate degree with a duration of four years. He has also
drawn my attention to the curriculum which has been undertaken by
the petitioner to get his degree in Architecture from the Edinburgh
University. He stated, petitioner had vide his letter dated December 13,
2018 to the respondent No.1 clarified that the Degree possessed by him
is a recognised Degree as per the Act of 1972 and had also referred to
"higher education achievement report" of the University of Edinburgh
issued to the petitioner which clearly states that the B.A. and M.A.
Professional Degrees in Architecture have accreditation in United
Kingdom. He has heavily relied upon the Judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Nirupa Puliyel v. Council of
Architecture and Anr., W.P.(C) 863/2017 dated July 24, 2017,
wherein this 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. He stated,
despite such a clear Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:02.03.2022
19:04:12
respondent No.1 has held to the contrary that the aforesaid case is not
applicable to the petitioner as the petitioner has acquired a Master's
Degree in Arts. According to Mr. Bhushan, 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.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Naveen R. Nath, learned Sr. Counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 would contest the submissions made
by Mr. Bhushan to state that vide the impugned order dated December
11, 2018, the respondents had though by stating that the petitioner
cannot be registered as an Architect, had called upon him to also
approach the respondent No.2 for initiation of further action. In other
words, it is his submission 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. In this regard he has
drawn my 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:02.03.2022
19:04:12
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. He stated, no doubt respondent
No.2 had called upon respondent No.1 to examine the request of the
petitioner under Section 15 of the Act of 1972 and make a suitable
recommendation to the said Ministry; in furtherance of which
respondent No.1 had vide letter dated February 18, 2019 written to the
petitioner to provide information relating to his qualification in the
form enclosed. Regrettably, petitioner in response to the said
communication had vide his letter dated May 12, 2019 by relying upon
the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nirupa Puliyel
(supra) and also by relying upon the notifications (which have been
referred to above) called upon the respondents to register him as an
Architect with the Council of Architecture under the Act of 1972. In
other words, petitioner has failed to give the information as sought for
through an application form at page 89 of the petition. In the end, he
states, respondent No.1 is ready to examine the request of the
petitioner in terms of Section 15 of the Act of 1972 and make suitable
recommendation to the Ministry, but in the absence of such
information which was to be supplied by the petitioner, respondent
No.1 is unable to do so.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the parties, suffice to state vide the impugned communication dated
December 11, 2018, respondent No.1 had rejected the request of the
petitioner for registration as an Architect. Thereafter on further
correspondence, respondent No.1 vide letter dated February 18, 2019
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:02.03.2022
19:04:12
has stated as under:
"This refers to your letter dated 11.02,2019, addressed the
Secretary (Dept. Of Higher Education). University of Human
Resource Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi regarding
the recognition of Masters of Arts with Honours in
Architecture for the purpose of Architects Act, 1972,
In this regard, you are requested to provide information
related to your qualification in the format enclosed herewith.
Please do the needful at the earliest."
6. Respondent No.1 had also enclosed a form for recognition of
foreign qualification to be filled and submitted by the petitioner to the
respondent No.1, who shall examine the issue and make suitable
recommendation to respondent No.2. The submission of Mr. Bhushan
is primarily by relying upon the notifications issued on February 21,
1973 and also December 20, 2012, which are with regard to a degree
awarded by the University of the United Kingdom which is recognised
by India. Clause 6 thereof has already been reproduced above. A
perusal of the same would reveal that the same stipulates that "Degree
of Architecture" awarded by different Universities of the United
Kingdom including the University of Edinburgh. The submission of
Mr. Nath is primarily that the Degree of Architecture is different from
a Degree like M.A. (Hons.) Architecture. That apart, he also stated
that the reliance placed by Mr. Bhushan on the Judgment of Nirupa
Puliyel (supra) is not applicable in the facts of this case, inasmuch the
petitioner in the said case had the qualification of Degree of Master in
Architecture from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and the
course duration was of six years unlike the case of petitioner, which is
of four years and it is in these circumstances, respondent No.1 rejected
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:02.03.2022
19:04:12
the application of the petitioner for registration.
7. The submission of Mr. Nath is appealing. The Coordinate
Bench has held that Degree in Architecture to be a Bachelor's Degree
or Master's Degree. Thus, so long as a 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 is on such ground that this Court had allowed
the petition. Whereas 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.
8. During the course of his submissions Mr. Nath would also
submit that the UGC recognising the nomenclature of degrees awarded
by the University and the Council has accepted the Degree of B. Arch.
as a recognised qualification and not a Master of Arts Degree as a
qualification, though looks appealing on a first blush but on a deeper
consideration, it needs to be rejected. 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. But his 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:02.03.2022
19:04:12
This I say so, 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.
9. This Court is of the view that the Judgment relied upon by
Mr. Bhushan in Nirupa Puliyel (supra) is clearly distinguishable on
facts.
10. 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.
The consideration must be effected by respondent No.1 within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of information from the petitioner
and if any recommendation is made by respondent No.1, then
respondent No.2 shall take a decision within six weeks thereafter.
11. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MARCH 02, 2022/jg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
Signing Date:02.03.2022
19:04:12
