Uttarakhand High Court
9 June vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 9 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:4695-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 561 of 2017
09 June, 2025
Dr. Saurabh Kumar Yadav ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. .......Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
There is no representation for the petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1.
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for AICTE/ respondent no. 4.
Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Lokendra Dobhal,
Advocate for respondent nos. 5 & 6.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner passed B. Tech. (Mechanical) Course
from G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology University in the
year 2009 with Overall Grade Point Average (OGPA) of
6.461 on 10.000 scale. According to the Academic
Regulations of the concerned University, anyone who scores
less than 6.750 OGPA, would be declared as having passed
the Course with Second Division marks.
2. Petitioner was desirous of appointment as
Assistant Professor and he responded to an advertisement
issued by National Institute of Technology (NIT), Srinagar,
2025:UHC:4695-DB
Pauri Garhwal. His application was not accepted by NIT,
Srinagar, only on the ground that he passed B. Tech. Course
with Second Division marks. As per the advertisement, only
candidates with First Division marks in B.Tech. were
eligible. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached
this Court seeking following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of Certiorari quashing the clause 31 of the
Statute/Academic Regulation of G.B. Pant University
Pantnagar Udham Singh Nagar, so far it declares the
candidates having 60% to 67.4% aggregate marks in
their B. Techn Degree as "IInd Division".
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent
no. 5&6 to declare the petitioner as passed the B.Tech
degree with First Division and also to mention Grade in
the mark sheet and accordingly fresh mark sheet of
B.Tecch may be issued in favour of petitioner.
c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondent no2 to provisionally
accept the application form of the petitioner for the
post of Assistant Professor subject to final decision of
the present petition on the basis of 64.610 percentage
in B.Tech course of petitioner.
d) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing he respondents to decide the
representation of petitioner."
3. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel appearing
for All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) submits
that although as per AICTE norms, any student who has
scored 60% marks in B. Tech. / M. Tech. Course can be
declared as having passed with First Division, however, he
submits that since Universities are autonomous bodies
which are governed by their Act and Statutes, therefore, a
State University is free to fix the criteria for award of First,
Second or Third Division. He submits that since Clause 31
of Academic Regulations of G.B. Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology provides that a student, whose
score of Overall Grade Point Average (OGPA) in B. Tech.
Course is between 6.000-6.749, would be declared as
2025:UHC:4695-DB
Second Division, anyone who scored OGPA between 6.750-
7.749, would be declared as First Division and anyone with
OGPA of 7.750 or above, would be declared as First Division
with distinction, therefore, the Academic Regulation of the
concerned University would prevail upon AICTE guidelnies.
4. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel appearing
for the University submits that the University was
established under U.P. Krishi Evam Prodhyogik
Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958, and Section 29 of the
said Act enables the State Government to frame First
Statutes and Section 30 of the said Act authorizes the
University to make Academic Regulations. He thus submits
that since Academic Regulations made by the University are
statutory, therefore, they will prevail upon the guidelines
issued by AICTE.
5. We find substance in the submission made by Mr.
Dobhal, learned counsel appearing for G.B. Pant Agriculture
and Technolgoy University. Since the Academic Regulations
of the University, which have statutory flavour contain
provision different from AICTE guidelines, therefore, the
Academic Regulations will prevail upon the norms laid down
by AICTE, as conceded by Mr. Pacholia, learned counsel for
AICTE.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P.J.
Abdul Kalam Technological University and another v. Jai
Bharath College of Management and Engineering
Technology and others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 564 has
held that while a University cannot dilute the norms laid
down by AICTE, however University can prescribe enhanced
norms. Paragraph no. 46 of the said judgment is extracted
below:-
"46. The law is now fairly well settled that while it is
2025:UHC:4695-DB
not open to the universities to dilute the norms and
standards prescribed by AICTE, it is always open to the
universities to prescribe enhanced norms. As regards
the role of the universities vis-à-vis AICTE, this Court
held in Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for
Technical Education [Bharathidasan University v. All
India Council for Technical Education, (2001) 8 SCC 676
: 1 SCEC 924] , that AICTE is not a super power with a
devastating role undermining the status, authority and
autonomous functioning of the universities in areas and
spheres assigned to them. This view was followed
in Assn. of Management of Private Colleges v. All India
Council for Technical Education [Assn. of Management
of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical
Education."
7. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The writ
petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
09.06.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9
046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15,
CHANDRA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10
3819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86D
AAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.06.10 19:56:38 +05'30'
