The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that Certificates issued with the aid of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) [IMEI/ appellant] to its Members on a hit crowning glory of its bi-annual examination can’t be equivalent to a Degree.
The judgment was surpassed by a Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Deepak Gupta in an attraction via the Institution of Mechanical Engineers towards a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision. The appellant, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860, became mounted to sell the career and exercise of Mechanical Engineering Professionals. It conducts bi-annual examinations referred to as Technician Engineers’ Part-I and Part-II, Automobile Technician Engineers’ Examination Part-I and Part-II, Production Technician Engineers’ Part-I and Part-II, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Technician Engineers’ Examination Part-I and Part-II and Section-A and Section-B of Associate Membership Examination in Mechanical Engineering.
On successful crowning glory of such examinations, the Certificate “Associate Member of Institution of Engineers” (AMIE) is awarded through the appellant. In 1988, the Government of India diagnosed Part-I and Part-II Technician Engineers’ Examination (T) performed through the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) at par with a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from State Polytechnic for the motive of employment to subordinate posts and offerings underneath the Central Government.”
The Government of Punjab advocated the qualifications mentioned using Central authorities for recruitment to subordinate posts and services under its control. Under positive lawsuits towards the appellant, many deficiencies had been located within the curriculum presented through IMEI in its programs. Later, the recognition granted insofar as examinations conducted and certificates issued by the appellant for employment under the Central Government turned into withdrawal with the aid of MHRD in 2002.
Subsequently, it was restored by the Central government after a representation using the appellant. In the 12 months of 2008, a petition (Kartar Singh vs. Union of India and others) became filed in public hobby earlier than the Punjab & Haryana High Court, submitting, among other things, that looked at centers and illegal establishments jogging within the State promoting Degrees and Diplomas. The petition prayed for appropriate reliefs retaining Degrees and Diplomas provided by looking at centers/ establishments to be invalid for government jobs.
In 2012, the High Court brought its judgment on this 2008 case. It held that a certificate from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) could not be equal to a point. The appellant challenged the identical in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court treated the case in conjunction with a similar matter from Orissa. By way of a judgment rendered in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and different, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court in Kartar Singh.
After that, a utility for explanation and change of the selection of the Supreme Court was favored with the aid of the appellant. The remember came up earlier than the Registrar of the Supreme Court, who refused to register the application, protecting that the software for explanation/modification changed into intended to are trying to evaluate the judgment. This judgment of the Registrar reversed into challenge using the manner of the cutting-edge Miscellaneous Application. In its decision, the Court referred to the fact that the appellant “does not impart any schooling, however, simply conducts bi-annual examinations and awards certificates.”
The constant stand of the appellant, the Court stated, changed into that it is not protected below any of the Acts viz. The UGC Act, the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, and the AICTE Act. The Court was, but because it gives courses or programs of technical education, the appellant comes within the definition of “technical group” as defined in the AICTE Act.
On its own, neither does the appellant grant Degrees in Engineering nor does it, in its capacity as an affiliated group to an identified University, prepare students in courses main to Degrees in Engineering. Though it does not impart any instructions both in concept or on realistic elements, it holds an exam on fine clearance. It awards Certificates of Membership to applicants. The question, therefore, changed into whether or not such a Certificate can be known as equal to a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a known Indian University.
Answering this query, the Court stated that nothing is apparent as to below what statutory regime or beneath which felony provision can provide such equivalence to the Certificate issued via the appellant be granted or conferred. No statutory provision has been pressed into service or relied upon to suggest that the appellant would be entitled to such equivalence or reputation conferral.
The Court made it clear that during terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, proper to confer stages can be exercised only by a University set up or incorporated via or underneath a Central Act, a Provincial Act, or a State Act, or by an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act or via an institution in particular empowered via an Act of Parliament to confer or provide levels.
The first communications occurred in 1976, while the AICTE Act changed into not under pressure. Claims made via various establishments, like the appellant, had been considered on case-to-case foundation and equivalence granted by MHRD. Suppose the mandate of Section 22 disentitles any authority or character other than those laid out in Section 22 (1) to award ranges. In that case, the Court ruled that there may be no strength or power in every person, including MHRD, to grant such equivalence.
The appellant could be entitled to award a Certificate of Membership to its Members. If a diploma can be provided only by the establishments that satisfy the description given in sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of the UGC Act, the mandate of Parliamentary regulation can’t be circumvented or nullified by awarding equivalence to a Certificate issued and presented by the appellant. The fee of that Certificate will be considered with the aid of every business enterprise as and when the occasion arises. Thus, the Court stated that the weightage the Certificates should deliver is something for individual employers to consider in a given case.
Consequently, the Court concluded that neither could the appellant claim, as a counted right, to be entitled to confer any diploma nor claim that the Certificate offered through it has to be reckoned to be equal to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering. It, consequently, rejected the plea. However, the Court prolonged an exception for college kids enrolled up to May 31, 2013, when equivalence to the Certificates offered via the appellant became granted with the aid of the MHRD in session with AICTE.
