1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 12 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 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 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 9 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 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) v. 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 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 31 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 page 58 of the writ petition stating that on 1 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 31 May, 2013. Thus all those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31 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 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 May, 2013 was followed as is evident from Notification dated 6 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 8 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.
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 10 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. 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 Court noticed that the equivalence to the certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE upto 31 May, 2013 as is evident from Notification dated 6 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 31 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 May, 2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in that matter will apply after 1 June, 2013. The certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidates enrolled upto 31 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 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 April, 2021. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.