Limited Right to Educational Startups: Read Judgment

image description

Title of the Case – Limited Right to Educational Startups
Name of the case – Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) vs. State of Punjab, M.A. 2367 of 2018, Supreme Court
Date of Judgment – 13th August, 2019
Judges: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran
Subject and sections involved – Motor Accident Claims
1. Whether Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) has a right to be entitled to confer degree equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering. 
Fact of the Case: 
Institute of Mechanical Engineers is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It conducts bi-annual examinations. 
A Notification was issued on 11 July, 1988 by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) to the following effect:-
“On the recommendations of the Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications, the Government of India has been pleased to recognize the Part-1 and Part-2 Technician Engineers’ Examination conducted by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) at par with a Deploma n Mechanical Engineering from State Polytechnic for the purpose of employment to subordinate posts and services under the Central Government.”
Member Secretary, AICTE addressed a letter to Government of India stating that many deficiencies were found in the curriculum offered by Institute of Mechinical Engineers. 
Later, the recognition granted insofar as examinations conducted and certificates issued by the appellant for the purpose of employment under the Central Government was withdrawn by MHRD
Ratio of the case - 
The division bench of Supreme Court relied on the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly is well settled, in State of Tamil Nadu and ors v. Shyam Sunder and ors, (2010) 13 SCC 336 as under;
“It is settle proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the principle of quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by ‘shift or contrivance’. 
The bench made further observation that if a degree can be awarded only by those institutions which satisfy the description given in sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the UGC Act, the mandate of a Parliamentary legislation cannot be circumvented or nullified by awarding equivalence to a Certificate issued and awarded by the appellant. What is the value of that certificate will be considered by each employer as when the occasion arises. The appellant would certainly be entitled to award Certificate of Membership to its members. What weightage the Certificate must have is for the individual employers to consider in a given case. The concerned employer may attach due importance to such Certificates while considering the worth and ability of the concerned candidates but to say  that the Certificate are equivalent to a degree and as such all the candidates who hold such certificate are entitled to derive the advantage which a degree holder can, is completely a different issue. 
In the present case, the communication dated 26th May 1976 under which the certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University, does not indicate any statutory provision under which such equivalence could be granted or conferred. Consequently, neither can the appellant claim, as a matter of right to be entitled to confer any degree not can it claim that Certificate awarded by it must be reckoned to the equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering.