Bombay HC Dismisses Petition Challenging AICTE Decision To Reduce Lateral Entry In Engineering Colleges [Read Judgment]

Division bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice GS Patel dismissed the petitions filed by engineering diploma students challenging AICTE's decision.

The said decision was taken via notification dated December 31, 2018. Before this each engineering degree institute had a provisioned intake of 20% of its second-year seats for laterally entering engineering diploma holders who had finished the three-year diploma.

Senior Advocates Mihir Desai and Gayatri Singh appeared on behalf of the petitioners, Advocate Abhijit Joshi appeared on behalf of the AICTE.

Submissions

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that when they took up the diploma course, they did so in the legitimate expectation that there would be a 20% allowable intake into the second-year of the engineering course; this was the norm at the time of enrolment, and it cannot be altered to their prejudice.

Whereas, AICTE's counsel argued that earlier lateral entry percentage was actually 10% of the first-year approved intake. This was until 2010-2011. Then the percentage was increased to 20. It was found that despite the increase, tens of thousands of seats were left unfilled in the second year.

Joshi further argued that lateral entry is not restricted to 20% of the first-year approved intake, in fact all unfilled seats from the first year are also available for lateral entry. Across the state, there are enough seats to accommodate all lateral entry applicants, he said.

The petitions stated – "All the top and reputed colleges like Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI), Sardar Patel Institute of Technology (SPIT), College of Engineering Pune (COEP) etc have a next to none vacancy in first year owing to their prestige. It is colleges of ill-repute, which suffer from poor quality faculty and infrastructure that have vacant seats, and reducing the quota of lateral entry thereby forces diploma students who would otherwise have secured admission to prestigious colleges to move to these lower quality colleges."

Justice Patel, who authored the judgement, referring to the above para noted-

"This lets the cat out of the proverbial bag. The claim, masked and disguised and made up to look like a fundamental right violation, discrimination, and arbitrariness, is nothing but a claim to prestige. It is not accidental that all three colleges named in this paragraph are in urban areas. The allegation that other colleges are of ill-repute and have poor faculty is without demonstrated basis. As we have seen, the AICTE regulates all technical institutes, and prescribes minimum standards applicable to all. There is no fundamental right to admission in any particular college or institute. There is no fundamental right to prestige."

Judgement

After examining the AICTE's reply and data regarding lateral entry, Court said-

"The most telling circumstance of all is that there is simply no denial to any engineering student of any lateral entry seat at all. There is an overabundance of such seats."

Dismissing the petitions, Court observed-

"We cannot find in their favour if it means compromising on quality standards and a policy change intended to promote a more equitable distribution of student intake. That the world is so fiercely competitive may be regrettable, but we can do nothing to change it. We respect the petitioners' dreams, hopes and aspirations of gaining engineering degrees from colleges of renown. It is not our intention to impede or in any way imperil these aspirations.

Our duty, however, is first and foremost to the law and to the wider public interest, one that we explicitly recognize as underlying the policy change. Courts are often said to be in loco parentis vis-à-vis students and children. This case is no different, and it is in precisely that role that we wish them all the best and every success in their careers as engineers. We trust they will constantly remain in the pursuit of excellence their chosen field demands."

Click here to download the Judgment