AICTE Regulations 2007 Can’t Be Forced On Universities To Compulsorily Provide For Admissions Through Lateral Entry: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Lateral Entry Regulations, 2007 cannot be construed to be mandatory in nature to mean that all institutions must grant admission through lateral entry.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the observation in the judgment on a writ petition seeking a direction to Public Universities to provide admission through the lateral entry process to second year B.Tech. programme to diploma holders in engineering and technology, as per the 2007 Lateral Entry Regulations laid down by AICTE.

The court held that the “AICTE Admission of Students in Degree Engineering Programmes through Lateral Entry Regulations, 2007” are enabling and directory in nature and cannot be considered to be mandatory. Thus, they cannot be forced upon the Universities to compulsorily provide for admission through lateral entry, the court said.

While noting that the purpose of the 2007 Regulations is to provide for admission to diploma holders and B.Sc. graduates into second year degree programme in engineering and technology through lateral entry, the bench remarked, “It is upto the Universities to evolve a mechanism in accordance with the Regulations, 2007 or with a higher standard to provide a mode for such students. However, the same cannot be forced upon the Universities to mandatorily have the provision of lateral entry.”

The petitioners, the diploma holders/final year students of three-year diploma course in engineering, were seeking admission to second year B.Tech. programme in the respondent- Public Universities through lateral entry process.

The counsel for the petitioner-students submitted that so far as the Delhi Technological University and the Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women are concerned, the Universities have started to partially comply with the 2007 Regulations.

It further submitted that Universities like Netaji Subhash University of Technology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Jamia Milia Islamia University, and the University of Delhi are not complying with the 2007 Regulations, at all. The universities took a categorical stand before the court that they are not under an obligation to grant admission through lateral entry.

The court observed that the power to frame the 2007 Regulations is derived from Section 10(o) of the AICTE Act, 1987, which provides for framing of “guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education”. It concluded that the source of the power is itself in the nature of guideline.

The bench remarked that it is not a case where any of the Universities are granting admission through lateral entry in defiance of the 2007 Regulations. “No doubt, the Universities cannot dilute the basic minimum standard laid down under the provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. However, the Universities are entitled to lay down higher standards than the ones laid down by the AICTE,” said the court.

The court thus said that if the Universities decide to grant admission through lateral entry, they have to mandatorily follow the 2007 Regulations; or, in the alternative, any higher standards can be prescribed by the Universities. “However, the very nature of the Regulations, 2007 and the purpose for which these were enacted, cannot be construed to be mandatory in nature to mean that all institutions must grant admission through lateral entry,” the court remarked.

While reiterating that the source of power of framing the 2007 Regulations itself is directory in nature, the court further noted that all Universities are set up by their independent State or Central Government Acts. Additionally, the 2007 Regulations nowhere provide for any consequence in case of their non-compliance, the bench said.

“It is thus seen that AICTE, in order to lay down uniform criteria enabling all institutions to grant admission directly in second year B.Tech. programme, has framed the threshold criteria. The same cannot be construed as mandatory,” the court ruled.

The court concluded, “Having considered the source of power to frame the Regulations, 2007 and the language employed in the Regulations, 2007, this court is of the opinion that the Regulations, 2007 are enabling and directory in nature and cannot be considered to be mandatory. If the Universities or technical institutions to whom the Regulations, 2007 applies decides to go for admission through lateral entry, the Regulations, 2007 would be the minimum threshold criteria to be adhered to, subject to any other higher standards to be prescribed by respective Universities. However, the Regulations, 2007 cannot be forced upon the Universities to compulsorily provide for admission through lateral entry.”

The court thus dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Shivam Chaudhary & Ors. vs All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 505

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Anil Soni, Standing Counsel along with Mr. Devvrat Yadav and Mr. Prateek Rana, Advocates for AICTE. Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC with Mr. Ujjwal Malhotra, Advocate for R-2. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for R-3,4 and 6 with Ms. Aliza Alam, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Mr. N.K.Singh and Mr. Manish Gusai, Advocates. Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate for R-5. Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, SC for R-7/JMI. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Ms. Samridhi Bhatt, Mr. Arjun Pawar, Mr. Shivam Rai, Mr. Amrit Kaul and Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocates for R-8. Mr. Harsh Kaushik and Mr. Adrija Mishra, Advocates for R-9)