AICTE Can Prescribe Manner Of Recruitment Of Teaching Staff In Technical Institutions: Kerala High Court Full Bench

When the instant case came before the Division Bench, they doubted the earlier decision of a 2-Judge Bench of the Court in Suresh v State of Kerala (2021) and Haridas v Athira (2021) and referred the matter to this Full Bench. In those earlier cases, the Court held that AICTE has the power to prescribe qualifications, method of appointment etc.

The Technical Education Department of the State was intending to fill vacancies for the post of lecturer following the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Rules. As per the rule, vacancies are to be filled to be in a ratio of 13:7 between direct recruitment and transfer. This move was challenged before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) saying that it was against the Technical Education (Diploma) Regulation, 2019 issued by AICTE. The Regulation says that the lectures shall be appointed through direct recruitment. KAT allowed the application. This order of the Tribunal is challenged in the instant case.

The Court held that since the AICTE Act is a Central legislation and the matter pertains to an area where the Union has the power to make law, the AICTE Act will prevail over the Rules issued by the State. Accordingly, the Court held that AICTE has the power to prescribe the manner of appointment.

“We are of the view that the regulation framed under the Central enactment would prevail over rules framed under the Kerala Public Service Act.”

The Court noted that the Centre has exclusive power to make laws on standards for higher education including technical institutions as it is included in the Union List in the VII Schedule of the Constitution. The power of the State in matters of education including technical education mentioned under Entry 25 in the Concurrent List is subject to the laws made by the Central Government. The Court noted that the State has exclusive power to regulate State Services mentioned under Entry 41 of State List. However, in case of overlap and conflict between the central law, the Central law will prevail.

AICTE had issued the Regulation exercising the power given to it by way of Section 10 of the AICTE Act. By that provision, AICTE has the power to take steps to ensure the development and maintenance of standards of technical education. The petitioner argued that this power does not extend to prescribing a method of appointment. They said that AICTE can fix qualifications for various teaching posts but the manner of appointment has no effect on the standards of the education.

However, AICTE was of the opinion that the manner of appointment affects the quality of education. The Court accepted this view by observing that 'it cannot judicially review the wisdom of an expert body'. The Court observed that AICTE might be of the opinion that direct recruitment attracts more meritorious candidates.

Accordingly, the Full Bench confirmed the decision of the Court in Suresh and Haridas.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates P. Nandakumar, Amrutha Sanjeev

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Raghul Sudheesh, K. J. Glaxon, J. Lakshmi, Amal Jees Alex, Sajith Kumar V., P. C. Sasidharan

Case Title: Ajal Ramakrishnan and Others v Athira I. C. and Others

Case No: OP (KAT) 152 of 2021