AJAL RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. ATHIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters have been placed before the Full Bench on a reference order passed by a Division Bench doubting the proposition of law laid down in Suresh v. State of Kerala (2021 (1) KLT 566) and Haridas v. Athira (2021 (1) KLT 546). The point of law involved for consideration is, on the power of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to fix and stipulate the mode or method of appointment of teaching staff in technical institutions. In Suresh's case and Haridas's case (supra), the Division Bench was of the view that the power of AICTE includes the power to prescribe qualification, method of appointment etc. of teaching staff in Engineering Colleges and Technical Institutions. The Division Bench referred to Sec. 10 of the AICTE Act to hold that, the power conferred under the statutory provision includes all such steps to be taken as they think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education, particularly noting the power under Sec. 10(i), the Division Bench, in no uncertain terms declared that AICTE have the power to lay down norms and standards as to the staff pattern, staff qualification etc. The Division Bench in the reference order, notes the power of the State to make Rules as per Entry 41, Public Services of List-II State List r/w Entry 25, General Education of Concurrent List and also notes the power under Article 309 of the Constitution to frame Rules, was of the view that the power of the AICTE to prescribe qualification to achieve a standard of education cannot extend to prescribing a method of appointment, which falls in the domain of the State. The Division Bench was of the view that the method of appointment has nothing to do with the standard of education or quality of education, which is the prerogative of the AICTE.

(2.) To understand the legal issue, we shall refer to the facts at a bare minimum.

(3.) When the matter came up before the Division Bench, the Division Bench noted the judgment of another Division Bench in Suresh's case and Haridas's case (supra) in the same line of view taken by the Tribunal. This is how the Division Bench doubted the proposition laid down in Suresh's case and Haridas's case (supra).