JUDGMENT
R.J. Kochar, J.
1. All the above petitions are being disposed of by the common Judgment and Order as the issue involved in the petitions is the common one.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the communication
dated 9-3-2000 issued by the Registrar – respondent No. 2 refusing to grant renewal of Registration of the petitioners permitting them to act as Architects.The petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ to quash and set aside the said communication and directions to the respondent No. 2 to renew the registration of the petitioners by accepting the renewal fee as per the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Architects Act, 1972.
3. The petitioners, young lady architects, were conferred a Degree of
Bachelor of Architecture by the Nagpur University. Respondent No. 3 – the
Council of Architecture functioning under Section 3 of the Architects Act, 1972,
had recognized the said Degrees conferred by the Nagpur University in 1989.
The petitioners were registered with the respondent No. 3 in or around 1992 and
thereafter they have been prosecuting their career as Architects. They are also
registered as the Members of the Indian Institutes of Architects and therefore, the
petitioners have claimed that they are qualified and eligible to carry on their
profession as Architects in accordance with law. The petitioners’ registration
under Section 23 of the Architects Act, 1972, is required, to be renewed annually
under Section 27 of the Act on payment of renewal fees. According to the petitioners, they have satisfied and complied with all the lawfully prescribed
conditions under the provisions of the Architects Act and, therefore, they are
entitled to carry on their profession as Architects as guaranteed, under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have challenged the act of
the respondent No. 3 refusing to renew the registration of the petitioners by
impugned order dated 9-3-2000 being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, they are bona fide Degree
Holders of the Nagpur University which has been recognized by respondent No.
3 under the Act and, therefore, the refusal on the part of the respondent No. 3 to
renew the registration of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners got
lateral admissions directly in the fourth and fifth year B.Arch. programme being
offered by the Nagpur University after undergoing 4 years B. Tech. (House and
Interior Course) from the same University. According to the petitioners, the
respondent No. 3 has erroneously presumed that the petitioners have not
undergone the course as stipulated in the Minimum: Standard of Architectural
Education Regulations, 1983 (Regulations on Undergraduate Architectural
Education) laid down by the Council of Architecture with the prior approval of
the Central Government. According to the petitioners, they have successfully
undergone 4 years B. Tech. (HID) Course from the Nagpur University and
thereafter they were admitted to the 5 years B. Arch. Degree Course of the same
University and, therefore, it can not be said that the petitioners have not
undergone 5 years Undergraduate programme in Architect as per the said
Regulation. According to the petitioners, the four years B. Tech. (HID) Degree
Course has been recognized by the Nagpur University and that has been held to
be eligibility for getting admission to the fourth year of B. Arch. Degree Course.
The petitioners have further submitted that the 4 years B. Tech. Course has
identical course for the first, three years which the three years of the B. Tech.
Degree Course has prescribed. According to the petitioners, the three years
syllabus of B. Tech. is equivalent verbatim with the three years of B. Arch.
syllabus and there is no difference of any nature. The Course of B. Tech. is not
inferior or is not less in any manner but on the contrary the students have to
spend 4 years to get the Degree of B. Tech. whereafter they become eligible to
get admission for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. for the fourth and final fifth
year. From 1989 onwards, the respondent No. 3 have been registering all such
graduates holding the Degree of B. Arch. and the petitioners have been practising
the profession of Architect without any hindrance or without any problems.
4. Shri S. V. Manohar, the learned counsel has taken us through the
prescribed syllabus for the four years of the B. Tech. and three years of the B. Arch.
and has submitted that in fact the students have studied the same subject for first
four years in the B. Tech. while the very same subjects are the syllabus of the
first three years of the Degree Course of the B. Arch. The Degree of the B. Tech.
and the Degree of the B. Arch. are the recognized Degrees conferred by the
Nagpur University. According to Shri Manohar, the refusal to renew the
membership of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not
undergone five years Degree Course of the B. Arch. is totally baseless and
erroneous. Shri Manohar has strenuously submitted that the B. Tech. Course of
four years is a Degree Course validly prescribed by the Nagpur University as a prescribed qualification to get admission in the fourth year of the B. Arch.
Degree Course. The petitioners who have successfully undergone the course of
B. Tech. became eligible to get admission for the five years Degree Course of the
B. Arch. The respondent No. 3 has termed such admissions as lateral admissions
and it purports that the lateral admissions in the fourth and fifth year of the B.
Arch. Course is not equivalent to undergoing the five years course of B. Arch. of
the Nagpur University and, therefore, according to the respondent No. 3 such
Bachelors of Architecture are not holding the recognized degree under the Act, as
per respondent No. 3 to deny renewal of the registration of the membership of the
respondent No. 3.
5. According to Shri L. K. Khamborkar, the learned counsel appearing for
respondents 1 to 3, justified the action of the respondent No. 3 in refusing to
renew the registration of the petitioners as according to him, the petitioners have
not successfully completed the Architectural Course of five years as prescribed
under the Act. The learned counsel submits that a candidate to become eligible to
be registered as the Member of the Council has to undergo five years Degree
Course of the Bachelor of Architecture from the first year to fifth year. He
submits that in the case of the petitioners, they have not completed five years of
the Degree Course of the B. Arch. as they got admissions in the fourth and fifth
year of the Course and, therefore, they cannot be registered as the practising
Architects under the Law. Shri Khamborkar further submitted that the Ordinance
issued by the Nagpur University is without any authority and, therefore, it could
not prescribe the B. Tech. as the eligibility for admission to the fourth and fifth
year of the Degree Course of the Architecture. In nutshell, the submission of the
learned counsel is that the petitioners who have not undergone the studies from
the first year to fifth year at a stretch in the College of Architecture, they cannot
be recognized as Bachelor of Architecture. Since the Nagpur University had no
power and jurisdiction to prescribe the B. Tech. as a step stone to get admission
in the fourth year of the Degree Course of the Architecture, the said Ordinance is
null and void and, therefore, the lateral admissions of the petitioners cannot be
termed as lawful to be recognized as eligibility criteria for the registration of the
petitioners as the members of the respondent No. 3 Council. The learned counsel
fairly admitted that all the petitioners were registered initially under a bona fide
belief held by the authorities of the Council that the petitioners were bona fide
graduates from the Nagpur University holding the Degree of B. Arch. having
undergone the five years course as prescribed. According to the learned counsel,
the officers of the Council were not aware of the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur
University and, therefore, they were admitting the students in the category of the
petitioners who had taken the benefit of lateral admissions.
6. He also tried to argue that the petitioners and all such similarly placed
Graduates had not disclosed and had suppressed the fact that they were B. Tech.
and thereafter they got lateral admission in the fourth year course of B. Arch.
when they came to know about this fact, they legally refused to renew the
registration of the petitioners, submits the learned counsel. According to Shri
Khamborkar, the Course of Architecture is a technical subject and its only All
India Council for Technical Education established under the Act 1987 had
authority to prescribe the curricula or the course for technical education for the technical Institutions established under the Act. According to him, the Nagpur
University had no business to prescribe the syllabus of the Technical Education
of the Architecture and that it was the exclusive function or duty of the All India
Council For Technical Education established under Section 3 of the Act,
7. Shri B. G. Kuikarni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 4 – Nagpur University countered the submissions of the counsel appearing
for respondents 1 to 3 that Nagpur University had no power and jurisdiction to
promulgate the Ordinance to prescribe the eligibility for the Degree Course of
Architecture. He fully supported the case of the petitioners and pointed out that
the B. Tech. (HID) Course of four years was equivalent to three years course of
Bachelor of Architecture. The Act has empowered the Nagpur University to pass
an appropriate Ordinance under sections 39 and 40 and it has after considering all
the facts and circumstances prescribed the B. Tech. (HID) Course of four years
as eligibility for admission to the Degree Course of the B. Tech. in the fourth and
fifth year of the B. Arch. He further submitted that when the respondent No. 3 –
Council had pointed out for the first time in the year 1999 or so that the lateral
admissions were not recognized for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. the
Nagpur University has discontinued the same from 2000 onwards and lateral
admissions have not been permitted as an eligibility to get admission to the
fourth year of the B. Arch. This has been deleted by the Nagpur University.
8. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has summarised his
submissions as under:
(A) The Council has no authority to de-recognise the Degree of
Bachelor of Architecture. Its only the Central Government that has
such power.
(B) The refusal to renew the registration by the respondent No. 3
amounts to disqualification of the petitioners and such
disqualification can be only for a proved misconduct and for no
other reason a duly qualified Bachelor of Architecture can be
refused to be registered or refused to be renewed.
(C) The respondent No. 3 could not refuse to renew the registration of
the petitioners who were already registered and if at all the Council
had decided not to recognise the candidates who had lateral
admissions in the B. Arch. such a Rule cannot be made applicable
retrospectively in respect of the petitioners and all such similarly
placed Bachelors of Architecture, It would be open to the Council
to enforce its decision prospectively but not in respect of those
who have already registered and were practising the profession of
Architect.
(D) The four years Course of B. Tech. (H.I.D.) is identical with the
three years Course of B. Arch. verbatim and there is no difference
of any nature between these two curriculums and the prescribed
syllabus.
(E) The B. Tech. Examinations and also B. Arch. Examination are
conducted by the Nagpur University.
(F) The Nagpur University had introduced the B. Tech. (HID) Course
specially for the girls students to give them the facility and scope
for their future career as it best suited the girls.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel of both
sides. We have also carefully gone through the proceedings. We are not inclined
to dwell any more on the technical and fine law points raised by the learned
counsel for the Council as they are not tenable. It is, however, an admitted
position that the lateral admission to the fourth and fifth years Course to B. Arch.
have been discontinued by the Nagpur University. The last batch of 1999 was the
batch of lateral admissions and thereafter there is no batch of the students who
have passed their B. Tech. (HID and who were admitted in the fourth year of B.
Arch. Course. The petitioners and all other similarly placed Bachelors of
Architecture are the bona fide Graduates of the Nagpur University. All of them
had bona fide pursued their B. Tech. (HID) Course for four years as prescribed
by the Nagpur University itself. Further the Nagpur University itself has
permitted them to get admissions for the fourth year course of B. Arch. and to
complete the Graduation of the B. Arch. after undergoing two years of the said
Course. The Nagpur University has prescribed the B. Tech. (HID) Degree Course
as eligibility to get admission in the fourth year of the B. Arch. Degree. All these
students including, the petitioners have bona fide got admission in the fourth year
and fifth year of the B. Arch. Degree Course and have successfully acquired the
B. Arch. Degree. There is absolutely no fraud or suppression or any such stigma
in the entire process. It is not that the Nagpur University is not a recognized
Institution having no power or authority to prescribe the syllabus and to prescribe
the eligibility qualification for admissions. The Nagpur University has lawfully,
promulgated the Ordinance and has prescribed the syllabus for the two courses
which the students bona fide believed and accepted and got admission in the B.
Arch. One cannot find any fault with the petitioners and all other similarly placed
Bachelors of Architecture. It cannot be believed that the respondent No. 3-
Council was not aware of the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur University as was
tried to be canvassed by the learned counsel. It is totally ridiculous, and absurd,
to say that the Council of Architecture was not aware of the Ordinance issued by
the Nagpur University prescribing the eligibility criteria for the admissions to the
courses of the B. Arch. The said Ordinance was in enforcement for more than a
decade and if the Management of the Council did not know of the ordinance
which was lawfully promulgated and which was gazetted in the Government
Gazette, they have to thank themselves. We must observe that there is something
wrong with the administration of the Council when it feigned ignorance of the
law. Such a conduct on the part of the Council is contrary to the functions and
duty of the Council as laid down under Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987
which requires the Council to take all such steps to ensure coordinated and
integrated development of the technical education and for that purpose it has to
undertake survey in the various fields of the technical education, collect data on
all related matters and coordinate the development of technical education in the
country at all levels. It, therefore, cannot be accepted that the Council did not
know that the lateral admissions to the course of the B. Arch. was available and
was permissible under the Nagpur University. We are not able to believe this bald and unfounded submissions of the learned counsel for the Council that the
office bearers of the Council were not aware of the Ordinance issued by the
Nagpur University under Section 40 read with Section 39 of the Nagpur
University Act. Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987 enumerated about. 22
functions and duties of the Council and the basic one underlying all of them is
the coordination and development of the technical education all over the country,
in the Universities and in all such other Institutions. We, therefore, can safely
presume that the responsible office bearers of this Council were very well aware
of the Ordinance of the Nagpur University at the relevant time and they accept
the same without any objection and/or acquiesce. It would not be legally
permissible for the Council to go back and seek to cancel the registration of the
petitioners retrospectively. It cannot put back the hands of the clock after a
decade or so. It is certainly empowered to announce and regulate the revised
course and deny the registration on the basis of the newly introduced programme
in accordance with the law. It cannot one fine morning get up and withdraw the
recognised qualifications of the Architects and refuse to register them or renew
their registration. It must announce its new revised eligibility criteria well in
advance in accordance with law and well known procedure or manner.
10. Secondly, the Council had recognized the B. Arch. Degree of the
students who got the lateral admissions from 1989 onwards. They registered
them in the year 1992 and registration continued till 1999. In the year 1999, for
the first time, the Council appears to have refused to renew the said registrations
on the purported ground of lateral admission to the fourth year course being in
violation of the Regulation. The Council has continued the registration of all such
students upto 1999. The petitioners and similarly placed B. Arch. students have
been lawfully practicing since then. It cannot be said that they are quack and
bogus Graduates from any bogus University or unrecognized Institution. They
have been carrying on their profession lawfully and honourably after their
successful pursuit of the two degree courses of the Nagpur University. They have
been renewing their registration only till 1999. Furthermore, as far as the subjects
and competence of the petitioners and other similarly placed Architects, it can
not be said that they have not learnt the subjects of the first three years course of
the B. Arch. There is no dispute that the B. Tech. (HID) Course is equivalent to
the three years course of the B. Arch. In fact, they have spent one year more in
the subjects. The Council is all of a sudden trying to disqualify and derecognise
them after the period of 10 years which is not a small period in the career of the
professionals. Most of the petitioners might have established themselves
comfortably and might have taken off in their profession by 1999. To de-
recognise or to disqualify them at this stage would not be in the interest of justice
at all and it will not be equitable to do so. There is no element of fraud or
illegality at any stage, though the learned counsel for the Council tried to argue
that the petitioners had not disclosed that they were lateral admissions in the
fourth year course of B. Arch. They have filled up the prescribed forms as per the
requirements and they have not suppressed any material from the Council. It was
for the Council to have asked the applicants if the Council had any doubt about
the fact of their admissions and the fact of their becoming B. Arch. After completing the course. The Nagpur University has validly accepted the B. Tech.
(HID) Course as the eligibility for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. and the
students of the B. Tech. students got admissions to the B. Arch. Degree Course in
accordance with law. We do not find any suppression or fraud or any dishonesty
on the part of the petitioners. Their degrees are not spurious nor are they from a
fake University. These degrees were and are genuine and bona fide degrees
conferred on them by the Nagpur University and, therefore, the Council initially
recognized the fact of the Ordinance and also the fact of the lateral admissions in
the B. Arch. Course and registered, the petitioners on the “architects” as holders
of the recognized qualifications under the Architects Act, but for the reasons best
known to it, in and from the year 1999 the Council changed its mind and refused
to renew the registration on the ground of lateral admissions of the students of the
B. Tech. (HID) to B. Arch. Degree Course. In our considered opinion the
decision of the Council to refuse to renew the registration of the petitioners is
unreasonable and arbitrary and is contrary to the provisions of the Architect Act,
The Petitioners are the architects holding recognized qualifications as included in
the Schedule at item 1 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the Act recognises
even diplomas of many specified Institutes also.
11. Further since the lateral admission qualifications have been
discontinued by the University itself, it will not be in the interest of the
petitioners and similarly placed B. Arch. Graduates who bona fide passed their
B. Arch. Graduation on the basis of the lateral admissions to deprive them of
their qualification to practice the profession of B. Arch. From 1999 onwards, the
Nagpur University as also both the counsels have agreed that B. Tech. (HID)
Course will not be held to be eligible for admission to the fourth year and fifth
year of B. Arch. course. We, therefore, allow the petitions and quash and set
aside the impugned communication of the respondent No. 3 refusing to renew the
registration on the alleged ground of lateral admissions to the course of the B.
Arch. We hold that the petitioners and all similarly placed B. Arch. Graduates are
lawfully entitled to be registered with respondent No. 3 and they are lawfully
entitled to practice the profession of Architecture. We have followed the
“doctrine of defacto” while granting this relief. Respondent No. 3 – Council shall
renew their registration and shall never discontinue their registration on this
ground on their being B. Arch. on account of lateral admission.
12. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses A and B. The
respondent No. 3 shall renew the registration of the petitioners and all other
similarly placed B. Arch. Graduates forthwith and shall continue to renew their
registration unless there is a breach of other regulations committed by them. No
order as to costs.