V.M. Sahai, J.@mdashThe short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the norms and standards laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education, u/s 10(1)(i) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act. 1987, laying down four-tier staff structure are binding on the State Government? If so, whether the Uttar Pradesh Technical Education Gazetted Officers'' Service "Rules, 1990 and the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Institution Receiving Grant-in-Aid from the Government Regulations. 1996, framed by the State Government, being contrary to the norms and standards framed by All India Council for Technical Education u/s 10(1)(i) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, are unenforceable in view of Article 254(1) of the Constitution?
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to implement four-tier staff structure in the State of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the norms and standards laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education (in brief A.I.C.T.E.). The A.I.C.T.E. was set up in 1945 by a Central Government resolution as a National Expert body to advise the Central and State Governments for ensuring the coordinated development of Technical Education in accordance with approved standards. It was found that various polytechnics have come up in complete disregard of the guidelines framed by A.I.C.T.E., therefore, in 1981 the A.I.C.T.E. came to conclusion that it should be vested with statutory powers to regulate and maintain the standard of technical education. The national working group was set up in November, 1985 to look into the role of A.I.C.T.E. and to make recommendations so that A.I.C.T.E. be enabled to play its role effectively and be vested with statutory authority. Same view was taken by the National Council of Education in 1986. The Central Government enacted the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (in brief the Act 1987) for laying down norms and standards for technical institutions. The Act 1987 was published on 28.12.1987 and it came into force by the Central Government notification on 28.3.1988.
3. In April 1987, the National Expert Committee For Revision of Pay Scales of Teachers of Technical Institutions (in brief N.E.C.R.) submitted a report to A.I.C.T.E. In paragraph 3.5 of its report. It observed that in technical institutions, there were only three cadre structure which retards the rate of growth of teachers resulting in large scale stagnation and frustration at all levels. It found that there is a difference in salary of the technical teachers and those of universities and the teachers working in polytechnics have been rendered lower in pay scales of the corresponding Degree Colleges after 1972. The N.E.C.R. in paragraph 4.3 of its report observed that the Public Sector Undertakings not only offer attractive pay scales but also provide excellent service conditions and work involvement. As a consequence, technical education was no longer able to attract talented professionals to technical institutions. Therefore, the meritorious professionals were turning away from the teaching profession. Further in paragraph 6.3.1, it observed that technical education system is conducted at professional and technical level institutions. Both these levels are equally important for the development of the economy. The cadre structure, therefore, has to be designed to attract equally competent professionals, to suit the requirement of various programmes offered in both these categories of institutions. It observed that technical institutions are facing acute shortage of teachers and the existing cadre structure was not satisfactory to attract professionals to opt for a career in teaching. It recommend in paragraph 7.2 that improved salary scales linked to satisfactory career professionals be provided for both types of educational Institutions. The National Council of Technical and Management Education, 1986, in paragraph 6.2, observed that one of the most important requirement for any educational Institution is the presence of competent faculty. It was an uphill task to get competent teachers because of poor salary structure and fringe benefits, poor promotional avenues and cumbersome recruitment procedures. It recommended that it is necessary to overcome these draw-backs. In order to increase promotional avenues and to prevent stagnation among the teachers in Polytechnics, the A.I.C.T.E. has framed norms in 1989, in exercise of its power u/s 10(1)(i) of the Act, 1987, which provides for a revised staff structure and instead of three-tier staff structure, there should be four-tier staff structure In the Polytechnics of the States. The relevant extract of "Norms and Standards for Polytechnics" pertaining to staff structure paragraphs 6 to 6.6 have been filed as Annexure-1 to this petition.
4. The original counter-affidavit filed by Shri R. P. Singh, Assistant Director. Director of Technical Education. Uttar Pradesh, Kanur and the impleadment application filed by the petitioner for impleading I.E.R.T. Teachers Association. Allahabad, as petitioner No. 2 were missing from the records, therefore, the petitioner was permitted to file duplicate copy of the counter-affidavit and impleadment application, which has been taken on record on 17.11.1999. The impleadment application has been allowed.
5. The facts stated in the writ petition are not disputed by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. The report N.E.C.R., and the National Council of Technical and Management Education. 1986 and Norms and Standards for Polytechnics laid down in 1989 by A.I.C.T.E. have not been denied. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that in State of Uttar Pradesh, three-tier staff structure is operative as per service rules known as Uttar Pradesh Technical Education Gazetted Officers'' Service Rules, 1990 (in brief Rules 1990) which came into force on 2.4.1990, framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India as amended in 1998 is applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondents while giving reply to the supplementary affidavit have also filed the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Institution Receiving Grant-In-Aid from the Government Regulations, 1996 (in brief Regulation 1996). The respondents have asserted that three-tier staff structure is applicable in both Government and Aided Polytechnics in Uttar Pradesh and the norms and standards of A.I.C.T.E. cannot be implemented or given effect to in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6. Shri Amar Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that norms and standards framed by A.I.C.T.E. in 1989 u/s 10(1)(i) of the Act 1987, which provides for four-tier staff structure are binding on the State Government and Rules 1990 and Regulations 1996 being contrary to the norms and standards framed by the A.I.C.T.E., are against the directions given under the Central Act. therefore, the Rules 1990 and Regulations 1996 being repugnant to the Act 1987 are void in view of Article 254(1) of the Constitution and a direction is liable to be issued to the respondents to follow the norms and standards laid down by A.I.C.T.E., Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others, JT 1995 (3) SC 136 and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education, Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and another 2000 (5) SCC 118.
7. On the other hand, Shri A. K. Banerjee, the learned standing counsel has urged that State Government had framed Rules 1990 and Regulations 1996. which are not repugnant to the Central Act. The norms and standards laid down by A.I.C.T.E. are only guidelines and not binding upon the State Government and there is no repugnancy between the Central Act and the Rules 1990 and Regulations 1996 framed by the State Government. He urged that Article 254(1) of the Constitution is not applicable and the petition filed by the petitioners was not maintainable.
8. The first question to be decided is whether the norms and standards laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education. u/s 10(1)(i) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act. 1987, laying down four-tier staff structure are binding on the State Government? The Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 (in brief Adhiniyam 1962) came into force on 30.11.1962. u/s 3, the State Government constituted Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad (Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh). It was established to affiliate institutions, prescribe course of study, to conduct examinations, prescribe standards for buildings and equipments, prescribe educational qualifications and other standards for the members of staff of the affiliated institutions, standards of admission, to advise the State Government on coordinated development of technical education, etc. For carrying out the purpose of the Act. Section 22 empowered the State Government to frame rules. Section 22E laid down the qualifications for appointment of principal and teachers. Section- 22F provided the manner of selection of principal and teachers. Section 23 empowered the Board constituted under the Adhiniyam 1962 to make regulations.
9. Section 10 of Chapter III of the Act 1987 provided that in order to perform its duty and to take all such necessary steps to ensure that the object and purpose of the Act may be fulfilled, the A.I.C.T.E. may lay down the norms and standards to achieve the objective of the Act and for proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system uniformly throughout the country. Section 10(1)(a) to (v) of the Act 1987 empowered the A.I.C.T.E. to lay down the norms and standards for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education. In subsection (1), the A.I.C.T.E. was empowered to lay down norms for staff pattern and staff qualifications etc. Section 10(1)(i) of the Act is extracted below :
"10. Functions of the Council.--(1) It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may...
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations :"
10. The norms and standards which have to be laid down under the Act 1987 by A.I.C.T.E. have to be uniform throughout the country so that the technical education in the entire country is integrated into one system. The Apex Court in Adhiyaman Education and Research Institution (supra) has observed that, "since the standards have to be laid down on a national level, they have necessarily to be uniform throughout the country without which the coordinated and integrated development of the technical education all over the country Will not be possible which will defeat one of the main objects of the statute." The A.I.C.T.E. has laid down the norms and standards in 1989 under different headings, namely space, equipment, furniture. staff and recurring expenditure, curriculum structure. Since the norms and standards have been laid down by A.I.C.T.E. under the Act 1987, it has statutory force and is binding on all technical education institutions throughout the country. Section 10 of the Act 1987 lays down in detail that A.I.C.T.E. is entrusted with power of laying down the norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes, etc. All the matters which are mentioned in Section 10 are within the jurisdiction of A.I.C.T.E. only, therefore, after the Act 1987 came into force, the State Government could not frame Rules 1990 under Article 309 of the Constitution or Regulations 1996 under Adhiniyam 1962. Any Rule or Regulation made by the State Government contrary to the norms and standards laid down by A.I.C.T.E. u/s 10(1)(i) of the Act 1987 with regard to staff pattern, staff qualification, etc. would be deemed to be unenforceable. The norms and standards laid down by A.I.C.T.E. in 1989 paragraphs 6 to 6.6 with regard to staff pattern has been filed as Annexure-1 to this petition. It is not disputed in the counter-affidavit. It provides for four-tier staff structure as below :
"Teaching Staff Cadre
The cadre structure should be as follows :
(i) Lecturer
(ii) Senior Lecturer
(iii) Head of Department/ Senior Lecturer (Selection Grade)
(iv) Principal
The Training and Placement Officer and Workshop Superintendent will be equal in cadre to Head of Department."
11. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have admitted that in Rules 1990 and Regulations 1996, only three-tier staff structure has been provided in the State of Uttar Pradesh which is extracted below :
"(i) Lecturer
(ii) Head of Department
(iii) Principal."
12. A perusal of the two set of rules one framed by A.I.C.T.E. and the other by the State Government on staff pattern do indicate difference not only in cadre but scale of pay, promotional avenues, etc. And their difference is not minimal. The respondents may be justified in pointing out great difficulty in implementing the staff pattern as provided by the A.I.C.T.E. But the law, in this regard, has been explained by the Apex Court in Adhiyaman Education and Research Institution (supra). The Court considered the Entries 66 of List-I of the VIIth Schedule read with Entry 25 of List-III both before and after 42nd Amendment of the Constitution along with Entry 11 of List-11 and its amalgamation with Entry 25 of List-III and held that the law made by Central Government would prevail over the laws made by the State Government. It was held in paragraph 15 as below :
"The subject "coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions" has always remained the special preserve of the Parliament. This was so even before the Forty-second Amendment, since Entry II of List II even then was subject, among others, to Entry 66 of List I. After the said Amendment, the Constitutional position on that score has not undergone any change. All that has happened is that Entry II was taken out from List II and amalgamated with Entry 25 of List III is also subject to the provisions, among others, of Entry 66 of List I. It cannot, therefore, be doubted nor is it contended before us. that the legislation with regard to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions has always been the preserve of the Parliament."
13. It is clear from the law laid down by the Apex Court, that the norms and standards laid down by A.I.C.T.E. u/s 10(1)(i) of the Act 1987 occupied the field and any Act or Rule or Regulation framed by the Slate would be unenforceable. The argument of the learned standing counsel that four-tier staff structure as recommended by the A.I.C.T.E. cannot be implemented in the State of Uttar Pradesh. as there already exists three-tier staff structure under Rules 1990 and Regulations 1996 cannot be accepted. The norms and standards with regard to staff pattern and staff qualifications, having been laid down in 1989 by A.I.C.T.E. were binding on the State Government. The Rules 1990 framed by State of U. P. under Article 309 of the Constitution and Regulation 1996 framed under Adhiniyam 1962. after the Act 1987 came into force, being contrary to Central Act are unenforceable; In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Adhiyaman Education and Research Institution (supra) and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra), Rules 1990 and Regulations 1996 being repugnant to the provisions of Section 10(1)(i) of Act 1987 would stand repealed to the extent of repugnancy under Article 254(1) of the Constitution.
14. The arguments of the learned standing counsel that the two legislation''s were not on the same subjects, therefore, the rule framed by the Stale Government was not in violation of Article 254 may now be considered. The Apex Court, as mentioned earlier, has explained that power of the State Legislatures to enact a law on technical education is subject to power exercised by Parliament under Entry 66 of List-I which is extracted below :
"66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions."
15. It is well-settled that entries in the Schedule of the Constitution have to be given wide construction. The expression "coordinate" and "determination of standard in ... Technical Education" have to be understood in the widest amplitude. The standard of education would depend on standard of teaching. It has been explained earlier that the purpose of enacting A.I.C.T.E. was to ensure availability of competent teachers for teaching in these institutions by providing for better scale of pay and promotional avenues. When Adhiniyam 1962 was enforced, no provision was made for staff pattern. The different sections of the Adhiniyam, which deals with various aspects in detail, do not permit the State Government to frame any Rule or Regulation for teachers of the technical institutions. It was in 1990 that the State Government, while providing for officers recruitment and conditions of service to be applied to Uttar Pradesh Technical Education Gazetted Officers Service provided for three-tier structure for teaching staff. Since the staffing pattern for teachers was already covered by A.I.C.T.E., the State Government could not provide contrary to it. The argument of the learned standing counsel that the two Acts were not on the same subjects, therefore, cannot be accepted.
16. This petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents to implement four-tier staff structure in the State of Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the norms and standards laid down in paragraphs 6 to 6.6 by All India Council for Technical Education, as mentioned in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 2. The directions given in this judgment will apply prospectively.
