AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 284 wordsJustice T.R. Ramachandran Nair
The petitioners are seeking for various reliefs including quashing of Exhibits P3 and P4 and also for a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Teaching Faculties in Universities and Engineering Colleges as per Exhibits P2 and P5. A direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P6 representation is also sought for. All the petitioners are holders of degree in Master of Technology(M.Tech)/Master of Electronics(ME). The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), namely the 2nd respondent is now insisting for Bachelor of Engineering/ Bachelor of Technology and Master of Technology(M.Tech)/Master of Electronics(ME) in the relevant subjects for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Engineering Colleges.
The details of qualifications of the petitioners are given in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Writ Petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the qualification obtained by the petitioners, they are well employed and the change insisted by the AICTE will drag them to trouble. It is in these circumstances that they have filed Exhibit p6 representation. The learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE submitted that the qualification prescribed earlier was by the University Grants Commission and the AICTE has got power to prescribe various conditions. 5. Evidently, this is a matter which is to be considered by the AICTE. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the representation will therefore be addressed and appropriate decision will be communicated to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing a representative of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.