Karnataka High Court
Sharan Desai vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 7 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 27908 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHARAN DESAI, M. ARCH USA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION IN ARCHITECTURE,
S/O LATE SHRI HANAMANT RAO DESAI,
EX MLA AFZALPUR GULBARGA,
M BLOCK, APT NO.106, FIRST FLOOR,
RENAISSANCE EXOTICA,
JAKKUR PLANTATION ROAD,
BENGALURU-560064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARAN DESAI, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
Digitally REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
signed by
SUMA 2ND GATE, 6TH FLOOR,
Location: M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
HIGH BENGALURU-560001
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. BRINDAVAN GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DWARKANAGAR, BAGALUR MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560063.
(EDUCATION INSTITUTION RECOGNIZED BY
THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT)
3. THE COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE (COA)
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR SECRETARY,
INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, CORE-6A,
1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
NEW DELHI-110003
(STATUTORY BODY HAS BEEN CONSTITUTED BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
4. THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110115
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;
SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. NAVEEN R. NATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RESHMA K.T.,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 06.11.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (RELATES TO THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PETITIONER 4
YEARS 6 MONTHS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE FINAL ORDER) VIDE
ANNEXURE-M (FINAL ORDER ) (¸ÀASÉå: Er 97 nfJ¯ï 2023) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 02.05.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
The petitioner, who has appeared in person, has sought
for an order to quash the order dated 04.11.2023 passed by
respondent No.1 in Appeal No.14/2020 dismissing the appeal
filed by him under Sections 130 and 131 of the Karnataka
Education Act, 1983 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1983').
He has sought for a direction to the respondent No.2 to allow
him to continue as a Principal. He has also sought for a
declaration that the Council of Architecture (Minimum
Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 2020, which
came into effect from 01.11.2020 applied only to fresh
graduates of Architecture and that it does not apply to those
who are already appointed as per the Council of Architecture
(Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations,
1983 (henceforth referred to as 'Regulations, 1983').
2. Though the facts pleaded by the petitioner in the
writ petition are jumbled up, a reading of the writ petition
discloses the following;
(i) that the petitioner completed his Bachelor of
Architecture (B.Arch.) in the year 1989 from BMS College,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Bengaluru. He later completed his Master of Architecture
(M.Arch.) in the year 1992 from the University of Oklahoma,
Norman, USA. The petitioner contends that the University of
Oklahoma, Norman, USA, is a University recognized by the
Council of Architecture for imparting education in Master's
Degree in Architecture under Architects Act, 1972 (henceforth
referred to as 'Act of 1972'). The petitioner contends that he
was appointed as a Principal of respondent No.2 on 09.06.2018
under the norms prescribed under the Regulations, 1983. He
contends that without any notice, he was demoted as an
Associate Professor on 10.02.2020. It appears that respondent
No.3 had addressed a communication dated 10.05.2019 to
respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner did not possess the
minimum experience to hold the post of a Principal as per
norms. It therefore, put the respondent No.2 on notice as to
why the intake in respondent No.2 in B.Arch degree course be
reduced from 40 to 30. The respondent No.2 addressed a letter
dated 23.10.2019 to respondent No.3 requesting it to waive off
the condition regarding experience of the petitioner as he had
30 years experience in field, research, technology and
academics. However, the respondent No.3 was in no mood to
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
accept the petitioner's service as a Principal at respondent
No.2. The petitioner therefore challenged the communication
dated 10.05.2019 in W.P.No.9242/2020. The said writ petition
was disposed off on 15.09.2020 reserving liberty to question
the action of respondent No.2 in accordance with law. The
petitioner thereafter, filed Appeal No.14/2020 under Sections
130 and 131 of the Act of 1983 before the respondent No.1.
(ii) The respondent No.1 held proceedings and passed
an order dated 04.11.2023 rejecting the appeal filed by the
petitioner. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court
challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1.
3. The petitioner contends that as per the Regulations,
1983, the eligibility for the post of Principal was a B.Arch. or
equivalent with 10 years experience in
Teaching/Research/Professional work, experience of guiding
research or M.Arch. or equivalent with 8 years of experience in
Teaching/Research/Professional work. He contends that the
equivalent qualification meant any such qualification as
recognized by the Council of Architecture for registration as an
Architect under Section 25 of the Act of 1972. He contends
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
that he had nearly 30 years of experience including teaching,
work experience, technology and practice and therefore, he
was qualified to be appointed as a Principal. However,
respondent No.3 relied upon the Council of Architecture
(Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations,
2017 (henceforth referred to as 'Regulations, 2017') to notify
respondent No.2 that the petitioner did not possess requisite
experience as he was registered as an Architect with
respondent No.3 in the year 2015 and therefore, he could not
have been appointed in the year 2018. The petitioner contends
that validity of Regulations, 2017, was considered by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.No.34676/2018 and other
connected petitions and it was held that the Regulations, 2017
was invalid. The petitioner therefore, contends that the only
Regulations, which was in force was the Regulations, 1983,
which did not prescribe that the experience should be reckoned
from the date of registration with the respondent No.3. He
therefore, contends that the communication dated 10.05.2019
addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 is without
any basis and the position of the petitioner in respondent No.2
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
as the Principal has to be restored with all consequential
benefits.
4. (i) The respondent No.2 has placed on record the
statement of objections filed by it before respondent No.1 in
Appeal No.14/2020. A perusal of the said objections discloses
that it offered the position of Principal to the petitioner and
issued a letter of appointment dated 09.06.2018. The petitioner
reported to duty on 01.08.2019 and was working as a Principal.
It claimed that on 10.05.2019, the respondent No.3 issued a
show-cause notice to it regarding the ineligibility of the
petitioner to be appointed as a Principal in the light of the
revised norms. Thereafter, the petitioner purportedly issued a
letter dated 02.12.2019 to the Chairman of the respondent
No.2 stating that in view of the show-cause notice dated
10.05.2019, he had reached out to the President of respondent
No.3 on 23.10.2019 to allow him to continue as a Principal. The
respondent No.2 claimed that the petitioner himself requested
it to appoint a new Principal. The respondent No.2 further
claimed that on 31.01.2020, the petitioner addressed a letter to
it stating that he had voluntarily resigned from his position as
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Principal. The respondent No.2 claimed that since the
petitioner voluntarily resigned from service and his resignation
was accepted, he has estopped from claiming reinstatement
into service as a Principal.
(ii) It claimed that the respondent No.2 offered the
position of Associate Professor in its college, which was
accepted by the petitioner and accordingly, he was appointed
as Associate Professor with effect from 01.02.2020 on terms
mentioned therein.
(iii) The respondent No.2 alleges that on 12.06.2020, it
received a letter from the subordinates of the petitioner that
the petitioner had misused the official seal and stamp of the
Principal without permission and thereafter, the petitioner
apologized to it in terms of his email dated 24.06.2020. It
claimed that its Campus Director issued a show-cause notice to
the petitioner on 29.06.2020. The petitioner replied to the
notice on 15.07.2020 denying the allegations. The Campus
Director therefore, informed the petitioner that a disciplinary
enquiry may be conducted against him. It claimed that the
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
petitioner had failed to report to work for weeks as he
apprehended that a disciplinary enquiry would be initiated.
(iv) It stated that on 13.11.2020, its Principal addressed
a letter to the Registrar of the Council stating that the
petitioner had failed to report to work since 24.07.2020 and
requested that the name of the petitioner be struck off from the
list of staff.
(v) It claimed that on 02.07.2021, the petitioner
addressed a letter to its Principal requesting for payment of
Rs.9,16,887/- being the salary from June, 2020. It claimed that
since the petitioner failed to report to work since 24.07.2020,
he was not entitled to any salary. Therefore, it contended that
the petitioner is dishonest and hence, is not entitled to any
relief in this writ petition.
5. (i) The petition is opposed by the respondent
No.3, who has filed the statement of objections contending that
the Parliament of India has enacted the Architects Act, 1972
and set up Council of Architecture to prescribe the Minimum
Standards of Architectural Education and Profession. It claimed
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
that the Council under Section 21 read with Section 45 of the
Act of 1972 has prescribed the Minimum Standards of
Architectural Education Regulations, 1983 and thereafter,
supplemented it by guidelines from time to time. It claimed
that the Council in the year 2020, with the approval of the
Central Government, had laid down Council of Architecture
(Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations,
2020, which was notified in the Gazette of India on 11.08.2020
and has come into force with effect from 01.11.2020. It
contended that the issue regarding prescription of minimum
standards of Architectural education by way of guidelines is
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and therefore,
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(ii) It claimed that the guidelines framed by the Council
of Architecture under Section 21 of the Act of 1972 has
statutory force. In support of this contention, reliance is placed
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) vs. Shri
Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of
Architecture and Others in Civil Appeal No.364/2005 and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
connected cases [AIR Online 2019 SC 1422] and the
judgment in Council of Architecture vs. The Academic
Society of Architects (TASA) and others in Civil Appeal
No.1320/2022.
(iii) It contended that in Civil Appeal No.364/2005 and
connected cases, referred supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide order dated 08.11.2019, held that the Council of the
Architecture is the final authority for prescribing the Minimum
Standard of Architectural Education and fixing the intake and
that neither AICTE nor any other authority has any role in
architectural education. It contended that the claim of the
petitioner that it is not mandatory for registration as an
Architect with the Council for being a faculty member of
architectural institutions is misplaced. it is contended that as
per the Regulations, 2020, a faculty member should be
registered as an Architect with the Council in order to be
eligible to the post of core faculty.
(iv) It contended that architectural education is practice
based and faculty must possess the registration as an Architect
in order to use the title "Architect" and also undertake
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
institutional consultancy projects for live demonstration to
students. It contended that the petitioner was registered with
the Council in the year 2015 and his experience can be
considered only from the said date. It contended that the
petitioner has not challenged the vires of Regulations, 2020 or
the guidelines prescribed by the Council and therefore, he
cannot challenge the requirement prescribed under Section 25
of the Act of 1972 to be registered as an Architect before he is
appointed as a faculty. It is therefore, contended that the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner who has appeared in person
submitted that Regulations, 1983 did not mandate that a
faculty member should be registered with the Council of
Architecture and it did not mandate any experience for being
appointed as either an Associate Professor or as a Principal. He
contends that for the first time, the Regulations, 2017
prescribed registration with the Council of Architecture and
mandated that experience for the post shall be calculated from
the date of registration. He submits that Regulations, 2017
were held to be invalid by the High Court of Judicature at
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Madras in W.P.No.34676/2018 and other connected petitions.
He contends that during the pendency of the proceedings
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Regulations, 2020, were
brought into force. He contends that since he was appointed in
the year 2018, the relevant regulations applicable were the
Regulations, 1983 and not the Regulations, 2017 or
Regulations, 2020. Therefore, he contends that the
communication addressed by the respondent No.3 to
respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner was ineligible to
hold the post of Principal, is not only illegal but also arbitrary.
He therefore, contends that suitable declaration be issued that
the appointment of the petitioner is not affected by the
Regulations, 2017 or Regulations, 2020 and also to issue
appropriate orders to restore the position of the petitioner as a
Principal of the respondent No.2.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.3 on
the other hand, vehemently submitted that Regulations, 2017,
which was in force when the petitioner was appointed as a
Principal, specifically prescribed experience for the post of
Principal and such experience had to be reckoned from the date
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
of registration with the Council. He therefore, submits that the
petitioner was ineligible to continue as the Principal of the
respondent No.2. He contends that the judgment of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras was challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1320/2022, where it
was held that the reasoning of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras was incorrect. He therefore, contends that the
Regulations, 2017, was brought back to life in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in the
meanwhile, Regulations, 2020 came into play which also
prescribed experience to the post of Principal and Associate
Professor and such experience has to be reckoned from the
date of registration with the Council. He contends that the
Council of Architecture is the supreme body, which is entitled to
prescribe the minimum qualification and standards of
architectural education. He therefore, submits that there can
be no departure from the guidelines prescribed by the Council
of Architecture. He reiterated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal No.364/2005 and connected cases, referred
supra, had held that it is the Council of Architecture, which is
empowered to prescribe minimum standards of architectural
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
education required for granting recognition to colleges or
institutions in India. He therefore, contends that the notice
issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 informing it
about the ineligibility of the petitioner to continue as a
Principal, is just and proper and the respondent No.1 after
carefully considering the contentions had rightly rejected the
claim of the petitioner. He has also relied upon the following
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) Mysore State Road Transport Corporation vs.
Gopinath Gundachar Char [AIR 1968 SC 464],
(ii) Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and
others vs. Om Prakash and others [AIR 1969 SC
33]
(iii) Punit Rai vs. Dinesh Chaudhary [(2003) 8 SCC
204].
8. I have considered the submissions of the
petitioner/party-in-person as well as the learned Senior counsel
for respondent No.3.
9. In order to appreciate the contentions of the
petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.3, it is first
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
appropriate to refer to the provisions contained in Act of 1972,
which have a bearing on the facts of this case.
10. Sections 21, 25 and 45 of the Act, 1972 read as
follows:-
21. Minimum standard of architectural
education.--The Council may prescribe the
minimum standards of architectural education
required for granting recognised qualifications by
colleges or institutions in India.
25. Qualification for entry in register.--A
person shall be entitled on payment of such fee as
may be prescribed by rules to have his name entered
in the register, if he resides or carries on the
profession of architect in India and--
(a) holds a recognised qualification, or
(b) does not hold such a qualification but, being a
citizen of India, has been engaged in practice
as an architect for a period of not less than
five years prior to the date appointed under
sub-section (2) of section 24, or
(c) possesses such other qualifications as may be
prescribed by rules:
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Provided that no person other than a citizen of
India shall be entitled to registration by virtue of a
qualification--
(a) recognised under sub-section (1) of section
15 unless by the law and practice of a country
outside India to which such person belongs,
citizens of India holding architectural
qualification registrable in that country are
permitted to enter and practise the profession
of architect in such country, or
(b) unless the Central Government has, in
pursuance of a scheme of reciprocity or
otherwise, declared that qualification to be a
recognised qualification under sub-section (2)
of section 15.
45. Power of Council to make
regulations.--(1) The Council may, with the
approval of the Central Government, by notification
in the Official Gazette, make regulations not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or the
rules made thereunder to carry out the purposes of
this Act.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such regulations
may provide for--
(a) the management of the property of the
Council;
(b) the powers and duties of the President and
the Vice-President of the Council;
(c) the summoning and holding of meetings of
the Council and the Executive Committee or
any other committee constituted under
section 10, the times and places at which
such meetings shall be held, the conduct of
business thereat and the number of persons
necessary to constitute a quorum;
(d) the functions of the Executive Committee or
of any other committee constituted under
section 10;
(e) the courses and periods of study and of
practical training, if any, to be undertaken,
the subjects of examinations and standards of
proficiency therein to be obtained in any
college or institution for grant of recognised
qualifications;
(f) the appointment, powers and duties of
inspector;
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
(g) the standards of staff, equipment,
accommodation, training and other facilities
for architectural education;
(h) the conduct of professional examinations,
qualifications of examiners and the conditions
of admission to such examinations;
(i) the standards of professional conduct and
etiquette and code of ethics to be observed
by architects;
(j) any other matter which is to be or may be
provided by regulations under this Act and in
respect of which no rules have been made.
(3) Every regulation made under this section
shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made,
before each House of Parliament, while it is in
session, for a total period of thirty days which may
be comprised in one session or in two or more
successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the
session immediately following the session or the
successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in
making any modification in the regulation or both
Houses agree that the regulation should not be
made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only
in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case
may be; so, however, that any such modification or
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity
of anything previously done under that regulation.
11. The question whether Section 37 of the Act of 1972
merely prohibits the use of the title "Architect" by individuals
not registered with the Council or whether Section 37 actually
prohibits unregistered individuals practicing architecture, came
up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Council of Architecture vs. Mr. Mukesh Goyal and others
(Civil Appeal No.1819/2020) [AIR 2020 SC 1736]. After
considering the provisions of the Act of 1972, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that Section 37 of the Act of 1972 does not
prohibit individuals not registered under the Act of 1972 from
undertaking the practice of architecture. However, it held that
a development authority cannot promote or recruit individuals
who do not hold a degree in Architecture as recognized under
the Act of 1972 to a post that uses the title "Architect".
12. The above decision therefore, establishes that for a
person to use the title "architect", he is bound to be registered
under the Act, 1972. However, the inverse that every person
professing architecture should be registered with the
respondent No.3, does not apply.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
13. With the above preface, if we consider the facts of
this case, it is relevant to note that the petitioner had
completed his B.Arch. in February, 1988 from a recognized
institution in India. He also completed his M.Arch. on
20.12.1991 from University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA, which
is recognized institution by the Council of Architecture in India.
The petitioner has placed on record voluminous credentials to
claim that he had experience in teaching, research and
professional work. A certificate issued by University of
Oklahoma shows that the petitioner had carried out Brick Town
Development under the Urban Design Program at the University
of Oklahoma. It appears that the petitioner was involved in the
Urban Design Project, Central Artery (I-93)/Tunnel (I-90)
Project in Boston, the Logan 2000 Project at International
Airport, Boston, "Tren Urbano", a region rail transit system in
Puerto Rico. It also appears that he was associated with Pergo
Flooring Raleigh, the Oracle Corporation, Bengaluru. He was
also a State Planning Board Member of the Government of
Karnataka. It appears that he was also a Consultant to State
Government in the State Water and Sanitation Mission.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
14. The respondent No.3 had framed the Regulations,
1983 in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (e), (g),
(h) and (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 read with Section
21 of the Act of 1972.
15. In so far as the qualification and experience for the
post of Principal of an Architectural Institution, the Regulations,
1983 prescribed the following criteria:-
Sl. Designation Pay Scale Qualification
No.
4. Principal/ Rs.1500- B.Arch. or equivalent with 10
Head of 60-1800- years experience in Teaching/
Department 100-2000- Research/ Professional work.
125/2- Experience of guiding research
2500 plus
special OR
pay M.Arch. Or equivalent with 8
years of experience in
Teaching/Research/Professional
work
Note: The equivalent qualification shall mean any
such qualification as recognized by the Council of
Architecture for registration as Architect under
Section 25 of the Architects Act, 1972.
16. The minimum standards of Architectural Education,
2008 prescribed under Section 21 of the Act of 1972 prescribed
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
the minimum qualification, experience and structure for
teaching posts in degree level architectural institutions. In so
far as the post of Principal is concerned, it was stipulated as
follows:
Sr Cadre Educational Work Experience
Qualifications Experience for
(Excluding candidates
time period from
for acquisition practice
of PG/Ph.D
qualifications)
5 Principal/ First class Eighteen Eighteen
Director Bachelor's years of Years
Degree in teaching Experience
Architecture, experience Practice/
AND Master's out of which Research
Degree in Ten years
Architecture Teaching INCLUDING
OR Experience as Ten Years
Bachelor's Associate Teaching
Degree in Professor Experience
Architecture, ___________ as Visiting
AND First OR teacher
Class ___________
Master's Eighteen
Degree in years of
Architecture teaching
OR experience
First class out of which
Bachelor's Five Years
Degree in Teaching
Architecture; Experience as
AND Ph.D. in Professor.
Architecture
(Desirable -
(Desirable - Experience in
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Ph.D. in Administration
Architecture at responsible
OR Published position)
work in
referred
journals OR
significant
professional
work which
can be
considered
equivalent to
Ph.D)
Note: Only candidates registered with Council of
Architecture (COA) under the provisions of the Architects
Act, 1972 shall be eligible for above posts.
The petitioner was registered with the respondent No.3 on
02.03.2015 and had practical experience for more than
eighteen years.
17. The petitioner was appointed as a Principal of
respondent No.2 on 09.06.2018. It is relevant to note that by
this time, the respondent No.3 had framed the Regulations,
2017 in supersession of the Regulations, 1983. The minimum
qualification, experience and structure for teaching posts in
degree architectural institutions as per Regulations, 2017 was
as follows:
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Sl. Designation Pay-Scale Qualification & Experience
No.
4. Principal / Pay-Scale as Bachelor's Degree in
Director prescribed by Architecture and Master's
Central / Degree in Architecture with
respective minimum 60% marks at
State either level and
Government
from time to Seventeen years experience
time in teaching/
research/professional work
out of which a full-time
teaching experience of
minimum Eight years
Or
Twenty years of
professional experience.
Desirable: Ph.D. in
Architecture.
Experience in
Administration at a
responsible position.
18. Explanations 1.1 , 1.2 and 2.1 provided as follows;
"1.1. Experience shall mean professional
experience and/or Teaching and/or Research in the
field of Architecture, counted from the date of
registration with Council for core faculty or valid
equivalent certification from concerned authorities.
Professional experience shall be substantiated by
Experience certificates from employers, Work orders,
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Completion certificates & Sample Drawings of the
projects undertaken as the case may be
1.2. Full time faculty means a registered
architect, who has put up full time service as a
faculty member with the institutions approved by
COA, either or regular (Permanent) or tenure basis
(full time).
2.1 Only candidates registered with Council
of Architecture (COA) under the provisions of the
Architects Act, 1972 shall be eligible for the above
posts."
(Underlining by Court)
19. It is in the light of Regulations, 2017 that the
respondent No.3 addressed a communication dated 10.05.2019
stating that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as a
Principal as he lacked the experience, which according to the
respondent No.3 was to be counted from the date of
registration with respondent No.3. Since petitioner was
registered with respondent No.3 in the year 2015, it was stated
that he did not have the prescribed experience to be appointed
as a Principal of respondent No.2 in the year 2018.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
20. The validity of the Regulations, 2017 was
challenged before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
W.P.No.34676/2018 and connected petitions. The Hon'ble High
Court of Madras held that the Regulations, 2017 were not
approved by the Central Government till the date of its
judgment and therefore was not valid and consequently held
that it is only the Regulations, 1983, which was in force. It
therefore, held that the communications issued by the Council
of Architecture to the architectural institutions to comply the
Regulations, 2017 were not legally sustainable and hence,
quashed the same. This judgment was passed on 04.06.2019.
21. The respondent No.3 challenged the judgment of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1320/2022. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held by its judgment dated 14.02.2022 that the
High Court did not go into the question of locus standi of the
petitioner before it to assail the communications dated
31.10.2018 and 03.12.2018 issued by the Council of
Architecture to architectural institutions inviting their attention
to the revised eligibility criteria for admission to 5 year B. Arch.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Degree course and the minimum standards for architectural
education prescribed by the Council for the academic 2019-20.
It however, held that,
"It is only in cases where the Council chooses
to prescribe standards in the form of regulations
that the requirement of approval of the Central
Government under Section 45(1) would become
necessary."
The Civil Appeal was therefore, allowed in terms of the
Order dated 14.02.2022 and the order of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras was set aside and the writ petition filed
before the High Court was dismissed.
22. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 framed the
Regulations, 2020, which prescribed the following qualifications
and experience to the post of Principal:-
Sl. Designation Pay-Scale Qualification & Experience
No.
4. Principal / Level 14 Bachelor's Degree in
Director / Architecture or equivalent to
Rs.144200 -
HOD B.Arch. and Master's Degree
Rs.218200 in in Architecture or in allied
subjects of Architecture
Paymatrix
with minimum 60 per cent
marks at either level and
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Seventeen years'
experience in teaching/
research/professional work
out of which a full-time
teaching experience of
minimum eight years Or
Twenty years of
professional experience.
Desirable: Ph.D. in
Architecture. Experience in
Administration at a
responsible position.
Explanations - (1) Experience shall mean
professional experience and/or Teaching and/or
Research in the field of Architecture, counted from
the date of registration with Council for core faculty
or valid equivalent certification from concerned
authorities. Professional experience shall be
substantiated by Experience certificates from
employers, Work orders, Completion certificates and
Sample Drawings of the projects undertaken, as the
case may be.
(Underlining by Court)
23. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.1320/2022, the Regulations, 2017 was
still born which was also acknowledged by the respondent No.3
since, it formulated the Regulations, 2020 even before the
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Supreme Court decided Civil Appeal No.1320/2022. Be
that as it may, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "it is only
in cases where the Council chooses to prescribe standards in
the form of regulations that the requirement of approval of the
Central Government under Section 45(1) would become
necessary."
24. If we peruse Section 45 of the Act of 1972,
whenever Regulations are framed in relation to matters
prescribed under clauses (a) to (j) of sub-section 2 of Section
45, such regulations must be approved by the Central
Government. Therefore, "the standards of Staff" can be
prescribed only by Regulations under Section 45 and it cannot
be squeezed through Section 21, which reads as follows:
21. Minimum standard of architectural
education.- The Council may prescribe the
minimum standards of architectural education
required for granting recognized qualification by
colleges or institutions in India.
Therefore, the Regulations, 2017, which prescribed the
"Standards of Staff" namely, the "Qualification/experience etc."
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
of teaching staff in architectural institutions was unenforceable
as regards the requirement that "experience should be counted
from the date of registration with the Council".
25. This apart, the Regulations, 2020, was issued in
supersession of the Regulations, 1983 and not in supersession
of the Regulations, 2017. Therefore, the respondent No.3 has
tacitly acknowledged that it had not given effect to the
Regulations, 2017. In that scenario, the appointment of the
petitioner should be deemed to be under the Regulations,
1983, which did not prescribe experience for the post of
Principal would be reckoned from the date of registration with
respondent No.3. However, the Minimum Standards of
Architectural Education, 2008 prescribed certain
qualifications/experience for the post which could not be done,
in view of what is stated in para 24 above.
26. Assuming that the Regulations, 1983 prescribed
that only candidates registered with the Council of Architecture
are eligible to apply to the post of Principal was in force, then,
the petitioner was registered with the respondent No.3 in the
year 2015 and had the experience to be appointed as a
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
Principal of respondent No.2. Further, in view of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1819/2020,
the registration under the Act of 1972, is only for the purpose
of using the title "architect" and no more. It does not and
cannot be a mandatory requirement for faculty in an
architectural institution, if he has the qualification and
experience. The petitioner has not desired to call himself an
"architect" and he has not applied to the post of an "architect"
and therefore, the communication by the respondent No.3 to
respondent No.2 that the petitioner did not possess the
requisite qualification and experience, is thoroughly misplaced
and hence, the petitioner is bound to succeed.
27. Consequently, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) It is hereby declared that the appointment of the
petitioner was governed under the Regulations,
1983 and not the Regulations, 2017 or the
Regulations, 2020 framed by the respondent
No.3.
– 33 –
NC: 2025:KHC:30741
WP No. 27908 of 2023
HC-KAR
(iii) Consequently, the communication addressed by
the respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 dated
10.05.2019 is quashed.
(iv) In view of the above, the order dated
04.11.2023 passed by respondent No.1 in
Appeal No.14/2020 is quashed.
(v) As a result, the appointment of the petitioner as
the Principal of the respondent No.2 is restored
with effect from the date of this Order.
(vi) The petitioner may pursue his claim to recover
arrears of salary, if any, from the date of his
appointment as the Principal in respondent No.2
till he was terminated, before the appropriate
authority.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86
[ad_1]
Source link