Court in t he case of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological Univ er sit y v. Jai Bharat h College of Managem ent and Engineering Technology and ot hers, r

issued by Nat ional I nst it ut e of Technology ( NI T) , Srinagar, 1 Pauri Gar hwal. His applicat ion was not accept ed by NI T, Srinagar, only on t he ground t hat he passed B. Tech. Course wit h Second Division m ark s. As per t he advert isem ent , only candidat es wit h First Division m arks in B.Tech. wer e eligible. Thus, feeling aggrieved, pet it ioner has approached t his Court seeking following reliefs: - “ a) I ssue a writ , order or direct ion in t he nat ure of Cert iorar i quashing t he St at ut e/ Academ ic Regulat ion of G.B. Pant Universit y Pant nagar Udham Singh Nagar, so far it declares t he candidat es having 60% t o 67.4% aggregat e m arks in t heir B. Techn Degree as “ I I nd Division”. clause 31 of t he b) I ssue a writ order or direct ion in t he nat ure of Mandam us com m anding and direct ing t he respondent no. 5&6 t o declare t he pet it ioner as passed t he B.Tech degree wit h First Division and also t o m ent ion Grade in t he m ark sheet and accordingly fresh m ark sheet of B.Tecch m ay be issued in favour of pet it ioner. c) I ssue a wr it order or direct ion in t he nat ure of Mandam us direct ing t he respondent no2 t o provisionally accept t he applicat ion form of t he pet it ioner for t he post of Assist ant Professor subj ect t o final decision of t he present pet it ion on t he basis of 64.610 percent age in B.Tech course of pet it ioner. d) I ssue a writ order or direct ion in t he nat ure of t he t o decide Mandam us direct ing he respondent s represent at ion of pet it ioner.”

3. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel appearing for All I ndia Council for Technical Educat ion ( AI CTE) subm it s t hat alt hough as per AI CTE norm s, any st udent w ho has scored 60% m ark s in B. Tech. / M. Tech. Course can be declared as having passed wit h Fir st Division, how ever, he subm it s t hat since Universit ies are aut onom ous bodies which are gover ned by t heir Act and St at ut es, t herefore, a St at e Universit y is free t o fix t he crit eria for awar d of First , Second or Third Division. He subm it s t hat since Clause 31 of Academ ic Regulat ions of G.B. Pant Univer sit y of Agricult ure and Technology provides t hat a st udent , whose score of Overall Grade Point Average ( OGPA) in B. Tech. Cour se is bet w een 6.000- 6.749, would be declared as 2 Second Division, anyone w ho scored OGPA bet ween 6.750-

7.749, would be declar ed as Fir st Division and anyone wit h OGPA of 7.750 or above, would be declar ed as First Division wit h dist inct ion, t her efore, t he Academ ic Regulat ion of t he concer ned Univer sit y would pr evail upon AI CTE guidelnies.

4. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel appearing t he Universit y subm it s t hat t he Universit y was est ablished U.P. Krishi Evam Prodhyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam , 1958, and Sect ion 29 of t he said Act enables t he St at e Governm ent t o fram e First St at ut es and Sect ion 30 of t he said Act aut horizes t he Universit y t o m ake Academ ic Regulat ions. He t hus subm it s t hat since Academ ic Regulat ions m ade by t he Universit y are st at ut ory, t her efore, t hey will pr evail upon t he guidelines issued by AI CTE.

5. We find subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by Mr. Dobhal, lear ned counsel appearing for G.B. Pant Agricult ure and Technolgoy Univer sit y. Since t he Academ ic Regulat ions of t he Universit y, which have st at ut ory flavour cont ain provision different from AI CTE guidelines, t herefor e, t he Academ ic Regulat ions will pr evail upon t he norm s laid down by AI CTE, as conceded by Mr. Pacholia, learned counsel for AI CTE.

6. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological Univ er sit y and anot her v. Jai Bharat h College of Managem ent and Engineering Technology and ot hers, r eport ed in ( 2021) 2 SCC 564 has held t hat w hile a Universit y cannot dilut e t he nor m s laid down by AI CTE, however Universit y can pr escribe enhanced norm s. Paragraph no. 46 of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - “ 4 6 . The law is now fair ly well set t led t hat while it is 3 not open t o t he universit ies t o dilut e t he norm s and st andards prescribed by AI CTE, it is always open t o t he universit ies t o prescribe enhanced norm s. As regards t he role of t he universit ies vis- à- vis AI CTE, t his Court held in Bharat hidasan Universit y v. All I ndia Council for Technical Educat ion [ Bharat hidasan Universit y v. All I ndia Council for Technical Educat ion, ( 2001) 8 SCC 676 : 1 SCEC 924] , t hat AI CTE is not a super power wit h a devast at ing role underm ining t he st at us, aut horit y and aut onom ous funct ioning of t he universit ies in areas and spheres assigned t o t hem . This view was followed in Assn. of Managem ent of Privat e Colleges v. All I ndia Council for Technical Educat ion [ Assn. of Managem ent of Pr ivat e Colleges v. All I ndia Council for Technical Educat ion.”

7. Thus, t her e is no scope for int erference. The writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. No or der as t o cost s. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 09.06.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9 046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10 3819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86D AAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 4