To

F. No. 4-6/2014-TS.VI Government of India

Ministry of Human Resource Development · Department of Higher Education

The Chief Secretary, All States/UTs.

New Delhi the g th March, 2016

Sub: Writ Petition No. 1943 (W) of 2014 filed by Ms. Mala Mukherjee Vs Union of India and others in the High Court at Calcutta-Judgeemnt regarding.

Sir, I am directed to say that the initiative taken by Council of Architecture

(COA) to conduct Competency Test in respect of several candidates who had enrolled themselves with· the Indian Institute of Architects (I lA) and subsequently passed the examination conducted by IIA has been challenged by aggrieved candidates in various High Courts including High Court of Calcutta. While deciding Writ · Petition No. 1943 (W)/ 2014-Mala Mukherjee & others Vs Council of Architecture (COA) and others, The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta vide its judgement dated 10.11 .2014 held that petitioner is not under any obligation to clear the test and accordingly the Hon'ble Judge directed the respondent (COA) to register the petitioner as an architect upon compliance of all other formalities with in one month. Commenting upon the merit of the case, the Hon'ble High Court held that "introduction of the concept of the test to test the ability of petitioner to have her name registered is foreign in so far the statute is concerned. It seems that the COA has made an attempt to rise higher than its source and that impressible for a creature of a statute."

2. Against the above judgement, the Council of Architecture filed a civil application in the High Court of Calcutta. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 05.10.2015 dismissed the Counci l's appeal. According to the Hon'ble High Court the "impugned decision to restrict registration of individuals possessing recognized qualification of IIA after 2002 by holding competence I viva voce test runs counter to the specific instruction given by the Central Government not to derecognize such qualifications ti ll decision on this issue is taken by it under Section 20 of the Architects Act, 1972 clearly runs counter to the letter and spirit of the aforesaid statutory scheme and is accordingly ultra virus the powers vested in COA under the said Act "

3. With regard to the COA's plea that the Institute (IIA) itself had consented to competency test, the Hon'ble High Court has held that "vested right of candidate to claim registration cannot be whittled down by a regulatory prescription under section 21 of the Act which operates in different field . Moreover, the right to registration under section 17 of the Act is of a candidate possessing recognized

Contd ..... 2/-

-2-

qualification under the Act and not that of the institute granting such qualif ication. Hence. consent of IIA to the impugned decision cannot operate as an acquiescence of waiver of the said vested right to registration of the candidate under section 17 of the Act in the facts of the instant case (A copy of the operative part of the judgement is enclosed as Annexure- 1). An SLP (No. 1234/2016) filed by COA against the above judgement of High Court of Calcutta has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order date9 29.01.2016 on the ground that the Hon'ble Court finds no ground to interfere. (Copy of the judgement is enclosed as Annexure- II).

4. In this connection it may be stated that the Council of Architecture established under the Architects Act, 1972 has been, for sometime, acting in violation of provisions of the Act and placing institutions /colleges imparting full time Architectura l qualif ications under "No Admission Category" and asking the affected persons to appear in the competency test to enable them to have their names entered in the Register of architects being maintained by the Registrar, COA, New Delhi whereas the facts remain that no provision exists which permits COA to conduct such tests for the purpose of registration as architects under the Architects Act, 1972. Hence, the Hon'ble Courts (Supreme Court and High Court of Calcutta) have upheld the views of the Central Government in this regard that the Council has no power to conduct any test for the purpose of reg istration and conduct of such a test would be in total violation of sections 14, 17 & 25 of the Architects Act, 1972.

5. A copy of judgement dated 05.10.201 5 of Calcutta High Court can be downloaded from the website of the High Court at Calcutta (www.calcuttahighcourt.nic.ln) . Accordingly, it is kindly requested that the content of the judgements may please be brought to the notice of all concerned and colleges/institutions imparting architectural education in you r State for their information.

Yours fa ithfully,

~~dri) Assistant Educational Adviser

Encl. : As above.

Copy for information to Chairman, AICTE and all the Directors of IITs, NITs, SPAs & other simil~rly placed centrally funded institutions.

~to:

/

Web Master, Ministry of Human Resource Development alongwith a copy of the Judgement of Calcutta High Court order in MAT No. 15/2015 - Council of Architecture Vs Mala Mukherjee & others and copy of the judgement of Apex Court dated 29.01.2016 with the request to upload these judgements on the MHRD's website urgently.