Supreme Court – Daily Orders
All India Council Of Technical … vs Jatinder Singh on 12 February, 2026
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3839 OF 2025
ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION APPELLANT
VERSUS
JATINDER SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3846 OF 2025
DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated
28th September, 2022 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh1 while disposing of LPA Nos. 433, 474 and 519 of
2020 (O&M), LPA-648-2022 (O&M) and RA-LP-4-2021 in LPA-474-2020. In the
impugned order, the High Court made the following observations:
“40. Resultantly, keeping in view the above, we are of
the considered opinion that the judgment of the
learned Single Judge does not suffer from any
Signature Not Verified
perversity or infirmity which would warrant interference
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2026.02.17
in the letters patent appeal. Rather, the learned Single
17:22:44 IST
Reason: Judge has only ensured that the purity of the
examinations, as was the object of the Apex Court, has
been restored and kept in mind.”1
High Court1
2. The facts giving rise to the proceedings before the High Court may be
summarized as follows:
i. The respondents herein, who are engineers serving
under the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,
filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution before the High Court, assailing the
criteria and modalities adopted by the appellant – All
India Council for Technical Education2 – while
conducting a validation test and declaring the results
thereof in respect of candidates who had obtained B.
Tech. degrees between 2001-2005 through distance
education mode. Respondents assailed the change in
evaluation norms after the conduct of the
examination and sought quashing of the revised
criteria as being arbitrary and illegal.
ii. Respondents, inter alia, acquired B. Tech degrees
from various unauthorized study centers through
distance education mode.
iii. The background of the matter traces to the decision
of this Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
Ltd. v. Rabi Shankar Patro3, wherein this Court
held that the engineering courses conducted through
2
AICTE
3
(2018) 1 SCC 4682
distance education mode by certain deemeduniversities during 2001–2005 were not conducted
with the approval of the University Grants
Commission4 and the AICTE. However, to protect the
interest of students, this Court directed that a special
examination be conducted under the joint
supervision of the UGC and the AICTE, granting two
opportunities to the candidates, failing which their
degrees would stand recalled.
iv. AICTE submits that the same has been duly followed,
an expert committee of senior professors from
National Institutes of Technology 5 and National
Institute of Technical Teachers Training & Research 6
to devise modalities and other details required for
conduct of validation examination was constituted.
Thereafter, a compliance affidavit disclosing
modalities adopted by them was filed, which was
accepted by this Court.
v. AICTE thereafter issued a public notice on 3 rd
November, 2011 stating that the degrees in
engineering awarded by the deemed universities
during 2001-2005 stand suspended and candidates
4
UGC
5
NIT
6
NITTTR
3
from these universities were informed to register for
the test. Thereafter, on 25th January, 2018, while
finalizing the curriculum for the proposed
examination, it was decided that the candidates
would have to appear for both the theory and the
practical examination wherein they would have to
secure 40% in both examinations separately.
vi. The examination was conducted on 3 rd June, 2018.
Thereafter, on 20th June, 2018, the AICTE issued a
notice stating that several grievances had been
received regarding the late announcement of
syllabus; reduction of qualifying marks to 30%;
award of grace marks; out of syllabus questions;
repetition of questions and wrong questions in some
papers were raised. AICTE considered these
grievances and declared that the marks obtained in
theory and practical examinations would be clubbed
together and that a candidate would be required to
secure 40% marks in the combined total. The result
of the June 2018 examination was announced on 27 th
July, 2018, as per the changed modalities notified by
the AICTE.
vii. Subsequently, by another public notice dated 24 th
September, 2018, it was declared that the best of
4
the two scores obtained by a candidate in the two
examinations (one conducted in June 2018 and the
other in December 2018) would be considered.
viii. Aggrieved by the subsequent alterations in the
examination modalities, inter alia, the change in the
marking scheme after the conduct of the
examination and declaration of results, the
respondents filed the said writ petition contending
that such post facto modification of the evaluation
criteria was arbitrary and impermissible in law. They
asserted that having participated pursuant to the
original notification dated 25.01.2018 requiring 40%
marks separately in theory and practical
components, they had a legitimate expectation that
the criteria would remain unchanged. Since the
examination was a validation test entailing the
consequence of suspension or recall of their
degrees, the impugned alterations were stated to
have serious consequences.
ix. The Single Judge, by judgment dated 7 th January,
2020, allowed the writ petition and held that the
action of the AICTE in changing the yardstick of
evaluation after the examination had been
conducted was bad in law. AICTE was directed to re-
5
compute the results strictly in accordance with the
original modalities set out in the public notice dated
25.01.2018.
x. Aggrieved, the AICTE preferred the appeal before the
Division Bench, which stood dismissed as noted
above.
3. The question that would arise for consideration in these appeals is
whether the AICTE having conducted fresh examinations for students who had
acquired, inter alia, B. Tech decrees from various unauthorised study centres
should have been permitted to continue in service.
4. On 25th January, 2025, it was represented before a coordinate Bench of
this Court that there was none on the side of the respondents 1 to 8/writ
petitioners to oppose the appeals.
5. Considering such submission, the coordinate Bench had directed the
AICTE to publish notices in two newspapers having wide circulation – one Hindi
and one English – conveying the fact of pendency of the special leave petitions
with details of the numbers and intimating that interested parties, including the
non-appearing and non-served respondents, could participate in the
proceedings if they so desired.
6. In deference to such order dated 25 th January, 2025, paper publications
were made by the AICTE which was recorded in the order dated 25 th February,
2025. There was no representation from the side of the respondents as well as
any other interested party, despite such notice, resulting in grant of leave to
appeal.
7. The appeals have since been listed for consideration. Today too, neither
6
the respondents nor any interested party having intention to oppose the
appeals have entered appearance.
8. Considering the submission made by Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the AICTE that the graduates from
various unauthorised centres were subjected to an examination conducted upon
involvement of expert committee of Senior Professors from NIT and NITTTR and
such students having qualified in the examination, we see no reason to sustain
the orders impugned which shall stand set aside hereby.
9. Since it is not disputed at the Bar that those who have cleared the
examination conducted by the AICTE in the first attempt shall be entitled to the
benefits envisaged by the order dated 22nd January, 2018 passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of M.A. Nos. of 1795-1796 of
2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870/2017, such of them shall be entitled to
the said benefits which may be extended as soon as possible but preferably
within a period of four months from date.
10. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………..J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
………………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
New Delhi;
February 12, 2026.
7
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.8 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 3839/2025
ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION Appellant(s)
VERSUS
JATINDER SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 73594/2025 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
WITH
C.A. No. 3846/2025 (IV)
IA No. 4029/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 4027/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/
ANNEXURES
IA No. 4028/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES
Date : 12-02-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG
Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR
Mr. Devvrat Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Priti Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Vagisha Kochar, AOR
Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR
Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR
Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Adv.
Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
Mr. P.Parmeshwaram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR
Mr. Shiv Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amit Poddar, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Rupak, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sri Ram Veluru., Adv.
8
Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, AOR
Mrs. Reema Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Jain, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order placed on the
file.
(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
9
