- (1.) The question which falls for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant Council of Architecture (hereinafter referred to as 'COA') was entitled to decline registration of the petitioner as an architect under the Architects Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1972') in view of its decision taken in its 60th meeting to conduct an 'Architecture Competency Test' followed by a viva voce test for candidates who were enrolled by Indian Institute of Architects (hereinafter referred to as 'IIA') after 1st July, 2002 and had secured associate membership of the said institution. Respondent-petitioner had enrolled herself with IIA as a student in 2004 and had successfully passed the examination conducted by IIA in 2011 and had thereafter become an associate member of the said institution. Such membership to IIA being a 'recognized qualification' in Architecture under the Act of 1972, the petitioner applied to COA for registration under Section 17 of the said Act on 31st December, 2002.
(2.) On February 11, 2013, COA informed the petitioner that it had recommended withdrawal of recognition of IIA to the Central Government and decision thereon was awaited. Finally on December 12, 2013, the respondent-petitioner was informed that by virtue of its 60th meeting COA had decided to conduct an 'architecture competency test' and viva voce test for registration of candidates who were enrolled with IIA after 1st July, 2002 and had thereafter secured associate membership of the said institution. Challenging the aforesaid decision of COA, the respondent-petitioner moved the instant writ petition.
(3.) Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order allowed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that COA had no statutory sanction to conduct competency test and hold viva voce test for the purpose of registration of the respondent-petitioner inasmuch as she possessed a recognized qualification under the Act and was, therefore, entitled to such registration in terms of Section 17 thereof. This decision has been appealed before us. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for COA strenuously argued that COA was a statutory body vested with the duty of maintaining the standards of architectural education and professional standards under the Act of 1972. Accordingly, COA had powers to conduct competency and viva voce test in order to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education in the country. The course conducted by the IIA was below par and did not satisfy the minimum standards of education as prescribed in Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') and accordingly, COA had recommended for cancellation of the qualification awarded by IIA to be cancelled as a 'recognized qualification' for registration under the Act of 1972. Such recommendation was hanging fire before the Central Government for a long time. Under such circumstances, they maintain minimum standard of architectural education, COA with concurrence of IIA had taken the impugned decision to hold the competency and viva voce test as aforesaid. Such decision, therefore, cannot be said to be in violation of the provision of Act of 1972 or contrary to public interest. On the other hand, COA, being vested with the duty to maintain minimum standards of architectural education must be held to possess incidental powers of prescribing competency test in exercise of Section 21 of the Act of 1972.;