25.01.2017
Sent by E-Mail and signed one by India Post for Record purpose
From
Prof. R. RAMARAJU
Director & Head,
Designed Environment Academy & Research Institute (DEAR INSTITUTE),
Thirupainjili Road, Pandiyapuram,
Tiruchirappalli District, Tamilnadu – 621 213.
To
| 1. |
The President Council of Architecture e-mail: [email protected] |
2. |
The Secretary to the Government Department of Higher Education E-mail: [email protected] |
Dear Sirs,
Sub: Amendment of CoA (Minimum Standards of Architecture Education) Regulations, 1983 – reg.
Ref: MHRD Communication F. No. 4-65/2016-TS.VI dated 19.01.2017.
With reference to the above matter, I would like to place before you some of my observations on this proposed Legal Tool for your consideration and necessary action.
I sincerely appreciate the Council at least for now coming forward to abide by the principle procedures of the Law. During the past, though there were many such Regulations written and also passed by the Council, but never got validated before the Law for mandatory enforcementas stipulated under the Provisions of Architects Act, 1972.
Recently a new set of Regulations, claiming as comprehensive exercise, was made and passed by Council, which has been forwarded to MHRD for formal approval of Central Government. While so, the first and foremost point is that what is the necessity or urgency for this Piece-Meal exercise, particularly when many other serious issues lying unresolved. There is one such recent matter is worth quoting here. Without getting into merits or demerits of the issue, my point is that a recent intervention and action of CoA, without any authority, on an Institution (by letter–Ref.No.CA/5/Academic-HR10 dt. 18.01.17) is questionable under the law.
Personally, I am for a new group of subjects exclusively designed at +2 Level itself for Creative Disciplines like Art, Architecture, Planning, Design programmes including Fashion/ Products/ Graphics/ Commercial/ Communication, etc. However, being this exercise for replacing Regulations 4(1) and 4(2) of the above CoA Regulations, I am limiting it now.
Existing Regulations as well as Proposed One are reproduced for your ready reference:
4. Admission to the Architecture Course
- No candidate, with less than 50% marks in aggregate, shall be admitted to the architecture course unless he/she has passed an examination at the end of the new 10+2 scheme of Senior School Certificate Examination or equivalent with Mathematics and English as subjects of examinations at the 10+2 level.
- Where 10+2 scheme is not introduced, candidates must have passed after 11 years schooling the Higher Secondary/pre-university/ pre-engineering or equivalent examinations in the Science group of any recognized University or Board with English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as compulsory subjects.
Proposed One (to replace the above provisions)
No candidate shall be admitted to the architecture course unless he/she has passed an examination at the end of 10+2 scheme of examination with 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and also 50% marks in aggregate of the 10+2 level examination.
On reading both existing and proposed text, few important points neglected or unconsidered, while writing the proposal, and are as follows:
- The new Amendment proposal should have been inserted the words ‘or equivalent’after the ‘scheme of examination’ in the text to make available for the Candidates having equivalent qualification other than 10+2 from any other national or international scheme or such qualifications from any other country. It is an accepted principle in the law to keep such provision OPEN only to ensure inclusion of any other eligible Candidate from any other scheme and mainly saving him from becoming ineligible.
- Another important Sector of 3 years Diploma Holders in Engineering / Architecture is completely getting omitted,thereby denying the chance for them to enhance their level of qualification and from becoming a qualified competent Professional in their life-time. If it is knowingly or intentionally done, it is unfortunate. If not, please consider now to include them appropriately.
- Above all, it is STUPIDLY AND POORLY WRITTEN on such important eligibility Clause of Regulations and such carelessness would only pave a way for uncomfortable and unnecessary inconvenience and troubles later, while on force. Kindly and seriously note that the Proposed Clause of Regulation making eligible ONLY the Candidates passed with 50% Marks and thereby excluding all others from the status of eligibility. The important words ‘LESS THAN’ missing. I FEEL ‘very sorry’ LOOKING AT THE LEVEL OF OUR STANDARDS WHAT WE POSSESS.
- Already the Clause 4(2) has covered Physics and Chemistry along with Mathematics and only in the Clause 4(1), if these two science subjects are just added near Mathematics, it would meet the required change. Probably the specific requirement of 50% marks in PCM may have to be included. Though I can write the Proposal, I don’t wish to do without a request. However, the proposal is required to be redrafted completely.
- The proposed Amendment would be a major change as far as from the point of students those who have already chosen the subjects and studying +2 (both in two years) thinking the option of choosing Architecture two years later based on current prevailing Clause. No new Amendment in Law, very particularly adding or restricting provisions (relaxing or exempting are not matters), can be effected and made applicable on a sequence of process that have already begun and running. Therefore, the proposed eligibility Clause should come into force ONLY AFTER TWO FULL ACADEMIC YEARS from the date of notification in order to save them from the eligibility criteria.
Hence my dear Sirs, I look forward to your sincere acknowledgement and responsive action immediately by withdrawing this proposed Amendment and its approval thereof.
With regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Prof. R. Ramaraju, Director, DEAR Institute.
Copy mail sent to concerned Officers of DHE/CoA for their consideration & follow up action.