STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
B. THANKI, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE No. 91-1545
)
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL )
ENGINEERS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice a formal hearing was held in the above-styled case on April 24, 1991 at Tampa, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: L. B. Thanki, pro se
1106 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604
For Respondent: Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Petitioner meets the educational requirements for licensure as a Professional Engineer in training in Florida.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By Notice of Denial letter dated January 4, 1991, L.B. Thanki, Petitioner, was advised that the Educational Advisory Committee of the Board of Professional Engineers had reviewed the education credentials submitted by Thanki and determined these credentials do not meet the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) standards in that 16 credit hours of Humanities and Social Science credits are lacking. Petitioner requested a hearing to challenge this determination and these proceedings followed.
At the hearing Petitioner's application file was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1. Thereafter Petitioner testified in his own behalf and Respondent called one witness. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted.
Those not included herein were deemed unnecessary to the conclusion reached.
FINDINGS OF FACT
L.B. Thanki received a degree in Civil Engineering at the University of Durham at Kings College, Newcastle Upon Tyne in the United Kingdom in 1956.
Petitioner received a batchelor of law degree from Sardar Patel University (India) in 1967. This degree is the equivalent of two years study in law.
The degree obtained from the University of Durham is not the equivalent of the degree received from an ABET approved university in the United States because it lacks 16 credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences.
Petitioner presented no evidence that his degree from the University of Durham or the curriculum he completed at any other university included the missing 16 hours in Humanities and Social Sciences.
Petitioner presented a certificate (which was not offered into evidence) that he had completed a course in computer services meeting the board's evidentiary requirements of computer skills.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings.
Section 471.013(1)(b), Florida Statutes provides:
A person shall be entitled to take an exami- nation for the purpose of determining whether he is qualified to practice in this state as an engineer intern if he is in the final year
of or is a graduate of, an approved engineering curriculum in a school, college, or university approved by the board.
Section 471.013(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes, provides, inter alia:
The Board shall adopt rules providing for
the review and approval of schools or colleges and the courses of study in engineering in such schools and colleges. The rules shall
be based on the educational requirements for engineering as defined in s.471.005. The board may adopt rules providing for the accep- tance of the approval and accreditation of schools and courses of study by a nationally accepted accreditation organization. (Emphasis supplied.)
Pursuant to this authority, the Board has promulgated Rule 21H-20.001, Florida Administrative Code, which states, inter alia:
(b) "Board approved engineering programs" shall mean:
engineering curricula accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Tech- nology, Inc. (ABET), approved by ABET, approved by the Board of Professional Engineers as equivalent to ABET, or
non-ABET approved engineering programs
for a post-baccalaureate degree in engineering from a school or college in the United States which has an accredited engineering curriculum in a related discipline at the baccalaureate level, or
programs which have been approved by the Board of Professional Engineers under the pro- visions of F.S. 455.11(3).
Petitioner has the burden of establishing his qualifications by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Although Petitioner has overcome one of the stated deficiencies by demonstrating evidence of computer skills, he has not overcome the main deficiency in his degree, namely the lack of 16 hours of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern.
RECOMMENDED this 10th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
N. AYERS Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1991.
COPIES FURNISHED:
B. Thanki
1106 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604
Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite LL04
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
Jack L. McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
Issue Date | Proceedings |
---|---|
May 10, 1991 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
Issue Date | Document | Summary |
---|---|---|
May 10, 1991 | Recommended Order | Petitioner did not meet education requirements for licensure |
CARLOS MARTINEZ MALLEN vs BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, 91-001545 (1991)
RAHUL PARAB vs BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, 91-001545 (1991)
RONNIE F. TAYLOR vs. BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, 91-001545 (1991)
THOMAS P. NORRIS vs BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, 91-001545 (1991)
OM PRAKASH BHOLA vs BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, 91-001545 (1991)