Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  3123-3130  OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11165-11172 of 2010]

Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. … Appellants

Vs.

Jikku Paul & Ors. etc.etc.                        … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.,

Leave granted. Heard.

2. The  Government  of  Kerala  by  G.O.  dated  13.11.2002,  accorded  

sanction for admitting the diploma-holders in the state, directly to the second  

year of the engineering degree (B.Tech) course, subject to the concurrence  

of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE for short) and the  

universities concerned. The appellant university decided to implement such  

lateral entry scheme, vide its order dated 21.2.2003.

3. AICTE  made  and  notified  the  regulations  to  govern  admission  of  

students  in  Engineering  degree  programmes  through  lateral  entry  vide

Notification  dated  12.1.2007.  Regulation  6.1.  relating  to  admission  of  

diploma holders is extracted below:

“6.1 (a) Admission of Diploma Holders.  

Although engineering diploma programmes are conceived as terminal in  nature,  some  flexibility  has  to  be  built  in  to  enable  the meritorious   amongst  diploma  holders  to  obtain  Engineering  degrees.  There  is  evidence of diploma holders pursuing an Engineering programme having  performed well not only in their academic careers but also in their jobs.   

6.1 (b) Eligibility.  

For being eligible to seek lateral entry to engineering degree programme at  the second year/third  semester  level,  a  candidate  must  have passed the  diploma in  Engineering  in  the  relevant  branch with  a  minimum of  60  percent in the aggregate. Only candidates fulfilling these conditions would  be  eligible  for  appearing  in  the  entrance  test  meant  for  selection  of  diploma holders for Lateral entry to degree programmes. The selection of   candidates will be based on an entrance test, the merit ranking in the test   being the basis of admission.  

At  present  students  obtain  diploma  through  different  programmes  in  different  States/UTs.  Such  programmes  have  different  structures  and  forms like the semester pattern, annual pattern, sandwich pattern, etc. In  order  to  maintain  uniformity,  a  common  entrance  examination  seems  essential.  Further, it is necessary to select only meritorious students who  have passed the diploma with good academic record.   

x x x       x x x.

The affiliating university may prescribe compensatory courses to make up  deficiencies for diploma holders, who are admitted through lateral entry.”

(emphasis supplied)

4. The  Director  of  Technical  Education,  Government  of  Kerala,  

published the Lateral Entry Scheme approved by the state government, by  

G.O. dated 28.5.2008. The said scheme provided that the candidates who  

2

had passed the diploma in engineering, having a minimum of 60% marks  

(with appropriate relaxation for reservation category students) and who had  

appeared in the State level entrance test and secured a minimum of 20%  

marks in the entrance test, will be admitted to the second year/third semester  

of  B.Tech.  course  under  the  Lateral  Entry  Scheme.  Relevant  portion  of  

clause 9 of the scheme are extracted below:

“9. Entrance Examination  

9.1 State level Entrance Test for a duration of 2 hours will be conducted  by the LBS Centre for Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram for  the selection of  candidates  for admission to second year/third  semester  B.Tech course under the Lateral Entry Scheme.  

xxxxx

9.3 Candidates shall secure a minimum of 20% marks for the entrance  test.

9.4 The Entrance Test will be on selected subjects of first year B.Tech  course and English language as per the scheme and syllabus given in the  annexure D. The rank list will be published by LBS Centre.”

5. The appellant University learnt that several self-financing engineering  

colleges had admitted diploma holders who had not secured the minimum of  

20% marks in the entrance test to the second year of the B.Tech. course.  

Therefore it sent a circular dated 18.3.2009 calling upon the self-financing  

engineering colleges to furnish the details regarding the percentage of marks  

secured  by  the  diploma-holders  admitted  to  the  second  year  of  the  

3

engineering course under the Lateral Entry Scheme. The colleges were also  

informed  that  unless  such  information  was  furnished,  the  result  of  such  

candidates  will  be withheld and their  applications  for registration for the  

fourth semester will be rejected.

6. The aggrieved students of various self-financing engineering colleges  

filed writ petitions, for quashing of the University’s circular dated 18.3.2009  

and seeking a declaration that no entrance test was necessary for admission  

to the lateral entry to the B.Tech. if the number of applicants for admissions  

is less than the number of seats available to be filled up under the Lateral  

Entry Scheme. They also sought a declaration that they were also entitled to  

pursue their course in the B.Tech. on the basis of the admission they had  

secured in 2008.

7. A  division  bench  of  the  High  Court  by  a  common  order  dated  

22.12.2009 allowed the  writ  petitions.  It  held  that:  (i)  in  the  absence  of  

AICTE Regulations prescribing any minimum marks for the entrance test,  

students  who  are  eligible  under  AICTE  Regulations  are  entitled  to  seek  

admission  to  B.Tech  course  in  self-financing  colleges;  (ii)  the  State  

Government can prescribe minimum marks in entrance test as an additional  

qualification only for admission to seats in colleges run by it or under its  

4

control; (iii) only if the number of candidates are more than the number of  

seats available, selection has to be made with reference to the marks secured  

by the candidates in the entrance test; and if the number of seats were more  

than  the  number  of  candidates  available  or  applying,  and  even  after  

admission of students who did not secure the minimum marks in the Lateral  

Entry Test, seats were vacant, there was no need for comparison of inter-se  

merit of the candidates with reference to marks in the entrance test; and (iv)  

as  the  allegation  of  the  students  that  in  the  year  2008,  several  seats  

earmarked for lateral entry remained vacant was not controverted, there was  

no infirmity in the admission of diploma holders who did not possess the  

minimum marks in the entrance test.  The said order is challenged by the  

appellant university.

8. The University  contends  that  the  admission  of  any diploma holder  

could  only  be  subject  to  his  possessing  the  basic  minimum  eligibility  

prescribed  by  AICTE,  and  the  additional  qualification  prescribed  by  the  

State Government and the University. It is submitted that the self-financing  

engineering  colleges  are  not  exempted  from  the  additional  requirement  

prescribed by the State Government and the High Court committed a serious  

error in holding it was not essential to secure minimum 20% marks in the  

Lateral Entry Test for admission to the second year of Engineering course. It  

5

was  lastly  contended  that  mere  existence  of  the  vacancies  even  after  

completion of admissions, could not lead to the minimum eligibility criteria  

could be ignored.  

9. The  issues  raised  in  this  appeal  are  squarely  covered  by  a  recent  

decision of this Court in Visveswaraya Technological University & Anr. v.   

Krishnendu Halder & Ors. [2011 (3) SCALE 359]. We extract below the  

relevant principles from the said decision:  

“(i)  While prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission to institutions  of   higher   education,   the   State/University   cannot   adversely   affect  the standards laid down by the Central Body/AICTE. The term `adversely  affect the   standards'   refers   to   lowering   of   the   norms   laid   down  by    Central  Body/AICTE.    Prescribing    higher    standards    for  admission   by   laying   down qualifications   in   addition   to   or   higher  than   those   prescribed   by   AICTE, consistent  with the object  of  promoting higher standards and excellence in higher education, will not be  considered as adversely affecting the standards laid down by the Central  Body/AICTE.  

x x x x x

(iii)    The   fact   that   there   are   unfilled   seats   in   a   particular   year,  does   not mean  that  in  that year,  the eligibility   criteria  fixed   by  the  State/University would cease  to apply or that the minimum  eligibility  criteria suggested by AICTE   alone   would   apply.   Unless   and   until  the   State   or   the   University chooses to modify the eligibility criteria  fixed by them, they will continue to apply   in   spite   of   the   fact   that  there   are   vacancies   or   unfilled   seats   in   any year. The main object  of prescribing eligibility criteria is not to ensure that all seats in colleges  are filled, but to ensure that excellence in standards of higher education is  maintained.    (iv)     The   State/University   (as   also   AICTE)   should   periodically  (at   such intervals as they deem fit) review the prescription of eligibility  criteria for admissions,   keeping   in   balance,   the   need   to   maintain  excellence   and   high standard   in   higher   education   on   the   one  

6

hand,   and   the   need   to   maintain   a healthy ratio between the total  number of seats available in the state and the number of students seeking  admission,  on  the  other.  If  necessary,  they  may  revise  the  eligibility  criteria  so as to continue excellence in education and at the same time  being realistic about the attainable standards of marks in the qualifying  examinations.”   

This court further held:

“No student or college, in the teeth of the existing and prevalent rules of  the  State  and  the  University  can  say  that  such  rules   should  be  ignored, whenever   there   are   unfilled   vacancies   in   colleges.   In  fact   the State/University,   may,   in   spite   of   vacancies,   continue  with   the   higher eligibility   criteria   to   maintain   better   standards   of  higher   education   in   the State   or in the colleges affiliated to the  University. Determination of such standards, being part of the academic  policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless  it is established that such standards are arbitrary or `adversely affect' the  standards if any fixed by the Central Body under   a   Central   enactment.  The   order   of   the   Division   Bench   is   therefore unsustainable.”

10. It is not in dispute that as per the scheme of AICTE [vide clause 6.1  

(b)] to seek lateral entry to an engineering degree, the candidate must  

have passed the diploma in engineering in the relevant branch with a  

minimum  of  60%  marks  in  the  aggregate.  The  said  clause  also  

provides that the selection of candidates will be based on the entrance  

test, the merit ranking in the test being the basis of admission. As per  

the  Lateral  Entry  Scheme  of  the  State  Government,  the  additional  

requirement is that the candidates should also secure minimum of 20%  

marks  in  the  entrance  test.  In  view  of  the  decision  in  Krishnendu  

7

Halder (supra),  the  contentions  of  the  appellant  will  have  to  be  

accepted and the decision of the High Court is liable to be set aside.

11. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that on 30.4.2010, this Court  

while ordering notice only to AICTE and the colleges, dispensed with  

the notice to students with a condition that admission of students made  

during  the academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010,  shall  not  be  

disturbed irrespective of the result  in these appeals.  This Court also  

stayed  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  only  with  reference  to  the  

academic year 2010-2011. We therefore make it clear that the students  

who were admitted for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, even if they did not  

possess the minimum qualifying marks in the entrance test, shall not  

be disturbed and shall be allowed to complete their course.

12. We therefore allow these appeals and set aside the order of the High  

Court (subject to the exception in the case of students mentioned in  

para 11 above).  

……………………….J. (R. V. Raveendran)

……………………….J. (A.K. Patnaik)

New Delhi; April 8, 2011.

8