M.G. UNIVERSITY Vs JIKKU PAUL & ORS. ETC.
Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-003123-003130 / 2011
Diary number: 10729 / 2010
Advocates: M. T. GEORGE Vs
JOHN MATHEW
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