M.G. University & Anr vs Jikku Paul & Ors. Etc

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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.