IMPORTANT POINT
It is permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for purposes of admission to the engineering colleges than what has been prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education.

Headnote:EDUCATION-Constitution of India-Article 226, Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III, Seventh Schedule-Admission to engineering colleges-Prescription of qualifications or minimum eligible marks-Norms fixed by All India Council for Technical Education and those fixed by the State Government-Prescription of minimum eligible marks for SC/ST as mere pass, most backward at 50% average marks in related subjects, backward at 55% average marks in related subjects and other classes at 60% marks-Single Judge of the High Court held that prescription of these marks would not be in conflict with Regulations of All India Council for Technical Education-On appeal, Division Bench of the High Court held that there is a glaring difference in the norms fixed by AICTE and norms fixed by the State Government-Whether it is permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for purposes of admission to Engineering colleges than what has been prescribed by AICTE-(Yes)-What has been prescribed by the State is not contrary to the same but is only complementary or supplementary to it.
Held : Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an exclusivity in the matter of admission but if certain prescription of standards have been made pursuant to Entry 66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over the standards fixed by the State in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect the standards - laid down by the Union of India or any other authority functioning under it. Therefore, what is to be seen in the present case is whether the prescription of the standards made by the State Government is in any way adverse to, or lower than, the standards fixed by the AICTE. It is no doubt true that the AICTE prescribed two modes of admission - One is merely dependant on the qualifying examination and the other dependent upon the marks obtained at the Common Entrance Test. The appellant in the present case prescribed the qualification of having secured certain percentage of marks in the related subjects which is higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible for admission. If higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government than what had been prescribed by the AICTE, can it be said that it is in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE or reduces the standard fixed by it? In our opinion, it does not. On the other hand, if we proceed on the basis that the norms fixed by the AICTE would allow admission only on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination the additional test made applicable is the common entrance test by the State Government. If we proceed to take the standard fixed by the AICTE to be the common entrance test then the prescription made by the State Government of having obtained certain marks higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible to participate in the common entrance test is in addition to the common entrance test. In either event, the streams proposed by the AICTE are not belittled in any manner. The manner in which the High Court has proceeded is that what has been prescribed by the AICTE is inexorable and that that minimum alone should be taken into consideration and no other standard could be fixed even the higher as stated by this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava s case. It is no doubt true as noticed by this Court in Adhiyaman s case that there may be situations when a large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher standards fixed. The standards fixed should always be realistic which are attainable and are within the reach of the candidates. It cannot be said that the prescriptions by the State Government in addition to those of AICTE in the present case are such which are not attainable or which are not within the reach of the candidates who seek admission for engineering colleges. It is not very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed as minimum of 60% downwards, but definitely higher than the mere pass marks. Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by series of decisions of this Court. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-

Civil Appeals Nos. 1626-1628 of 2004 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos. 20756-20758/2003) and Civil Appeals Nos. 1629-1631/2004 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos. 20901-20903/2003)

Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2. In these matters, writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Madras seeking for a writ or order or direction to quash G.O.Ms. dated 29.6.2002 and 13.2.2003 issued by the Higher Education Department in so far as the respondents were concerned and to direct the appellants and others to consider their admission to engineering colleges without reference to the minimum eligible marks prescribed by the appellants.

3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who examined the matter, held that the prescription of qualifications or prescription of the minimum eligible marks for SC/ST as mere pass, most backward at 50% average marks in the related subjects, backward at 55% average marks in the related subjects and other classes at 60% average marks in the related subjects, would not be in conflict with the Regulations of All India Council for Technical Education [AICTE] and, therefore, dismissed the writ petitions. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court held that there is a glaring difference in the norms fixed by AICTE and the norms fixed by the State Government, and struck down the same and issued the following directions:

"1. The admission of those students who had appeared for the TNPCEE 03 but had not secured the prescribed minimum aggregate marks in their Higher Secondary examinations would be regularised.

2. No action need be taken against those Engineering colleges for having breached the norms of the State Government and no proceedings of dissatisfaction need be started against them on that count alone. The State Government shall, within three weeks from today, with notices to all the Engineering colleges in the State start the process of locating the students by giving such students an opportunity to vie for the seats in the Engineering colleges. If any of such students have already been admitted, as we have stated earlier, their admissions shall be regularised. However, we make it clear that all the students who are going to be benefited by this judgment must have appeared for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examinations 03 held by the State Government.

3. Since the learned counsel appearing for the Anna University pointed out that admissions in this late juncture are likely to affect the University attendance regulations, we also direct that the shortage in the attendance of such students shall be compensated by holding special classes on Saturdays, Sundays and other holidays. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Engineering institutions have undertaken that teaching staff who are engaged for holding such special classes shall be paid extra and that no amount shall be collected by the institutions from the students.

4. The writ petitions filed by the individual students shall stand allowed only if such students have taken part in the common entrance test Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examinations 03.

5. We make it clear that all these directions apply only for the academic year 2003-04."

4. Though this Court while entertaining these matters directed that status quo should be maintained as on the date of the judgment in relation to admission of students in engineering colleges, it is stated that several students in question had been admitted who fulfilled the terms stated by the Division Bench of the High Court and they have been allowed to take the examinations also. In these circumstances, the appellant does not contest their admissions and it is only for purposes of examination of the correct position in law that the State and the University are pursuing these matters. Therefore, that aspect of the matter need not detain us any longer. We think, submission made on behalf of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 325

IMPORTANT POINTIt is permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for purposes of admission to the engineering colleges than what has been prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
It is permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for purposes of admission to the engineering colleges than what has been prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education.