Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.R.Shah
Prathamkumar - Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Management - Respondent
S.C.A. 5062 of 2005
Decided On : 04/15/2005
Admission - Indian Institute of Management - Interference - Jurisdiction - Finding as to.
Head Note :
(a) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Admission - Indian Institution of Management (IIM) - Interference - Jurisdiction - Scope of - Admittedly IIM is pioneer in the field of management education in India and is widely regarded as the best business school in the country but, they are not immuned from judicial interference while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under the constitution if ultimately it is found that the decision of such reputed institution in denying admission is unreasonable arbitrary and discriminatory and that the stipulation has no nexus with admission process and is denying to meritorious candidate even to allow him to further participate in admission process - It shall amount to taking away his fundamental right for considering his case on merits for admission requiring High Court to interfere and exercise its powers.
Held :
Considering the fact that IIM is pioneer in the field of Management Education in India and is widely regarded as the best business school in the country, they are not immuned from judicial interference while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if ultimately it is found that the decision of such reputed institution is unreasonable, arbitrary and / or discriminatory and the stipulation has no nexus with admission process and is denying to meritorious candidate even to allow him to further participate in admission process, then, certainly, it is in fact, duty of the High Court to interfere at this stage and exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, not to allow a candidate to participate in the admission process itself, amounts to taking away his fundamental rights for considering his case on merits for admission. [Para 21]
Head Note :
(b) Education - Admission - Post Graduate Programme (PGP) at Indian Institution of Management (IIM) - Condition of recognition of Institute by Association of Indian Universities (AIU) - Propriety of - Finding as to - Admission in PGP in IIM depends upon the performance of a candidate in Common Entrance Test (CAT) Examination group discussion and personal interview, therefore, whether a student studied in a particular institute or university does not have much importance so far admission is concerned - Thus degree recognised by AIU has no nexus with admission of a candidate - Therefore stipulation that a candidate from where he has studied and degree obtained by him must have recognition by AIU is unreasonable and arbitrary - The AIU is also have no authority to accord any recognition to Indian University - In the facts and circumstances such a stipulation to have recognition from AIU itself is non-existence and liable to be quashed and set aside - Contention that petitioners having participated in the process of selection knowing fully well the criteria or having come late to the Court after group discussions are over, do not require any recognition in view of petitioner being students who can hope for admission to the last - That apart respondent No. 3 has already applied for membership of AIU and same is pending consideration it is true that Court may not issue direction to respondent IIM to grant admission to petitioners but still Court can direct to consider petitioners case on merit through due process of admission - Court, therefore, quashing the stipulation of recognition in the process of selection ordered accordingly.
Held :
Considering the admission process for getting admission in PGP in IIM, everything depends upon the performance of a candidate in CAT examination, group discussion and personal interview. Therefore, whether a student studied in a particular institute and / or University, as such, does have that much importance so far as admission is concerned. Thus, degree recognised by AIU and / or institute / University recognised by AIU has no nexus with admission of a candidate to PGP course in IIM. As stated hereinabove and even admitted by AIU, AIU has no authority to accord recognition to any particular institute and / or University in the field of academic education. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and admission process, such a stipulation to the effect that a candidate from where he has studied and the degree obtained by him, must have recognition by AIU is unreasonable, arbitrary as it has no nexus with admission process and actual admission in the IIM and thus, the same requires to be quashed and set aside. It is required to be noted that such a stipulation would lead to ignoring the recognition accorded by the statutory authorities like U.G.C., Central Government and the State Government and ignoring the institute/s which are having recognition in accordance with law, rules and regulations. The IIM cannot ignore the fact that such institute and / or Universities are recognised by the Universities Grants Commission and the Central Government and / or State Government and by the Statutory Authorities, more particularly, the AIU is not having authority to accord any recognition to Indian University. When AIU has no jurisdiction and / or authority to accord any recognition to Indian University and even as admitted by the AIU that it does not have any authority to accord any recognition to Indian University, such a stipulation to have recognition from AIU itself is, as such, non existence. Under the circumstances, the stipulation of recognition in the admission procedure of obtaining recognition of the degree by Association of Indian University for the purpose of admission in PGP at IIM is required to be quashed and set aside. [Para 22]
Respondent No. 3 has already applied for membership of AIU and the same is pending consideration and even the visiting team has also visited the respondent No. 3 University. It is required to be noted at this stage that it is nobodys case that respondent No. 3 is bad and / or not good university. Under the circumstances, to consider only those institutions / universities who are recognised by AIU as reasonably good institution / university and no other institutions / universities as reasonably good itself is arbitrary and unreasonable.
[Para 24]
The next point which is required to be considered is the submission and contentions on behalf of the respondent No. 1 - IIM to the effect that once the petitioners have participated in selection knowing full well the aforesaid criteria in July, 2004 and that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the same now, is concerned, it is required to be noted that it is a question of future of meritorious students who have secured 98.99 % marks in CAT, they were under bona fide impression that the respondent No. 3 had already applied for membership of AIU and by the time the actual admission process starts after CAT, the respondent No. 3 Institute would be getting membership and now when they are not permitted to participate in the further admission process itself, though having secured more than 98.99 % marks in CAT, only on that ground, it cannot be said that the petitioners cannot challenge the same, more particularly, when it is found that the same is unreasonable and arbitrary and has no nexus with admission process. [Para 25]
It is true that this Court may not grant and / or issue any direction to the respondent No. 1 - IIM to grant admission to the petitioners in PGP course but still the Court can direct the respondent No. 1 IIM to have group discussion and personal interview of the petitioners and to allow and permit the petitioners to participate in admission process for getting admission in PGP course and to consider their case on merits, more particularly, when the final list is not published. It is the case of the petitioners and which is not denied by the Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-IIM that so far as the IIM, Lucknow is concerned, group discussions are continued and as admission process is for all the IIMs, the petitioners also can be permitted to take part in group discussion and personal interview along with batches of IIM, Lucknow. However, it is ultimately for the respondent No. 1 to take an appropriate decision with regard to the same. [Para 27]
The stipulation of recognition in the admission procedure for admission in Post Graduate Programmes in Management (PGP) at IIM of obtaining of recognition of degree by Association of Indian Universities is hereby quashed and set aside as the same being unreasonable, arbitrary and has no nexus with admission process and actual admission and the respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to allow and include the petitioners in the admission procedure, such as, group discussion and personal interview etc. and to consider their case for admission in the said course subject to fulfilling other stipulations on merits before declaration of final list for admission in the aforesaid course immediately.
[Para 28]
Law Laid Down :
Degree recognised by AIU has no nexus with admission of a candidate to PGP Course in I.I.M., therefore, denying admission on that account not sustainable.
Cases Law Analysis :
Hemant L. Leuva. vs. H.S. Shah, 1997 (1) GLR 853 [Para 12];; State of Gujarat & Anr vs. Brij Kishore Garg, 2000 (1) GLR 884 [Para 13];; State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Lata Arun, 2002 (6) SCC 252 [Para 13];; Rajendra Prasad Mathuf vs. Karnataka University & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1448 [Para 15];; Soni Varshaben Rasiklal vs. Director of Education, Gandhinagar & Anr., 1989 (2) 907 [Para 19];; Pathaljibhai Nathalbhai Chavda vs. Saurashtra University & Ors., 1998 (1) GLH (UJ) 21 [Para 19];; K. Shekar vs. V .Indiramma & Ors., 2002 (3) SCC 586 [Para 21];; State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Lata Arun, 2002 (6) SCC 252 [Para 23].-Distinguished
Conclusion :
The stipulation of recognition in the admission procedure of obtaining recognition of the decree by AIV for the purpose of admission in PGP at I.I.M having no nexus with the admission of a candidate is required to be quashed and set aside.
Case Referred :
Krishna Priya Ganguly Etc. vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., 1984 SC 186;; Ashish P. Joshi vs. Gujarat University, 2001 (3) GCD 2394;; Rajendra R.. Dave vs. Gujarat Secondary Education Board & Anr., 1980 (2) GLR 318;; Paritosh Maghraj Call vs. Gujarat University & Anr., 1996 (1) GLR 640;; Dilip K. Doshi & Anr. vs. Vice Chancellor & Ors., 1987 (1) GLR 411;; Chandigarh Administration And Anr. Etc. vs. Manpreet Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 435;; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. vs. Dr. Sushil V. Patkar & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 1733;; Pradeepkumar Chauhan vs. Registrar, Gujarat University & Ors. 2000(2) GLH 137.
Decided in Favour of :
Petitioner
Rule Made Absolute
( 1 ) RULE Shri Paresh Upadhyay, the learned Advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Shri Savrin mehta, the learned advocate for M/s nanavati and Nanavati Associates waives service for rule. Shri Dhaval M. Barot, the learned advocate waives service of Rule for respondent No. 3 - Institute.
( 2 ) WITH the consent of the learned advocates lor the parties, all three matters were heard together and as the common questions of law and facts arise in all three special civil applications, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
( 3 ) THE grievance voiced in the present special Civil Applications is that though the petitioners have secured approximately 98. 99 % of marks in the Common Entrance test ( hereinafter referred to as the " CAT" lor short) conducted by the respondent No. 1 lor the purpose of admission to Post graduate Diploma and Fellow Programmes in IIMs for the academic year 2005 they are not being considered eligible lor admission and at the very threshold. they are informed that they will not be permitted to participate in further admission process.
( 4 ) ALL the petitioners have studied in the respondent No. 4 University i e. Dhirubhai ambani Institute of Information and communication Technology in B. Tech programme and are in the process of completing prescribed four years B. Tech. from the said University. The respondent no. 4 University is declaied as deemed university and is established by the Act no. 6 of 2003 of the Government of Gujarat which is located at Gandhinagar. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the university Grants Commission Act, 1956 which is an Act of Parliament of India, the university whether established by an Act of parliament or by Act of the State government, stands at par with any other university and is competent to precube course, hold examination and confer degrees and other qualification. It is the case of the pelilioners that as the petitioners wanted to get admission for the course of post Graduate Diploma and Fellow programmes in IIMs for 2005 which are full time residential courses open to students from all disciplines and therefore they had appeared in the common admission test - 2004 (hereafter referred 10 as the "cat" ) for the admission to the academic year 2005-07. It is required to be noted that Indian Institute of Management ("iim, Ahmedabad" for brevity) held CAT for admission to the aforesaid Fellow programmes which are open to the students from all disciplines and there are six IIMs in India including IIM, Ahmedabad and so far as the this year is concerned, IIM, ahmedabad has organized admission for students of Post Graduate and Fellow programmes in management holding CAT and it is the case of the petitioners that mainly on the basis of performance at the cat by candidates, admissions are processed. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner of Special Civil application No. 5062 of 2005 has secured 98. 88 % of marks in the CAT, the petitioner of Special Civil Application no. 5063 of 2005 has secured 99. 03 % marks in the CAT and the petitioner of special Civil Application No. 5064 of 2005 has secured 99. 86 % of marks in the CAT and in spite of that, the petitioners are not considered to be eligible for participating in 2 further admission process and therefore, they have approached this Court by way of present special civil applications.
( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that as. the respondent No. 4 University from where they have studied in B. Tech. Programme, is not recognised by the respondent No. 2, i. e. Association of Indian Universities (hereinafter referred to as the "aiu" for; short ). The petitioners are not considered eligible for admission in PGP and are not permitted to take part in further admission process. It is submitted that so far as the respondent No. 2 "aiu" is concerned, it is 4 not the authority which grants recognition and in fact, according to their information and knowle
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
