2013 Supreme(Guj) 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya & Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Vidhyarthi Hit Rakshak Samiti Thro President Sanjay Mehta
Versus
State of Gujarat Thro Secretary & Ors.
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 273 of 2012—Decided on 22/01/2013

Point in Issue :
Whether change in syllabus for examination for entrance examination for admission to Engineering and Pharmacy are sustainable.

Headnote:Head Note :

       (a) Education — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ petition — PIL — Replacing the Gujarat Combined Entrance Test with Joint Entrance Examination of Central Board of Secondary Education for admission to Engineering and Pharmacy Courses from 2013 — Challenged on ground that abrupt change is likely to place students in difficulty as syllabus of both are quite different — Sustainability — Finding of — Court examined the entire matter thoroughly and found that there is no change as such in the syllabus so as to result the performance of students — It hardly make any difference so far as seeking admission in Engineering Colleges is concerned the press note in this regard was issued way back on 29th August, 2012 it could not, therefore, be said that student’s were taken by surprise — Court also observed that Courts are neither equipped nor have academic or technical back ground to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decision in the matter — Besides it is the Government policy decision — The legality of the policy and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy is the subject of judicial review.

       Held :

       Having gone through the comparative chart thoroughly, we find that there is no change as such in the syllabus, but on the contrary, the topics which are included in the JEE exam and which were not there in the syllabus of Gujarat are those topics which the students have studied in 11th and 12th Standard. It is, therefore, not correct on the part of the petitioner to say that the students are not conversant with many topics or subjects which are included in the JEE (Main) exam. Besides the above, assuming for the moment that some of the topics or subjects are not included, as a result of which the performance of the students would get marred, would hardly make any difference so far as seeking admission in engineering colleges is concerned.

        [Para 42]

       From the materials available on record, it is evident that the State respondent had released a press note way back on 29th August 2012 regarding the change in the policy and, therefore, it could not be said that the students have been taken by surprise and have not been given sufficient time to prepare themselves for the JEE (Main) exam.

        [Para 46]

       Court may only say that Courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the Courts start entertaining petitions from students or any other person on their behalf to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. The Courts should not act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Courts should not interfere with the policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review. [Para 48]

       Head Note :

       (b) Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — PIL — Grounds allowing the same indicated.

       Held :

       Ordinarily, Court would allow litigation in public interest if it is found:

       (i) That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India or any other legal right and relief is sought for its enforcement;

       (ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;

       (iii) That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitutional law;

       (iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busy body or a meddlesome inter-loper and have not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance;

       (v) That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busy bodies for political or unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justiciable in such litigation;

       (vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set up of the country;

       (vii) That the State action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out on technicalities;

       (viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the Court was of such a nature which required examination;

       (ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives [Para 36]

       Head Note :

       (c) Education — Academic bodies — Decision made by them — Interference — Scope.

       Held :

       Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread... While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. [Para 38]

       The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.

        [Para 39]

       Head Note :

       (d) Jurisprudence — Action — Not Arbitrary and Capricious — When so — Scope.

       Held :

       An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and nondiscriminatory, it cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide. [Para 49]

       Law Laid Down :

       Legality of the policy and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy is subject of judicial review.

       Case Law Analysis :

       Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University, (1980) 3 SCC 418;; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27.—Relied on