K. Surendra Mohan, J.

An interesting question of public importance arises for determination in this case. The petitioner is an Association of the Managements of Private Self Financing Engineering Colleges. They challenge Ext.P5, an order of the first respondent by which, the practise of admitting students to Self Financing Engineering Colleges from a Pre-Normalization List prepared on the basis of the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the 2nd respondent has been done away with.

2. The facts of this case are more or less admitted. As already noticed above, the petitioner is an Association of the Managements of Private Self Financing Engineering Colleges : It is stated that they have more than 100 Colleges as members. For the purpose of making admissions to the various courses conducted by them, they enter into seat sharing agreements with the Government every year. As per the terms of such agreements, the Government is permitted to allot the students for admission to 50% of the total seats available. The said seats are generally referred to as 'merit seats'. Allotments to such seats are made on the basis of a Common Entrance Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations who is the 2nd respondent herein. The Entrance Examination so conducted is in the OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) format where each candidate is expected to answer questions on the basis of the multiple choices provided, by indicating their choices. The answers are evaluated and a rank list is prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by each candidate. However, for the purpose of making admissions to the merit seats, as per the provisions of the Prospectus, the marks obtained for the optional subjects of each candidate are added on to the score obtained by each candidate at the Entrance Examination. The process is called Normalization. It is only after such Normalization that the candidates are ranked by the 2nd respondent by publishing a rank list. As per the terms of the agreements entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent during the previous years, a Pre-Normalisation Rank List used to be prepared and handed over to the Managements. Admissions used to be made by them to the Management Seats on the basis of the said list. It is the said procedure that has been done away with by Ext. P5. The contention of the petitioner is that, denial of permission to admit students on the basis of the Pre-Normalization list would result in a number of candidates who have performed well in the Common Entrance Examination being denied admission. As a result, merit would be the casuality. A large number of Engineering Seats in the various Colleges throughout the State would also remain unfilled, it is contended.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the admissions to the various courses under the petitioner are made from the Rank List prepared on the basis of the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the 2nd respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rank List of KEAM 2016' for short). Therefore, there is no likelihood of any unqualified or ineligible candidate being admitted. The only difference is that, in the case of Management seats, the marks obtained by each candidate at the Entrance Examination alone would be the criterion for granting admission. It is contended by the learned counsel that, after completion of the valuation process, each candidate is required to upload the marks obtained by them in the core subjects at the qualifying examination on the website of the 2nd respondent. The students who do not upload the said marks, would not be ranked in the list prepared by the 2nd respondent after the process of normalization. Such students, though meritorious would therefore lose their chances of getting admission. Since a large number of seats in the Engineering Colleges all over the State remain unfilled every year, it is necessary that eligible candidates who were not ranked after Normalization also