IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11446 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JIKKU PAUL, STUDENT IVTH SEMESTER-AUTHOMOBILE ENGINEERING MATHA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, N.PARUR. 2. I.CHANDAPPILLA PANIKER, DO..DO. 3. JOHNY GEORGE, DO..DO. 4. NIBU P.THOMAS, DO..DO.. 5. SHIRAS.B.S. DO..DO.. 6. SREERAJ SUBRAMANIAN, DO..DO.. 7. DANNY JACOB, DP...DO.. 8. ARUN K.MENON DO..DO... 9. A.S.SHAM DO..DO. 10. ALVIN RAPHEL, DO....DO.. 11. AJESH.R., DO..DO... 12. RAKESH RAJEEVAN, DO..DO... 13. VINEETHA.S., STUDENT, IVTH SEMSTER ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATIONS MATHA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY,N.PARUR. WPC 11446/2009 14. VIPISHA.V.P. DO..DO... 15. DAWN PAULY,STUDENT IVTH SEMESTER COMPUTER SCIENCE, MATHA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, N.PARUR. 16. JINU ROSE.J, STUDENT IVTH SEMESTER ELECTRONIS & COMMUNICATIONS, MATHA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, N.PARUR. 17. DIPUNA D.P.STUDENT, IVTH SEMESTER COMPUTER SCIENCE, MATHA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, N.PARUR. 18. PAUL PUSHPARAJ, STUDENT IVTH SEMESTER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MATHA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, N.PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ABI ANTONY SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.JIJI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1.M.G.UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CONTRO9LLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, MATHA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAKKAPPALLY, N.PARUR. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 4. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 7TH FLOOR, CHANDER LOK BUILDING, JANAPATH, NEW DELHI-110 001. (ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.4.2009 IN IA NO.5505/09) SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R1 & R2 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO.12392/2009 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 11446/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 12.1.2007 ISSUED FROM THE AICTE EXT.P2 - COPY OF ORDER NO.156/2002/H.EDN. DATED 13.11.2002 OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION (L) DEPARTMENT. EXT.P3 - COPY OF ORDER NO.AC.AVIII/1/1076/02 DATED 21.2.2002 OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF M.G.UNIVERSITY. EXT.P4 - COPY OF DETAILS OF LATERAL ENTRY STUDENTS (2008 ADMISSION) EXT.P5 - COPY OF PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO THE LATERAL ENTRY PROGRAMME IN 2008 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT WITH ANNEXURE-B. EXT.P6 - COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.E1-XXX/2/2009 DATED 18.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. NIL. /TRUE COPY/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos.11446, 12392, 12393, 12396, 12417, 12418, 12428 & 12432/2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 22nd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are Diploma holders in different branches of Engineering. They obtained admission to B.Tech course in the concerned subjects in different Self Financing Colleges. For admission to Degree courses in Engineering in Government/Private Engineering Colleges, the Government are conducting an Entrance Test. As per the prospectus issued by the State Government, apart from the essential academic qualification (Diploma in the concerned subject with 60% marks), the candidates should secure 20% marks in the Entrance Test, for being eligible to be admitted to any Engineering course. In the case of the petitioners, they have failed to secure 20% marks in the Entrance Test. But, they were admitted to B.Tech course. The University did not WPC No.11446/2009 etc. - 2 - approve their admission and declined to accept their applications for the semester examination concerned. In that context, these Writ Petitions were filed. Pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the petitioners were able to take the examination and continue their studies. Since the same point is raised in all these Writ Petitions, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.P.(C) No.11446/2009: This Writ Petition is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits. The petitioners are students of Matha College of Technology, North Parur, which is a Self Financing College in the private sector. Ext.P1 is the scheme published by the All India Council for Technical Education (for short “A.I.C.T.E.”) for admission of students under the Lateral Entry System, for Engineering courses. Clause 6.1(b) of Ext.P1 deals with the eligibility for admission. The said clause reads as follows: “For being eligible to seek lateral entry to an Engineering degree programme at the second year/third semester level, a candidate must have passed the diploma in Engineering in the relevant WPC No.11446/2009 etc. - 3 - 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. A student who has acquired a diploma in Engineering through a minimum of three years of institutional study after 10+(Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination) can be considered to be academically equivalent to a student who has passed the first year of the four year Engineering degree programme for which the qualifying examination is of the 12+ level. The Affiliating University may prescribe compensatory courses to make up deficiencies for diploma holders, who are admitted through lateral entry.” Clause (8) of Ext.P1 deals with the interpretation of the scheme. If there is any dispute regarding interpretation of any of the clauses of Ext.P1, the clarification issued by the A.I.C.T.E will be WPC No.11446/2009 etc. - 4 - binding on all concerned. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the Government issued Ext.P2 order, permitting admission to degree courses in Engineering under the Lateral Entry System. Ext.P3 is the order of the M.G. University concerning sanction of lateral entry of Diploma holders for Engineering courses. The petitioners submit, in their college, even now seats are vacant and therefore, all the students who applied under the Lateral Entry System were admitted and no occasion arose for the Principal to make any selection. Ext.P1 scheme only provides that selection for the course shall be based on a test held for the same. It does not speak of any minimum marks to be obtained in the Entrance Test, as an eligibility condition. 4. While so, the Government issued Ext.P5 prospectus for Lateral Entry Test, 2008. Clause 9.3 of Ext.P5 stipulated that candidates securing a minimum of 20% marks in the Entrance Test alone will be eligible for admission. The University also endorsed that view and issued Ext.P6 circular. In view of Exts.P5 and P6, the University declined to register the WPC No.11446/2009 etc. - 5 - petitioners for the fourth semester examination. While they registered for the third semester examination, their alleged ineligibility went unnoticed by the University. In the light of the stand of the University, the petitioners were not able to pursue their studies. Therefore, this Writ Petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs: “(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order of direction to quash Ext.P6. (b) to declare that petitioners ar entitled to pursue and complete their course in B.Tech, on the basis of the admissions they had already secured in 2008. (c) to declare that no entrance test is necessary for admissions to the Lateral Entry for B.Tech, if the number of applicants for admission is lesser than the number of seats available to be filled up under the Lateral Entry Scheme.” 5. The 1st respondent University has filed a counter affidavit, reiterating its stand taken in Ext.P6. In the said affidavit the University has contended that Ext.P6 is validly issued. As mentioned earlier, the petitioners are continuing their studies and have taken the examinations, based on the interim order passed by this Court. WPC No.11446/2009 etc. - 6 - 6. Essentially, the point in dispute between the parties was concerning the interpretation of Ext.P1 scheme. Therefore, we directed the learned standing counsel for the A.I.C.T.E to get instruction and place the views of the council on record. Pursuant to that direction, the learned standing counsel has filed a statement on behalf of the A.I.C.T.E ., wherein it was stated as follows: “The petitioners are students who got admission to B.Tech courses under the Lateral Entry Scheme notified by the AICTE as per Exhibit P1. The petitioners though appeared for Entrance Test held by the LBS for Lateral Entry Admission, they did not secure 20% of marks being the benchmark prescribed by the State Government. The petitioners are treated as ineligible for admission by the Entrance Commissioner. The respondent University is also of the same view. 2. It is submitted that as per the AICTE norms and guidelines for being eligible to seek Lateral Entry to an Engineering Degree at the 2nd Year/3rd Semester level, a candidate must have passed the Diploma in Engineering in the relevant Branch with a minimum of 60% in the aggregate. Only candidates fulfilling these conditions would be eligible for appearing in the Entrance Test for selection of Diploma Holders for Lateral Entry to Degree Programmes. The selection of candidates will be based on the Entrance Test conducted by various Entrance Commissioners and that the admission will be based on the merit ranking as per the Entrance WPC No.11446/2009 etc. - 7 - Test.” The learned standing counsel further submitted that securing 20% marks in the Entrance Test is not an essential qualification for admission in terms of Ext.P1. In other words, a candidate who secures 60% marks for the Diploma but fails to secure 20% marks in the State Entrance Test, cannot be treated as ineligible to pursue his studies. If there are several candidates, the admission shall be strictly in accordance with the ranking in the Entrance Test, it is pointed out by the learned standing counsel. 7. We notice that Ext.P1 does not prescribe any minimum marks for the Entrance Test. But, the Government are always competent to do that as an additional qualification for admission to seats in colleges under it or under the control of it. But, in Self Financing Colleges, all eligible candidates as per Ext.P1 are entitled to seek admission for B.Tech course. If the number of candidates is more than the number of seats available, then, of course, the selection has to be made in accordance with the marks secured by the candidates in the Entrance Test. In the case on hand, going by the facts pleaded, which are not WPC No.11446/2009 etc. - 8 - disputed, in the colleges involved in this and connected cases, some of the additional seats created in the year 2008, for admission of lateral entry students, were vacant, even after admitting the petitioners. Therefore, there was no occasion for comparison of inter se merits with reference to the marks in the Entrance Test. In view of the above facts and in view of the submission made by the A.I.C.T.E., it is declared that the admission of the petitioners herein shall be treated as regular and the University shall register them for the semester examinations, if they are otherwise eligible. The results of the examination taken by them pursuant to the interim order of this Court, if so far not declared, shall be declared. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. 8. W.P.(C) Nos.12392, 12393, 12396, 12417, 12418, 12428 & 12432/2009: The facts of these cases being identical to the facts of W.P.(C) No.11446/2009, it is ordered that the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11446/2009 will govern these WPC No.11446/2009 etc. - 9 - cases also. These Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the said judgment. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P. Bhavadasan, Judge. nm.