IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5062 of 2005 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5063 of 2005 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5064 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : YES 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- PRATHAMKUMAR Versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 5062 to 5064 of 2005 MR ALBERT I. TALEGAWKAR with BIJAL CHHATRAPATI and MR JAY P. AMIN for SINGHI & CO for Petitioner No.1 MR PARESH UPADHYAY for Respondent No. 1 MR SAURIN MEHTA FOR NANAVATI & NANAVATI for Respondent No. 2 MR DHAVAL M BAROT for Respondent No. 3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date of decision: 15/04/2005 COMMON CAV JUDGEMENT 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. With the consent of the learned advocates for 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. .RS 2. #. 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" for short) conducted by the respondent No.1 for the purpose of admission to Post Graduate Diploma and Fellow Programmes in IIMs for the academic year 2005, they are not being considered eligible for admission and at the very threshold, they are informed that they will not be permitted to participate in further admission process. #. 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 declared 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 prescribe course, hold examination and confer degrees and other qualification. It is the case of the petitioners 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 to 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 inspite of that, the petitioners are not considered to be eligible for participating in further admission process and therefore, they have approached this Court by way of present special civil applications. 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 not the authority which grants recognition and in fact, according to their information and knowledge, the respondent No.4 University had already made an appropriate application with the respondent No.2-AIU to be its member and so far as the respondent No.2 AIU is concerned, it is a private body registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860 created by a group of Vice Chancellors of Universities and does not have any responsibility or authority to accord recognition of degrees of Indian Universities and inspite of that, the respondent No.1 IIM is insisting that for the purpose to be eligible for admission in IIM, University where the student has studied, must have been recognised by AIU. It is further submitted that imposing a condition to be eligible for getting admission in Post Graduate Programmes in management in IIM, a candidate must have got atleast three years Bachelor Degree from the University which is recognised by the AIU, is most unreasonable, arbitrary, and has nothing to do with selection process for admission and therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present special civil applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration that stipulation of recognition in the admission procedure of obtaining a recognition of the degree by AIU is arbitrary, malafide, capricious, bad in law, and illegal. It is also prayed for an appropriate order or directions directing the respondent No.1 IIM, Ahmedabad to allow and include the petitioners in the admission procedure and consider their case and grant admission to the petitioners subject to fulfilling other stipulations on merits by the respective petitioners. #. Shri A.I.Talegaonkar, the learned advocate with Shri Bijal Chhatrapati, the learned advocate, so also, Shri Jay Amin, the learned advocate for M/s Singhi & Co. appear on behalf of the petitioners. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners have vehemently submitted that it is very unfortunate that though the petitioners have secured 99.98 % of marks in the "CAT" conducted by the very IIM, Ahmedabad, the petitioners are not considered eligible for further admission process and are not called for group discussions and personal interviews. It is further submitted that the petitioners have studied in the respondent No.4 University which is a deemed University established by Act No.6 of 2003 of Government of Gujarat and is a very reputed University. It is also further submitted that under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the respondent No.4 University stands at par with any other University and is competent to prescribe the course, hold examination, and confer degrees and other qualifications. Thus, the respondent No.4 is also recognised by the University Grants Commission. It is further submitted that "AIU" does not have responsibility or authority to accord recognition of degrees of Indian University. Under the circumstances, insistence on the part of the respondent No.1 IIM Ahmedabad of obtaining recognition of the degree by AIU is not only illegal but is also unreasonable and arbitrary. It is further submitted that for the purpose of seeking admission to the PGP and PGP - ABM in the IIMs, the process is in two stages. CAT is the first step in the process of seeking admission and after the student appears in CAT and the merit list is prepared on the basis of merits, in the further process of admission, candidates who are shortlisted within merits criteria, are called for group discussion. The selection procedure is two stage process. In the first stage, the candidate to be called for group discussion and personal interviews are short-listed from amongst those who have applied for IIM's Post Graduate Programmes. CAT score is one of inputs used in drawing up the short list and the other inputs used are past academic background and achievements and post degree working experience. In the second stage, the candidates to be admitted to the Post Graduate Programmes are selected from amongst those who have attended group discussion and personal interviews. In preparing the admission list, the inputs such as performance at group discussion and personal interviews, CAT scores, academic background and achievements, extra curriculum activities and post degree working experience are taken into consideration. It is, therefore, submitted that so far as admissions are concerned, it is solely based upon the merits and performance of candidates alone. Considering the CAT score, performance in group discussion and personal interviews, admissions are given. It is, therefore, submitted that to be eligible for even allowing the candidates for group discussion and personal interviews and / or for getting admission in Post Graduate Programmes, a candidate must have Bachelor Degree or equivalent any discipline recognised by the AIU, is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary and as such, has no nexus with the admission process. Therefore, it is submitted that action of the respondent No.1 in not considering the petitioners as eligible for even group discussion and not calling the petitioners for personal interviews, requires to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that stipulation of recognition in the admission procedure of obtaining recognition of degree by AIU is absolutely unwarranted. It is also submitted that when the petitioners have studied and are in the process of completing four years B.Tech. Programme from the University which is deemed University established by the Act No.6 of 2003 of the Government of Gujarat, and more particularly, when the respondent No.2 AIU has no authority and / or the responsibility to accord recognition of degrees of Indian Universities, the aforesaid stipulation of recognition of a degree from AIU, requires to be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.1 is to be directed to include the petitioners in admission procedure and to allow the petitioners to participate in the group discussion and further to direct the respondent No.1 to conduct personal interviews of the petitioners and directing the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners for admission in Post Graduate Programmes on merits. #. It is also further submitted that the authority granted to the AIU restricts only to foreign qualification and is relevant only for employment purpose and not for academic purposes and the AIU does not have any right or authority as regards grant of recognition to academic programmes of Indian University. It is submitted that when the petitioners have studied and are in process of completing prescribed four years' B.Tech. Programmes from respondent No.4 University which is recognised by the State of Gujarat, not to consider the degree from the said respondent No.4 University and to consider the degree only recognised by the respondent No.2 AIU is not only unreasonable, but most arbitrary and illegal, which requires to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the petitioners had carried on bonafide correspondence with the respondent No.1 and the petitioners are informed that the respondent No.3 should be a member of AIU and in that event only they will accept and allow the petitioners for further admission procedure and having failed to get any justice from the respondent No.1, the petitioners have approached this Court. It is further submitted that according to information and knowledge of the petitioners, though not required the respondent No.3 University had already applied for membership of the respondent No.2 AIU which is pending since last two years, for which, the petitioners should not be made to suffer. It is submitted that it is the fundamental rights of the petitioners to get admission in any of the institutions on merits and refusing to consider the case of the petitioners for further admission process itself, is violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners. To reject and / or disallow the petitioners at the threshold and without allowing the petitioners to take part in group discussion and not taking personal interviews of the petitioners on merits itself is violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners. It is submitted that it is a different case that after a group discussion and / or the personal interviews, the petitioners may not get an admission but to deny an opportunity to the petitioners at the threshold and not allowing the petitioners to participate in the group discussion and not taking the personal interviews of the petitioners only on the ground that the University from where the petitioners have studied, is not recognised by AIU, which is not an authority to grant recognition, is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal which requires to be quashed and set aside. #. It is further submitted that in fact, time is granted upto 30th June, 2005 to procure the qualification and by 30th June, 2005 it might be that the respondent No.4 though not required, might get membership of the respondent No.2 - AIU and therefore, the petitioners should have been allowed to participate in the group discussion on successful, their personal interviews ought to be taken by the respondent No.1. Relying upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 - AIU to the effect that AIU is a well acclaimed recognised association constituted and established with a view to promoting the University activities by way of sharing information and increasing cooperation in various fields of education and the membership Traditional University, professional University, deemed University and institutions of national importance and also to the effect that AIU does not have responsibility or authority to accord recognition of degrees of Indian Universities and that AIU has never written insisting upon the IIMs to provide such a stipulation, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that under those circumstances, insistence on the part of the respondent No.1 to have degree recognised by the AIU is absolutely unwarranted, unreasonable and arbitrary, which requires to be quashed and set aside and it is requested to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners for further admission process, such as, group discussion and personal interviews etc. for the purpose of getting admission in Post Graduate Programmes in management in IIMs and therefore, requested to allow the present special civil applications accordingly. #. Shri Paresh Upadhyay, the learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 - Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "IIM" for short ). Affidavit-in-reply and further affidavit-in-reply are also filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 IIM. All three petitions are opposed by the IIM on the following grounds. (i) The respondent No.1 - Institute is a pioneer in the field of management education in India and is widely regarded as the best business school in the country. Its flagship programme i.e. Post Graduate Programme in Management to which the petitioners are seeking admissions, is a highly rated programme not only in India but also abroad. In order to achieve and maintain the high standard of its programme, it is essential, amongst other things, to ensure that the participants admitted to the programme also bring with them certain standard of basic qualification. Therefore, for respondent No.1 IIM, it was considered prudent to prescribe some kind of quality certification of qualification for joining the programme and for this purpose, while exercising its right to prescribe eligibility criteria for its own academic programmes, it has been decided that the candidates aspiring for admission to their PGP should have a bachelor's degree recognised by the Association of Indian Universities. (ii) So far as the AIU is concerned, it has a broad range of academic and administrative functions including serving as an Inter-University Organisation, acting as a liasion between the universities and the Government (Central as well as the State Governments) and cooperating with other universities or bodies (national or international) in matters of common interest, and acting as the representative of Universities of India, and importantly, assisting Universities in obtaining recognition for their degrees, diplomas and examinations from other universities, Indian as well as foreign. Its members include traditional universities, open universities, open universities, professional universities, Institutes of National Importance and deemed-to-be Universities and at present 277 members including 60 deemed universities, of these 119 are traditional universities. With above object and considering status of the AIU, it has been decided by IIM that only those Universities / Institutes who are reasonably good, and recognised by the AIU, their students are considered eligible for admission to PGP. (iii) The object to have recognition by AIU is that IIM wants to take care of situation and wants to admit only those students who are coming from a reasonably good university / institute and therefore, criteria is fixed that only those Universities / institutions which are recognised by AIU should be considered eligible for the purpose of admission in IIM, meaning thereby, a candidate not from any university / institute but candidates coming from a reasonably good institutions / universities are considered to be eligible for the purpose of admission. (iv) Bulletin was published in the month of July, 2004 and by public notice in all leading newspapers specifying interalia eligibility criteria and procedure for application for CAT to be held on November 21, 2004 was issued also in the month of July, 2004 and it is applicable for all six IIMs in the Country and the petitioners were also knowing about the same since July, 2004 and inspite of that, they participated in the CAT and knowing full well that the University from where the petitioners have studied is not recognised by AIU, now it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the said criteria and the selection having once participated in the selection process. (v) While making an application to appear in CAT, the respective petitioner has declared that; "I certify that I satisfy the eligibility requirements of the programmes. I have applied for and that I have furnished correct information. I agree to abide by the IIMs' decisions on all matters regarding this application" Having given assertion in the aforesaid manner, the petitioners appeared and when it is now found that the petitioners are not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, meaning thereby, the institute from where the petitioners have studied, is not recognised by AIU, it is not open for the petitioners now to challenge the same, more particularly, when the common admission test was held on 21.11.2004, for which, 1,37,426 candidates were issued admit cares and the result of the said test was declared on 21.12.2004 and all the candidates were issued their score cards. After result of the CAT, further admission process is already completed, meaning thereby, the group discussions as well as personal interviews for eligible candidates are already over and now only declaration of final list of the candidates would be made available within a short time and therefore also, it is now too late to challenge the same. (vi) The respondent No.3 - Institute while referring the eligibility criteria, had requested IIM vide its letter dated 27.7.2004 to the effect that the said Institute will be grateful if the CAT Committee kindly consider and permit its students to appear for the test and its students may be admitted only after they provide membership from AIU and that the Institute undertakes this responsibility to provide proof to the CAT Committee, IIM before admissions are finalised and the respondent No.3 Institute had also informed IIM that it being the statutory University, does not need AICTE approval. However, it had already applied for AIU membership immediately and the same is pending. (vii) The relaxation of time upto 30th June, 2005, is given only for limited purpose of producing certificate from the Principal of the respective Institute stating that the candidate has appeared in examination in all subjects required for obtaining Bachelor's degree and the said relaxation cannot be stretched to the extent that even the institute can claim that they would obtain necessary recognition by that time limit as was sought to be done by respondent No.3. (viii) To prescribe the eligibility criteria is the policy decision and the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the same and the same is considered to be an administrative decision. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Shri Paresh Upadhyay, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the IIM has placed reliance on the following decisions. (1) HEMANT L. LEUVA. V. H.S.SHAH, 1997 (1) GLR 853 - para-13 (2) STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER V. BRIJ KISHORE GARG, 2000 (1) GLR P.884 - para- 11 (3) STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS V. LATA ARUN, 2002 (6) SCC p.252 para-10 (4) KRISHNA PRIYA GANGULY ETC. V. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW AND OTHERS, 1984 SC p.186 - para-19 (5) RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR V. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER, 1986 SC p.1448 - para-7 (6) ASHISH P. JOSHI V. GUJARTA UNIVERSITY, 2001 (3) GCD p.2394 (Guj) - para-4 (7) RAJENDRA R. DAVE V. GUJARAT SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD AND ANOTHER, 1980 (2) GLR p.318 - para-7 (8) PARITOSH MAGHRAJ CALLA V. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER, 1996 (1) GLR p.640 para- 7,8,11,12, 16. (9) DILIP K. DOSHI AND ANOTHER VS. VICE CHANCELLOR, AND OTHERS, 1987 (1) GLR p.411 - para-12 (ix) Assuming that stipulation in question appears to be harsh and inconvenient to some of the candidates, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the same after having participated in the selection process with knowledge of eligibility of criteria and open eyes and that too at the concluding stage of admission process, more particularly the same is likely to affect all six IIMs. (x) So far as the final prayer is concerned, the same cannot be granted at this stage as the group discussion as well as personal interviews of the eligible candidates even after shortlisting are already over and the selection process is already concluded and only declaration of the final list is to be published and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present special civil applications and not to grant any relief as prayed for. #. Shri Saurin Mehta, the learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 - AIU and the affidavit-in-reply is also filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 - AIU. It is submitted that AIU is represented by Vice Chancellors / Directors of the different Universities / Educational Institutes and AIU has framed its own Rules and Regulations which are registered with the Registrar of the Societies under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The AIU representatives are elected and / or nominated on the various national bodies. AIU also nominates four members on the Council of Association of Commonwealth Universities, London. AIU organizes joint meeting of Vice Chancellor / Directors of Member Universities, Institutes with the heads of Apex body to consider important policy matters concerning higher education. Thus, it is submitted that AIU is a well acclaimed, reputed association constituted and established with a view to promoting University activities by way of sharing information and increasing cooperation in various fields of education and the membership includes Traditional Universities, Professional University, Deemed University and Institutes of national importance. It is further