w\r HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR \^ Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunll Kumar Smha &. Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma. J J W.P.(C) No. 3631 of 2011 Association of Private Professional Institutions of Chhattisgarh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 another JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA 5 ci.'a^^^ B®;; MliSliMii Post forjudgment:^2-/09/2011 Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge 'l;w- .^ ^..J'1/ '%""''y ft HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Division Bench: PETITIONER RESPONDENTS v^a Hon'bleShri Sunil Kumar Sinha SB Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharnia, J J W.P.(C) No. 3631 of 2011 Association of Private Professional Institutions of Chhattisgarh, a society registered under the provision under Society Registration Act, 1860, Through it's Secretary, Shailendra Jain, Off. At C-15, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) yersus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through it's Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Cj&4 2 Directorate of Technical Edueation, through Director, Govt. Girls Polytechnic Campus, Byron Bazar, Raipiir (CG) (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Appearance: Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State/ respondents. JUD6MEN3* (12, .09.2011) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Short question, raised for consideration in this writ petition 1S :- "Whether direction of the State fbdng eligibility criterion of obtaining minimum 10% marks in All India EngiTreerirrg Bntranee Ex-ams (AIEEE) - 2011 for admission in the private Engineering Colleges of the State is bad-in-law ?" Writ Petition (0 No. 363 1 of2011 \->- Directorate of Technical Education, State of Chhattisgarh, issued a notice for online counseling for admission in the private Colleges of the State in 10% quota for other States on the basis of merit list prepared in All India Engineering Entrance Exams (hereinafter referred to as the 'AIEEE'). In the said notice following criteria for admissions were notified:- "^^[^mr: 'cnfN 01.07.2011 cf7T 3n?[ 25 ^ ^r 3^f, ^ ^RT 2. KRr ^i ^ 'tfto ^ ^r^m f^wf ^ ^HIST f^IFT/^cT y1ylf?|ct51/uf1c|R5ll'1 T? ^ 1^ift ^ ^m ^ 12^ ^nN ?RT s^w^ t 112^ ^ N^RT, ^ iTf&TrT Tf ^S[cfi-ij8Tc]i ij^flu^ g^ 3|p|c|]4 t ^arr ^-T (NT ^tmf (Fldi*<) ^ yii<i ^Rm 50 5t^r ssf^ t l ^rt TOR AIEEE - 2011 (3) The petitioner is aggrieved with that part of the eligibility criteria which says that obtaining minimum 10% marks in AIEEE- 2011 is mandatory for getting admission in the said quota. (4) Mr. Sourabh Dangi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the eligibility criteria for admission to Engineering Courses has been fuced by All India Council For Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'AICTE') which does not say that the candidates raust obtain 10% marks in 1 AIEEE - 2011, therefore, imposing the said condition by the State in the notific'ation for counseling is contrary to the Norms fixed by the AICTE and the same deserves to be struck down. ..^'-- -^^-. •^sA kii 't'r. ^s?w3.^< . ^ ;\! . '^ /^' \^-y Writ Petition (C) No. 3631 of 2011 (5) On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, argaed that the above criterion is fKed^wi the basis ofthe Rutes namely Chha.ttlsga.rh Engineerie Isnatak Pathiyakaram Pravesh Niycint 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 2011); the criterion fixed is reasonable and the object of the criterion is to ensure excellence in standards of technical education; it is not adverse to the criteria fuced by the AICTE; the State has full authority to fix such criterion; therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. (6) We have heard leamed counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition. (7) All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) has fixed the foUowing criteria for the programs of Engineering and Technology:- Program Duration EUgiliilify 1 Engineering 8s Technology 1 4 Years Passed 10+2 examination with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subjects along wifh one of the Chemistiy/ Biotechnology / Biology Obtained at least 50% marks (45% in case of candidate belonging to reserved category) in the above sabyeets tak&n togeti'rer. Writ Petition (0 No. 3631 oFZOl 1 (8) In Rules 2011, the relevant criterion. for admission in the other State quota has been fbced by Rule 2.7.1 (b) which reads as under:- "(^) ^.s^.Ui ^. 41d^*1 ^ 3R' ^RT q^RT c^ ^M ^ H^T ^ Sf^ ^SVf -^ 3IKl Jt ^T T?3T^^ - 2011 ^ ^gff ^ '9fi^Rld ^RT srf^cfp} t l ar^ ^m -s^ ^t ^ ^sn^f^ - 2011 ^ ^fe c^ snqR TN t^ ^ft 1 ^ffl^^ ^ ^gff 4 '^r- sN? ^ Titui^* SR; HRr STRTaff g^T ^[ qi;T ^T ^ | Spq ^3?T ^\^ ^ c^f gp^ ^q ^ STRTaif H^T ^ TRT t, ynTl'H'lri WRT cpr gTRTS'jT g^T ^g T]^ Tifr t i T.sn^.iii ^ w ^cfiTT 10 nRi?RT graw srf^f t i ^FT^ cpTf grafc)i ^ TK II^T c|5t qra^T ^f ^ft 1 ^r: ^ nRRRT yife ^ 'Fr ?)' cft 9.5 'zff ^T^ ^R ^ 10 ^cT 4.5 ^T ^l^ 3lfE cpt 5 lrf?RRr :qi^r f^fT ^TT^TT I" (9) Directorate Technical Education in the impugned notice for online counseling has mentioned the criterion ofminimum marks of 10% on the basis of the above Rules- 2011. These Rules have not been challenged before us, and the challenge has been made only to the condition of 10% marks of AIEEE, mentioned in the impugned notice of online counseling. (10) In Thirunturuaa Kirupananda Variua.r Thavathiru Sundara Swamlgal Medteal Edycattonal & Charttable Trust^-Vs- State of Tamil Nadu. and Others, (19961 3 SCC 15, the Supreme Court held that "The legislative power in relation to 'education' was earlier distributed ih all the three legislative lists in the Sevenfh Schedule to the Constitution. Parliament was conferred legislative power in respect of matters specified in Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I (Union List) while the State legislatures were conferred the power ^in respect of matters specified in Entry 11 of List II (State List) and WritPetitionrciNo. 3631 of2011 Parliaraent and State legislatiires were conferred concurrent power in respect of matters specified in Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List). By the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Entry 11 of List II has been deleted and Entry 25 in List III has been enlarged to cover matters which were earlier specified in Entry 11 of List II. In view of the said amendment, the legislative power in respect of education in now conferred exclusively on Parliament in respect of matters specified in Entdes 63 to 66 of List I and concurrently on parliament and State legislatures in respect ofmatters specified in Entry 25 ofList III." (11) In State of T.N. and Another -Vs- S.V. Bratheep (MINOR) and Others, 12004} 4 SCC 513, the Supreme Court observed that Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an exclusivity in the matter of admission, but, if certain prescription of standards have been made pursuant to Entry &6 of List I, t-hen those standards will prevail over the standards Bxed by the State in exercise of power under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India or any ofher authority functioning under it. Whether the policy of fhe State relating to not opening Engineering Colleges and not granting permissiori to the colleges for further shifts or to increase their intake on the groiind of seats in the CxiUfiges lying vacaEit in previous years was good ground for the AICTE to refuse recognition ? We are of the view that the above ground taken by Writ Petition CC) No. 3631 of2011 for new courses, in view of the provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 and further in view of the above constitutional mandates was not correct. (12) The legal position, therefore, is that if certain prescriptk>n of standard has been fixed by AICTE then those standards will prevail over the standards fixed by State in so far as they adversely affect the standards laid down by the AICTE and if the standards fbted by State do not adversely affect the standards fixed by AICTE they may survive subject to passing of the test of rationality, reasonability and arbita-ariness etc. (13) In Visveswaraicih Technologtcal Universitii ccnd Another-Vs- Krishnendu Halder and Others, 12011] 4 SCC 606, the Supreme Court quoted the portion of decision of Preeti Srivfistava fDr.) -Vs- State ofM.P.. 11999] 7 SCC 120, m Para-11, as under:- "35. .... Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher education or researeh aad scientifk; aad technical institutions as also coordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right to c&ntrol education including medical education so long as the field is not occupied by any Union legislation. Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. Because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Govemment. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions for higher education including higher medical educafion, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to reraem.ber that from. 1977, education, including, inter alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that the ^^l^-l^;^ 'iysai. g .^' ^ •r-?*—^'.'••-• Writ Petition (0 No. 3631 of2011 Union can legislate on admission criteria also. If it does so, the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254. 36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms ofadmission can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example, a State may, for adrrdssion to the postgraduate medical cowses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes ofhigher education." (14) Taking note of Preeti Srivastava and raany other judgments it was held in Visveswaraiah (supra) that determination of standards by Gxing higher eligibiUty criteria by the University/State than the minimum prescribed by Central Government to achieve exceUence in education are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or they "adversely affect" the standards, if any, fixed by central body under a Central enactment. (15) In State of T.N. and Another -Vs- S.V. Bratheep (SKnorl and Others, (20041 4 SCC 513, tke- S-apr-eme Court held that "Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by a series ofdecisions.ofthe Supreme Court. Ifhigher minimum marks have been prescribed, it would certainly add to the excellence in the raatter of adraission of the students in higher education. The State s& Writ Petition fC) No. 3631 of2011 can always fix a further qualification or additional qualification to what has been prescribed by AICTE even though there may be situations when a large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher standards fixed." (16) Fixing criterion of obtaining minimum 10% marks in AIEEE does not adversely affect the criteria fixed by the central body. The above criterion appears to have been fbced to achieve excellence in technical education. We have been told during the course of argument that even the students having less than 10% marks in AIEEE or O mark or even minus marks were trying to get adn'iission in the private Engineering Colleges of the State which led the Government to fbe the above norm of 10% with a view to achieve excellence. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how such criterion is arbitrary or irrational. In these days standard of education is rapidly increasing and in University and Board Examinations the students are getting more than 90-95% marks and there is tough competition between them. The technical education is the back-bone of the industrial development. In such situation, if the State has fixed the criterion of minimum 10% marks in AIEEE, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. Therefore, the direction of the State fixing the eligibility criterion of obtaining minimum 10% marks in AIEEE -2011 for admission in the private Engineering Colleges of the State is not bad-in-law. In no manner it adversely affects the criteria fixed by the central body. It is neither arbitrary nor irrational and the act / •ie-. WritPetition('C')No.3631 of2011 of the State is well within the Constitutional mandates of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (17) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition is Uable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (18) There shall be no order as to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Nall'(iiil|Sii?iBBPI; vatu