Supreme Court of India
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR.versusKRISHNENDU HALDER AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 134
- Decided
- 18 February 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
State and university may prescribe eligibility criteria higher than AICTE norms, and such criteria remain valid and binding irrespective of unfilled seats.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether the eligibility criteria for engineering admissions prescribed by the Visvesvaraya Technological University and the Karnataka State, which were higher than the minimum standards set by AICTE, could be relaxed when a large number of seats remained vacant. The petitioners, two students admitted under management quota with marks meeting AICTE norms but falling short of the university's higher threshold, sought declaration that only AICTE standards should apply. The Court held that the State and university are empowered to prescribe higher qualifications than AICTE, and such standards remain binding even if seats are unfilled, provided they are not unattainably high. It rejected the view that unfilled seats automatically trigger the application of AICTE's lower norms and clarified that higher standards do not adversely affect AICTE standards. While setting aside the Division Bench order, the Court regularised the admissions of the two students, allowing them to sit for examinations. The decision reaffirmed the principle that maintaining excellence in higher education outweighs the objective of filling every seat.
Issues considered
- Whether eligibility criteria for engineering admissions fixed by State/University rules, which are higher than AICTE norms, can be relaxed or ignored when seats remain unfilled.
- Whether admission of candidates meeting only AICTE minimum standards but not the higher State/University standards violates constitutional or statutory provisions.
- Whether the State/University's power to prescribe higher eligibility criteria adversely affects the standards laid down by AICTE.
Legislation cited
Subjects
higher educationengineering admissionseligibility criteriaAICTE normsstate university regulationsunfilled seatsacademic standardsconstitutional law
Judgment
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 1007
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND A
ANR.
v.
KRISHNENDU HALDER AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1947 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 18, 2011
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Rules and
Regulations of State and University prescribing minimum C
higher educational qualification for admission to Engineering
courses are valid and binding - University and State are
always entitled to prescribe higher standards than what is
suggested by the central body (AICTE) so as to maintain the
excellence in higher education - The fact that there are D
unfilled seats in a particular year, would not mean that in that
year; the eligibility criteria fixed by the State/University would
cease to apply or that the minimum eligibility criteria
suggested by AICTE alone would apply - Unless and until
the State or the University chooses to modify the eligibility E
criteria fixed by them, they would continue to apply in spite of
the fact that there are vacancies or unfilled seats in any year
- The main object of prescribing eligibility criteria is not to
ensure that all seats are in colleges are filled, but to ensure
that excellence in standards of higher education is maintained F
"'.'" Also, higher minimum marks prescribed by State
Government cannot be said to be adverse to the standard
fixed by AICTE .
The question involved in these appeals was whether
the eligibility criteria for admission to the Engineering G
courses stipulated under the Statutory Rules and
Regulations of the State Government/University could be
relaxed or ignored, and candidates who do not meet with
'such eligibility criteria can be given admission, on the
1007 H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R.
A ground that a large number of seats have remained
unfilled in professional colleges, if such candidates
possess the minimum eligibility prescribed under the
norms of the central body (AICTE).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
B
Held: 1.1. The object of the State or University fixing
eligibility criteria higher than those fixed by AICTE, is two
fold. The first and foremost is to maintain excellence in
higher education and ensure that there is no deterioration
C in the quality of candidates participating in professional
Engineering courses. The second is to enable the State
to shortlist the applicants for admission in an effective
manner, when there are more applicants than available
seats. Once the power of the State and the Examining
D Body, to fix higher qualifications is recognized, the rules
and regulations made by them prescribing qualifications
higher than the minimum suggested by AICTE, will be
binding and will be applicable in the respective State,
unless the AICTE itself subsequently modifies its norms
E by increasing the eligibility criteria beyond those fixed by
the University and the State. In the instant case, the
eligibility criteria fixed by the State and the University
increased the standards only marginally, that is 5% over
the percentage fixed by AICTE. It cannot be said that the
F higher standards fixed by the State or University are
abnormally high or unattainable by normal students, so
as to require a downward revision, when there are
unfilled seats. [Para 9] [1021-D-G]
State of Tamil Nadu v. S. V. Bratheep (2004) 4 SCC 513;
G Dr Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1999)
7 SCC 120; State of Tamil Nadu. v. S. V. Bratheep (2004) 4
sec 513 - referred to.
1.2. While prescribing the eligibility criteria for
H
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1009
KRISHNENDU HALDER
admission to institutions of higher education, the State/ A
University cannot adversely affect the standards laid
down by the Central Body/AICTE. The term 'adversely
affect the standards' refers to lowering of the norms laid
down by Central Body/AICTE. Prescribing higher
standards for admission by laying down qualifications in B
addition to or higher than those prescribed by AICTE,
consistent with the object of promoting higher standards
and excellence in higher education, will not be
considered as adversely affecting the standards laid
down by the Central Body/AICTE. [Para 10(i)] (1022-0-E] c
1.3. The observation in para 41 (vi) of* Adhiyaman to
the effect that where seats remain unfilled, the state
authorities cannot deny admission to any student
satisfying the minimum standards laid down by AICTE,
even though he is not qualified according to its D
standards, was not good law. The fact Jhat there are
unfilled seats in a particular year, does not mean that in
that year, the eligibility criteria fixed by the State/
University would cease to apply or that the minimum
eligibility criteria suggested by AICTE alone would apply. E
Unless and until the State or the University chooses to
modify the eligibility criteria fixed by them, they will
continue to apply in spite of the fact that there are
vacancies or unfilled seats in any year. The main object
of prescribing eligibility criteria is not to ensure that all F
seats are in colleges are filled, but to ensure that
excellence in standards of higher education is maintained.
[Paras 10(ii), 10(iii)] [1022-F-H; 1023-A]
*State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & G
Research Institute (1995) 4 SCC 104 - referred to.
1.4. The State/University (as also AICTE) should
periodically (at such intervals as they deem fit) review the
prescription of eligibility criteria for admissions, keeping
H
1010 SUPReME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A in balance, the need to maintain excellence and high
standard in higher education on the one hand, and the
need to maintain a healthy ratio between the total number
of seats available in the State and the number of students
seel<ing admission, on the other. If necessary, they may
~. (P.yise the eligibility criteria so as to continue excellence
in education and at the same time being realistic about
the attainable standards of marks in the qualifying
examinations. [Para 10(iv)] [1023-B-D]
2.1. The primary reason for seats remaining vacant
C in a State, is the mushrooming of private institutions in
higher education. This is so in several states in regard
to teachers training institutions, dental colleges or
engineering colleges. The second reason is certain
disciplines going out of favour with students because
D they are considered to be no longer ·promising or
attractive for future career prospects. The third reason is
the bad reputation acquired by some institutions due to
lack of infrastructure, bad faculty and indifferent teaching.
Fixing of higher standards, marginally higher than the
E minimum, is seldom the reason for seats in some
colleges remaining vacant or unfilled during a particular
year. Therefore, it is not correct to state a student whose
marks fall short of the eligibility"criteria fixed by the State/
University, or any college is admitted directly under the
F management quota, therefore, the admission of students
found qualified under the criteria fixed by AICTE, should
be approved even if they do not fulfil the higher eligibility
criteria fixed by the State/University. [Para 11) [1023-E-H]
G 2.2. The proliferating unaided private colleges, may
need a full complement of students for their comfortable
sustenance (meeting the cost of running the college and
paying the staff etc.). But that cannot be at the risk of
quality of education. Reducing the standards to 'flll the
H seats' will be a dangerous trend which will destroy the
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1011
KRISHNENDU HALDER
quality of education. If there are large number of A
vacancies, the remedy lies in (a) not permitting new
colleges; (b) reducing the intake in existing colleges; (c)
improving the infrastructure and quality of the institution
to attract more students. Be that as it may. The need to
fill the seats cannot be permitted to override the need to B
maintain quality of education. Creeping
commercialization of education in the last few years
should be a matter of concern for the central bodies,
states and universities. [Para 12] [1024-A-D]
2.3. No student or college, in the teeth of the existing C
and prevalent rules of the State and the University can
say that such rules should be ignored, whenever there
are unfilled vacancies in colleges. In fact, the State/
University, may, in spite of vacancies, continue with the
higher eligibility criteria to maintain better standards of D
higher education in the State or in the colleges affiliated
to the University. Determination of such standards, being
part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond
the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that
such standards are arbitrary or 'adversely affect' the E
standards if any fixed by the Central Body under a
Central enactment. [Para 13) (1024-E-G]
3. Two students-writ petitioners by virtue of interim
orders continued their studies and would be completing F
the course in few months On the facts and
circumstances, to do complete justice, their admission is
not disturbed, but regularized and they are permitted to
take the examinations. [Para 14] [1025-A-B]
Case Law Reference: G
(2004) 4 sec 513 referred to Para 6
(1995) 4 sec 104 referred to Para 6
(1999) 1 sec 120 referred to Para 8.1 H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A (2004) 4 sec s13 referred to Para 8.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1947 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.2.2010 of the High
B Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, in W.A. No. 1086 of 2008.
WITH
C.A. No. 1948 of 2011.
C Basava Prabhu S. Patil, B. Subrahmanya Prasad, Ajay
Kumar M., R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellants.
Haripriya Padmanabhan, Garvesh Kabra, Nikita Kabra,
Pooja Kabra Jaju, S. Nanda Kumar, R. Satish Kumar, Anjali
0 Chauhan, V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
E R.V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. Leave granted. Heard. The
question involved in these appeals is whether the eligibility
criteria for admission to the Engineering courses stipulated
under the Statutory Rules and Regulations of the State
Government/University could be relaxed or ignored, and
F candidates who do not meet with such eligibility criteria can be
given admission, on the ground that a large number of seats
have remained unfilled in professional colleges, if such
candidates possess the minimum eligibility prescribed under
the norms of the central body (AICTE).
G 2. All India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE' for
short) is the council established under the All India Council for
Technical Education Act, 1987 ('AICTE Act' for short) for proper
planning and co-ordinated development of technical education
throughout the country. AICTE is entrusted the function of laying
H down the norms and standards for courses, curricula, quality
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1013.
KRISHNENDU HALDER [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
instructions, assessment and examinations. As per the norms A
fixed by AICTE, the minimum eligibility for admission to
engineering courses, during the academic year 2007-2008 was
35% in the qualifying examinations in Physics, Chemistry and
Mathematics for candidates belonging to schedule castes anti
schedule tribes and 40% for all other candidates. B
3. The appellant - Visveswaraya Technological University
(for short 'the University') is the examining body and affiliating
authority for Technical Educational Institutions in the State of
Karnataka established under the Visveswaraya Technological C
University Act, 1994 ('VTU Act' for short). Section 20(1) of the
VTU Act empowers the Executive Council of the University to
make regulations regarding admission of students and conduct
of examinations. The Execut.ive Council, on the
recommendation of the Academic Senate resolved to
recommend the fixing of minimum eligibility for admissions to D
B.E./B.Tech courses as 45% for general category and 40% for
reserved category in the qualifying examination, from the
academic year 2006-07, on the following reasoning :
"The eligibility for the students for admission to B.E.course E
was 50% in the qualifying examination up to the academic
year 2002-03. As the admission are through the Common
Entrance Test of the Government or a Common
Management Admission Test, the AICTE relaxed the
eligibility criteria to 35% from the year 2003-04 onwards. F
. Many colleges represented to the University that the
lowering of the eligibility criteria gave scope for less
meritorious students to get into the professional courses
leading to deterioration in first and second year
examination results. Many of the students were finding it G
difficult even to obtain the eligibility for the third semester.
In view of it, in order to improve the standards of
engineering degree course by providing admission to such
of the students who can withstand the stress of the
professional courses, it is necessary to fix the minimum H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A eligibility as 45% in the qualifying examination for general
category candidates and 40% in the qualifying examination
for reserved category candidates, from the academic year
2006-07."
B Consequently the University Regulations governing BE/
B.Tech degree courses were amended and the amended
Regulations are extracted below:
"O.B.2.1 Admission to first year, first semester bachelor
degree in EngineeringfTechnology shall be open for the
c candidates who have passed the second year Pre-
University or XII Standard or equivalent examination
recognized by the University.
O.B.2.2 In addition to OB 2.1, the candidate shall have
D secured not less than forty five percent (45%) marks in the
aggregate with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory
subjects, along with one of the following subjects:
Chemistry, Bio-Technology, Computer Science, Biology
and Electronics.
E Provided that, the minimum marks for the purpose of
eligibility shall be forty percent (40%) in optional subjects
in case of candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC.
Provided that, the candidate shall have studied and passed
F English as one of the subjects."
Thus the University fixed a marginally higher eligibility
criteria, that is 40% for candidates belonging to schedule
castes and schedule tribes and 45% for others, as against 35%
G and 40% respectively suggested by the AICTE norms.
4. The Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission
to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institution
Rules, 2006, published by the State Government, vide
notification dated 28.2.2006, which was applicable to the
H selection of candidates for admission to professional
•
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1015
KRISHNENDU HALDER [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
educational courses including Bachelor of Engineering/ A
Technology (filled by the Common Entrance Cell) also
prescribed similar academic eligibility for admissions during
2007-2008. Relevant portions of Rule 3 thereof are extracted
below:
B
"3. Academic Eligibility (1) No candidate shall be eligible
for admission to any of the full time degree courses
specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 other than the degree
course in Architecture unless he :-
(a) has appeared for the Common Entrance Test C
conducted by the Common Entrance Test cell.
(b) has passed the second year pre-University or XII
standard or equivalent examinations held preceding the
:;ntrance ~~st- o
xxxxxxxxx
(iii) with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subjects,
along with one of the following subjects:- Chemistry, Bio-
Technology, Computer Science, Biology and Electronics E
and has secured not less than forty five percent of the
aggregate marks in optional subjects with English as one
of the languages for admission to Engineering, and
technology courses.
F
xxxxxxxxx
Provided further that, the minimum marks for the purpose
of eligibility shall be forty percent of aggregate in optional
subjects in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes G
specified in the relevant Government order for the purpose
of reservation in respect of Indian system of Medicine and
Homeopathy, Engineering and Technology courses."
The above eligibility criteria prescribed for admission to H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A 'Government seats' under Rule 3 of the Admission Rules
did not however apply to candidates admitted directly by
the managements of colleges.
5. The respective first respondent in these two appeals
B secured marks which were more than what was prescribed by
AICTE norms, but less than what was prescribed by the
University Regulations. They were admitted to the Bachelor of
Engineering Course during the academic year 2007-2008 by
second respondent college in C.A.No.1947/2011 and third
respondent college in C.A.No.1948/2011 under the
C management quota. When the list of admissions were
submitted by the said colleges to the University for approval of
admissions, the University refused to approve their admissions
on the ground that they had secured less than the minimum
percentage required for being eligible to admissions. Feeling
D aggrieved, the two students filed writ petitions before the High
Court for quashing the communications of the University
refusing to approve their admission, to treat them as eligible
for prosecuting the B.E course and to approve their admission
and permit them to participate in the examinations conducted
E by the University. They also sought a declaration that AICTE
norms prescribing eligibility criteria alone would govern
admissions to B.E. course and the Rules and Regulations of
the State and the University, in so far as they were contrary to
AICTE Regulations were unconstitutional, unenforceable and
F inapplicable.
6. A learned single judge of the High Court, following the
decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. S. V. Bratheep
- (2004) 4 sec 513, dismissed the writ petition filed by the
first respondent in the first matter, by order dated 24.6.2008.
G The writ appeal filed by the said student, as also the writ petition
filed by the first respondent in the second matter were allowed
by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgments dated
26.2.201 O purporting to follow the principles laid down by this
Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational &
H
.· VISVESWARAYATECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1017
KRISHNENDU HALDER [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)
Research Institute - {1995) 4 SCC 104 {extracted below): A
•41. [v] When there are more applicants than the available
situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from
laying down higher standards or qualifications than those
laid down by the center or the Central authority to short- B
list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it
does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union Ust or make
a law which is repugnant to the Central law.
41. [vi] However, when the situations/ seats are available
and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on C
the ground that the applicant is not qualified according
to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be,
although the applicant satisfies the standards or
qua/ifica.'ions laid down by the Central law, they act
unconstitutionally. D
{emphasis supplied)
The Division Bench directed that every year, the University
should take into consideration, the standards it has fixed as also ·
the standards fixed by AICTE in regard to eligibility criteria, and E
keeping in view the number of seats that may remain unfilled/
vacant during that year, extend benefit to the students who fulfill
the conditions mentioned in para 41 {v) and {vi) of the decision
in Adhiyaman, by voluntarily relaxing/lowering its standards
without driving the students to approach the courts for getting F
reliefs in terms of Adhiyaman. The Division Bench. also held
that having regard to the decision in Adhiyaman, students who
are similarly situated to the writ petitioners, should also be given
benefit by approval of their admissions without driving them to
court. The Division Bench directed the University to approve G
the admissions of the two writ petitions as they .fulfilled eligibility
criteria fixed by AICTE.
7. Feeling aggrieved, University has filed these appeals
by special leave contending that the University and the State H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 2 S.C.R.
A are always entitled to prescribe higher standards than what is
suggested by the AICTE norms so as to maintain the
excellence in higher education; that the rules and regulations
of the State and University prescribing minimum higher
educational qualifications for admission to Engineering
B Courses, were valid and binding; and that neither any constituent
college nor any candidate could support or defend an illegal
and irregular admission by the college, by contending that the
rules and regulations of the State and the University were invalid
and not binding, or that the University should not apply them,
c as there are more seats than applicants.
8. We may in this context refer to two subsequent
decisions which have the effect of clarifying the decision in
Adhiyaman.
D 8.1) In Dr Preeti Srivastava and Anr. Vs. State of M.P.
and Ors. (1999) 7 sec 120, a constitution bench of this court
held:
"Both the Union as well as the States have the power to
legislate on education including medical education,
E
subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List-I which deals with
laying down standards in institutions for higher education
or researcl'l and scientific and technical institutions as also
coordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the
right to control education including medical education so
F 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 Government. Therefore, while prescribing the
G criteria for admission to the institutions for higher education
including higher medical education, 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 remember
H
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1019
KRISHNENDU HALDER [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
that from 1977, education including, inter alia, medical and A
university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that
the Union can legislate on admission criteria aiso. If it does
so, the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except
as provided in Article 254 ............. .
It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission 8
have no connection with the standard of education, or that
the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List
Ill. Norms of admission 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 C
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 admission to the postgraduate
medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to
those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I. This would be D
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 of higher
education." E
(emphasis supplied)
8.2. In State of Tamil Nadu. Vs. S. V. Bratheep (2004) 4
SCC 513 wherein, a three Judge Bench of this Court followed
Dr.Preeti Srivastava and explained Adhiyaman thus: F
"If higher minimum is prescribed by the State
Government than what had been prescribed by the
A/GTE, can it be said that it is in any manner adverse to
the standards fixed by the A/GTE or reduces the standard G
· fixed by it? In our opinion, it does not.. ....... The manner
in which the High Court has proceeded is that what has
been prescribed by AICTE is inexorable and that that
minimum alone should be taken into consideration and no
other standard could be fixed even higher as stated by this H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. It is no doubt true,
as noticed by this Court in Adhiyaman's case that there
may be situations when a large number of seats may fall
vacant on account of the higher standards fixed. The
standards fixed should always be realistic which are
B attainable and are within the reach of the candidates. It
cannot be said that the prescriptions by the State
Government in addition to those of AICTE in the present
case are such which are not attainable or which are not
within the reach of the candidates who seek admission
for engineering colleges ..... Excellence in higher
c education is always insisted upon by series of decisions
of this Court including Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. If
higher minimum marks have been prescribed, it would
certainly add to the excellence in the matter of admission
of the students in higher education.
D
Argument advanced on behalf of the respondents is that
the purpose oi fixing norms by the AICTE is to ensure
uniformity with extended access of educational opportunity
and such norms should not be tinkered with by the State
E in any manner. We are afraid, this argument ignores the
view taken by this Court in several decisions including Dr.
Preeti Srivastava case that the State can always fix a
further qualification or additional qualification to what has
been prescribed by the AICTE and that proposition is
F indisputable. The mere fact that there are vacancies in
the colleges would not be a matter, which would go into
the question of fixing the standard of education.
Therefore, it is difficult to subscribe to the view that once
they are qualified under the criteria fixed by A/GTE they
should be admitted even if they fall short of the criteria
G
prescribed by the State.
One other argument is further advanced before us that the
criteria fixed by the AICTE were to be adopted by the
respective colleges and once such prescription had been
H
'
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1021
KRISHNENDU HALDER [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
made, it was not open to the Government to prescribe A
further standards particularly when they had established
the institutions in exercise of their fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. However,
we do not think this argument can be sustained in any
manner. Prescription of standards in education is always B
accepted to be an appropriate exercise of power by the
bodies recognising the colleges or granting affiliation, like
AICTE or the University. If in exercise of such power the
prescription had been made, it cannot be said that the
whole matter has been foreclosed. c
(emphasis supplied)
9. The object of the State or University fixing eligibility
criteria higher than those fixed by AICTE, is two fold. The first
and foremost is to maintain excellence in higher educatio.n and D
ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of candidates
participating in professional Engineering courses. The second
is to enable the State to shortlist the applicants for admission
in an .effective manner, when there are more applicants than
available seats. Once the power of the State and the Examining .E
Body, to fix higher qualifications is recognized, the rules and
regulations made by them prescribing qualifications higher than
the minimum suggested by AICTE, will be binding and will be
applicable in the respective state, unless the AICTE itself
subsequently modifies its norms by increasing the eligibility F
criteria beyond those fixed by the University and the State. It
should be noted that the eligibility criteria fixed by the State and
the University increased the standards only marginally, that is
5% over the percentage fixed by AICTE. It cannot be said that
the higher standards fixed by the State or University are G
abnormally high or unattainable by normal students, so as to
require a downward revision, when there are unfilled seats.
During the hearing it was mentioned that AICTE itself has
revised the eligibility criteria. Be that as it may.
10. The respondents (colleges and the students) submitted H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 2 S.C.R.
A that in that particular year (2007-2008) nearly 5000 engineering
seats remained unfilled. They contended that whenever a large
number of seats remained unfilled, on account of non-availability
of adequate candidates, para 41 (v) and (vi) of Adhiyaman
would come into play and automatically the lower minimum
B standards prescribed by AICTE alone would apply. This
contention is liable to be rejected in view of the principles laid
down in the Constitution Bench decision in Dr. Preeti
Srivastava and the decision of the larger Bench in S. V.
Bratheep which explains the observations in Adhiyaman in the
c correct perspective. We summarise below the position,
emerging from these decisions:
(i) While prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission to
institutions of higher education, the State/University cannot
adversely affect the standards laid down by the Central
D Body/AICTE. The term 'adversely affect the standards'
refers to lowering of the norms laid down by Central Body/
AICTE. Prescribing higher standards for admission by
laying down qualifications in addition to or higher than
those prescribed by AICTE, consistent with the object of
E promoting higher standards and excellence in higher
education, will not be considered as adversely affecting the
standards laid down by the Central Body/AICTE.
(ii) The observation in para 41 (vi) of Adhiyaman to the
F effect that where seats remain unfilled, the state authorities
cannot deny admission to any student satisfying the
minimum standards laid down by AICTE, even though he
is not qualified according to its standards, is not good law.
(iii) The fact that there are unfilled seats in a particular year,
G does not mean that in that year, the eligibility criteria fixed
by the State/University would cease to apply or that the
minimum eligibility criteria suggested by AICTE alone
would apply. Unless and until the State or the University
chooses to modify the eligibility criteria fixed by them, they
H
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1023
KRISHNENDU HALDER [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
will continue to apply in spite of the fact that there are A
vacancies or unfilled seats in any year. The main object
of prescribing eligibility criteria is not to ensure that all
seats are in colleges are filled, but to ensure that
excellence in standards of higher education is maintained.
8
(iv) The State/University (as also AICTE) should
periodically (at such intervals as they deem fit) review the
prescription of eligibility criteria for admissions, keeping
in balance, the need to maintain excellence and high
standard in higher education on the one hand, and the need
to maintain a healthy ratio between the total number of C
seats available in the state and the number of students
seeking admission, on the other. If necessary, they may
revise the eligibility criteria so as to continue excellence
in education and at the same time being realistic about
the attainable standards of marks in the qualifying D
examinations.
11. The primary reason for seats remaining vacant in a
state, is the mushrooming of private institutions in higher
education. This is so in several states in regard to teachers E
training institutions, dental colleges or engineering colleges. The
second reason is certain disciplines going out of favour with
students because they are considered to be no longer
promising or attractive for future career prospects. The third
reason is the bad reputation acquired by some institutions due
F
to lack of infrastructure, bad faculty and indifferent teaching.
Fixing of higher standards, marginally higher than the minimum,
is seldom the reason for seats in some colleges remaining
vacant or unfilled during a particular year. Therefore, a student
whose marks fall short of the eligibility criteria fixed by the State/ G
University, or any college which admits such students directly
under the management quota, cannot contend that the
admission of students found qualified under the criteria fixed
by AICTE, should be approved even if they do not fulfil the higher
eligibility criteria fixed by the State/University.
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A 12. The proliferating unaided private colleges,may need
a full complement of students for their comfortable sustenance
(meeting the cost of running the college and paying the staff
etc.). But that cannot be at the risk of quality of education. To
give an example, if 35% is the minimum passing marks in a
B qualifying examination, can it be argued by colleges that the
minimum passing marks in the qualifying examination should
be reduced to only 25 or 20 instead of 35 on the ground that
the number of students/candidates who pass the examination
are not sufficient to fill their seats? Reducing the standards to
C 'fill the seats' will be a dangerous trend which will destroy the
quality of education. If there are large number of vacancies, the
remedy lies in (a) not permitting new colleges; (b) reducing the
intake in existing colleges; (c) improving the infrastructure and
quality of the institution to attract more students. Be that as it
may. The need to fill the seats cannot be permitted to override
D the need to maintain quality of education. Creeping
commercialization of education in the last few years should be
a matter of concern for the central bodies, states and
universities.
E 13. No student or college, in the teeth of the existing and
prevalent mies of the State and the University can say that such
rules should be ignored, whenever there are unfilled vacancies
in colleges. In fact the State/University, may, in spite of
vacancies, continue with the higher eligibility criteria to maintain
F better standards of higher education in the State or in the
colleges affiliated to the University. Determination of such
standards, being part of the academic policy of the University,
are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is
established that such standards are arbitrary or 'adversely
affect' the standards if any fixed by the Central Body under a
G Central enactment. The order of the Division Bench is therefore
unsustainable.
14. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the
orders of the Division Bench and uphold the dismissal of the
H
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1025
KRISHNENDU HALDER [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
writ petitions by the learned Single Judge. Insofar as the two A
students (first respondent in each of the two appeals) are
concerned, we find that they were admitted in the year 2007-
2008 and by virtue of the interim orders, continued their studies
and are completing the course in a few months. On the facts
and circumstances, to do complete justice, we are of the view B.
that their admissions should not be disturbed, but regularized
and they should be permitted to· take the examinations.
D.G. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "higher education"Sign in to search