AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the communication dated 3.6.2011 issued by the second Respondent
stating that the candidates passed/appeared in the Higher Secondary Examinations from the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations,
Government of Kerala are required to furnish the marks scored in the qualifying examination as shown in the mark sheet adding both Plus one and
Plus two issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Kerala, in the CENTAC application and to direct the Respondents to take into
consideration the Plus Two marks alone (second year marks of Higher Secondary course alone) of the Petitioner who completed the Higher
Secondary course in Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Kerala for the purpose of normalization and preparation of ranking list of
candidates for admission to Professional course in the Union Territory of Puducherry for the academic year 2011-12.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
(a) Petitioner, a resident of Mahe region of Union Territory of Puducherry, completed Higher Secondary examinations conducted by the Board of
Higher Secondary Examinations, Government of Kerala during March, 2011, with good marks.
(b) The Petitioner applied to the second Respondent which is a Centralised Admission Committee (hereinafter called as ''CENTAC''),
Government of Puducherry, constituted by the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry in G.O. Ms. No. 40 Chief Secretariat (Education)
dated 3.5.2011 for admission into professional course. The CENTAC issued bulletin for admission to professional courses for the academic
session 2011-12 vide G.O. Ms. No. 50 dated 18.5.2011.
In the said Government Order, the list of colleges, eligibility for admission to various courses, admission process/procedures, reservation, etc., are
mentioned.
(c) In Clause 6.1 ""ranking of candidates"" is mentioned, which states that selection of candidates for admission to all degree courses will be based
on the merit list prepared by the CENTAC, based on the marks awarded by adopting the method of normalization, as detailed in Clause 6.2.
Minimum academic qualification prescribed is, pass in Higher Secondary Examinations conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations
of Tamil Nadu or any other equivalent examinations thereto with a minimum of 50 marks (40 marks for reserved candidates) in aggregate in the
prescribed subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Bio-Technology, Botany and Zoology. Similar academic qualification is prescribed for
various professional courses.
(d) The Petitioner having passed Plus Two examinations conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Government of Kerala,
applied to the second Respondent for admission. According to the Petitioner, in the State of Kerala, students in the first year (Plus One) have to
write six papers - Part-I English; Part-II Regional language; Part-III four optional core subjects. Marks are divided to each of the papers and no
practical examination is conducted for the first year (Plus One) course. For the second year (Plus Two), 20 marks are fixed for the practical and
80 marks are allotted to theory papers, which means the total marks of non-practical papers is 100 and for practical papers the marks prescribed
is 120.
(e) It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Government of Kerala is considering the Plus Two marks alone for admission to professional
courses. However, the Puducherry Government is clubbing both the marks viz., Plus one and Plus two marks for admission through the impugned
order, based on which ranking is arranged and thereby the students like the Petitioner, who passed out from the Board of Higher Secondary
Examinations, Government of Kerala, are affected and therefore the candidates belonging to Mahe region are unable to get admission into the
professional courses, when compared to the candidates hailing from Puducherry and Karaikkal regions and the said adoption of different methods
for normalization of the Higher Secondary marks is discriminatory and arbitrary.
(f) It is also stated in the affidavit that on 29.3.2011 the Joint Secretary, Education Department, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry stated that the Plus
Two marks alone, irrespective of the State Boards would be taken up for admission to professional courses by CENTAC and a contrary stand is
taken through the impugned order dated 3.6.2011 by the third Respondent, which is not reflected in the prospectus issued. Therefore the
Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above said prayer.
The second Respondent has filed the counter affidavit contending as follows:
(i) The CENTAC is admitting students to various professional courses in respect of colleges coming under the Government of Puducherry from the
year 2001-2002. The Union Territory of Puducherry consists of four regions -
Puducherry, Karaikkal, Mahe and Yenam. The regions Puducherry and Karaikkal are situated in the border of State of Tamilnadu; Mahe is
situated in the border of State of Kerala; and Yenam is situated in the border of State of Andhra Pradesh.
(ii) The Education Department of Puducherry Government is following Tamilnadu Board pattern for Puducherry and Karaikkal regions and in
respect of Mahe, the Kerala Board examination pattern and in respect of Yenam, Andhra Pradesh Board examination pattern.
(iii) The selection of candidates to all the degree courses is based on the merit list prepared by the CENTAC by applying the method of
normalization and for the purpose of normalization of marks, the CENTAC contacts the Director of School Education, Government of Puducherry
to furnish the highest marks obtained in each of the prescribed subject for various courses of different Board examinations, including Andhra
Pradesh and Kerala for preparation of merit list, thereby uniform merit list is prepared by adopting the method of normalization.
(iv) The consolidated mark sheet of Kerala Board of Higher Secondary Examinations produced by the Petitioner reveals that the grand total of
marks provided in the mark sheet comprises of first and second year (Plus one and Plus two) of Higher Secondary course put together. The mark
sheet reveals that maximum marks awarded for the subjects of normalization is 200 for each subject, which again includes first and second year.
(v) From the year 2008-2009 the Government of Puducherry cancelled the joint entrance test for admissions and admissions to professional
courses are made purely on the basis of performance of the candidates in the Higher Secondary/equivalent qualifying examinations. From the year
2009 the Plus one Examinations in Kerala was declared as public examinations, which is reflected in the mark sheet issued by the Directorate of
Higher Secondary Educations, Government of Kerala. The CENTAC has been preparing the merit list on the basis from 2010-2011 onwards for
Mahe and Yenam regions.
(vi) It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in Kerala, the students are admitted to professional courses based on entrance examinations marks
for M.B.B.S.
Course and the qualifying examination marks are not taken into account, which is not the case for admission to professional courses in the Union
Territory of Puducherry. Raising all the above contentions the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Mr. R. Sureshkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of his contentions relied on the letter issued by the second
Respondent dated 29.3.2011, the prospectus/information bulletin issued by the CENTAC for the year 2011-2012 as well as the prospectus
issued by the Government of Kerala for admission to 2011, and submitted that the prospectus nowhere states that both Plus one and Plus two
marks will be taken into consideration for admission to professional course by way of normalization and the impugned order is issued contrary to
the information bulletin/prospectus and by virtue of the different methods adopted by the CENTAC for normalization to arrive at the ranking of
students hailing from Mahe and Yenam, the students are affected and therefore the procedure followed is discriminatory and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
Mr. D. Srinivasan, learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for Respondents submitted that the Petitioner having underwent the
Higher Secondary course as per Kerala education pattern and appeared for the public examinations in both first and second year and having
produced the mark sheet which contains both Plus one and Plus two marks, is not entitled to contend that only Plus two marks should be taken
into consideration for the purpose of normalization for admission to the professional courses. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that
in the State of Tamilnadu there is no public examinations for Plus one and public examination is conducted only for Plus two and mark statement is
issued based on the performance of the candidates in Plus two alone. In respect of the candidates who have appeared for examinations under the
State of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh education patterns, they are bound by the education patterns adopted by the respective Boards and there is
no discrimination as alleged. It is also submitted that all the candidates hailing from Mahe region are ranked only on the very same basis viz.,
considering the marks secured both in Plus one and Plus two (first and second year) and therefore the Petitioner has to compete with others, who
are similarly placed and she cannot compare her certificates with the certificates issued by the State of Tamilnadu, wherein only Plus two marks are
relevant consideration for declaring the pass as well as for arriving at the ranks. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the
Petitioner''s overall ranking is 161 and total number of seats available are 150 in Government Colleges and 265 in private colleges under the
Government quota and therefore the Petitioner is sure to get a seat in M.B.B.S. under anyone of the category.
I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) for the
Respondents.
It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner is hailing from Mahe region of Union Territory of Puducherry. The students undergoing Higher
Secondary Course in the schools located in Mahe region are appearing for the Plus two examinations in terms of the syllabus, duration of course,
examination scheme conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Government of Kerala. The Petitioner joined in the Higher
Secondary Course and as per the scheme of examinations decided by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Government of Kerala from
2009-2010 public examinations are made mandatory for both the first and second year of the Higher Secondary Course (intermediate).
The mark statement issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Government of Kerala, through which the Petitioner has passed
with Register No. 7382786, issued on 26.5.2011 clearly establishes the fact that first year and second year marks were added together and a
grand total of each subject marks are arrived at and consequential gradation is given. Petitioner''s total marks in Part-I English is 144; Part-II Hindi
is 188; Part-II Physics 127, Chemistry 119, Biology 140 and Mathematics 88. The sample mark statements issued to the candidates, who
appeared for Plus two examinations (Higher Secondary) under the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Board Examinations is also filed, which contains
only the Plus two marks, i.e., no public examination is conducted for the first year/Plus one. The mark sheet issued to a candidate, who is hailing
from Yenam region, who appeared under the Board of Intermediate education Andhra Pradesh contains clubbing of both first and second year
marks. Thus, it is evident that different pattern of examinations for Higher Secondary Course is conducted by the respective Boards. Petitioner
having appeared and passed in the examinations conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Government of Kerala, is therefore
bound by the mark statement given by that Board for claiming admission to professional course in the Union Territory of Puducherry.
The Government of Puducherry vide G.O. Ms. No. 50 Chief Secretariat (Education), dated 18.5.2011 issued CENTAC Information Bulletin
2011-2012 for admission to first year professional degree courses such as Engineering, Medical, Ayurvedic medical, Dental, Veterinary and
Animal Science, Agricultural Science, B. Pharm, B. Sc.(Nursing), B.P.T., and B. Sc.(MLT) degree courses. In the said Government order it is
further stated that the CENTAC shall have the freedom to take functional and operational decisions for admission of candidates for various
professional courses within the overall framework of the various Government orders i.e, G.O. Ms. No. 40 dated 3.5.2011, as modified from time
to time. In the Information Bulletin issued to the candidates in Clause 2.1, a minimum academic qualification is prescribed which reads thus,
2.1 Minimum Academic Qualification:
2.1.1 Biology based Degree Courses -
M.B.B.S., B.A.M.S.,B.D.S., B.V. Sc. & A.H., B.P.T., B. Sc.(Nursing) and B. Sc.(MLT) Degree courses:
Candidates seeking admission to the M.B.B.S., B.A.M.S., B.D.S., B.V. Sc. & A.H., B.P.T., B. Sc.(Nursing) and B. Sc.(MLT) Degree courses
must have passed H. Sc.(Academic) examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination of Tamil Nadu or any other
equivalent examination thereto, with a minimum of 50% marks (40% of marks for OBC/BCM/MBC/EBC/BT/
SC/ST candidates) in aggregate, in the prescribed subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Biotechnology#/ Botony and Zoology. Further
they should have studied English as one of the subjects and they must have passed the above four subjects individually.
# Applicable only for MBBS course subject to approval by Pondicherry University.
Clause 6.1 deals with ranking of candidates, which reads as follows:
6.1 Ranking of Candidates Selection of Candidates for admission to all the Degree courses will be based on the Merit lists prepared by
CENTAC, based on the marks arrived at by adopting the ''method of normalization'', as detailed in para 6.2 below. Ranking of the candidates will
be done based on the ''normalized marks'' (rounded-off to three decimal places) arrived at, to a base of 200.
Normalization procedure is explained in Clause 6.2, which reads thus,
6.2 Normalization Procedure In order to evolve a common base for comparing the marks obtained by the candidates from various Boards of
Examinations, ''normalization procedure'' as outlined below will be followed.
(i) The marks obtained by the students in the relevant subjects in the qualifying examination conducted by the various Boards or Authority, shall be
equated with the marks obtained by the students in the same subject in the qualifying examination, conducted by the State Board (i.e. State Board
of School Examinations, Tamil Nadu), by adopting the method of normalization.
Explanation: Under the method of normalization, the highest mark obtained by the students of various Boards in each subject, shall be equated to
the highest mark obtained by the students of the State Board in that subject, and the relative marks of other students in that subject, shall be
determined accordingly.
Illustration: If the highest marks secured by a student of the State Board, in Physics in 100 and the highest mark secured by a student of any other
Board (say ''X'', in the same subject is 90, then, both the highest marks will be considered to be equal to 100. If any other student of the other
Board (i.e.""X"") secures 60 marks in Physics. When the first mark in Physics in the same Board (i.e.""X"") is 90, then 60 marks secured by such a
student will be considered to be equal to 66.667 marks as arrived at and given below: (100x6)/90=66.667%.
(ii) After normalization of marks of the eligible students of different Boards, in the relevant subjects, the ''normalized marks'' obtained shall be
merged into a ''common merit list''.
(iii) In cases, where more than one student have got the same marks in the ''common merit list'', the ''inter-se merit'' among such students shall be
determined in the manner prescribed as in para6.3 below.
(iv) For the purpose of normalization of marks of candidates from ''Other States'', except for the B. Tech course, for all other such courses,
wherever such quota is available, maximum marks obtained in the respective subjects, from among the various Boards under which the above
candidates have actually studied and applied for a particular course, will only be considered.
Illustration: For B. Pharm course, if candidates from Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra alone have applied against ""All India
quota"", then, the above Boards and their maximum marks only will be considered, for the purpose of ''normalization'' of marks.
(v) The Director, School Education, Government of Puducherry, will be the designated authority, to furnish the ''maximum marks'' in each of the
''prescribed subjects'' for the various courses, of the various Boards of Examination, and furnish it to CENTAC.
For the ''normalization Procedure'' only the above officially furnished date will be used and will form the basis for preparing the ''common merit list''
for the various courses, coming under the purview of CENTAC.
From the above referred information, which was given as prospectus, which is the rule of selection, clearly states that the candidates seeking
admission to degree courses including M.B.B.S. must have passed H. Sc. (academic examinations) conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary
Examinations, Tamilnadu or in other equivalent examinations thereto with minimum of 50% marks with aggregate and for
OBC/BCM/MBC/EBC/BT/SC/ST candidates 40% of marks is prescribed as minimum marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology
or Bio-Technology/Botony and Zoology. The said clause nowhere states that a candidate need to have Plus two qualification alone. The pass in
Higher Secondary clearly establishes the fact that if there is public examination in the first year and second year, candidates should have qualified in
both the examinations with 50% marks and if there is public examination only in Plus two then Plus two marks alone shall be taken into
consideration.
The rankings are made by the CENTAC in terms of Clause 6.1 of the prospectus. The Petitioner is given 161st rank and there is reservation
of seats to candidates belonging to Mahe region. The Petitioner is entitled to compete for the seats reserved for Mahe region as well as in the
general seats. Therefore no discrimination is made out as contended by the Petitioner to declare the impugned order as invalid. The binding nature
of the prospectus, which is the rule of selection for admission to various courses issued by the Government is binding not only the
Government/University, but also the candidates applying for admission. The said issue is no longer res integra. In this regard, the following
decisions can be usefully cited: G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow and Others, ; Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, ;
Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of U.P., ; AIR 2000 Madras 174 (FB) (R. Murali v. R. Kamalakkannan); (2007) 5 MLJ 648(DB) (Indian
Airlines Ltd. v. K. Narayanan); Dhananjay Malik and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, ; 2009 WLR 223 (Dr.S. Rajesh v. The State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors.); (2010) 12 SCC 576 (Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar); 2011 18 (1) CTC 469(DB) (V. Yamuna Devl v. The
Registrar General, High Court, Madras); and Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Others, .
The Petitioner being a candidate applied for admission under the prospectus, which is the rule of selection, is bound by the said terms
contained in the prospectus, which is the eligibility for admission. The Petitioner is therefore not justified in contending that the candidates hailing
from Puducherry and Karaikkal regions are treated differently and the candidates belonging to Mahe and Yenam regions are affected by the action
of the CENTAC in taking the first and second year Higher Secondary marks for admission to professions course, including M.B.B.S.
The Petitioner also cannot compare the procedure adopted by the Government of Kerala for admission to various courses according to the
prospectus as the Petitioner has applied for admission to the course in the colleges located in the Union Territory of Puducherry, she is bound by
the prospectus issued by the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry. The impugned order dated 3.6.2011 is in consonance with the
prospectus particularly Clause 2.1 extracted above. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
There is no merit in the writ petition and consequently the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also
dismissed.