AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Short question, raised for consideration in this writ petition is :-
Whether direction of the State fixing eligibility criterion of obtaining minimum 10% marks in All India Engineering Entrance Exams (AIEEE) - 2011 for admission in the private Engineering Colleges of the State is bad-in-law?
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:-
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.
Mr. Sourabh Dangi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the eligibility criteria for admission to Engineering Courses has been fixed by All India Council For Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as the ''AICTE'') which does not say that the candidates must obtain 10% marks in AIEEE - 2011, therefore, imposing the said condition by the State in the notification for counseling is contrary to the Norms fixed by the AICTE and the same deserves to be struck down.
On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, argued that the above criterion is fixed on the basis of the Rules namely Chhattisgarh Engineering Isnatak Pathiyakaram Pravesh Niyam 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 fixed by the AICTE; the State has full authority to fix such criterion; therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition.
All India Council For technical Education (AICTE) has fixed the following criteria for the programs of Engineering and Technology:-
In Rules 2011, the relevant criterion for admission in the other State quota has been fixed by Rule 2.7.1 (b) which reads as under:-
Directorate Technical Education in the impugned notice for online counseling has mentioned the criterion of minimum marks of 10% on the basis of the above Rule - 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.
In Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyarthavathiru Sundara Swamigalme Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , the Supreme Court held that "The legislative power in relation to ''education'' was earlier distributed in all the three legislative lists in the Seventh 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 Parliament and State legislatures 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 Entries 63 to 66 of List I and concurrently on parliament and State legislatures in respect of matters specified in Entry 25 of List III."
In State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others, , 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 66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over the standards fixed 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 other authority functioning under it. Whether the policy of the State relating to not opening Engineering colleges and not granting permission to the colleges for further shifts or to increase their intake on the ground of seats in the Colleges lying vacant in previous years was good ground for the AICTE to refuse recognition? We are of the view that the above ground taken by for new courses, in view of the provision of AICTE Act, 1987 and further in view of the above constitutional mandates was not correct.
The legal position, therefore, is that if certain prescription 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 fixed by State do not adversely affect the standards fixed by AICTE they may survive subject to passing of the test of rationality, reasonability and arbitrariness etc.
In Visveswaraya Technological University and Another Vs. Krishnendu Halder and Others, , the Supreme Court quoted the portion of decision of Dr Preeti Srivastava and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others, , in 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 research and scientific and technical institutions as also coordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right to control 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 Government. Therefore, while prescribing the 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 that from 1977, education, including, inter alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that the 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.
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 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 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 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.
Taking note of Preeti Srivastava and many other judgments it was held in Visveswaraiah (supra) that determination of standards by fixing higher eligibility criteria by the University/State than the minimum prescribed by Central Government to achieve excellence 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.
In State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others, , the Supreme Court held that "Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. 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. The State 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."
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 fixed 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 0 mark or even minus marks were trying to get admission in the private Engineering Colleges of the State which led the Government to fix 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 of 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 in 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 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.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.