AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the second respondent relating to the non approval of the admission of the petitioners to the first year B.E. Degree course from the academic year 2012-13 in the 5th respondent college and further direct the second respondent to approve the admission of the petitioners in their respective engineering courses and permit them to complete their course. The case of the petitioners is that they were admitted in B.E. Degree course during the year 2012-13 and they obtained less than 40% marks in the qualifying examination, so to say, Higher Secondary Examination(10 + 2). The third respondent, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) prescribed a minimum of 40% marks for the candidates belonging to reserved category and 45% for others in the qualifying examination. The petitioners belong to reserved category and as their admission is contrary to the minimum marks prescribed by the AICTE, their admission in the fifth respondent college was not approved by the second respondent vide its impugned order dated 05.10.2012 and the same is challenged before this court in this writ petition.
Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for RR1 and 2; Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, the learned senior counsel appearing for AICTE and Mr. M. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-University.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners joined the fifth respondent college pursuant to the circular No. 574/ECA1/2012 dated 30.04.2012 issued by the Commissioner of Technical Education prescribing 35% marks for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. Hence, the petitioners were admitted based on the said circular.
Whereas, on the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the AICTE would submit that the Government can prescribe higher marks than the AICTE but, they cannot prescribe marks lesser than the one that are prescribed by AICTE. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Visveswaraya Technological University and Another Vs. Krishnendu Halder and Others, The learned senior counsel also relied on the following other three judgments passed by this court,
W.P. No. 21318 of 2012 and etc. batch dated 20.06.2012.
W.P. No. 17670 of 2012 dated 20.07.2012.
W.P. No. 15783 of 2011 dated 27.07.2012 wherein this court has categorically held that admission of students, who have secured less than the marks prescribed by the AICTE shall not be approved. These orders are not stayed by the Division Bench of this court though writ appeals are said to have been preferred.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
The minimum eligibility marks prescribed by the AICTE for the under graduate degree programs is as follows:
Program
Duration
Eligibility
1.
Engineering & Technology
4 years
Passed 10 + 2 examination with Physics and Mathematics As compulsory subjects along with one of the Chemistry/Biotechnology/Biology.
Obtained at least 45% marks (40% in case of candidate belonging to reserved category) in the above subjects taken together.
Admittedly, the petitioners belong to the reserved category and they had obtained less than 40% marks as prescribed by the AICTE. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since seats are remained vacant in the fifth respondent Engineering college, the Commissioner of Technical Education prescribed such lesser marks for the reserved category, cannot be accepted for the reason that the same was rejected by this court in the three judgments referred to above.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of the second respondent is in terms of the judgments of this court referred to above and I do not find any infirmity in the same. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.