P.Suresh Kumar v. The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.07.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMAW.P. No.7494 of 2012 &M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012P.Suresh Kumar... Petitioner-vs-1.The Member Secretary,All India Council for Technical Education,7th Floor, Chander Lok Building,Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.2.The Secretary,TANCET (Examination and Administration),Anna University, Chennai – 600 025.3.The Registrar,Anna University,Coimbatore.... Respondents.Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia for the issuance of a writ in the nature of declaration , todeclare that prescribing the minimum eligibility criteria asMathematics at 10 +2 level for M.C.A. Admission by the firstrespondent as Ultravvires, violative of Article 14 and 19 ofConstitution of India and consequently direct the second respondentto permit the petitioner to appear for the TANCET Examinationscheduled on 30.03.2012.For Petitioner : M/s.MuthappanFor R1:Mrs.A.L.GandhimathiFor R2:Mr.Mani Sundara GopalFor R3:Mr.R.SivakumarO R D E RThe petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for theissuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the minimumeligibility criteria as Mathematics at 10 +2 level for MCA admissionby the first respondent as ultravires the Constitutioni, beingviolative of Articles 14 and 19 of Constitution of India, with aconsequential prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature ofmandamus, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appear for the TANCET examination scheduled on 30.03.2012.2. The Secretary, TANCET (Examination andAdministration), Anna University invited application for admission toMaster of Computer Application Course, which is a Post GraduateDegree Course in Computer Application.3. The admission to Master of Computer Application Course wason the basis of entrance examination conducted by the StateGovernment, now being conducted by the Secretary, TANCET (Examinationand Administration), Anna University.4. The eligibility criteria for admission to M.C.A. Coursereads as under:-"2. M.C.A: A pass in a recognised Bachelor's degree ofminimum three years duration in 10+2+3/4 years (or) 10+3years Diploma + 3 years pattern in any discipline withMathematics at +2 level and obtained atleast 50% (45% incase of candidates belonging to reserved category) at thequalifying examination.Note: (i)candidates admitted through lateral entry in degreecourses are not eligible except, B.E./B.Tech. degreecourses.(ii)Candidates with B.E./B.Tech./M.C.A./M.Sc. degreesobtained through weekend courses and B.E./B.Tech.through distance mode are not eligible.Those who are appearing for final year / semesterexamination of the above qualifying degree in April / May2012 can also apply for TANCET 2012.Application Form is common for all the three entrancetests. Candidates have to submit only one application. Thecandidates have to pay a fee of Rs.500/- (Rs.250/- forSC/SCA/ST candidates belonging to Tamil Nadu on productionof a copy of Permanent Community Certificate in card format)as entrance test fee for any one of the programmes either(1) M.B.A. or (2) M.C.A. or (3) M.E./M.Tech./M.Arch./M.Plan.If a candidate desires to appear for more than oneprogramme, for every additional programme, he / she has topay Rs.500/- (Rs.250/- for SC/SCA/ST candidates belonging toTamilnadu).Note: Spot Registration can be made at all the Centres onall the days as above between 9.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. except https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on Sundays and Public Holidays.For further details, visit Anna University Website:www.annauniv.educ/tancet2012"5. The petitioner applied for admission to M.C.A. Course and hewas given the hall ticket for the examination, scheduled on31.03.2012. The petitioner has qualified in Bachelor of ComputerApplication with the following subjects:-"FIRST YEAR SUBJECTS:-1. French2. Communication English (Interpersonal Communication)3. E-Programming4. Digital Fundamental and Computer Organization5. Mathematics 16. Lab 1 (C Programming)7. Lab 2 (Office Automation)SECOND YEAR SUBJECTS:-1. Core Java2. Data Base Management System3. Operating System4. Computer Application in Bank, Insurance and Textiles5. Business Accounting6. Programme of Java (Lab)7. DBMS (Lab)8. Diploma in Professional Grooming & Practice9. Foundation Course (Environment of Study)10. Visual Basic and Visual Basic Net Programming11. Computer Graphics and Multimedia12. Data Communication and Network13. Business Process Outsourcing14. Principles of Marketing ManagementTHIRD YEAR SUBJECTS:-1. HTML2. UML3. Ethics4. Object Oriented Analysis and Design5. Software Engineering6. Information Security System7. Web Technology8. XML9. Data Warehousing10. Software Testing11. Enterprise Resource Planning" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 issued anotification, calling upon the authorities to get back the hallticket issued to the students on the ground that the first respondent/ All India Council for Technical Education has issued guidelines inthe Approval Process Hand Book (2011-2012), AICTE specifying theeligibility for admission to M.C.A. Course as follows:-MCA3 YrsRecognised Bachelors Degree ofminimum three years duration withMathematics at 10+2 level. Obtainedat least 50% (45% in case ofcandidate belonging to reservedcategory) at the qualifyingexamination.7. The petitioner did not have Mathematics as one of theSubjects in +2 level, but did Computer Science. However, he hasstudied the subject of Mathematics in his B.C.A. Degree Course.8. The notification issued by the respondent no.1 debars thecandidates who have done +2 in Statistics as one of the subjects,from taking of M.C.A. Course. 9. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notification, onthe following grounds:i)That the condition of Mathematics at +2 level, is arbitrary,thus, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, as ithas no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.ii)That the impugned condition even otherwise is arbitrary anddiscriminatory as students who possessed the degree of B.C.A.with +2 Statistics as subject, have no avenue of furtherstudies, whereas their classmates, who have undergone the samecourse of B.C.A. with +2 Mathematics are eligible for admissionto MCA course. This creates artificial classification betweensimilarly situated students, thus, is hit by Article 14 of theConstitution;iii)That the impugned notification is also contrary to thecurriculum for M.C.A. Degree issued by the respondent No.1,which contemplates as follows:- The students entering M.C.A must have a B.C.A /B.Sc. / B.Com / B.A degree with Mathematics as one ofthe subjects at 10 +2 level or at graduation"10. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the the respondent No.1, on the ground that itis prerogative on the University to prescribe the eligibilitycondition, being an expert body and the decision of the University in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this regard is outside the purview of judicial review, as it is notopen to the Court to decide as to what should be the eligibilitycondition for admission to the course, being not an expert.11.In support of this contention, learned counsel for therespondent no.1 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of P.M.Bhargava vs. University GrantsCommission, (2004) 6 SCC 661, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court waspleased to hold as under:"13. The Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the UGCshows that the UGC constituted a nine-member Committeewhich after discussion and deliberations recommendedopening of the departments of "Jyotir Vigyan" inuniversities for award of degrees. The Committee hasrecommended to create such courses only in 20 out of 41universities which had applied for the same and the degreewhich would be awarded will be B.A./B.A.(Hons.)/M.A./Ph.D.The decision to start the course has been taken by anexpert body constituted by the UGC. The courts are notexpert in academic matters and it is not for them to decideas what course should be taught in university and whatshould be their curriculum. This caution was sounded inUniversity of Mysore v. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 whereinGajendragadkar,J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking forthe Constitution Bench held that it would normally be wiseand safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academicmatters to experts who are more familiar with the problemsthey face than the courts generally can be. In this casechallenge was made to certain appointments and the Benchheld that what the High Court should consider is whetherthe appointment made by the Chancellor on therecommendation of the Board had contravened any statutoryor binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the HighCourt should show due regard to the opinion expressed bythe Board and its recommendations on which the Chancellorhas acted. This principle was reiterated in J.P.Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University 1980 (3)SCC 418 wherein it was held as under:"While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule ofprudence that courts should hesitate to dislodgedecisions of academic bodies. But university organs,for that matter any authority in our system arebound by the rule of law and cannot be law untothemselves. If the Chancellor or any other authoritylesser in level decides an academic matter or aneducational question, the court keeps its hands off;but where a provision of law has to be read and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ understood, it is not fair to keep the court out." 14. The above mentioned principle has beenconsistently followed by this Court and it is not necessaryto burden this judgment by giving references of thosecases.15. The appellants do not allege breach of anystatutory provision, rule or regulation. Their complaint isthat the inclusion of Jyotir Vigyan as a course of study inthe university is wrong as the accuracy or correctness ofthe subject, namely Jyotir Vigyan has not been establishedby the scientific tests or experiments. The precisequestion as to whether Jyotir Vigyan should be included asa course of study having been considered and examined by anExpert Body of UGC and they having recommended forincluding the said course for study and award of degree inuniversities, it will not be proper for this Court tointerfere with the aforesaid decision specially when noviolation of any statutory provisions is demonstrated."12.Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University,(2009) 4 SCC 555 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased tolay down that:"It is the University Authority who knows best as towhat is their requirement. If it was necessary for theUniversity to fill up the post from the stream ofIndustrial Chemistry, it would have so indicated in theadvertisement itself for in subsequent years specificadvertisement was issued by the University for filling upthe post of Lecturer in Industrial Chemistry by issuing anadvertisement specifically in that regard. The University,according to its Statutes 22, 21, 19 and 17(2)(i),undertakes multitier exercise for laying down essentialqualification for a particular post and then it isadvertised. It is also established from the records thatPure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two differentsubjects. The post advertised was meant for a personbelonging to Pure Chemistry Department for if it wasotherwise, then it would have been so mentioned in theadvertisement itself that a person holding a Master'sdegree in Industrial Chemistry should only apply or that aperson holding such a degree could also apply along withother persons.The University can always have a person as a Lecturerin a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same must be specifically stated in the advertisementitself. In the matter of selection of candidates, opinionof the Selection Committee should be final, but at the sametime, the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily andcannot change the criteria/qualification in the selectionprocess midstream. There could have been intendingcandidates who would have applied for becoming candidate asagainst the said advertised post, had they known and wereinformed through advertisement that Industrial Chemistry isalso one of the qualifications for filling up the saidpost. The Selection Committee during the stage ofselection, which is midway could not have changed theessential qualification laid down in the advertisement. 13.This judgment has no application to the facts of the case,as the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was, regarding thedecision of the selection committee, being an expert body, which wasto be respected, it was held, that selection committee cannot changeselection criteria midway, therefore, this judgment has noapplication to the point raised in this writ petition.14.On consideration, I find that this writ petition deservesto succeed. The All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi,has issued curriculum for MCA degree, as suggested by All India Boardof Computer Science, Engg./Tech and Applications, wherein prerequisites for MCA course, is prescribed as under:"2.1 MCA Course Pre-requisites and Period:-M.C.A is a three year (6 semester) course. Thestudents entering M.C.A. must have a B.C.A/ B.Sc./ B.Com/B.A. Degree with Mathematics as one of the subjects at 10+2 level or at graduation. Of the six semesters onesemester is to be spent in any industry developing asoftware system. The M.C.A. Programme is planned to have 5theory subject plus two laboratories each semester. Thecurriculum has a strong core covering informationtechnology, business management and mathematics."15.It cannot be disputed, that the instructions issued by theAll India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, are binding onthe university. It is not for the University to deviate from thecurriculum prescribed by the All India Council for TechnicalEducation.16.Once the expert body, like the All India Council forTechnical Education, has prescribed, that the students entering MCAmust have B.C.A./B.Sc./B.Com./B.A.degree with Mathematicsas one ofthe subjects at 10+2 level or at graduation, it was not open to theUniversity to modify the curriculum to exclude the students, who had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ done Mathematics at 10+2 level, to exclude the candidates, who hadMathematics at graduation level. 17.The impugned eligibility condition, therefore, is contraryto the recommendations of the expert body. The Hon'ble Supreme Courtin P.M.Bhargava vs. University Grants Commission, (supra), did notrule out the judicial review completely, but was pleased to lay downthat in case decision of the university is in violation of anystatutory provisions of law, then it can be examined by the Courts.18.It is well established law, that even in case of exerciseof legislative function by the Government, if the decision is inviolation of Statute or is arbitrary or is in violation of theconstitutional provisions, then it is open to judicial review.19.The impugned eligibility condition is on the face of itarbitrary, as it defeats the object sought to be achieved, andfurther defeats the right of the eligible students to education. Theimpugned condition debars a student, though qualified BCAexamination, which is the eligibility condition for admission to MCAfrom consideration for admission to MCA, based on artificialclassification.20.The impugned condition is also violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution of India, as it makes artificial classificationbetween similarly situated persons, i.e. BCA / B.Sc., graduation fromthe same university, who have studied together and have obtained thesame degree, merely, on the basis of their having taken the subjectof Statistics or Mathematics in +2, this artificial classificationbetween similarly situated persons would be hit by Article 14 of theConstitution of India, therefore, cannot be sustained.21.The impugned eligibility condition is not only contrary tothe statutory instruction, issued by the All India Council forTechnical Education, but is also violative of Constitution Guaranteeto Education, thus, is on the face of it arbitrary, thus notsustainable in law.22.The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon bythe learned counsel for the respondent no.1 cannot justify imposingof arbitrary condition for admission to MCA course to make acandidate, who is eligible under the instructions of the All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education, to be ineligible by the university.23.The Hon'ble Supreme Court also did not rule out thejudicial interference with the decision of the University, if thedecision is in violation of Statute or otherwise arbitrary orviolative of Constitutional provisions of law.24.For the reasons stated herein above, this writ petition is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allowed. The impugned eligibility condition is quashed. A writ in thenature of Mandamus is issued to accept the candidature of thepetitioner for MCA course based on his merit in the competitiveexamination, by considering the eligibility condition, as laid downby the All Indian Council for Technical Education in their curriculumfor MCA degree based on the expert opinion.25.The respondents are directed to declare the results of thecompetitive examination of petitioner and if eligible, admit him, asthe petitioner has already taken the competitive examination underthe interim order passed by this Court.26.No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar //True Copy// Sub.Asst.Registrarrns/arTo1.The Member Secretary,All India Council for Technical Education,7th Floor, Chander Lok Building,Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.2.The Secretary,TANCET (Examination and Administration),Anna University, Chennai – 600 025.3.The Registrar,Anna University,Coimbatore.1 cc to M/s.AL.Ganthimathi , Advocate, Sr.No.413241 cc to Mr.V.R.Annagandhi , Advocate, Sr.No.412521 cc to Mr.R.Sivakumar , Advocate, Sr.No.41500W.P. No.7494 of 2012 &M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012ts(co)pmk.19.7.2012