Anish Alexander & Ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.04.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAMW.P.Nos.3150 and 3151 of 2008and M.P.Nos.1,1,2,2,3 & 3 of 2008Anish Alexander .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3150/2008Subin Varghese .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3151/2008-Vs.-1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.3. The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.4. Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering, Rep. by its Principal, Nemili, Sriperumbudur – 602 105... Respondents in both the WPsWrit petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamuscalling for the records of the respondents, pertaining to the orderof the 3rd respondent in Lr.No.45/FA3/2007, dated 12.07.2007 and theOrder of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.48835/J1/2007, dated10.12.2007 and quash the same in so far as the petitioners areconcerned and consequently direct the respondents to permit thepetitioners to continue and complete their study in B.E. PetroleumEngineering in the 4th respondent college.For Petitioners : Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy Government Advocate (Edn.)For Respondent 3: Mr.Mani Sundar GopalFor Respondent 4: Mr.A.R.Anand- - - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N O R D E RAdmit. With consent of the learned counsel on either side, thewrit petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the facts ofboth the above cases are identical and the issue that arises forconsideration is also the same, the writ petitions are disposed of bya common order. 2. The respective petitioners had passed their Higher SecondaryCourse at Kerala in March 2007 and both of them had secured anoverall percentage of 59.33 marks in Physics, Chemistry andMathematics. The writ petitioner Mr.Anish Alexander was admitted inthe 4th respondent college on 30.05.2007, while the other writpetitioner Mr.Subin Varghese was admitted in the 4th respondentcollege on 13.06.2007, under Open Category in Management quota in thefirst year B.E. course. They have paid the requisite Admission fee,Tuition fee, etc., and were regularly continuing their studies.While so, the 4th respondent served a copy of the proceeding of thesecond respondent in Lr.No.48835/J1/2007, dated 10.12.2007 on thepetitioners, wherein it was mentioned that the marks obtained by thepetitioners in the Higher Secondary Course are insufficient and theyare not eligible for admission as per the new norms. The proceedingsof the second respondent dated 10.12.2007 was based on theproceedings of the 3rd respondent issued in Lr.No.45/FA3/2007, dated12.07.2007 and hence the petitioners are seeking to quash both theabove said proceedings and seeks a further direction to direct therespondents to permit the petitioners to continue and complete theirstudies in the B.E. course in the 4th respondent college.3. A detailed common counter affidavit has been filed by the3rd respondent inter alia contending as follows:The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.222 dt. 29.06.2002 haveprescribed the following Minimum Eligibility Marks for OC candidatesfor admission to Engineering Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu viz.,COMMUNITYHigher Secondary (Academic) / Higher Secondary (Vocational)/Diploma HoldersOC60% average in the related subjectsThe Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.280, Higher Education(J2) Department, dt.20.12.2004 had constituted a Co-ordinationCommittee to regulate the admissions to Engineering Colleges in theState for three years from 2005-2007; the said Committee in itssecond meeting held on 20.05.2005, had resolved that for admission tofirst year Engineering Courses, the average marks of Mathematics,Physics and Chemistry can be rounded to the next higher integernumber to meet the minimum eligibility criteria viz., for OC - 59.1%and above; the Secretary, TNEA vide Communication dt.03.08.2005 hasstated that the Minimum average marks are to be satisfied for theacademic year 2005-2006, the said Co-ordination Committee in itsMeeting held on 26.06.2006 inter alia had resolved to approve theminimum average marks of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry for thefirst year admission to B.E. / B.Tech. viz., for OC – 59.1% and abovecan be rounded to the next integer number for admission toEngineering Courses for the academic year 2006-2007. Some of the SelfEngineering Colleges requested to follow the Minimum EligibilityMarks as was adopted in the academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the present academic year 2007-2008 also. The said request wasplaced before the Co-ordination Committee. The Co-ordinationCommittee in its Second Meeting held on 04.06.2007, had approved theMinimum Eligibility Marks for the academic year 2007-2008 as follows:COMMUNITYMINIMUM MARKOC60% average in the related subjects (59.50% and above) The above said decision of the Co-ordination Committee wascommunicated to the Director of Technical Education, the secondrespondent herein on 12.07.2007.4. It is further stated in the common counter affidavit thatthe Single Window Admissions for Engineering Courses for the academicyear 2007-2008 commenced on 18.07.2007. The Single Window Admissionsclosed on 18.09.2007. Thereafter, the unfilled seats were remittedto the respective college for being filled by the management. Thelast date for admitting students was on 15.10.2007. The petitionersare other State students and had completed their Higher SecondaryCourse from the State of Kerala. Hence, they come under opencategory and would be eligible to be admitted in B.E. course only ifthey had secured a Minimum of 59.50% average marks in the relatedsubjects viz. Maths, Physics and Chemistry. However, the petitionershave secured only 59.33% of average marks in the related subjects inHigher Secondary Examination. Hence, they are ineligible to beadmitted in B.E. course. The College Management ought to have takendiligent steps in informing the petitioners regarding theirineligibility to be admitted for the academic year 2007-2008 andremoved their names from the list sent for D.T.E's approval. Thedecision of the Co-ordination Committee for the previous academicyears was applicable only to the respective academic years. Theaverment in para 6 that on the date of the petitioner's admission,the system of rounding off 59.33% as 60% was in force is specificallydenied as incorrect. On the above said contentions, the thirdrespondent seeks dismissal of the writ petitions.5. The second respondent has also filed a common counteraffidavit. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent hasreferred to the minimum eligibility marks prescribed for the academicyears 2005 to 2007 and 2007-2008 (since the details of which havebeen stated in the common counter affidavit filed by the 3rdrespondent, which has already been extracted above, the same is notrepeated). It is further stated in para 10 & 11 of the counteraffidavit as follows:“10...... Further, it is ascertained from the LetterNo.RGCE/GG/2007-2008/820 dated 17.12.2007 that the PrincipalRajiv Gandhi College of Engineering has admitted thisineligible petitioners only after the date of 6.8.2007 andfully aware of the fact that the Anna University has changedthe minimum eligibility criteria vide Lr.No.45/EA3/2007,dated 12.7.2007. Therefore, the averments made by thepetitioners that they have been admitted in the Rajiv GandhiCollege of Engineering on 30.5.2007 and 13.6.2007 aretotally false and they could not have been admitted in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rajiv Gandhi Engineering College prior to the receipt ofrevised minimum eligibility criteria for 2007-08.11. I submit that I specifically deny the avermentmade by the petitioners, namely, (1) Mr.Subin Varghese(2) Mr.Anish Alexander that they have been admitted in theRajiv Gandhi College of Engineering on 13.6.2007 and30.5.2007 respectively due to the following reason:The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi College of Engineering,has stated that he has admitted the petitioners due tonon-receipt of reply for his letter No.RGCE/GG/2008/622, Dt.6.8.2007. Therefore, the petitionerscould have joined only after 6.8.2007 i.e., only afterthe receipt of Centre for Admission's, AnnaUniversity, Chennai, Lr.No.45/EA3/2007, Dt.12.7.2007by the Principal, Rajiv Gandhi College ofEngineering.”6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that theDirector of Technical Education cannot accord approval for theseineligible petitioners against the decision of the Co-ordinationCommittee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu for conduct ofTamil Nadu Engineering Admissions 2007. On the above saidcontentions, the second respondent seeks dismissal of the writpetitions.7. Heard Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami, learned counsel appearingfor the petitioners, Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, learned GovernmentAdvocate (Edn.) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.Mani SundarGopal, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondentand Mr.A.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.8. Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners made the following submission;The proceedings of the second respondent is arbitrary and contrary tothe Principles of Natural Justice and it is also contrary to theJudgment reported in (1) Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University (AIR1986 SC 1448)(2) Kanishka Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi (AIR1992 Delhi 105)(3) Poovizhi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (AIR2002 Madras 235) and(4) Priyadarshini N. Vs. The Secretary to Government, Education Department (2005 (3) CTC 449)wherein it has been categorically held that for the mistake of theManagement or the Authorities, students should not be made to suffer;the second respondent ought not to have changed the minimumeligibility marks in the middle of the academic year and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents 2 and 3 are estopped from contending that the petitionersare not eligible for admission to the first year B.E. course.9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners basedreliance on the following passage found at paragraph 8 of thedecision reported in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University(AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1448), which is as follows:“8…….The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges whichadmitted the appellants because the Principals of theseEngineering Colleges must have known that the appellantswere not eligible for admission and yet for the sake ofcapitation fee in some of the cases they granted admissionto the appellants. We do not see why the appellants shouldsuffer for the sins of the managements of these EngineeringColleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the viewtaken by us in this judgment allow the appellants tocontinue their studies in the respective EngineeringColleges in which they were granted admission…..” 10. Basing reliance on the decision reported in KanishkaAggarwal Vs. University of Delhi (AIR 1992 Delhi 105) the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents2 and 3 are estopped from contending that the petitioners are noteligible for admission to the first year B.E. course. The learnedcounsel elaborated the said contention by submitting that for theacademic year 2007-08, the minimum eligibility marks was fixed by theCo-ordination Committee only on 04.06.2007 and the decision wascommunicated to the second respondent only on 12.07.2007 andthereafter, the said decision was communicated to the individualcolleges only after 02.08.2007 and before that, admission of thepetitioners was over. Therefore, according to the learned counsel,when the petitioners were admitted to the 4th respondent college, theywere under the bona fide belief that they got the requisitepercentage of marks for getting admission and the subsequent changeof minimum eligibility mark should not be put against the petitionersto deny them admission. According to the learned counsel, therespondents 2 and 3 are estopped from relying upon the minimumrequisite qualification prescribed for 2007-08. 11. Further the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersrelied upon the decision reported in Poovizhi Vs. Government of TamilNadu (AIR 2002 Madras 235) and the decision reported inPriyadarshini. N Vs. The Secretary to Government, EducationDepartment (2005 (3) CTC 449) for the proposition that subsequentchange in the minimum eligibility marks for admission to the firstyear B.E. course cannot be given effect to in the middle of theacademic year but can be given effect to only from the subsequentacademic year. The learned counsel further submitted that for nofault of the petitioners, the petitioners should not suffer and loseone academic year. He further submitted that had the petitionersbeen informed well in advance by the respondents 2 and 3 or the 4threspondent, the petitioners would not have ventured to seek admissionwith the 4th respondent college. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. Mr.A.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the 4threspondent College adopted the submissions made by the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners and supplemented it bysubmitting that the 4th respondent had admitted the petitioners underthe Management Quota on the above said dates even before the minimumeligibility marks for admission to the first year B.E. course wascommunicated by the second respondent. He further submitted that hadthe second respondent communicated in advance the change in theminimum eligibility criteria for admission, the 4th respondent collegewould not have admitted the petitioners.13. Countering the said submissions, Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy,learned Government Advocate (Education) appearing for the respondents1 and 2 submitted that though the Principal of the 4th respondentcollege was well aware of the fact that the eligibility criteriacannot be revised by the Director of Technical Education and it canbe done only by the Co-ordination Committee constituted by theGovernment of Tamil Nadu, he had with mala fide intention addressed aletter to the second respondent in Letter No.RGCE/GG/2007-2008/622dated 06.08.2007, requesting to revise the eligibility criteria andhe had admitted the ineligible petitioners in the college taking thenon-receipt of the reply for the said letter as a shelter. Thelearned Government Advocate further submitted that the 4th respondenthad not challenged the proceedings of the second respondent dated18.01.2008. 14. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that it isvery much evident from the letter of the Principal of the 4threspondent college in Letter No.RGCE/GG/2007-2008/820, dated17.12.2007, that he had admitted the ineligible petitioners onlyafter 06.08.2007 and that too after fully being aware of the factthat Anna University has changed the minimum eligibility criteriavide Lr.No.45/EA3/2007, dated 12.07.2007. The learned GovernmentAdvocate further contended that the 4th respondent would not haveadmitted the petitioners on 30.05.2007 and 13.06.2007 respectively asclaimed by the 4th respondent.15. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that theplea of estoppel cannot be put against the respondents 1 and 2 as norepresentation whatsoever was made by these respondents to make thepetitioners believe that they are eligible for admission to the firstyear B.E. course for the academic year 2007-08. If at all any suchrepresentation had been made, it was made only by the 4th respondent.Since the 4th respondent had admitted the petitioners who areineligible for admission, the petitioners' admission was not approvedby the second and third respondents and hence the plea of estoppelhas no force. The petitioners can only proceed against the 4threspondent for damages. Since admittedly the petitioners do notpossess the minimum requisite eligibility marks, their admissioncannot be approved or regularized. 16. Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the 3rdrespondent adopted the submissions made by the learned GovernmentAdvocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and supplemented it bysubmitting that the date of admission of the petitioners viz.,30.05.2007 and 13.06.2007 respectively would not assume any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ significance, even if it is true, because of the fact that academicyear 2007-08 itself commenced only on 10.09.2007 and the last datefor admission was on 15.10.2007 and the new eligibility criteria wasfixed on 04.06.2007 and the petitioners cannot claim any vested rightonly on account of joining the college earlier. The learned counselfurther contended that the 4th respondent ought to have taken diligentsteps in informing the petitioners regarding their ineligibility tobe admitted for the academic year 2007-2008 and removed their namesfrom the list sent for D.T.E’s approval. The learned counsel furthersubmitted that the decision of the Co-orientationCommittee for the previous academic years was applicable only to therespective academic years. He further submitted that the contentionof the petitioners that on the date of their admission, system ofrounding off 59.33% as 60% was in force is not correct.17. I have carefully considered the said submissions made oneither side. 18. Before considering the contentions put forth on either side,it will be useful to refer to the un-controverted facts viz.,The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.222, dated 29.06.2002,have prescribed 60% average in the related subject in the HigherSecondary Course as the minimum eligibility marks so far as thecandidates belonging to the OC community are concerned for admissionto Engineering colleges in the Sate of Tamil Nadu. The Government ofTamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.280, Higher Education (J2) Department,dated 20.12.2004, constituting a Co-ordination Committee to regulatethe admissions to Engineering Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu forthree years from 2005 to 2007. Admittedly, the said Co-ordinationCommittee has fixed 59.1% and above as minimum eligibility marks forcandidates belonging to OC community for admission to the first yearof B.E. course for the academic year 2005-06. The same Co-ordinationCommittee in its meeting held on 20.05.2005, resolved to approve theminimum average marks for first year admission to B.E. / B.Tech.course as 59.1% and above for OC candidates for the academic year2006-07. As some of the Self Engineering Colleges made a request tofollow the minimum eligibility marks as was adopted in the academicyears 2005-06 and 2006-07 for the academic year 2007-08 also, thesaid request was considered by the Co-ordination Committee in itssecond meeting held on 04.06.2007 and it had approved the minimumeligibility marks for the academic year 2007-08 as 60% average in therelated subjects (59.50% and above) for candidates belonging to OCcommunity. The said decision of the Co-ordination Committee wascommunicated to the Director of Technical Education, the secondrespondent herein on 12.07.2007, in turn, the second respondent hascommunicated to the individual colleges the said decision on02.08.2007.19. The above stated un-controverted facts makes it abundantlyclear that the minimum eligibility marks for admission to the firstyear B.E. course was 60% average in the related subjects as perG.O.Ms.No.222, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 29.06.2002.It is also clear that for each academic year decision was being takenby the Co-ordination Committee and for the academic years 2005-06 and2006-07, the Co-ordination Committee has fixed the minimumeligibility marks as 59.1% and above, as far as OC candidates are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ concerned. Similarly, for the academic year 2007-08, the minimumeligibility marks had been fixed as 59.50% and above. For theacademic years 2005-06 and 2006-07, if the average marks obtained bya OC candidate was 59.1% and above, it can be rounded off to 60% butfor the academic year 2007-08, if a OC candidate had obtained 59.50%and above only, it can be rounded off to 60%. Thus it can be seenthat for each academic year, the Co-ordination Committee had taken adecision regarding the minimum eligibility marks for admission tofirst year B.E. course. Therefore, all the engineering collegesshould admit students to their institution only after ascertainingthe decision taken by the Co-ordination Committee. If withoutascertaining the decision of the Co-ordination Committee for theparticular academic year viz., 2007-08, if any college had admittedstudents in violation / deviation of the minimum eligibility criteriafixed by the Co-ordination Committee, the college and the studentconcerned alone could be blamed. 20. It is pertinent to point out that no where it is stated inthe affidavit of the petitioners that any representation was made bythe respondents 1 and 2 or respondent 3 either directly or indirectlyto make the petitioners believe that the minimum eligibility marksfor admission to first year engineering course for the academic year2007-08 was 59.1% and above. If any such representation had beenmade, it could have been made only by the 4th respondent and such arepresentation could not be construed to be a representation made onbehalf of respondents 1 to 3. Having known well that for eachacademic year minimum eligibility criteria was to be fixed by theCo-ordination Committee, the 4th respondent ought not to have admittedthe petitioners on the basis of the minimum eligibility marks fixedfor the previous academic years. As rightly contended by the learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents 1,2 and 3, the academic yearfor 2007-08, commenced on 10.09.2007 and the last date for admissionwas on 15.10.2007 and the minimum eligibility criteria was fixed on04.06.2007 and the same was communicated by the second respondent toindividual colleges on 02.08.2007. It is pertinent to point out thatthe 4th respondent had addressed a letter, as pointed out above, tothe second respondent on 06.08.2007, requesting to revise the minimumeligibility criteria and taking the non-receipt of the reply for thesaid letter, the second respondent cannot take shelter and admit thepetitioners. Thus it is clear that the petitioners could have beenadmitted only after 06.08.2007 and not before that as claimed by thepetitioners as well as the 4th respondent. Therefore, the contentionof the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that therespondents 1 to 3 are estopped from cancelling the admission of thepetitioners cannot be countenanced.21. In the decision reported in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs.Karnataka University (AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1448), in the very sameparagraph 8, before making the observation which is sought to berelied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, theHon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:“8.....But the question still remains whether we shouldallow the appellants to continue their studies in therespective Engineering Colleges in which they were admitted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of theappellants that under the orders initially of the learnedJudge and thereafter of this Court they have been pursuingtheir course of study in the respective Engineering Collegesand their admissions should not now be disturbed because ifthey are now thrown out after a period of almost four yearssince their admission their whole future will beblighted.....”The above said passage makes it clear that taking advantage of theinterim orders passed by the Court, the students in that casecontinued their studies pending proceedings before the Court almostfor four years and only taking that into consideration, the Hon'bleApex Court permitted the students to continue their studies. But thecase on hand is different. Here, even in the middle of the firstacademic year itself, the ineligibility of the petitioners have beenbrought to their notice by the second respondent and as such the saiddecision does not further the cause of the petitioners. 22. Similarly the facts of the case reported in KanishkaAggarwal Vs. University of Delhi (AIR 1992 Delhi 105) are totallydifferent from the facts of this case. In that decision, taking intoconsideration that the student had not suppressed any informationfrom the University and as the student had submitted the requisiteadmission form along with the requisite certificate and as directedby the authorities the students had deposited the admission fee andallowed to attend the classes, it was held that it was not open tothe University to undo what had already been done and that too, tothe great prejudice of the students concerned. Here, as pointed outabove, till the list which contains the names of the petitioners wassent to the respondents 2 and 3, the respondents 2 and 3 were notaware of the ineligibility of the petitioners for admission. Butwhen the ineligibility of the petitioners was brought to their noticethe respondents 2 and 3 have immediately expressed their inability toapprove their admission and respondents 2 and 3 have not done any actto induce the petitioners to believe they are eligible for admission.Hence the above decision does not apply to the facts of this case.23. Similarly the decisions reported in Poovizhi Vs. Governmentof Tamil Nadu (AIR 2002 Madras 235) and Priyadarshini. N Vs. TheSecretary to Government, Education Department (2005 (3) CTC 449) hasabsolutely no relevance to the facts of this case. In this case, theminimum eligibility criteria has been fixed even at the beginning ofthe academic year and even before the admission started and as suchthe ratio laid down in the above two decisions do not apply to thefacts of this case. 24. It is unfortunate that though the Principal of the 4threspondent college was well aware of the revision of minimumeligibility criteria and that too well in advance i.e. prior toadmitting the petitioners herein in the 4th respondent college, thepetitioners have been admitted to the 4th respondent college. Thiscourt can only sympathise with the petitioners and the ineligibilityof the petitioners cannot be condoned and their ineligible admissioncannot be directed to be approved by the respondents 1 to 3. For the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above said reasons, the writ petitions fail and the same aredismissed. No doubt it is true that because of the conduct of themanagement of the 4th respondent college in admitting the petitioners,who admittedly do not have the minimum eligibility marks, thepetitioners have lost one year of their academic career but thatcannot be a reason for granting the relief sought for in the writpetitions. However, it is open to the petitioners to seekappropriate remedy against the Management of the 4th respondentcollege in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, theconnected M.Ps. are closed.Sd/- Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarkkTo1. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.3. The Registrar, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.+ Two Ccs to G.M.Mani, Associates, S.R.Nos.22769 & 22720 + Two Ccs to Mr.Muthumani Doraisami, Advocate, S.R.No.22570+ One CC to Government Pleader, S.R.No.22961W.P.Nos.3150 and 3151 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1,1,2,2,3 & 3 of 2008ASM(CO)SRA (29/04/2008)