Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankur Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2012
1
Review Petition No. 397/2012
20.6.2012
Shri Sumit Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for respondent
AICTE.
With consent they are heard.
Order passed in this Review Petition shall govern final disposal of Review Petition Nos. 301/2012, 302/2012, 303/2012, 304/2012 and 353/2012.
By these review petitions, petitioners seek review of order dated 2.2.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 13769/2011 and other connected writ petitions in pursuance to liberty granted by Supreme Court vide S.L.P (Civil) No. 6960/2012, 70397040/2012; 70417053/2012; 70937099/2012 on 12.3.2012 which was in the following terms:
"Dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the petitioners, if they so desire, to file appropriate Review Petition (s) before the High Court since it is brought to our notice that the petitioners had questioned the validity or otherwise of both the State Rules as well as the A.I.C.T.E Rules.
We request the High Court to dispose of the Review petition (s), if it is filed within 15 days time from today as early as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of filing of the Review Petition(s), since the careers of several students is involved in these matters.
Ordered accordingly."
Petitioners are heard heard at length.
2Writ Petitions were directed against the action of the State Government in changing the eligibility criteria for admission to Master of Computer Application Course (referred to as M.C.A Course).
It is not disputed by the petitioners that MCA Course is conducted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, through Director, Technical Education on the basis of Rules/Regulations framed by All India Council for Technical Education (hereafter shall be referred to as Council) constituted under All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the said Act.
It is also not in dispute that the Council in exercise of the powers conferred vide Section 23 of the Act, 1987 has framed the Regulations in the year 2006 wherein the essential qualifications required for admission to M.C.A Course is prescribed to be "Recognized Bachelor's Degree of minimum 3 years duration with Mathematics at 10 + 2 level". It is a matter of record that the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh through Director, Technical Education has framed the Rules for common entrance examination called the "Rules for Examination To 2 Year (Four Semester) Master of Business Administration (MBA) And Allied Courses (Full Time), 3 Years (Six Semester) Master of Business Administration (M.B.A) And Allied Courses (Part Time) And 3 Years (Six Semester) Master of Computer Application (MCA) Course (Full Time) in AICTE Approved Institutions in Government, Institutions Declared Autonomous By The State Government, Government Aided Institutions, SelfFinancing Autonomous And UnAided Private Institutions In Madhya Pradesh, 2011.
3The eligibility for test for MCA course prescribed under clause 4.2 was that:
"A candidate seeking admission to MCA course should be a graduate of any UGC/AICTE approved Indian University or from a foreign University recognized by Association of Indian Universities (AIU) or institute recognized by the concerned University as equivalent thereto. The Bachelors degree must be of minimum three years duration in any discipline with Mathematics as compulsory or an additional subject at either Higher Secondary (10+2) or at Graduation level candidates with Bachelor of Computer Application (B.C.A) degree of minimum three years duration are also eligible for admission."
That the starting date for submission of online application was 21.12.2010 and the last date was 12.1.2011. It is a matter of record that before expiry of last date the State Government through its Department of Technical Education took a decision to change the eligibility criteria prescribed under clause 4.2 as the same was contrary to the eligibility criteria prescribed by AICTE vide Regulation 2006.
The change in eligibility criteria in the Admission Rule was notified vide letter No. F142/2011/421 dated 11.1.2011 in pursuance whereof fresh notifications were published and new schedule was fixed for filling up the forms and for examination. The forms were required to be filled between 24.1.2011 to 5.2.2011 and the examination was scheduled for 6.3.2011.
The petitioners who admittedly were not having mathematics at 10 + 2 level challenged the aforesaid decision taken by the State Government vide various 4 petitions before this Court; wherein it was the decision taken by the State Government taken in 2011 which was alone challenged and not the validity of Regulation 2006 framed by the Council. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not dispute this fact. They also candidly submit that the vires aspect was not addressed at when the writ petitions were argued.
We further wanted to know from respective counsel as to whether there exist any pleadings or relief in any of the petitions preferred by them challenging the validity of Regulation 2006, to which it is fairly submitted by the counsel that no such challenge had been putforth. It is urged that the challenge was only to the action of the State Government in changing the eligibility criteria which earlier was not in consonance with the Regulations 2006. In the light of these facts we are rather amazed with the stand taken by these very petitioners had stated before the Supreme Court of their questioning the validity of Regulations framed by AICTE. Be that as it may.
Since it is obligatory on the part of State of Madhya Pradesh to have adhered to the norms and the standards laid down by the A.I.C.T.E, they were justified in changing the eligibility criteria for admission to M.C.A Course. We, therefore, perceive no error in the decision taken on 2.2.2012 as would warrant any interference.
At this stage reliance is placed on the decision in Visveswaraya Technological University and another v. Krishnendu Halder and others : [2011 (4) SCC 606] and 5 more particularly paragraph 18 therein wherein it is observed by their Lordships:
"18. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the orders of the Division Bench and uphold the dismissal of the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge. Insofar as the two students (first respondent in each of the two appeals) are concerned, we find that they were admitted in the year 20072008 and by virtue of the interim orders, continued their studies and are completing the course in a few months. On the facts and circumstances, to do complete justice, we are of the view that their admissions should not be disturbed, but regularized and they should be permitted to take the examinations."
In the case at hand we gather from nature of interim order which has been passed in favour of respective petitioners that though they were provisionally permitted to participate in the counselling but no prescriptive right was created. In W.P. No. 13796/2011, it was ordered on 12.8.2011 that:
"In the circumstances, it is directed that all the petitioners will be allowed provisional participation in the counselling according to their merits. However, if admission is granted to the petitioners as a result of the counselling, the same will be provisional in the sense that it will not confer any vested right on them and will be liable to be cancelled if the instant writ petition fails."
In view whereof, the reliance placed by the petitioners on paragraph 18 of the decision in Visveswaraya Technological University and another (supra) 6 is of no assistance to the petitioners as they do not possess the eligibility criteria for admission to M.C.A. Course.
In view whereof the review petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no costs.
(AJIT SINGH ) (SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
VT/