Karnataka High Court
Byregowda H vs Karnataka Examinations Authority on 13 June, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION NOS.22043-22057 OF 2013 (EDN-CET)
BETWEEN:
1. Byregowda H
S/o Hanumanthaiah,
Age 24 years,
#1410, 10th Cross,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
T.Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 057.
2. Naveen H
S/o Krishna Setty,
Aged 25 years,
#175, Shashikumar Nilaya,
1st Main, 7th Cross,
K H Ranganatha Colony,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore - 560 026.
3. Nagaraju.S
S/o Shivanna,
Aged 25 years,
#18/5. 1st Main, 1st 'D' Cross,
Near Muneshwara Temple,
Marenahalli, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
4. Pradeepkumar A.L.
S/o Lokesh,
Age 22 years,
10, 4th Cross,
Muneshwara Layout,
2
Kudlu Road,
Bangalore - 560 068.
5. Anil Kumar
S/o Gurunath,
Aged 26 years,
C/o Shekar,
#38, Sri Lakshmi Nilaya,
4th Cross, Gangapathi Nagar,
Byatarayanapura, Mysore Road,
Bangalore - 560 026.
6. Govindaraju M
S/o Mudalappa,
Aged 26 years,
#175, Shashikumar Nilaya,
1st Main, 7th Cross,
K H Ranganatha Colony,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore - 560 026.
7. Praveen P M
S/o Manjappa,
Aged 31 years,
#995/18, Adrushta Nilaya,
1st Main, M C Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
8. Shivakumar N
S/o Nataraju,
Aged 28 years,
# B139, Block 18,
ISRO DOS Housing Colony,
Indiranagar, Newland Domlur,
Bangalore - 560 071.
9. Ramamoorthy Acharya,
S/o Jayananda Acharya,
Aged 27 years,
Housing Colony R P Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
3
10. Sathisha M
S/o Shankarappa Poojary,
Aged 35 years,
ISRO DOS Housing Colony,
Domlur Bridge, Domlur,
Bangalore - 560 071.
11. Vivek N K
S/o Karigirigowda,
Aged 28 years,
#B123, Block 16
ISRO DOS Housing Colony,
Indiranagar, Newland Domlur,
Bangalore - 560 071.
12. Praveen R
S/o Ranganath B
Aged 28 years,
#65/2, 11th Cross,
Hemagiri Nilaya,
Rama Mandira Temple Road,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore - 560 079.
13. Ranganatha T R
S/o Ramachandra T D,
Aged 25 years,
A89/13, BHEL Township,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
14. Jayakumara B R
S/o Rangaswamy,
Aged 27 years,
A85, BHEL Township,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
15. Kantharaja N N
S/o Nagaraja,
Aged 25 years,
No.561/3 7th Cross,
Kavika Layout,
4
Bapujinagar,
Bangalore - 560 026. ... Petitioners
(By Sri V.S.Gunjal, Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka Examinations Authority,
Rep. by its Executive Director,
Samipage Road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003.
2. State of Karnataka,
The Secretary to Government
(Higher Education)
Education Department,
Government of Karnataka,
M S Building, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Director of Technical Education,
Opp: Maharani's College, Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
By its Director.
4. The Vishweswariah Technological University,
Mache, Belgaum - 590 114.
By its Registrar.
5. All India Council for Technical Education
Southern region
Having its Regional Office
At Prasanna Kumar Block,
Central College Campus,
Place road, Bangalore - 560 009.
By its Regional Director. ... Respondents
(By Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R1:
Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP for R2 and R3:
Sri K.S.Bharathkumar, Advocate for R4:
Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for R5)
5
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash such conditions
which are discriminatory and arbitrary conditions at
Annexure-B Rule B] b] dated nil [relevant extract produced] in
the KEA common entrance test 2013 and etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are the Diploma-holders and are the aspirants for the lateral entry into B.E. Course. Their grievance is that two years' work experience after completing the Diploma Course is being insisted for admission to B.E. Course.
2. Sri V.S.Gunjal, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the imposition of higher qualification by resorting to the issuance of the executive notifications is deprecated by the Apex Court and the Division Bench. He submits that the insistence that a candidate ought to have obtained two years' work experience after completing the Diploma is untenable. He submits that a student, on completing the SSLC, has to spend nearly 8½ years, if he chooses the route to B.E. Course via Diploma. 6
3. He further submits that the petitioners are all doing the Diploma Courses in the evening colleges. To join the Diploma Course in the evening college, three years' work experience is insisted for. The evening Diploma Course is 3 ½ years. If the further work experience after obtaining the Diploma is insisted for, it means that a candidate, who has chosen the Diploma route can secure the lateral entry to B.E. only after 8 ½ years. To complete the three years' B.E. Course, the lateral entrant requires 11½ years (3 years of work experience + 3 ½ years duration of Diploma + 2 years' work experience after obtaining the Diploma + 3 years B.E. Course). He submits that the rules prescribing the work experience for the Diploma-holders to secure the lateral entry to B.E. Course have application only for the students of the day colleges. For the students of evening colleges, such rules can have no application at all. Not making the classification into the day college students and evening college students is unreasonable.
4. He read out the guideline No.4 of the guidelines for admission to Engineering Degree and Engineering Diploma 7 Programmes found in the All India Educational Code. The contents therein read as follows:
"(4) Lateral entry in engineering degree programmes.- Although engineering diploma programmes are conceived as terminal in nature, some flexibility has to be built in, to enable the meritorious amongst diploma holder to obtain engineering degrees.
There is evidence of diploma holders pursuing an engineering programme having performed well not only in their academic careers but also in their job."
5. He also read out Clause 9.2 of the All India Council for Technical Education's ('AICTE' for short) Approval Process Hand Book 2013-14 to advance the submission that the very objective of providing for the lateral entry into B.E. from the diploma channel is to provide an opportunity to working personnel to improve their qualifications and competence. The said clause reads as follows:
"9.2 Objective:
To facilitate Technical and Management Institutions to respond to the felt need of providing Technical and Management education to working personnel who may have, for some reason missed out on a formal management education, earlier or in their career and wish to make up for the same.8
To provide an opportunity to working personnel to enhance their qualifications, competence by enhanced skill Formation."
6. He submits that the Government is estopped from going back on what it had been submitted before this Court in W.P.No.25759/2012 on 24.08.2012. He has produced the said order sheet, which reads as follows:
"The learned Addl. Government Advocate submits, on instructions, from the Director of Technical Education that the said Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the eligibility norm, since the prescription of eligibility by the AICTE is the very same prescription for admission to the B.E. Course by lateral entry in respect of day scholars and evening scholars who have obtained diplomas."
7. He submits that in view of this submission, neither the Government nor the Karnataka Examination Authority ('KEA' for short) have any jurisdiction to change the eligibility norms fixed by the AICTE.
8. Sri N.K.Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that according to Rule 3(4) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions 9 Rules, 2006 ('the said Rules' for short) as amended by the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional Educational Institutions (Amendment) Rules, 2012, no candidate, who has acquired Diploma in Engineering shall be eligible to the Second Year of B.E. Course, unless he has on the first September of the year of admission not less than two years' professional experience in the Branch of Engineering/Technology, in which the candidate holds a Diploma, after passing the Diploma Course.
9. The learned counsel submits that the fifth respondent AICTE has no doubt, prescribed the minimum of two years full time work experience in a registered firm/ company/industry/educational and/government autonomous organizations in the relevant field but, there is no legal impediment for the State Government to prescribe higher pre- entry qualification.
10. He submits that the State Government has prescribed two years' work experience after obtaining the Diploma Course. To support this submission, he has relied 10 on the Apex Court's decision in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER v. S.V.BRATHEEP (minor) AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1861, wherein it is held that the State may prescribe higher qualification for purposes of admission to the engineering Colleges than what had been prescribed by the AICTE.
11. The learned counsel submits that the order, dated 1.10.2012 (Annexure-D) passed in Writ Petition No.25759/2012 and connected petitions is per incurium, because it is passed without noticing Rule 3(4) of the said Rules.
12. The learned counsel submits that the work experience obtained after acquiring the Diploma in Engineering alone can have nexus with the lateral admission to the B.E. Course. If one has obtained the work experience in a non-technical field based on SSLC qualification, it has no relevance for the lateral entry into the B.E. Course.
13. Sri Bharath Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that the AICTE prescribes 11 the minimum eligibility criteria for admission to the Engineering Courses. The State Government would either accept the minimum eligibility prescribed by the AICTE or prescribe the higher eligibility standards. He further submits that, if the State Government prescribes higher eligibility criteria, the University shall follow the same.
14. Sri P.S.Dinesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 AICTE submits that the eligibility criteria as prescribed by AICTE has to be so interpreted as to mean that the applicant for lateral entry into the B.E. Course ought to have obtained two years' work experience based on the Diploma in the given trade.
15. Let me examine whether Rule 3(4) of 2006 Rules, which prescribes two years professional experience after passing the Diploma Course for securing lateral entry into B.E. Course, is liable to be struck down. It is trite that the only two grounds on which the delegated legislation can be struck down are (a) if it violates any fundamental right (b) if it is in violation of the parent statue under which it is issued. 12
16. The Government's policy cannot be struck down by the Court unless it is demonstratably capricious or arbitrary or violative of the constitutional or statutory provisions. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of KRISHNAN KAKKANTH vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 9 SCC 495:
"36. To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, courts should avoid "embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy".13
17. Disapproving the dilution of eligibility conditions by the High Courts, the Apex Court, in the case of ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION vs. SURINDER KUMAR DHAWAN AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 11 SCC 726, has this to say in paras 31 and 32:
"31. These being educational issues, they cannot be interfered with, merely because the court thought otherwise. If AICTE was of the view that only those diploma-holders with 10+2 (with PCM subjects) should be permitted to upgrade their qualification by an ad hoc bridge course or that such bridge course should not be a regular or permanent feature, there is no reason to interfere with such a decision. The courts cannot by their orders create courses, nor permit continuance of courses which were not created in accordance with law, or lower the minimum qualifications prescribed for admissions. The High Court's decision to permit candidates who have completed 10+1 plus four-years' post diploma course to take the bridge course cannot be sustained.
32. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which 14 can only be done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four-year advance diploma-holders who had passed the entry- level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one-time measure was extended for several years and was also extended to post diploma-holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended for several years and was also extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education."
18. In the case of MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. SARANG AND OTHERS reported in (2001) 8 SCC 427 wherein Regulation 6(5) of Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 requiring the students to pursue 18 months of prescribed study before 15 appearing for the second professional M.B.B.S. examination at the transferee college, it was held that the period of 18 months has to be completed in the transferee college alone and not in both the transferor college and the transferee college put together.
19. The Apex Court in the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANOTHER vs. PARITOSH BHUPESHKUMAR SHETH AND OTHERS reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 has held as follows:
16. ...........The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.............."16
20. It is trite that this Court will not interfere in the policy matters and more particularly educational policy matters. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 28.09.2012 passed in W.A.No.5410/2012 and connected matters in the case YOGISH M. vs. THE REGISTRAR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS, the Courts cannot claim knowledge and expertise in the field of education. The decisions are to be better left to the competence of the academicians/educationalists/experts in the field. The considered and consistent view expressed in the catena of decisions to which the references are made hereinabove is that the role of the expert bodies on education and the role of the courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving the academic matter, the Courts keep their hands off. It is a rule of prudence that the courts should hesitate to dislodge the decisions of the educationists.17
21. The orders, dated 01.10.2012 in W.P.No.25759/2012 (Annexure-B) and other connected petitions have come to be passed, as the provisions contained in Rule 3(4) of the said Rules were not brought to the notice of the court. I am also not impressed with the submission that the Government is estopped from going back on what it has submitted before this Court in W.P.No.25759/2012 for two reasons:
(a) The KEA has not prescribed the eligibility norm on its own. It has only restated the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the Rules.
(b) There cannot be any operation of estoppel against the statute and the rules framed thereunder.
22. The grounds strenuously raised and canvassed that the State Government cannot prescribe the qualifications, which are higher than the ones by AICTE merit no acceptance. Such argument is already negatived by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU (supra). It is held therein that the prescription of higher qualification by the State Government adds to excellence in the matter of 18 admission of students in higher education. The Apex Court has this to say in para 14 of the said decision:
"14. In this view of the matter, we think these appeals deserve to be allowed in part and the order of the High Court stands modified to the extent of stating that it is permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for purposes of admission to the engineering colleges than what had been prescribed by the AICTE and what has been prescribed by the State and considered by us is not contrary to the same but is only complementary or supplementary to it."
23. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not persuaded to struck down Rule 3(4) of 2006 Rules or to direct the K.E.A. to vary the conditions of eligibility. I dismiss these petitions.
24. However, the dismissal of these petitions does not mean that the said Rules are the best and the perfect. Whether there can be better or different rules are to be decided by the concerned decision-makers. I therefore deem it necessary to permit the petitioners to give representation to the respondent No.2 and it is for the respondent No.2 to take 19 a call on the issue by taking all the relevant factors into consideration.
25. No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR/Cm/-