Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Chauhan vs Union Of India And Others on 4 February, 2010
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
1
Court No.39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5225 of 2010
Jitendra Chauhan
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
~~~~~~~
Counsel for the petitioner :- Sri S.N. Chauhan and Sri V.P. Shukla
Counsel for the respondents :- Sri Rajesh Khare
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
The petitioner has sought the quashing of that essential qualification prescribed by the Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology for admission to the Under Graduate Programme which prescribes that the minimum percentage of marks in Class X and 10+2 Examination shall be 70% for appearance at the Admission Test.
Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') is a deemed University under Section 3 of the Universities Grants Commission Act, 1956 and has been set up under the Department of Space, Government of India in the academic year 2007-08. The Institute offers Under Graduate (B. Tech.) Programmes in Aerospace Engineering, Avionics and Physical Sciences and has been developed as a Centre of Excellence in the area of advanced Space Science and Technology with Post Graduate, Doctoral and Post Doctoral Programmes in niche areas of Space Science, Technology and Applications to cater to the sophisticated technological requirements of Indian Space Research Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the 'ISRO'). The education is fully integrated with high technology research work being carried out at ISRO Centres. The Institute presently functions from a specially created Alternative Campus adjacent to the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, though the permanent campus is being established at Valiamala about 20 Kms. from Thiruvananthapuram city. Every student who completes the B.Tech Programme from the Institute, meeting specified academic standards, is absorbed in ISRO as Scientist/Engineer.
The total number of seats for the Under Graduate Programme in the Institute for the session 2010-11 is 156. Admission to the Under Graduate Programme is made through an Admission Test consisting of two papers.
2The eligibility conditions deal with Citizenship, Date of Birth, Qualifying Examination and also the Minimum Percentage of Marks in Class X or Equivalent Examination and Class 10+2 or Equivalent Examination.
The petitioner has challenged the requirement of having a minimum percentage of marks in Class X and 10+2 or Equivalent Examinations and the said conditions are reproduced below:-
"4. Minimum Percentage of Marks in Class X or equivalent examination Candidates belonging to GEN and OBC categories must have at least 70% in all subjects combined and those belongings to SC, ST and PD categories must have at least 60%.
5. Minimum Percentage of Marks in 10+2 or equivalent examination Candidates belonging to GEN and OBC categories must have at least 70% in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (PCM) papers and those belongings to SC, ST and PD categories must have at least 60%."
It is stated in the petition that the petitioner had obtained 52% in the High School Examination 2007 and 66% in the Intermediate Examination 2009 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, U.P. and, therefore, does not possess the conditions stipulated in Clauses 4 and 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the Entrance Examination conducted by IIT's, students who opt for admission in B.Tech in Aerospace Engineering, Avionics and Physical Sciences are required to have obtained at least 60% in the 10+2 Examination and so the condition prescribed by the Institute that the candidates belonging to the General Category should obtain at least 70% in Class X Examination and 70% in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Matehmatics in the Class 12 Examination is not only discriminatory but also arbitrary as many meritorious candidates who may not have obtained such minimum percentage of marks are excluded from appearing at the admission test. It is his submission that the admission to the said course should depend upon the merit of the marks obtained by the candidates at the Entrance Test Examination and not on the marks awarded to the candidates in the qualifying examination. It is also his contention that since there is disparity 3 amongst the various Boards in awarding marks the percentage of marks obtained by a candidate who has appeared from the Central Board of Secondary Education cannot be compared with that of a candidate who has appeared at the High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, U.P. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the Institute was justified in prescribing the minimum percentage of marks to be obtained by a candidate at the qualifying examination and the petitioner cannot insist that the Institute should prescribe the same percentage of marks as are prescribed by other Institutes in the country.
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
The admission to the Under Graduate Programme in the Institute is made through an Admission Test and for the purposes of eligibility to appear at the Test, the Institute has prescribed the minimum percentage of marks to be obtained by a candidate in the Class X and 10+2 Examination. It is 70% in all subjects combined for General Category for Class X and 60% for SC, ST and PD categories. The candidates belongings to the General Category must also obtain 70% in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics at the 10+2 or equivalent examination.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Institute should not prescribe any minimum percentage of marks for the qualifying examination and in any view, the requirement of 70% is not only on the higher side but also discriminatory.
This submission cannot be accepted. It is for the Institute to consider whether it should fix some minimum percentage of marks to be obtained by candidates who intend to appear at the Admission Test in the qualifying examination and what should be the minimum percentage. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy formulated by experts in the field of Education. As noticed hereinabove, the Institute is a Centre of Excellence in the area of advanced Space Science and Technology. In this Institute, education is fully integrated with the high technology research work being carried out at ISRO Centres. The Institute is of international standard to create an excellent academic and research 4 ambience. Students who pass out are absorbed as Scientist/Engineers in ISRO.
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543, the Supreme Court emphasised that the Courts should be extremely reluctant in substituting their news in academic matters and the relevant observations are as follows:-
"..........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. .........
............As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded................" (emphasis supplied) Excellence in higher education, particularly in specialised courses, is essential as has been held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P.(1990) 7 SCC 120. If higher percentage of minimum marks is prescribed, it will certainly add to the excellence.
In State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 83, the Supreme Court explained why there was a need for a common entrance test and minimum qualifying marks in the field of medical 5 education and the same principles will apply for Aerospace Engineering also. The observations of the Supreme Court are "In the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P.(1990) 7 SCC 120, the Constitution Bench has expressly discarded the submission that there need not be any qualifying marks prescribed for the common entrance examination.............. A pass mark is not a guarantee of excellence. There is a great deal of difference between a person who qualifies with the minimum marks and a person who qualifies with high marks. If excellence is to be promoted at the postgraduate level, the candidates qualifying should be able to secure good marks while qualifying. Attaining minimum qualifying marks has a direct relation with the standards of education. Prescription of qualifying marks is for assessment of the calibre of students chosen for admission. If the students are of a high calibre, training programmes can be suitably moulded so that they can receive the maximum benefit out of high level of teaching. If the calibre of the students is poor or they are unable to follow the instructions being imparted, the standard of teaching necessarily has to be lowered to make them understand the course which they have under taken; and it may not be possible to reach the levels of education and training which can be attained with a bright group. The assemblage of students in a particular class should be within a reasonable range of variable calibre and intelligence, else the students will not be able to move along with each other as a common class. Hence, the need for a common entrance test and minimum qualifying marks as determined by experts in the field of medical education.
The eligibility test, called the entrance test for the pre-PG test, is conducted with dual purposes. Firstly, it is held with the object of assessing the knowledge and intelligence quotient of a candidate whether he would be able to prosecute postgraduate studies if allowed an opportunity of doing so; secondly, it is for the purposes of assessing the merit inter se of the candidates which is of vital significance at the counselling when it comes to allotting the successful candidates to different discipline wherein the seats are limited and some disciplines are considered to be more creamy and are more coveted than the others. The concept of a minimum qualifying percentage cannot, therefore, be given a complete go- by. If at all there can be departure, that has to be minimal and that too only by approval of experts in the field of medical education, which for the present are 6 available as a body in the Medical Council of India."
(emphasis supplied) These observations were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Harish Verma & Ors. Vs. Ajay Srivastava & Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 69.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Institute should have fixed 60%, which percentage has been fixed by IIT cannot be accepted. Each University is free to fix its own standards looking to the requirement and a candidate cannot insist that the same eligibility requirement should be maintained by all the Universities.
Thus, in view of the above observations of the Supreme Court, the requirement of having a minimum percentage of marks at the qualifying examination for appearing at the Entrance Test for Admission to the B.Tech Programme in Aerospace Engineering cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Date:-04.02.2010 SK/-