Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs All India Council For Technical ... on 27 July, 2012
Author: V.Ramasubramanian
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.7.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition No.15783 of 2011 The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Higher Education Department Fort St. George Chennai-600 009. .. Petitioner vs. 1.All India Council for Technical Education Represented by its Chairman (Acting) AICTE 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building Janpath, New Delhi-110 001. 2.Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Ministry of MHRD New Delhi-110 001. 3.Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affair New Delhi-110 001. 4.S.Shankaran .. Respondents (R4 impleaded as per the order dated 24.7.2012 made in M.P.No.6 of 2011). ----- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent herein respect of the impugned regulations in Chapter VI in Appendix I in Clause 1.1 and Clause 1.2(A) and (B) and to quash the same and direct the respondents to grant admission of all eligible students as per the norms fixed by the State Government. ----- For Petitioner : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General Assisted by Mr.E.Sampath Kumar Spl.G.P. (Education) For Mr.M.C.Swamy, Spl.G.P. For Respondent-1 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, S.C. For Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.A.S.Chakravarthy, CGSC For Respondent-4 : Mr.K.Doraisamy, SC For Mr.Kandan Doraisamy ----- O R D E R
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the revised eligibility criteria fixed by the All India Council for Technical Education for the academic year 2011-2012 (i) for admission to the 4 Year Bachelor's Program in Engineering and Technology and (ii) for admission by way of lateral entry to the Second Year of the Bachelor's Degree Course in Engineering and Technology.
2. I have heard Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.E.Sampath Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Education), Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent (AICTE), Mr.A.S.Chakravarthy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent impleaded by order dated 24.7.2011 in M.P.No.6 of 2011.
3. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) prescribed a revised eligibility criteria for admission (i) to the 4 Year Bachelor's Degree Program in Engineering Technology and (ii) by way of lateral entry to the Second Year of 4 Year Bachelor's Program in Engineering and Technology for the academic year 2011-2012. The eligibility criteria is indicated in Clause 1.1 and 1.2 of Appendix 1 of the Approval Process Hand Book released by AICTE. The eligibility criteria reads as follows:-
S.No. Program Duration Eligibility
1. Engineering and Technology
4 Years Passed 10+2 examination with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subjects along with one of the Chemistry/ Biotechnology/ Biology Obtained at least 50% marks (45% in case of candidate belonging to reserved category) in the above subjects taken together.
2. Engineering and Technology Lateral entry to second year A Passed Diploma examination from an AICTE approved institution; with at least 50% marks (45% in case of candidates belonging to reserved category) in appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology.
B Passed B.Sc., Degree from a recognised University as defined by UGC, with at least 50% marks (45% in case of candidates belonging to reserved category) and passed XII Standard with mathematics as a subject.
4. Contending that the aforesaid revised eligibility criteria, would knock the reserved category candidates out of the purview of Degree Courses in Engineering and Technology and that huge number of seats in Engineering Colleges would go unfilled due to the revised eligibility criteria, the State Government has come up with the above writ petition.
5. Before proceeding to analyse the basis on which the State has come up with the above writ petition, I must bring on record one fact. The writ petition was admitted on 30.6.2011. Along with the writ petition, the State filed 3 miscellaneous petitions, in M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011. M.P.No.1 of 2011 was for dispensing with the production of the original impugned proceedings of the AICTE. M.P.No.2 of 2011 was for interim stay of operation of the impugned regulations. M.P.No.3 of 2011 was for an interim direction to allow the Selection Committee constituted by the State Government to grant admission as per the norms fixed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.151, Higher Education, dated 14.6.2010.
6. While admitting the writ petition on 30.6.2011, P.Jyothimani, J., granted an ex parte order of interim stay of the impugned regulations in M.P.No.2 of 2011. The learned Judge also granted an interim direction ex parte, on the same day viz., 30.6.2011 while admitting the writ petition, thereby permitting the State to admit students on the basis of the norms fixed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.151, Higher Education, dated 14.6.2010.
7. Subsequently, the All India Council for Technical Education came up with two miscellaneous petitions viz., M.P.Nos.4 and 5 of 2011. In M.P.No.4 of 2011, AICTE sought the vacation of the interim stay granted in M.P.No.2 of 2011. In M.P.No.5 of 2011, the AICTE sought the vacation of the ex parte interim directions granted in M.P.No.3 of 2011.
8. M.P.Nos.2 to 5 of 2011 (petition for interim stay, petition for interim directions, petition for vacating the interim stay and petition for vacating the interim directions) came up for hearing before Elipe Dharma Rao, J., on 30-8-2011. The learned Judge passed an order to the effect that "any admission made will be subject to the result of the writ petition".
9. Again the miscellaneous petitions came up before the learned Judge on 30.9.2011 and the learned Judge passed an order whose operative portion in paragraphs 3 to 5 reads as follows:-
"3. Today, when the Miscellaneous Petitions for vacating the interim orders came up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel for AICTE submitted that on the basis of the Resolution dated 30.6.2011, notified on 4.7.2011, as per the 69th Meeting held on 28.6.2011 by the Executive Committee and the 21st Meeting held on 30.6.2011 by the Council, the eligibility for the under graduate programmes (full time) given under 1.1 of Appendix I of Approval Process Hand Book 2011-2012 was reduced as 45% at qualifying level for general category students and 40% for reserved category students for admission for the year 2011-2012.
4. As the subject matter of the Writ Petition pertains to the academic year 2010-2011 for which all admissions are over and the students are attending classes, I consider it appropriate that the Notification is applicable to the next academic year.
5. Taking into consideration the subject event, namely, the Notification dated 4.7.2011, the order of stay granted on 30.6.2011 is restricted to the academic year 2010-2011 and the stay granted is modified to the extent indicated above. The Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of accordingly."
10. As seen from the operative portion of the order passed on 30.9.2011 in the miscellaneous petitions M.P.Nos.2 to 5 of 2011, the AICTE itself has reduced the eligibility criteria, from 50% to 45% for General Category students and from 45% to 40% for Reserved Category students. This reduction in the eligibility criteria was made at the 69th meeting of the Executive Committee of the AICTE held on 28.6.2011 and confirmed at the 21st meeting of the Council held on 30.6.2011. But the reduction of the eligibility criteria was notified only on 4.7.2011 to take effect for the academic year 2011-12. This happened after the above writ petition was admitted.
11. As a matter of fact, the State Government filed the above writ petition challenging the eligibility criteria fixed as 50% for general category candidates and 45% for reserved category candidates in the impugned Regulations. But, within four days of the writ petition getting admitted, there has been a downward revision of the eligibility criteria from 50% to 45% for General Category candidates and from 45% to 40% for Reserved Category candidates. This downward revision actually benefited the Backward communities and the General category candidates, though it also affected the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as seen from G.O.Ms.No.151, Higher Education dated 14.6.2010.
12.In the present writ petition, the Government assailed the eligibility criteria fixed by AICTE and wanted to follow the eligibility criteria fixed under G.O.Ms.No.151, Higher Education dated 14.6.2010. The eligibility criteria so fixed under the Government Order for the academic year 2010-11 was as follows:
General Category candidates - 50% Backward communities - 45% MBC/DC - 40% SC/STs - 35% But, the norms fixed by the AICTE under the impugned Regulations was 50% for General Category candidates and 45% for Reserved Categories. Even these norms have been diluted by the notification dated 04.7.2011 by the AICTE, to 45% for General Category and 40% for Reserved categories.
13. Therefore, in the light of the notification issued on 04.7.2011, after the admission of the above writ petition, the above writ petition has virtually become infructuous. But, the State Government took a very strange decision to challenge even the revised eligibility criteria fixed under the fresh notification dated 04.7.2011 by way of another writ petition in W.P.No.17670 of 2012.
14. As pointed out earlier, the present writ petition challenged the Regulations of the AICTE fixing the eligibility criteria as 50% for General Category and 45% for Reserved Category. The moment AICTE revised it to 45% and 40% respectively, after the above writ petition was admitted, the State Government could have done two things, namely, either to seek amendment of the above writ petition challenging the fresh notification dated 04.7.2011 or to withdraw the above writ petition and file a fresh one challenging the notification dated 04.7.2011. But, the State Government did not do so. This is probably due to the fact that once the above writ petition is closed as infructuous, the ex parte interim directions that the State secured, would also have gone.
15. Therefore, the State kept the above writ petition pending without seeking any amendment of the prayer, so as to challenge the fresh notification of the AICTE dated 04.7.2011. Not only did the State keep the above writ petition in tact, but also kept quite till the academic year 2012-13 started. Once the season for admission picked up in July 2012 for the academic year 2012-13, the State came up with a fresh writ petition in July 2012, in W.P.No.17670 of 2012, challenging even the norms of 45% and 40% respectively for General Category and Reserved Category candidates.
16. But, the challenge made to the revised notification dated 04.7.2011 in W.P.No.17670 of 2012 proved to be a battle of Waterloo for the State, before K.Chandru,J, who dismissed the same on 20.7.2012, questioning the very propriety of the State in challenging the prescription of standards by an expert body like AICTE, unmindful of the quality of education in the State. Therefore, the dismissal of the present writ petition should actually flow as an inevitable consequence of the dismissal of W.P.No.17670 of 2012. The reason is that the notification dated 04.7.2011, which superseded the notification impugned in the present writ petition, has already been upheld.
17. Therefore, logically, I have very little to do, except performing the last rites. But, before doing so, I should take note of a few statistics that the State has projected in the writ petition, as a justification for coming up with a challenge to the notification of the AICTE. This is necessary in public interest.
18. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to government, Higher Education Department, the State has given two tabulations, one containing the eligibility criteria fixed by AICTE and modified from time to time and another containing the eligibility criteria fixed by the State Government and modified from time to time by virtue of various Government Orders. Both these tabulations read as follows:
AICTE Norms over the years Sl.No. Year Entry level qualification prescribed by AICTE 1 1992-2001 AICTE guidelines dated 15.6.1992 A pass in the 10+2 Senior Secondary examination with a minimum aggregate of 60 per cent marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.
In respect of SC/ST candidates a pass in the 10+2 Senior Secondary Examinations with a minimum aggregate of marks prescribed by the respective State Government / Union Territory Administration obtained in a single sitting.2
2002-2007
1) F.No.- AICTE/UG/Imp-Corr/2002/G-8, dated 31.10.2002
2) AICTE Advt. No. AICTE/Legal/2/2004 Should be a pass in 10+2 examination with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subjects along with one of the following subjects:
"Chemistry / Bio-Technology / Computer Science / Biology" 3
2008-2010 AICTE Handbook for Approval process for the year 2008-2009 Should be a pass in 10+2 examination with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subjects along with one of the following subjects:
"Chemistry / Bio-Technology / Computer Science / Biology"4
2010-2011 AICTE Approval process hand book published dated 9.1.2010 Should be a pass in 10+2 examination with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subjects along with one of the following subjects:
"Chemistry / Bio-Technology / Computer Science / Biology"5
2011-2012 AICTE approval process hand book (2011-2012) Passed 10+2 examination with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subjects along with one of the Chemistry / Bio-Technology / Biology Obtained at least 50% marks (45% in case of candidate belonging to reserved category) in the above subjects taken together.
Government Norms over the years Period Relevant Government Orders Minimum eligibility marks for (Aggregate of related subjects) OC BC MBC/DNC SC/ST 1992-2001
1.G.O.Ms.No.521, Education Department, dated 13.5.1989
2.G.O.Ms.No.361, ES & T Department, dated 9.5.1995 70% 65% 60% Mere Pass 2002-2007 G.O.Ms.No.222, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 29.6.2002 60% 55% 50% Mere Pass 2008-2009 G.O.Ms.No.263, Higher Education (J2) Department, dated 30.6.2008 55% 50% 45% Mere Pass 2010 onwards G.O.Ms.No.151, Higher Education (J2) Department, dated 14.6.2010 50% 45% 40% 35%
19. The above tabulations make a shocking revelation. While the tabulation relating to AICTE shows that after prescribing 60% for General Category candidates and a pass for SC/ST candidates as the minimum eligibility criteria during the period 1992-2001, the AICTE diluted the standards during the period 2002-2007 to 2010-2011. For the academic year 2011-2012, AICTE increased the prescription to 50% and 45% respectively under the Regulation, which is impugned in the above writ petition. Thus, the graph of AICTE shows both ups and downs in the matter of prescription of standards.
20. In contrast, the prescription of minimum eligibility norms by the State has consistently showed a marked descend. From 70%, 65%, 60% and a pass during the period 1992-2001, the State has diluted the standards in subsequent years. The reason for doing so is what is actually shocking.
21. As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the prescription of higher percentage of marks would put the socially backward students to a serious disadvantage in gaining admission to degree courses in Engineering and Technology.
22. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the State has come up with some interesting statistics. The first set of statistics relates to the number of MBC and SC/ST candidates who will become ineligible for admission to Engineering and Technology courses, if the revised norms are applied. The second set of statistics relates to the total number of institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu category wise, the total sanctioned intake of students in those institutions and the vacancy position. These statistics are extracted as follows:
MBC/SC/ST candidates who would become ineligible if revised AICTE norms are applied (norms impugned in the present writ petition) Category No. of students who applied under this category No. of students who would be ineligible as per the impugned norms 2010 2011 2010 2011 MBC 40649 34157 1187 538 SCA 2369 1962 162 103 SC 20920 17081 1599 1026 ST 554 461 31 27 Total 2979 1694 Details of Institutions & vacancy position Category No. of Institutions Sanctioned intake Admitted Vacancy 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 Government 6 6 2560 2560 2492 2425 68 135 Government Aided 3 3 2465 2510 2394 2506 71 4 Self financing 431 464 161515 182529 109632 149992 51883 32537 Anna University Constituent Colleges 16 18 5905 7725 5556 7308 349 417 Total 456 491 172445 195324 120074 162231 52371 33093
23. The first tabulation would show that the percentage of candidates who go out of the race on account of the prescription of higher standards is very minimal. As a matter of fact, it was about 2.5% in the case of MBCs and about 5% in the case of SCA and ST and 7% in the case of SCs for the year 2010. It is less than 2% for MBCs, 5% for SCA, 6% for SC/STs, in the year 2011.
24. The second tabulation shows that the vacancy position in Government colleges, Government aided colleges and Anna University constituent colleges is also not very alarming. The vacancy position in self-financing colleges alone is alarming.
25. The fact that the vacancy position in self-financing colleges is alarming, is no ground for the State to reduce the norms. If one looks at the history of litigation between self-financing engineering Colleges and the State, it could be seen that the self-financing institutions never submitted themselves to any kind of control by the State Government, on the ground that it is only expert bodies, such as AICTE, MCI, etc., who could prescribe norms. Once upon a time, the self-financing institutions were required to obtain essentiality certificates from the State Government, for obtaining recognition from AICTE, MCI, etc. But, by engaging the States in pitched Court room battles, the self-financing institutions succeeded in getting recognition without the necessity for securing essentiality certificates. Therefore, the State has no obligation to help these self-financing institutions to have all their seats filled up, and that too, by diluting the eligibility criteria.
26. It is common knowledge that the self-financing institutions are entitled at least to charge the fee stipulated by the Fee Fixation Committee. The fee prescribed even officially, runs to several lakhs of rupees for the entire duration of the course of four years. Therefore, the more and more the State dilutes the eligibility criteria and enables the vacant seats in self-financing institutions to be filled up, the more and more these institutions stand to benefit. It is not those poor and needy students from rural areas and socially backward communities who stand to benefit.
27. Right from the days of Adam Smith, the economy of household or a commercial enterprise or even a country is regulated only by the law of demand and supply. There are 464 self-financing engineering/Technology institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu, with a permitted intake of 1,82,529 students, as seen from the tabulation given by the State, which I have extracted above. Out of the total permitted intake, about 32,537 seats went vacant in the year 2010-11. Simple law of demand and supply would mandate that these colleges reduce the fee charged, so as to attract more people and fill up the vacant seats. They do not do that. But, the State has come up with a proposal to reduce the eligibility criteria, defying the age old theory of economics.
28. In a research paper submitted by an institution by name "Aspiring Minds" under the caption "Employability of Engineers: State Wise", the pathetic plight of persons who come out of institutions of Engineering and Technology, is highlighted. The highlights of the report are as follows:
Highlights Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh lag behind in average quality of talent States focusing on numbers and not quality, reveals the report In metros, Delhi again has the best engineers followed by Kolkata and Bangalore
29. Insofar as the Information and Technology sector are concerned, the research paper has given a graphic presentation as follows:
30. On the basis of the above graph, the Researchers have come to the conclusion that the employability in IT services companies is highest in North and lowest in South. The Researchers looked into various factors which could explain the dramatic variations in employability across States. The research team took into account the impact of State population, size of the State, number of colleges, gender spread etc. Thereafter, they hypothesised that the number of colleges had an impact on the quality of education. It would be useful to extract a portion of the said research report.
Hypothesis: Impact of number of colleges on quality of education We hypothesize that just the sheer number of engineering colleges in a state influences the percent employability of students in the state. Wherein the number of engineering schools are lower in number, the percent employability is higher and vice-versa. To check this hypothesis we analyzed the relation between the percent employability vs. the number of engineering colleges in each state.
Interestingly a very high correlation of -0.834 was found between percent IT services employability and the logarithm of the number of colleges in the state. This means that the employability falls logarithmically with the increase of number of colleges in the state. Interestingly, the result is not improved by normalizing the count by population or size of the state. Probably, other variables such as literacy levels, status of education, per capita income, etc. may be useful to get further insight. The simplicity of the result is indeed intriguing and shows how adding more engineering colleges led to a logarithmic fall in the percent of employable engineers. A scatter plot between employability percent and logarithm of number of colleges is shown in Figure 2 . If we remove the two outliers, the correlation becomes 0.91.
Conclusion The employability percent decreases with increase in the number of engineering colleges in a particular state, clearly establishing that opening more engineering colleges shall not solve the problem of quality of engineers in the country. It is required that rather than opening more engineering colleges, the state needs to concentrate on improving education standards of current engineering colleges.
Secondly, even though the number of colleges is a major factor in guiding employability in a particular state, it does not explain it completely. For instance, even though Tamil Nadu has lower number of engineering colleges (~600) as compared to Andhra Pradesh (~750), it has a lower employability percentage (8.33 as compared to 12.73) . Similarly Delhi has more colleges than Bihar, but a higher employability. Employability for a state is a complex interplay due to several socio-economic and developmental factors. What is required is a greater thrust on improving the quality of engineering education.
31. The report also analyses the employability in IT product companies across the States, the employability in BPOs across the States, employability in KPOs across the States and the employability across metro cities. The graph relating to employability in IT product companies and employability in BPOs across the States, can be presented, as they are more eloquent than anything else.
32. In the light of the above, it would be clear that students from poor and socially backward background, may be at a disadvantage because of the prescription of 40% marks as eligibility criteria for admission to degree courses in Engineering and Technology. But, they will be exposed to a much greater danger and disadvantage by being pushed into these institutions of Engineering and Technology and made to pay lakhs of rupees towards fees in a total period of four years, eventually to land up once again in the same or worse off position. In other words, the attempt at diluting the standards will eventually prove only to be more injurious to poor students hailing from marginalised and socially backward sections of the Society. Hence, the same cannot be permitted by a Court of law.
33. I am not adverting to the core legal issue relating to the prescription of standards, the role of the expert bodies and the role of the State Government. This is for the simple reason that Mr.K.Chandru,J, has elaborately dealt with the legal issue, after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani ((2003) 7 SCC 83), Harish Verma v. Ajay Srivastava ((2003) 8 SCC 69), State of T.N. v. S.V.Bratheep ((2004) 4 SCC 513), Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2005) 5 SC 420) and Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder ((2011) 4 SCC 606).
34. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and hence, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
SVN/kpl To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Chairman (Acting) AICTE, All India Council for Technical Education 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.
3.The Secretary to Ministry of MHRD, New Delhi-110 001.
4.The Secretary to Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affair, New Delhi 110 001