Madras High Court
The Maritime Education And Training ... vs The Government Of India on 25 July, 2022
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12.07.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 &
Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
In W.P.No.11384 of 2022
The Maritime Education and Training Institutes Association,
Represented by its Secretary,
Regus Business Centre, No.136,
Arcot Road, Shyamala Towers,
3rd Floor, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Shipping,
Transport Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Directorate General of Shipping,
Represented by the Assistant Directorate General of Shipping.
9th Floor, Beta Building, I-Think Techno Campus,
Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai – 400 042.
1/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
3.The Indian Maritime University,
Represented by its Registrar,
East Coast Road, Semmenchery,
Sholinganallur (P.O.), Chennai – 600 119.
4.The University Grants Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Education, Government of India,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for writ of certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent in its
circular dated 07.03.2022 in Reference No.IMU-HQ/C/12/18/01/CET-2022,
quash the same.
In W.P.No.10101 of 2020
International Maritime Academy,
Represented by its Managing Director, J.Senthil Kumar,
41, Jasin Korattur, Pudhuchatram,
Chennai – 600 124. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Shipping,
Transport Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Directorate General of Shipping,
Represented by the Assistant Directorate General of Shipping.
2/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
9th Floor, Beta Building, I-Think Techno Campus,
Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai – 400 042.
3.The Indian Maritime University,
Represented by its Registrar,
East Coast Road, Semmenchery,
Sholinganallur (P.O.), Chennai – 600 119. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent dated
01.04.2020 in Training Circular No.12 of 2020 in No.TR/Mis./9(10)/2017,
quash the same.
In W.P.No.10106 of 2020
The Maritime Education and Training Institutes Association,
Represented by its Secretary,
Regus Business Centre, No.136,
Arcot Road, Shyamala Towers,
3rd Floor, Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Shipping,
Transport Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Directorate General of Shipping,
Represented by the Assistant Directorate General of Shipping.
9th Floor, Beta Building, I-Think Techno Campus,
Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai – 400 042.
3/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
3.The Indian Maritime University,
Represented by its Registrar,
East Coast Road, Semmenchery,
Sholinganallur (P.O.), Chennai – 600 119. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent dated
01.04.2020 in Training Circular No.12 of 2020 in No.TR/Mis./9(10)/2017,
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Abishek Jenasenan
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan,
Additional Solicitor of General,
for Mr.M.Karthikeyan,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent 3 : Mr.K.R.Thamizhmani, Standing Counsel
For Respondent 4 : Ms.V.Sudha
ORDER
The only issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the Directorate General of Shipping is vested with the power to 4/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 issue a circular making common entrance test mandatory for maritime degrees and diplomas (pre-sea training courses) offered by the members of the petitioner Association in W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10106 of 2020.
2. W.P.No.10106 of 2020 has been filed by the Association which is registered under the Societies Registration Act and W.P.No.10101 of 2020 has been filed by International Maritime Academy, a maritime training institute approved by the Directorate General of Shipping, challenging the Training Circular No.12 of 2020 making the common entrance test mandatory for getting admission in Maritime Institutions approved by the Directorate General of Shipping from the academic year 2020-21 onwards. Due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the common entrance test was not conducted for the Academic Years 2020-21 & 2021-22. The petitioner Association in W.P.No.10106 of 2020 has also filed W.P.No.11384 of 2022 challenging the Circular No.IMU-HQ/C/12/18/01/CET-2022 dated 07.03.2022 making mandatory common entrance test for admission to DG Shipping approved pre-sea programmes across India for the academic year 2022-23. 5/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
3. All the writ petitioners have raised the very same contention that the Directorate General of Shipping and the Indian Maritime University does not have any power under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1956 or its rules framed thereunder to prescribe common entrance test for maritime degrees and diplomas and making it mandatory for the maritime colleges irrespective of whether they are affiliated to the Indian Maritime University or not.
4. The petitioner in W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10106 of 2020 is a maritime Association whose members (Maritime institutes) are affiliated to various universities across the country including the Indian Maritime University and the petitioner in W.P.No.10101 of 2020 is a Maritime Institution which is affiliated to Annamalai university and not affiliated to Indian Maritime University.
5. According to the respective petitioners, being affiliated to other universities, the question of participating in the common entrance test to be conducted by the Indian Maritime University will not arise as the petitioners 6/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 cannot be subjected to the control of Indian Maritime University as they are affiliated with the other universities which alone are having control over them. According to the respective petitioners, the Merchant Shipping Act is not referable to Entry 66 of list 1 of 7th schedule to the Constitution of India which deals with Higher Education. According to them, there is no provision under the Merchant Shipping Act, which empowers the DG shipping or the Indian Maritime University to hold the Common Entrance Test. According to them, the only power delegated by the Central Government to the Directorate General of Shipping under the Merchant Shipping Act is to grant Certificate of Competency to the candidates under section 78 and in addition, Rule 75 of the Merchant Shipping (STCW) Rules 2014 only provides that the Directorate General of Shipping will ensure that the training of Seafarers is in accordance with STCW Code. According to the petitioners, nowhere in the Merchant Shipping Act or in its Rules, the power has been given to the Directorate General of Shipping to prescribe common entrance test for admission of candidates into pre-sea courses.
7/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
6. The impugned order dated 07.03.2022 has been passed by the third respondent and the impugned order dated 01.04.2020 has been passed by the second respondent making the common entrance test mandatory for admission of candidates into maritime degrees and diploma courses (pre-sea training courses). According to the respective petitioners, the impugned orders infringe upon the power and functions of various universities which granted affiliation to the maritime technical institutes.
7. It is also contended by the petitioners that in W.A. Nos.151 to 154 of 2010 dated 26.02.2010, the Division Bench of this Court has recognised that Maritime Institutes need not be affiliated to Indian maritime university. According to the respective petitioners, if the impugned common entrance test is implemented, then it will cause enormous confusion in the minds of the candidates, institutions and concerned universities. According to them, the third respondent Indian Maritime University cannot infringe upon the powers and functions of other Universities under whom the respective petitioners are affiliated.
8/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
8. It is also contended by the petitioners that the number of applicants for common entrance test is very less i.e., only 15,000 approximately against the total available intake of about 11,000 seats. It is also contended by the petitioners that common entrance test was cancelled during the years 2020-21 & 2021-22 and under the impugned circular dated 07.03.2022, it has been re-introduced in an unplanned and hasty manner causing more confusion in the admission process.
9. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 wherein they would state as follows:
(a) the Directorate General of Shipping is the delegated authority of the Central Government to exercise supervision over the maritime education and prescribe necessary guidelines or instructions to ensure quality of training and standard of education.
(b) The Merchant Shipping Act entitles the Central Government to authorise persons to prescribe qualification for the purpose of maritime education. It is under the said Act that the Directorate General of Shipping is constituted as an authority of Central Government.9/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
(c) The power of Directorate General of Shipping have been challenged several times in the past and a conclusive order declaring the competence of the Directorate General of Shipping to prescribe qualification in relation to Maritime Education was passed by this court in a batch of Writ petitions on 09.09.2019 in W.P.No.40370 of 2016 etc., batch. This Court in the aforesaid decision, observed as follows:
“ 92.To sum up the writ petitions are disposed of with the following findings and directions:-
(i)The Director General of Shipping is the authority vested with absolute power to regulate all training programmes leading to examinations for grant of certificates;
(ii)As far as Diplomas, Degrees and Post Graduate Diplomas offered by the Institutes affiliated to Universities, the policy of the Central Government binds the Universities and the Institutes affiliated to the Universities. DGS power to prescribe minimum eligibility marks for admission in Diploma and degree courses flows from Entry 25 in List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.10/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
(iii)Any order or regulation issued by DGS shall be with the object to enhance the quality of training and standard of education and not detrimental to the object;
(iv)MoU with Shipping company for onboard training for specified number of candidates and restricting the admission to that specified number alone is an onerous condition;
(v)Continuation of approval based on placement within specified period is unconstitutional and ultra vires and
(vi)In supercession of orders and training circulars, the DGS is directed to frame a composite regulation for institutes offering Marine Education and training within four months from the date of this order. Till such time, except clauses regarding tie up for on board training and placement which is struck down as unconstitutional all other clauses in the orders and circulars shall be in force.”
10. Therefore, according to the respondents, the Directorate General of Shipping would be the ultimate authority vested with the absolute power to regulate quality of training programmes. According to them, the only 11/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 direction that could be considered a fetter on the powers of Directorate General of Shipping is to “prescribe qualification” is that the orders or regulations issued by the Directorate General of Shipping would have to be with the object of enhancing the quality of training and standard of education.
11. The Director General of Shipping has been specifically conferred with statutory powers under section 7(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act to regulate all forms of Maritime Training. Therefore, the competence of the Directorate General of Shipping to issue notifications that ultimately govern the qualification and the quality of maritime education has been established which is also confirmed by decision of this Court dated 09.09.2019 referred to supra. Common Entrance Test that is contemplated under the impugned orders was introduced with the sole purpose of quality of individual who would join maritime course and in turn become qualified seamen.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Christian Medical College, Vellore vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 8 SCC 705 rendered 12/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 that admission to professional courses ought to be purely based on merit. In the said decision, it was stated that the merit may be determined either through a common entrance test conducted by the university or the Government followed by counselling, or on the basis of an entrance test conducted by individual institutions. The method to be followed is for the university or the Government to decide.
13. According to the respondents, through various judgments passed from time to time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that merit, indisputably, is the only relevant criterion. The merit for the purpose of admissions in a professional college must be judged as far as possible on the basis of “same or similar examination”. According to the respondents, a common entrance test ensures uniformity of opportunity and quality of students. According to them, to ensure that merit obtains prime importance, the procedure for admission should be devised so as to meet the triple test of being “fair, transparent and non-exploitation”.
14. According to the respondents, insofar as the conflict in the admission procedures between each individual universities and the Indian 13/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 Maritime University which being authorised to conduct the common entrance test is concerned, the Indian Maritime University has clarified that all universities would have to comply with the common entrance test to be conducted by them under the authority of Directorate General of Shipping.
15. According to the respondents, all maritime institutions being under the superintendence of the first and second respondents are bound by the instructions given by them from time to time. The purpose of Common Entrance Test is to serve the object of bettering the standard of education and quality of students in the maritime field.
16. Heard Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abishek Jenasenan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, Mr.R.Sankaranarayana, learned Additional Solicitor General representing Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.K.R.Thamizhmani, learned standing counsel for the third respondent and Ms.V.Sudha, learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent.
14/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
17. Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to section 98 of the Merchant Shipping Act dealing with “Qualifications for, and medical examination of, seamen” and would submit that as per section 98(3), the Central Government alone has got the powers to frame rules for the purpose of giving effect to the aforementioned section and not the Director General of Shipping or the Indian Maritime University. He also drew the attention of this Court to section 7 of the Merchant Shipping Act and would submit that the Directorate General of Shipping does not have the power to order for common entrance test. He would submit that under section 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act, the Directorate General of Shipping has got the power only to issue Certificate of Competency to the candidates and in addition to that, under Rule 75 of the Merchant Shipping (STCW) Rules 2014, the Directorate General of Shipping will ensure that the Training of Seafarers is in accordance with STCW code. According to him, nowhere in the Act or the Rules, the Directorate General of Shipping has been given power to prescribe common entrance test for admission of candidates into pre-sea training courses.
15/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
18. Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely upon the Division Bench of this Court dated 26.02.2010 passed in W.A.Nos.151 to 154 of 2010 wherein according to him, the Division Bench has recognised that Maritime Institutions need not be affiliated to Indian Maritime University. He would submit that maritime institutions are affiliated to various State Universities across the country and the said State Universities are not affiliated to or noway connected to Indian Maritime University. According to him, each university has its own eligibility criteria for admission process including common entrance exams, single window counselling etc., and therefore the petitioner are bound only by the directions of the universities to which they are affiliated to.
19. According to him, if the common entrance test is implemented, then it will cause enormous confusion in the minds of the candidates, institutions and concerned universities. Further he would submit that no useful purpose will be served, if common entrance test is conducted and made mandatory for pre-sea courses, when the data shows that the number of applicants for the common entrance test is very less as against the total 16/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 available intake of about 11,000 seats. According to him, even though common entrance test was cancelled during 2020-21 & 2021-22, in an unplanned, hasty and inefficient manner, common entrance test has been re- introduced under the impugned circular dated 07.03.2022 for this academic year i.e, for 2022-23.
20. Per contra, Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the Merchant Shipping Act entitles the Central Government to authorise persons to prescribe qualifications for the purpose of maritime education. According to him, the Directorate General of Shipping is constituted as a statutory authority of the Central Government under the Merchant Shipping Act. According to him, the powers of the Directorate General of Shipping have been challenged several times in the past and a conclusive order, declaring the competence of the Directorate General of Shipping to prescribe qualifications in relation to maritime education, was passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions dated 09.09.2019 in W.P.No.40370 of 2016 etc., batch. In the said decision, it has been categorically stated that the 17/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 Directorate General of Shipping would be the ultimate authority vested with the absolute power to regulate the quality of maritime training programmes.
21. According to Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General, the only direction in the aforesaid decision of this Court that could be considered a fetter on the powers of the Directorate General of Shipping to prescribe qualification is that the orders or regulations issued by the Directorate General of Shipping would have to be with the object of enhancing the quality of training and the standard of Maritime education. According to him, the finding was based on the premise that the Directorate General of Shipping has been specifically conferred with the powers under section 7(2) of the Act to regulate all forms of Marine Training.
22. According to Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General, Common Entrance Test which is contemplated under the impugned circular is issued with the sole purpose of improving the quality of individuals who would join maritime courses and in turn become qualified Seamen. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 18/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 in the case of Christian Medical College, Vellore vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 8 SCC 705 and would reiterate that the admission to professional courses ought to be purely based on merit. Further it is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, that through various judgments passed from time to time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that merit, indisputably is the only relevant criterion. The Judgment of merit, for the purpose of admissions in a professional college must be judged as far as possible on the basis of “same or similar examination”. A common entrance test will ensure uniformity of opportunity and quality of students. According to him, to ensure merit obtains prime importance, the procedure for admission should be devised so as to meet the triple test of being “fair, transparent and non-exploitative”. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:
(a) Christian Medical College, Vellore vs. Union of India reported in 2020 8 SCC 705.
(b) Islamic Academy of Education and Another vs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697; and 19/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
(c) Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in (2016) 7 SCC 353.
23. Learned Additional Solicitor General would conclude his submissions by submitting that insofar as the conflict for admission procedures between each individual university and the Indian Maritime University is concerned, the Indian Maritime University had clarified that all universities would have to comply with the common entrance test to be conducted by the Indian Maritime University as this would ensure uniformity of quality and access.
Discussion
24. The common entrance test which has been challenged in these writ petitions is conducted for admission in the following Pre-sea courses namely:
(a) BE/B-Tech in Marine Engineering (4 years duration)
(b) B.Sc (Nautical Science) (3 years duration)
(c) Diploma in Nautical Science course leading to B.Sc (Nautical Science).20/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
25. First let us examine the importance of Pre-Sea training.
26. Ships are only as good as the persons who man them. Safety and efficiency of ships are dependent upon the professional competence and dedication to the duty by the seafarers on board the ships. To achieve this, maritime education and training, and within that, the pre-sea training, is of vital importance. To ensure that the competence of Indian seafarers is accepted throughout the world, improvements have been made from time to time in the training of seafarers in India. With advances in technology, and consequent changes, especially due to STCW (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarer) 95, the international concept and practice of maritime training has undergone major changes in quality and quantity. To increase the supply of trained seafarers, the Government began to encourage maritime training in the private sector on a large scale in 1997.
21/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
27. The Directorate General of Shipping who is the designated statutory authority in India for all matters concerning the merchant Shipping has been issuing directives, whenever necessary, to ensure that international standards are complied with by all training Institutes in India. All maritime institutes which impart maritime courses are required to get the approval of the Directorate General of Shipping and only then, their students are entitled to seek the statutory certificates of competence from the Directorate General of Shipping and other statutory authorities to enable them to get employment in the ships. The approved maritime institutes are required to follow the guidelines issued by the Directorate from time to time.
28. India has had a long maritime tradition and is the 20th largest maritime country in the world. The single largest contributing factor to this glorious tradition is the presence of a strong, dedicated, efficient and reliable reservoir of officers and ranks of the Merchant Navy in India. The ever increasing demand of Indian seafarers worldwide is a testament to the quality of education and training received in India. However, of late, India has been facing a stiff challenge to the position in this regard from countries 22/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 like Philippines, China and Bangladesh. Hence there is a need to further upgrade the training capacity and capabilities so that India stays ahead of the other nations in this sector. There is also a need to augment the share of India in the world maritime manpower fleet from the present level of around 6% to 20% at least.
29. Safety of life in the sea is very important. Since the ships are manned by seafarers, quality of education and training rendered to them is equally important. The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 is an international maritime treaty that sets minimum safety standards in the construction, equipment and operation of merchant ships. India is one of the first countries to sign the said convention and ratify it. The said convention has called upon the member nations to strictly follow the safety measures promulgated in the said convention. They include (a) construction, (b) fire protection, (c) Life saving appliances and arrangements, (d) Radio communications, (e) Safety of navigation, (f) carriage of cargoes, (g) carriage of dangerous goods (h) Nuclear ships, (i) Management for the Safe Operation of Ships, (j) Safety measures for high- 23/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 speed craft, (k) Special measures to enhance maritime Safety, (l) Special Measures to enhance maritime security, (m) Additional safety measures for bulk carriers and (n) safety measures for ships operating in polar waters.
30. We have seen several accidents involving ships only due to the negligence of the crew, due to the lack of knowledge and experience in handling emergency situations.
31. A seafarer must have the aptitude to work in difficult situations in the high seas. Just like the Director General of Civil Aviation, a statutory regulator who has been appointed by the Central Government for the purpose of protecting the safety of the aeroplanes, the Director General of Shipping, is also a statutory authority appointed by the Central Government under section 7 of the Merchant Shipping Act for the purpose of exercising or discharging the powers, authority or duties conferred or imposed under the Act.
32. Under section 7(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, the Central Government may by general or special order, direct that any power, 24/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 authority or jurisdiction exercisable by it under or in relation to any such provisions of this Act as may be specified in the order shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be so specified, be exercisable also by the Director-General or by such other officer as may be specified in the order.
33. Under section 7(3) of the Act, the Director-General may, by general or special order, and with the previous approval of the Central Government, direct that any power or authority conferred upon or delegated to, and any duty imposed upon, the Director-General by or under this Act may, subject to such conditions and restrictions as he may think fit to impose, be exercised or discharged also by such officer or other authority as he may specify in this behalf.
34. The main job for the office of the Director General of Shipping is to ensure that Indian ships and shipping companies meet high safety and environmental standards, to ensure that Indian seamen have high qualifications and good working and living conditions, and to ensure that foreign ships in Indian territory and ports meet international standards/ 25/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 rules. The Director General of Shipping ensures implementation of various conventions, relating to safety namely SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea), requirements for prevention of pollution, MARPOL 73/78 and other mandatory requirements of the International Maritime Organization.
35. The Indian Maritime University, the third respondent herein was established through an Act of Parliament (Act 22) in November 2008 as a Central University, for the purpose of playing a key role in the development of trained human resources in the maritime sector.
36. One of the main objectives of the University is to facilitate and promote maritime studies, training and research. Only to further strengthen them, the institutional framework for Maritime training in India, the Indian Maritime University Act, was legislated and the Indian Maritime University Act, came into place.
37. As per section 50 of the Indian Maritime Act, 2008, the University shall, in discharge of its functions be bound by such directions 26/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time and the decision of the Central Government as to whether a question is one of the policy or not shall be final. The impugned circular dated 07.03.2022 issued by the Central Government (Ministry of Shipping, Government of India) has authorised the Indian Maritime University to conduct the common entrance test for the pre-sea training courses.
38. Section 98 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1958 deals with Qualifications for, and medical examination of seamen and as per section 98(3) of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of section 98 and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of such power, any rules so made may provide for the courses of training to be pursued, the vocational standards to be attained or the tests to be passed by seamen generally or by any class of seamen in particular. Therefore, it is clear that the Central Government is having the power to frame rules with regard to the tests to be passed by seamen generally or by any class of seamen in particular. One of the primary object of the Merchant Shipping Act is to maintain safety of the life in the sea i.e., the safety of the ship and its crew. 27/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020
39. The impugned circular No.12 of 2020 dated 01.04.2020 issued by the Directorate General of Shipping, Government of India has given elaborate reasons as to why the common entrance test is being implemented. In the impugned circular dated 01.04.2020, it has been observed by the Directorate General of Shipping that as India being signatory to the International Convention on “Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978 as amended is obliged to comply with the requirements of the said convention. It has also been recorded in the circular that the eligibility criteria for selection of candidates for various pre-sea training courses has been modified from time to time through circulars issued by the Directorate General of Shipping. It has also been observed that the maritime awareness is lacking in young students resulting in their getting trapped in to false promises by fraudulent agents. In the impugned circular, a comparison has also been made with other professional courses and has observed that a neutral method of evaluating the quality of entrants in the maritime education is through common entrance test. It has also been observed that the Indian Maritime University, 28/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 a central university has been successfully conducting an online “Common Entrance Test” to admit students for pre-sea courses in Maritime Training Institutes (MTIs) of the Indian Maritime University and 19 other Maritime Training Institutes which are affiliated to Indian Maritime University. It has been made clear in the impugned circular that the centralised counselling mechanism would aid the aspiring seafarers and their parents to understand the job profile of merchant navy personnel.
40. In the impugned circular dated 07.03.2022 issued by Indian Maritime University, the reasons for not conducting the common entrance test for the academic year 2020-21 & 2021-22 have been recorded and it has been stated that only due to Covid-19 pandemic, the common entrance test for pre-sea maritime courses were not conducted for the said academic years. A student of a maritime training institute can seek for either continuous discharge certificate or a certificate of competency as the case may be from the Director General of Shipping, only if the institution in which he studied was an approved institution of the Director General of Shipping. It is not in dispute that the members of the petitioner association 29/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 in W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10106 of 2020 are all approved institutions of the Directorate General of Shipping and their students are eligible to apply for continuous discharge certificate or the certificate of competency as the case may be on completion of their respective maritime courses from the Directorate General of Shipping. The minimum entry level requirement for a seamen to be employed in a vessel is the continuous discharge certificate. The certificate of competency is issued for officers seeking employment in ships. When it is incumbent upon the students of the maritime training institutes to approach the Directorate General of Shipping for issuance of continuous discharge certificate or certificate of competency, necessarily, they are bound by directions issued by the Directorate General of Shipping of Maritime education from time to time in line with the international conventions in order to maintain the safety of life in the sea.
41. The learned Single Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.40370 of 2016 etc., in its order dated 09.09.2019, has conclusively held that the Directorate General of Shipping is an authority of the Central Government and is competent to prescribe qualifications in 30/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 relation to maritime education and the relevant portions of the said judgment reads as follows:
“ 92.To sum up the writ petitions are disposed of with the following findings and directions:-
(i)The Director General of Shipping is the authority vested with absolute power to regulate all training programmes leading to examinations for grant of certificates;
(ii)As far as Diplomas, Degrees and Post Graduate Diplomas offered by the Institutes affiliated to Universities, the policy of the Central Government binds the Universities and the Institutes affiliated to the Universities. DGS power to prescribe minimum eligibility marks for admission in Diploma and degree courses flows from Entry 25 in List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.
(iii)Any order or regulation issued by DGS shall be with the object to enhance the quality of training and standard of education and not detrimental to the object;
(iv)MoU with Shipping company for onboard training for specified number of candidates and restricting the admission to that specified number 31/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 alone is an onerous condition;
(v)Continuation of approval based on placement within specified period is unconstitutional and ultra vires and
(vi)In superstition of orders and training circulars, the DGS is directed to frame a composite regulation for institutes offering Marine Education and training within four months from the date of this order. Till such time, except clauses regarding tie up for on board training and placement which is struck down as unconstitutional all other clauses in the orders and circulars shall be in force.”
42. Therefore, when a specialised statutory/regulatory body has been appointed under the Merchant Shipping Act, in order to ensure the safety of life in the sea, the Directorate General of Shipping which is the said statutory body would be the ultimate authority vested with the absolute power to regulate quality and training programmes in Maritime education. It is also made clear in the counter affidavit filed by the first and second respondents that the second respondent, the Directorate General of Shipping has been vested with the absolute power under the 32/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 Merchant Shipping Act to regulate the quality of maritime training programmes. The impugned circular of the Directorate General of Shipping dated 01.04.2020 is only in accordance with the powers vested in favour of the Directorate General of shipping under the Merchant Shipping Act. Similarly, only on the directions issued by the Central Government which is reflected in the impugned circular dated 07.03.2022 of the Indian Maritime University, the said university is conducting the common entrance test for the pre sea maritime courses mentioned in the said circular. As observed earlier, the Indian Maritime University is bound by the directions of the Central Government as well as the Directorate General of Shipping as per section 50 of the Indian Maritime University.
43. Indian Maritime University even prior to the impugned circular dated 07.03.2022 has been conducting the common entrance test for the maritime training institutes which are affiliated to them and they are 19 in number. In the impugned circular dated 07.03.2022, apart from the maritime training institutes affiliated to the Indian Maritime university, all other maritime training institutes imparting pre-sea maritime courses who have 33/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 been affiliated to other Universities have also been brought under the ambit of the common entrance test to be conducted by the Indian Maritime University, which in the considered view of this Court is well within the authority of the Indian Maritime University as they have been empowered by the Central Government.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions namely:
(a) Christian Medical College, Vellore vs. Union of India reported in 2020 8 SCC 705; (b) Islamic Academy of Education and Another vs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697; and (c) Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in (2016) 7 SCC 353 has upheld the validity of the common entrance test insofar as other professional courses are concerned.
45. In the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in (2016) 7 SCC 353 referred to supra, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the common entrance test would ensure twin objects:- (i) fairness and 34/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 transparency and (ii) merit apart from preventing mal-administration. The relevant paragraphs from the aforementioned decision reads as follows:
“168. Having regard to the prevailing conditions relating to admissions in private professional educational institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the legislature in its wisdom has taken the view that merit-based admissions can be ensured only through a common entrance test followed by centralised counselling either by the State or by an agency authorised by the State. In order to ensure rights of the applicants aspiring for medical courses under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, legislature by the impugned legislation introduced the system of common entrance test (CET) to secure merit- based admission on a transparent basis. If private unaided educational institutions are given unfettered right to devise their own admission procedure and fee structure, it would lead to situation where it would impinge upon the “right to equality” of the students who aspire to take admissions in such educational institutions. Common entrance test by State or its agency will ensure equal opportunity to all meritorious and suitable candidates and meritorious candidates can be identified for being allotted to different institutions depending on the courses of study, the number 35/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 of seats and other relevant factors. This would ensure twin objects:
(i) fairness and transparency, and
(ii) merit apart from preventing maladministration.
Thus, having regard to the larger interest and welfare of the student community to promote merit and achieve excellence and curb malpractices, it would be permissible for the State to regulate admissions by providing a centralised and single-window procedure. Holding such CET followed by centralised counselling or single-window system regulating admissions does not cause any dent on the fundamental rights of the institutions in running the institution. While private educational institutions have a “right of occupation” in running the educational institutions, equally they have the responsibility of selecting meritorious and suitable candidates, in order to bring out professionals with excellence. Rights of private educational institutions have to yield to the larger interest of the community.”
46. The pre-sea maritime courses includes (a) BE/B-Tech in Marine Engineering (4 years duration)' (b) B.Sc (Nautical Science) (3 years 36/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 duration)' and (c) Diploma in Nautical Science course leading to B.Sc (Nautical Science) and students passing out of those examinations are eligible to apply for either a certificate of discharge or a certificate of competency as the case may be depending upon their qualification from the Directorate General of Shipping which is mandatorily required for them to get employment in a ship. When the safety of the life at sea is at stake, any new regulation which strengthens the safety cannot be disregarded as a regulation which restricts the number of persons either joining the maritime technical institute or joining the Merchant Navy. The regulation making it mandatory that the admission to pre-sea training courses can be done only through a common entrance test is only in the public interest of the maritime community and in the interest of safeguarding the life in the sea.
47. The Single Bench Decision of this Court dated 14.10.2011 passed in W.P.No.15464 of 2010 batch (Sairam Shipping Companies) which is relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has no bearing to the facts of the instant case. That was a case where the question involved was whether the University which has granted affiliation to the Maritime 37/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 Training Institute is autonomous for the purpose of awarding degrees and diplomas. The learned Single Judge in the said decision held that the University which has granted affiliation is autonomous, insofar as award of degrees and diplomas to the students of the Maritime Training Institutes are concerned. However, in the very same decision, it has been held that insofar as issuance of continuous discharge certificate and certificate of competency under the Merchant Shipping Act is concerned, the Directorate General of Shipping alone has got the power. It was also made clear in the said decision that the Director General of Shipping can continue to evolve guidelines and standards for the grant of certificates under the Merchant Shipping Act, which includes even approving the institution which runs the courses, the syllabus prescribed, the nature of examination conducted and the nature of practical training imparted. It was also made clear by the learned Single Judge that there is a total compartmentalization between imparting of education leading to Diplomas and Degrees and candidates as a matter of right cannot get CoC/CDC from the Director General of Shipping merely because they are in possession of maritime degrees/diplomas. Therefore, as observed earlier, the said decision will not aid to the 38/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 assistance of the petitioners.
48. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 26.02.2010 passed in W.A.Nos.151 to 154 of 2010 in the case of The Secretary, Ministry of Shipping & Another vs. Maritime Institutes Association and Another does not have any bearing to the facts of the instant case. In that case, the Indian Maritime University was aggrieved by two circulars issued by the Director General of Shipping and the Maritime Institutes Association, the petitioner in one of those writ petitions was aggrieved by the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Paragraph 154 of the impugned Judgment that all institutions running maritime courses must join the Indian Maritime University. The writ appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by clarifying that as far as Certificates of Competency for the grades under Section 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 are concerned, the Director General of Shipping is the authority for the purpose of examining the qualifications of persons desirous of obtaining the certificates of competency thereunder, and has the authority to do all that is needful in respect of grant of those 39/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 qualifications. However, the issue involved in these writ petitions is whether the Director General of Shipping and the Indian Maritime University have got the power to make it mandatory the common entrance test for all the students (pre-sea training courses) which is different from the issue involved in the Division Bench Judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
49. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.07.2022 nl Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order 40/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 To
1.The Government of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Directorate General of Shipping, Represented by the Assistant Directorate General of Shipping. 9th Floor, Beta Building, I-Think Techno Campus, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai – 400 042.
3.The Indian Maritime University, Represented by its Registrar, East Coast Road, Semmenchery, Sholinganallur (P.O.), Chennai – 600 119.
4.The University Grants Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
41/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 nl Pre-Delivery order in W.P.Nos.11384 of 2022 & 10101 & 10106 of 2020 25.07.2022 42/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis