Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. A third affidavit of Dr. R. Premkumar, who is the Registrar of the respondent no.1-Institute has also been filed. He has contended that the petitioner has made no allegations of any illegality or in propriety in assessment of Part B and the subsequent admission tests where she has not succeeded. The petitioner had not qualified with cut-off marks even in the PD category. The marks required in Part B in order qualify for IDC admission test was 39.33 marks whereas the petitioner has scored only 35 marks in Part B. She had thus failed to obtain minimum passing marks. The affidavit further wp6818.2013 discloses that a valid CEED scorecard only entitles a candidate to apply for various design programmes in the country and based on the scores in CEED he/she could apply to various institutes which then conduct their own admission tests as part of the selection process. The petitioner has on 4 th September, 2013 made a reference to the fact that 11 candidates had been admitted to the course and reference is made to the scorecard of those candidates. The deponent states in respect of those 11 candidates states that SC/ST/PD qualifying marks printed on the official scorecard is only a cut-off to obtain a valid CEED scorecard which entitles a candidate to apply for various design programmes. The IDC at IIT Bombay also has an admission test for its M.Des programme. According to the deponent 11 candidates have not only qualified in CEED but have also passed the admission tests in IDC, IIT Bombay before being granted admission to the M.Des programme and the petitioner has allegedly misled the court by withholding information about requirement of the additional admission test of IDC, IIT Mumbai.

In view of judgment in the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University and Anr. (supra) Mr. Samal contended that the admission of the petitioner is liable to be regularised and she should be awarded the degree.

wp6818.2013

25. Mr. Naphade, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- institute questioned maintainability of the petition. Mr. Naphade submitted that CEED examination is conducted in two parts Part A and Part B. Only if the candidate succeeds in Part A, would the results of Part B be declared. He submitted that CEED is an examination which does not by itself ensure admission to the M. Des course. If a candidate secures requisite marks in CEED he or she is required to attend a further test and interview at IIT, Mumbai. CEED is an all India examination which would enable the candidate concerned to apply to various institutes for design programme course in the country and is not an examination that would entail automatic admission in the M. Des programme of IIT, Mumbai. He submitted that after a candidate succeeds in CEED he/she is entitled to apply for IDC M. Des programme at IIT, Mumbai. The IDC admission test invitation is sent to the top 100 candidates and the general category candidate is required to secure at least 59% marks, an OBC candidate is required to secure 53.10% and PD category candidate is required to secure 39.33%. Only if candidates secure these marks in respective categories are they entitled to be invited to attend the IDC admission tests of the IIT Mumbai which includes written test and studio interview. In the instant case it is submitted that the petitioner had secured only 50% marks in Part A of CEED instead of the requisite 64%. She had not applied under PD category but had applied under the general category.

wp6818.2013

27. Reference was made to an affidavit of Mr. Joglekar dated 11th August, 2016 in support of his request for discharge of the perjury notice wherein the entire process of selection and admission of the students in IDC has been set out. Mr.Naphade pointed out that CEED office and IDC are separate entities having their own rules. The CEED examination is conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Human Resource Development for post graduate courses in design programme. IDC is a department of IIT Mumbai that offers M. Des course at IIT, Mumbai. CEED office is nationally conducted examination by GATE and Joint Admission Test (JAM). It is conducted by CEED office on behalf of Ministry of Human Resource Department. IDC department offers Master in PhD and Design. As far as the petitioner is concerned, CEED does not accept change in the category of birth-date from last date for CEED 2013 which was 5th December, 2012. CEED Part A results were declared on 24th December, 2012 but not Part B since the petitioner did not qualify in Part A and obtaining CEED scorecard does not guarantee a candidate a seat in IIT, Mumbai. CEED results were not provided as the petitioner did not qualify for Part A and she did not have scores of Part B. She submitted a certificate for learning disability only after declaration of results. CEED office refused to accept changes since the deadline had passed.

56. After this matter was reserved for orders and in view of the view we have taken as regards powers of the High Court to do complete justice in the matter of this nature, we invited further submissions of counsel on both sides considering the view taken by the Supreme Court in Sanchalakshri (supra). Accordingly, we heard parties and their Advocates on 18th November, 2017 and 22nd February, 2018. Mr.Samal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted a compilation of documents pertaining to factual aspects of CEED Information Brochure, 2013, IDC Admission brochure of 2017, relevant extract of IIT Act, 1961. He sought to contend that CEED and IIT had a common Chairman. He submitted that all enquiries about CEED were required to be made at the GATE office which was under the control of the Chairman, GATE, who was also Chairman of IIT Bombay. He relied upon clause 1.9 of the CEED Information Brochure 2013 and submitted that the admission brochure of IDC IIT Bombay also indicated that IDC was administered by IIT and since the institution was involved in both CEED evaluation and IDC admission were the same having a common Chairman all deficiencies would have been rectified by wp6818.2013 the IIT itself.