Gujarat High Court
Raghav Sanjay Gupta vs Indian Institute Of Management ... on 28 July, 2020
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7804 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the YES
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to NO
the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
==========================================================
RAGHAV SANJAY GUPTA
Versus
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AHMEDABAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NAVIN PAHWA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR TIRTH NAYAK(8563)
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NANDISH Y CHUDGAR(2011) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 28/07/2020
CAV JUDGMENT
1. 'Our students are leaders around the globe' reads the home page of the website of the respondent - Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (for short 'IIM, Ahmedabad'). On reading the prospectus for the Two year Post Graduate Programme in Management course, I have gone through the message of the Chairperson which I would like to Page 1 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT reproduce hereinbelow before delving into the matter.
"Rigour, a quest for excellence, a place to be, T-Nite, are words that come to mind for anyone familiar with the Postgraduate Programme (PGP) at IIMA that leads to a Master's degree in Business Administration. The PGP has been IIMA's flagship programme for more than fifty-five years and is among the top-ranked programmes in the world for many years. This two-year programme has created business leaders, outstanding managers, and a number of significant entrepreneurs. Though the degree is called MBA, historically its graduates have contributed equally to a wide range of areas beyond conventional business, areas that seek knowledge and expertise in management. Their contributions cover practically all sectors of business and industry, not-for-profit organizations, government and policy, research, and academics.
The programme moulds its participants into rigorous and new ways of thinking to deal with complex real-life problems. It challenges them to achieve levels of excellence that they may not have thought of earlier. Apart from the formal coursework, the programme has a variety of opportunities for hobbies and sports through student clubs and activities.
Incoming participants join a cohort having people with diverse backgrounds - fresh graduates in a variety of disciplines, people with work experience in varied sectors like Finance, Consulting, IT/ITeS, FMCG/Retail, Engineering, PSUs, etc., a gender mix, and a wide range of professional and extra-curricular interests. In the first year of the programme, a set of compulsory courses create a solid foundation for all participants across all functional areas of management. In the second year, participants craft their own specializations by choosing courses from a wide range of electives that can be taken in any combination. Many participants choose to develop their expertise in general management (across functional areas) that IIMA has long been known for. It is equally common for others to specialize in specific areas of management like marketing, finance, Page 2 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT strategy, consulting, operations, HR, etc. The second year also offers a one-term exchange programme with more than eighty management schools worldwide, and a dual degree programme with a few selected schools. Exchange offers great opportunities for a diversity of academic, social, and cultural experiences for participants going abroad as well as those staying on campus.
Overall, in the programme, you will find a wide range of interesting courses and activities, taught and facilitated by outstanding faculty members, many of whom are as familiar with the world of the practitioner as they are with the world of academics and research.
If you are a prospective applicant, I invite you to the challenge of PGP at IIMA. If you are an incoming student, congratulations for your achievement! In terms of sheer numbers, this is probably the toughest programme in the world to get into. If you are currently a student at IIMA, you have already started understanding what PGP at IIMA is about. Either way, be prepared for a life-changing experience!"
[Emphasis Supplied]
2. Today before this court, is an academically bright student who has excelled in studies all through out, seeking relief from this court as he has not been selected for the two year Post Graduate Management (PGP) Course at IIM, Ahmedabad. His main grievance voiced through this petition is that the respondent's selection process whereby 50% weightage is given to personal interview and only 25% weightage is given to CAT score is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. By way of amendment, the petitioner has further sought indulgence of this court in setting aside the respondent's selection process also on the ground of providing 10% weightage to Analytical Writing Test as compared to 25% weightage to CAT score and 15% weightage to the previous academic/professional score and to revise the final merit based selection list of the candidates for Page 3 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT the course of post graduate programme of the institute through CAT 2019 on the basis of settled law which determines not more than 15% weightage to oral interview on the basis of questions which are directly connected with the course/programme in question and to make admissions on the basis of such revised final merit based list.
3. It shall be fruitful to have a brief recapitulation of the facts of the case that has led to the filing of the present petition. They are as under:
3.1 The petitioner along with other 2,44,000 students appeared for the Common Admission Test (CAT) conducted by the Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode in 2019 for the Post Graduate Programme in Management, 2020-2022 batch. The petitioner scored 206.86 marks in CAT 2019 examination, thereby securing 99.95 percentile and securing a rank in the top 110 students all across India.
3.2 The petitioner further states that he was shortlisted for the next round of Analytical Written Test (AWT) and Personal Interview (PI) by the institute. A call letter dated 06.01.2020 was received.
The petitioner appeared for the AWT and PI. According to the petitioner, he is a certificate holder of the Certificate issued by the Director, Association of Chartered Certified Accountant, U.K. confirming that he has completed the Strategic Professional ACCA Examination which is an internationally recognised and accepted qualification equivalent to the Indian Chartered Accountant qualification.
3.3 By an email dated 11.05.2020, the petitioner was informed that he was neither selected nor wait-listed. The institute did not Page 4 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT disclose the marks that the petitioner secured. A legal notice was therefore issued on 11.05.2020. Details were sought qua the following:
(a) Total score/ grade under different heads of the last candidate in the merit list of the general category
(b) Total score/grade under different heads of the last candidate in the wait list
(c) Total score/grade under different heads of the petitioner.
(d) Seats alloted to engineering and non-engineering candidates.
(e) Average months' work experience of candidates selected.
3.4 On 19.06.2020, the petitioner was informed that his composite score is 0.630269 whereas the composite score of the last selected candidate was 0.657594 and that the last wait-listed candidate had a composite score of 0.645370. According to the petitioner, the allotment of 50% weightage of marks to Personal Interview (PI) is bad in view of the fact that the allotment of 50% of weightage and allocation of only 25% marks to the CAT score leads to subjectivity and lack of transparency and reasonableness in the admission process, particularly when, the petitioner otherwise has had a brilliant academic career when he scored 10 out of 10 CGPA in Class 10, 92.2% in Class-12, 3.53 out of 4 CGPA (upto Semester-V) in B.Com. It is the case of the petitioner that he has completed all papers of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.
Page 5 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT4. Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Tirth Nayak, learned advocate for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to the prayers of the petition which were subsequently amended and prayers 7AA and AB were added after reply filed by respondent IIM, Ahmedabad. Mr. Pahwa would submit as under:
I. The selection process in the Post Graduate Programme in Management of IIM, Ahmedabad is violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and Sections 7(e) and 8(3) of the IIM Act, 2017. The statutory intent of Section 8(3) of the IIM Act which stipulates that the admission shall be based on merit is violated. He has drawn the attention of this court to Section 7(e) and 8(3) of the IIM Act.
II. The stipulation of 50% marks and the weightage thereof to the oral interview violates the law laid down by this court in the case of Ajay Hasia and Others vs. Khalid Mujib Sheravardi and Others [(1981) 1 SCC 722, paras 5, 19, 20 and 21]. It is submitted that this stipulation of 50% weightage of marks at the oral interview is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan [(1981) 4 SCC 159, para 6]. He has also relied on a decision of this court in the case of Hitesh Kumar Chauhan vs. Union of India reported in [2008(2) GLR 1545] and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and Another vs. State of Karnataka [(1992) 1 SCC 28, para 2].
III. In short the submission of Mr. Pahwa, learned Senior counsel was that on the basis of unwarranted basis of allocation of 50% to the PI is a procedure which is unjust, improper and contrary to the decisions of the Apex Court. It is completely arbitrary and illegal.Page 6 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
It was submitted that the rule of merit is defeated by the inefficiency or inaccuracy or improper method of admission. IV. Even the weightage of only 25% marks allotted to the written competitive examination is bad in law.
V. Also under challenge is the allocation of 6% marks towards co-
curricular and extra curricular activities. It is submitted that it is only through the affidavit-in-reply that it is disclosed that 50% marks of the oral interview is divided into 44% + 6% towards co- curricular and extra curricular achievements. The non disclosure is bad as held by the decision in the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam vs. Sanjeev Kumar [2020 SCC Online SC 448, para 41]. It also violates Section 8(3) of the IIM Act.
VI. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Ravindra Baloria vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [2006(1) ShimLC 259, para 42].
VII. Adverting to the reply and sur-rejoinder filed by the respondent IIM, Ahmedabad, it is submitted that there is no distinction carved out in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) between admission through undergraduate course and the admission to post graduate course and therefore the distinction drawn in the reply is misconceived. In fact the judgements that Mr. Chudgar has relied upon on the contrary support the case of the petitioner as the constitutional mandate laid down in Ajay Hasia (supra) is even confirmed in the case of Kiran Gupta and Others vs. State of U.P [2007 SCC 719] relied upon by Mr. Chudgar.
VIII. The sur-rejoinder filed by the institute is unjustified to state that the petitioner has not completed his ACCA course. It is clearly stated in the petition that the petitioner has completed such course and therefore the attitude of the institute relying on the letter of Page 7 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT January, 2020 without proper verification and holding that the petitioner has not completed the course is evident of the callous attitude in which the selection process to such an esteemed institution is undertaken. The petitioner was granted conditional exemption in the two courses as suggested in the certificate because as per the prospectus he was to only include two self picked papers out of four options.
IX. Even the weightage of 10% marks to AWT which is a writing of a brief response to an audio recorded argument as compared to allocation of only 15% marks to academic records is arbitrary. X. On the judgements cited by Mr. Chudgar, learned advocate for the respondent, Mr. Pahwa would distinguish those judgements inasmuch as saying that the law laid down in Ajay Hasia (supra) is not set out or set aside and those judgements in the facts of the present case would not be applicable as they are judgements relating to service law.
5. Mr. Nandish Chudgar, learned advocate appears for the institute and extensively has drawn the attention of this court to the reply filed on behalf of the institution and also to the selection process of admission from the prospectus annexed as Annexure H to the petition. He would submit as under:
(a) The institute - IIM, Ahmedabad is imparting higher education in management. It cannot be compared to imparting education in basic courses like medicine or engineering. Imparting education in higher management courses concerns a lot many subjects. Higher studies in management have to be kept in mind. According to him, the PGP course in management is having much more in-depth Page 8 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT studies in the subject of business management which includes several intra subjects and topics within the business management studies namely Organizational Behaviour, Human Resource Management, Economics, Agri Business Management, Public Policy Strategy etc.
(b) The admission process and the eligibility criteria for admission to PGP course in business was explained by Mr. Chudgar at length. He submitted that the selection process is divided into two phases :
(i) Shortlisting for Analytical Written Test (AWT ) and Personal Interview (PI) and (ii) final selection. For phase (i) i.e. for shortlisting candidates for AWT and PI, the institute considers the candidate's CAT score and Application Rating (AR) which is constituted on the basis of combination of performance in Class 10, Class 12, undergraduate degree and work experience. In this assessment, CAT score is given a weightage of 65% whereas Application Rating carries a weight of 35%. It is further submitted that for Phase-I, the selection process for exceptional performers across different disciplines is made for AWT and PI. For Phase-II i.e. final selection, the institute would consider the candidate's interview score on PI, AWT score, CAT score and Application Rating. The PI would carry a weight of 50%, AWT would carry a weight of 10%, CAT score a weight of 25% and application rating a weight of 15%.
(c) A few dates are given by Mr. Chudgar inasmuch as the prospectus was uploaded on the site of the institute in July 2019.
The last date for submission of CAT forms was 18.09.2019. The examination was held in November, 2019. The results were declared on 04.01.2020. The call letter was issued on 06.01.2020.
Page 9 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENTThe interview was held on 12.01.2020. The petitioner was informed by a letter of 11.05.2020 that he was not selected and the petition is filed as late as on 22.06.2020.
(d) Extensive reliance is placed on the selection process of Phase-I and Phase-II i.e. shortlisting and selection and final selection as extensively explained in the prospectus and would submit that the submission of the petitioner that he was unaware of the selection process is misconceived inasmuch as it was stipulated in the prospectus as to how the final score would be calculated. He has drawn the attention of the court to the categorical expression in the prospectus which suggested that the information about the admission process followed by the institute subsequent to CAT is laid out as under and it is therefore important for the candidates to read such information carefully. Despite such categorical underlined information in the prospectus, it is not proper for the petitioner to contend that he was unaware of the criteria of selection.
(e) The admission process is not merely on the basis of the CAT score but the CAT score and the Application Rating is considered for shortlisting of the candidates for second stage of selection. The examination concerned of CAT is only in three sections namely :
Quantitative Aptitude; Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning; Verbal and Reading Comprehension and therefore would exhibit the student's proficiency only in the above three attributes on the basis of Multiple Choice Questions. This is for the purpose of shortlisting of the candidates from lakhs of students appearing for the CAT exam. Approximately, 1240 candidates were shortlisted. Students from different academic categories which has been Page 10 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT explained in the prospectus from academic categories like Medicine, Professional degrees like CA, CS etc, Field of Commerce, Economics, Engineering, Architecture, Science, Fashion Designing, Arts and Humanities apply and different standards of assessment as explained in the prospectus for calculating their rating is carried out in terms of assessment of their application rating looking to the academic category they belong to. That has been explained extensively by Mr. Chudgar during the course of his submission.
(f) It is generally observed that the CAT score of candidates from AC-4 category (Engineering, Technology etc related areas) is much higher than that of the candidates of AC-5 category (Arts/Humanities, Law, Fashion/Design etc). The CAT score of the last candidate selected for the second phase from AC-5 category therefore may be much lower than the CAT score of the student of engineering category of AC-4.
(g) The second phase of selection is based on a diverse set of attributes which includes performances in CAT, AWT, PI, academic co-curricular achievements, extra curricular achievements, work experience etc which is clearly mentioned in the prospectus which was uploaded much prior to the date of submission of the application form.
(h) Merely because the petitioner scored 206.86 marks (99.95 percentile) in CAT examination would only entitle him to be shortlisted for the second phase of selection. On his appearing for the AWT and PI, the petitioner scored 7 out 10 in AWT and has scored 8.5 out of 44 in PI. His co-curricular and extra curricular Page 11 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT attributes are adjudged at a score of 1 out of 6. In the submission of Mr. Chudgar, Personal Interview lasts for about 20 to 30 minutes and there is a panel of professors who interview the candidates.
The professors are unaware of the AWT score or AR score of the candidate. Petitioner got a score of 8.5 out of 44. Unlike the interviews in the selection processes for medical courses or engineering courses, in the interview to be taken for the esteemed institute like IIM for higher management, the interview is aimed at finding out expertise of the candidates in different attributes which are explained by Mr. Chudgar. CAT examination based on a Multiple Choice Questions cannot be the judge of the attributes of a candidate which come out in a Personal Interview. Details of the petitioner's selection and working out of score has been set out at page 61 of the affidavit in reply. The process of assessment thereafter is done on the basis of rescaling of the score and normalising the scores which is clearly explained at page 62.
(i) Adverting to the sole criteria and the rationale of the weightage of Personal Interview, it is submitted that the PGP course is a flagship management programme aimed at finding quality candidates, involves interaction with candidates on a wide range of such as the clarity of the concepts which the candidate has learnt, the communication skills, the ability to communicate in English etc. Unlike undergraduate degrees, in the management course, the candidate is required to understand business/management problems from multiple perspectives drawing upon knowledge from various domains. During the PI, a candidate's analytical thinking comes forth on the basis of a dialogue which can suitably be taken to adjudge the capacity of the candidate to analyze the situation. The Page 12 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT panel would get to know the interaction of the candidate through the answers and assess the skills through the body language and interaction.
(j) It is submitted that in the second phase of selection, there were 37 candidates who scored more than 206.86 i.e. the score of the petitioner but they do not figure in the select list or the wait list in view of their final composite score. In case of the students in the last five years, those who have scored more than 206.86 have not been selected or wait-listed by the institute and the table thereof is produced. A chart also is produced to show that the number of students in the last five years who have scored 100 percentile in CAT have not been selected. It is submitted that the higher education course in IIM cannot be compared to the undergraduate or basic degrees like Medicine and Engineering. A written examination would only assess the intellectual ability whereas the interview is valuable to assess the candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities essential for admission to a top ranking business institute like the IIM, Ahmedabad. He would then go on to distinguish the judgement in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) and submit that it would not be applicable to the facts of the case.
5.1 In support of his submissions, Mr. Chudgar also relied on the decisions of the Apex court in the cases of Madan Lal and others vs. State of J & K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486, para 9 and Manish Kumar Sahi vs. State of Bihar and Others (2010) 12 SCC 576, para
16. These decisions are relied upon by Mr. Chudgar to support his submission that once having participated in the selection and having found unsuccessful only because he found that the results of the interview were unpalatable to him he cannot turn around and subsequently Page 13 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT challenge the selection.
5.1.1 He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Gupta and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2007) SCC 719, para 22 to submit that it is difficult to accept the contention as held by the Apex Court that an omnibus contention that the selection on the basis of viva voce is only arbitrary. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible weightage of marks for an interview has to be decided in the facts of each case.
5.1.2 Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Anu Radha vs. State of Haryana and Others [2009(3) SCT 477]. He also relied on Pradeep Kumar Rai vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Others [(2015) 11 SCC 493, para 17] to support the submission that the petition was belated inasmuch as though having known on 11.05.2020 that his candidature was rejected, the petition was filed only on the fag end of year on 22.06.2020 when the admission process was almost over and classes were to begin.
6. In contra therefore, Mr. Pahwa relied on a decision in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar and Others rendered in Civil Appeal No. 9482 of 2019. Reliance was placed on para 22 to contest the decision where Mr. Chudgar submitted that one cannot turn around and challenge the selection. Para 18 of the decision was relied on by Mr. Pahwa to submit that merely by the candidate agreeing to participating in the selection would not tantamount to estoppel and it is permissible for the candidate to challenge the selection. To this Mr. Chudgar would submit and join an issue by reading the same para 18 and submit that the Page 14 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT procedure of selection can be challenged by a participating candidate only when he alleges misconstruction of statutory rules which is not a case here because in the present case what is challenged is ignorance on the part of the petitioner of selection process which was in fact made known to the candidate through the prospectus.
7. Considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and the court has gone through the records of the case. When the petition initially came up for hearing on 26.06.2020, from the submissions at that time made by learned Senior counsel Mr. Pahwa, the stress was only to the allocation of 50% marks allotted to the oral interview. This has been recorded by the court while issuing notice. The order dated 26.06.2020 reads as under:
"1. Heard Mr.Navin Pahwa, learned senior counsel with Mr.Tirth Nayak, learned advocate for the petitioner through Video Conferencing.
2. The petitioner is a student aspiring for admission to the IIM in the Post Graduate Programme in Management at Ahmedabad. The petitioner has scored 206.86 marks in CAT 2019 examination scoring 99.95 percentile. According to the petitioner, he ranked in the top 110 students across India.
3. Mr.Pahwa, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the method of assessment post CAT examination. As per the institute, the final selection is done on the basis of (i) Personal Interview Multiplication Factor = 0.50. (ii) AWT Multiplication Factor = 0.10 (iii) CAT Score Multiplication Factor = 0.25 and (iv) Application Rating Multiplication Factor for final composite score = 0.15. He further submits that undue weightage, contrary to the settled position of law is being given to personal interview. No details on the break-up of the score has been provided to the petitioner and by a response, the institute has refused to entertain his application under the RTI Act on the ground that break-up of score is not provided as per admission policy. He further invited attention of this Court to Section 33 of the IIM Act, 2017 which Page 15 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT provides that the RTI Act will be applicable to the institute.
4. Issue NOTICE to the respondents, returnable on 6.7.2020.
5. Pending admission and hearing of the petition, one seat for admission to 2020-2021 batch of P.G.P. Course shall be kept vacant. 6. The Registry is requested to communicate this order through E-mail and / or Fax."
8. After a marathon session of arguments by learned advocates for the respective parties, this court has understood in depth the rationale behind the scoring policy allotted to each stage of selection. Here the main bone of contention is the allocation of 50% marks to the Personal Interview. At this juncture, let us peruse the decisions relied upon by Mr. Pahwa with regard to the allocation of marks for personal interview. In the case of Ajay Hasia (supra), the Apex Court in paragraphs no. 5, 19, 20 and 21 has held as under:
"5. In or about April 1979, the college issued a notice inviting applications for admission to the first semester of the B.E. course in various branches of engineering and the notice set out the above admission procedure to be followed in granting admissions for the academic year 1979-80. The petitioners in the writ petitions before us applied for admission to the first semester of the B.E. course in one or the other branch of engineering and they appeared in the written test which was held on 16th and 17th June, 1979. The petitioners were thereafter required to appear before a Committee consisting of three persons for viva voce test and they were interviewed by the Committee. The case of the petitioners was that the interview of each of them did not last for more than 2 or 3 minutes per candidate on an average and the only questions which were asked to them were formal questions relating to their parentage and residence and hardly any question was asked which would be relevant to any of the tour factors for which marks were allocated at the viva voce examination. When the admissions were announced, the petitioners found that though they had obtained very good marks in the qualifying examination, they had not been able to secure admission to the college because the marks awarded to them at the viva voce examination were very low and candidates who had much less marks at the qualifying examination, had succeeded in obtaining very high marks at the viva voce examination and thereby managed to secure admission in preference to the petitioners. The petitioners filed before us a chart showing by way Page 16 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT of comparison the marks obtained by the petitioners on the one hand and some of the successful candidates on the other at the qualifying examination, in the written test and at the viva voce examination. This chart shows beyond doubt that the successful candidates whose marks are given in the chart had obtained fairly low marks at the qualifying examination as also in the written test, but they had been able to score over the petitioners only on account of very high marks obtained by them at the viva voce examination. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by this mode of selection filed the present writ petitions challenging the validity of the admissions made to the college on various grounds. Some of these grounds stand concluded by the recent decision of this Court in Miss Nishi Maghu v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. MANU/SC/0077/1980 : [1980]3SCR1253 and they were therefore not pressed before us. Of the other grounds, only one was canvassed before us and we shall examine it in some detail.
19. So far as the third ground of challenge is concerned, we do not think it can be dismissed as unsubstantial. The argument of the petitioners under this head of challenge was that even if oral interview may be regarded in principle as a valid test for selection of candidates for admission to a college, it was in the present case arbitrary and unreasonable since the marks allocated for the oral interview were very much on the higher side as compared with the marks allocated for the written test. The marks allocated for the oral interview were 50 as against 100 allocated for the written test, so that the marks allocated for the oral interview came to 33 1/3% of the total number of marks taken into account for the purpose of making the selection. This, contended the petitioners, was beyond all reasonable proportion and rendered the selection of the candidates arbitrary and violative of the equality clause of the Constitution. Now there can be no doubt that, having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test and the conditions prevailing in the country, particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on the increase, allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test, cannot be accepted by the Court as free from the vice of arbitrariness. It may be pointed out that even in Peeriakaruppan's case (supra), where 75 marks out of a total of 275 marks were allocated for the oral interview, this Court observed that the marks allocated for interview were on the highside. This Court also observed in Miss Nishi Maghu's case (supra): "Reserving 50 marks for interview out of a total of 150...does seem excessive, especially when the time spent was not more than 4 minutes on each candidate". There can be no doubt that allocating 33 1/3 of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable. It is significant to note that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the Indian Police Service, where the personality of the candidate and his personal characteristics and traits are extremely relevant for the purpose of selection, the marks allocated for oral interview are 250 as against 1800 marks for the written Page 17 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT examination, constituting only 12.2% of the total marks taken into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. We must, therefore, regard the allocation of as high a percentage as 33 1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained. But we do not think we would be justified in the exercise of our discretion in setting aside the selections made for the academic year 1979-80 after the lapse of a period of about 18 months, since to do so would be to cause immense hardship to those students in whose case the validity of the selection cannot otherwise be questioned and who have nearly completed three semesters and, moreover, even if the petitioners are ultimately found to be deserving of selection on the application of the proper test, it would not be possible to restore them to the position as if they were admitted for the academic year 1979- 80, which has run out long since. It is true there is an allegation of mala fides against the Committee which interviewed the candidates and we may concede that if this allegation were established, we might have been inclined to interfere with the selections even after the lapse of a period of 18 months, because the writ petitions were filed as early as October-
November, 1979 and merely because the Court could not take-up the hearing of the writ petitions for such a long time should be no ground for denying relief to the petitioners, if they are otherwise so entitled. But we do not think that on the material placed before us we can sustain the allegation of mala fides against the Committee. It is true, and this is a rather disturbing feature of the present cases, that a large number of successful candidates succeeded in obtaining admission to the college by virtue of very high marks obtained by them at the viva voce examination tilted the balance in their favour, though the marks secured by them at the qualifying examination were much less than those obtained by the petitioners and even in the written test, they had fared much worse than the petitioners. It is clear from the chart submitted to us on behalf of the petitioners that the marks awarded at the interview are by and large in inverse proportion to the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination and are also, in a large number of cases, not commensurate with the marks obtained in the written test. The chart does create a strong suspicion in our mind that the marks awarded at the viva voce examination might have been manipulated with a view to favouring the candidates who ultimately came to be selected, but suspicion cannot take the place of proof and we cannot hold the plea of mala fides to be established. We need much more cogent material before we can hold that the Committee deliberately manipulated the marks at the viva voce examination with a view to favouring certain candidates as against the petitioners. We cannot, however, fail to mention that this is a matter which required to be looked into very carefully and not only the State Government, but also the Central Government which is equally responsible for the proper running of the college, must take care to see that proper persons are appointed on the interviewing committees and there is no executive interference with their decision-making process. We may also caution Page 18 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT the authorities that though, in the present case, for reasons which we have already given, we are not interfering with the selection for the academic year 1979-80, the selections made for the subsequent academic years would run the risk of invalidation if such a high percentage of marks is allocated for the oral interview. We are of the view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid.
20. The petitioners, arguing under the last ground of challenge, urged that the oral interview as conducted in the present case was a mere pretence or farce, as it did not last for more than 2 or 3 minutes per candidate on an average and the questions which were asked were formal questions relating to parentage and residence of the candidate and hardly any question was asked which had relevance to assessment of the suitability of the candidate with reference to any of the four factors required to be considered by the Committee. When the time spent on each candidate was not more 2 or 3 minutes on an average, contended the petitioners, how could the suitability of the candidate be assessed on a consideration of the relevant factors by holding such an interview and how could the Committee possibly judge the merit of the candidate with reference to these factors when no questions bearing on these factors were asked to the candidate. Now there can be no doubt that if the interview did not take more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average and the questions asked had no bearing on the factors required to be taken into account, the oral interview test would be vitiated, because it would be impossible in such an interview to assess the merit of a candidate with reference to these factors. This allegation of the petitioners has been denied in the affidavit in reply filed by H.L. Chowdhury on behalf of the college and it has been stated that each candidate was interviewed for 6 to 8 minutes and "only the relevant questions on the aforesaid subjects were asked". If this statement of H.L. Chowdhury is correct, we cannot find much fault with the oral interview test held by the Committee. But we do not think we can act on this statement made by H.L. Chowdhury, because there is nothing to show that he was present at the interviews and none of the three Committee members has come forward to make an affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioners and stating that each candidate was interviewed for 6 to 8 minutes and only relevant questions were asked. We must therefore, proceed on the basis that the interview of each candidate did not last for more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average and hardly any questions were asked having bearing on the relevant factors. If that be so, the oral interview test must be held to be vitiated and the selection made on the basis of such test must be held to be arbitrary. We are, however, not inclined for reasons already given, to set aside the selection made for the academic year 1979-80, though we may caution the State Government and the Society that for the future academic years, selections may be made on the basis of observation Page 19 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT made by us in this judgment lest they might run the risk of being struck down. We may point out that, in our opinion, if the marks allocated for the oral interview do not exceed 15% of the total marks and the candidates are properly interviewed and relevant questions are asked with a view to assessing their suitability with reference to the factors required to be taken into consideration, the oral interview test would satisfy the criterion of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. We think that it would also be desirable if the interview of the candidates is tape- recorded, for in that event there will be contemporaneous evidence to show what were the questions asked to the candidates by the interviewing committee and what were the answers given and that will eliminate a lot of unnecessary controversy besides acting as a check on the possible arbitrariness of the interviewing committee.
21. We may point out that the State Government, the Society and the College have agreed before us that the best fifty students, out of those who applied for admission for the academic year 1979-80 and who have failed to secure admission so far, will be granted admission for the academic year 1981-82 and the seats allocated to them will be in addition to the normal intake of students in the College. We order accordingly."
8.1 In the case of Lila Dhar (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under in paragraph no. 6:
"6. Thus, the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection. If both written examination and interview test are to be essential features of proper selection, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. In the case of admission to a college, for instance, where the candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has per force to be given to performance in the written examination. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. That was what was decided by this Court in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & ors. etc., (supra) and other cases. On the other hand, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied.
To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an act or cruelty to those persons. There are, of course, many services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise, and the discerning may in an interview test, catch a glimpse of the future personality. In the case of such services, where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to Page 20 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT be given, though not much too great weight, to the interview test. There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service. the minimum qualifications prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not for Courts to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives. The Kothari Committee also suggested that in view of the obvious importance of the subject, it may be examined in detail by the Research Unit of the Union of Public Service Commission."
8.2 Similarly, in the case of Hiteshkumar K Chauhan (supra), this court has held that selection committee which conducted viva voce test has to be specific and has to justify itself and that candidate who has scored highest marks in written test cannot be given abnormally low marks in viva voce test for valid reason.
8.3 In the case of Ashok alias Somanna Gowda (supra), the following observations have been made by the Apex Court:
"2. Sri Ashok alias Somanna Gowda appellant No. 1 is a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) having secured.. first class with distinction getting 69.96% marks from Karnataka Univer- sity. Shri Rajendra appellant No. 2 is a Bachelor of Engi- neering (Mech.) from Karnataka University and secured 66.40 marks in the qualifying examination. The Govt. of Karnataka by notification dated 4th April, 1985 invited applications for recruitment of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) and (Mech.) for the Public Works Deptt. The selections were to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and marks secured in the interview, in accordance with the K.S.C.S. (Direct Recruitment By Selection) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to these Rules total marks for qualifying examination were kept at 100 and 50 for interview. Thus the marks allotted for inter- view amounted to 33.3% of the total marks. Applications were invited for 300 posts of Civil Engineers and 100 Mechanical Engineers initially and subsequently added additional posts of 150 Civil Engineers and 10 Mechanical Engineers thus in all 450 Civil Engineers and 110 Mechanical Engineers. Both the appellants applied for the posts of their choices in the Public Works Department, Government of Karnataka. Appellant No. 1 secured 29.50 marks out of 50 marks in the Page 21 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT interview and 69.96 marks in the qualifying examination thus in all 99.46 marks out of 150. The 2nd appellant obtained 24.83 marks in the interview and 66.40 marks in the qualifying examination thus in all 91.23 marks out of 150. Both the appellants were not selected in merit as the last candidate selected for the above posts secured higher marks than the appellants. The appellants filed a petition before the Karnataka Administrative. Tribunal challenging the Rules on the ground that the percentage of marks for viva voce as 33.3 were excessive and in violation of the decisions of this Court. The Tribunal by its order dated 24th May, 1990 dismissed the petitions and the appellants aggrieved against the aforesaid decision have approached this Court by grant of special leave. It is not necessary to examine' the matter in detail inasmuch as 50 marks for interview out of 150 are clearly in violation of the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1988] Sup. S.C.R., 657 and Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Ors., J .T. 1990 (4) S.C., 704. On a direction given by this Court on 4th September, 1991 the record of the Selection Committee was produced before this Court at the time of hearing. From a perusal of the marks awarded to the selected candidates it is clear that a large number of candidates have been selected though they had secured much lesser marks than the appellants in the qualifying examina- tion but had secured very high marks in the viva voce out of 50 marks kept for this purpose. Thus it is an admitted position that if the marks for interview were kept even at 15% of the total marks and merit list is prepared according- ly then both the appellants were bound to be selected and a large number of selected candidates would have gone much lower in the merit list than the appellants. In view of the fact that the result of the impugned selections was declared in 1987 and the selected candidates have already joined the posts, we do not consider it just and proper to quash the selections on the above ground. Further the selections were made according to the Rules of 1973 and this practice is being consistently followed for the last 17 years and there is no allegation of any malafides in the matter of the impugned selections. However, the Rules are clearly in violation of the dictum laid down by this Court in the above referred cases and in case the marks for viva voce would have been kept say at 15% of the total marks, the appellants before us were bound to be selected on the basis of marks secured by them in interview, calculated on the basis of converting the same to 15% of the total marks."
8.4 True it is that the decisions that have been cited by Mr. Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) and the decisions rendered subsequently in the cases of Lila Dhar (supra) and Hitesh Kumar (supra) as well as Ashok alias Somanna Gowda (supra) unequivocally lay down that the percentage of marks allocated for an interview should not exceed a stipulated percentage i.e. 12.2 or Page 22 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT 15% inasmuch undue emphasis given to personal interview will lead to a subjective satisfaction and therefore give room for arbitrariness. However, what needs to be understood is that in the cases cited by Mr. Pahwa, except the case of Ajay Hasia (supra), all these cases concerned recruitment to service. Though Mr. Pahwa's submission is acceptable in the sense that the same criteria would be applicable to education, on an extensive appreciation of the nature of admission process for a course like the PGP management course from IIM, Ahmedabad, it can reasonably be accepted through the submissions that Mr. Chudgar has made, that the process of admission vis-a-vis engineering course cannot be compared with that of an admission to an august institute like the institute of IIM, Ahmedabad which we will discuss in detail hereinafter.
9. Having gone through the prospectus relied upon by Mr. Chudgar and the reply affidavit filed by the respondent institute, various facets of the institute has come forth. IIM is an institution which was set up in the year 1961. The institute offers variety of courses such as (a) Doctor of Philosophy (b) Two year post graduate programme in Management (c) Two year Post Graduate Programme in Food and Agri Business Management and several other courses. The PGP in Management course is the subject matter of this petition. Unlike admission to engineering courses or medicine courses held on the basis of the common national or state competitive exam which are held only for the purposes of assessing the students' educational aptitude and then the process of admission is automatic allotment through a Centralized Admission Process, the same view cannot be taken for admission to a management course as offered by IIM, Ahmedabad. The subject of Business Management has several topics such as Organizational Behaviour, Human Resource Management, Page 23 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Strategy, Public Policy, Educational Innovation and Educational Psychology, Finance and Accounting etc and therefore apart from the CAT score which only indicates the students' proficiency in the three limited aspects of Quantitative Aptitude, Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning, Verbal and Reading Comprehension, the institute would not be in a position to adjudge the other attributes which a candidate requires to pursue a course in management. CAT score therefore is only a medium of shortlisting of the candidates for selection which is then undertaken in two phases. For the benefit of this court's view, the admission and selection process as in the prospectus is set out as under:
Admission/Selection Process for Candidates for PGP at IIMA through CAT-2019 The selection of the candidates for admission to the 2020-22 batch of the PGP at IIMA is a two-step process.
In the first step, candidates are short-listed for Analytical Writing Test (AWT) and Personal Interview (PI) from among the candidates who have a valid CAT-2019 score, who have applied to the programme and who satisfy the eligibility criteria for the programme described as below.
Shortlisting and Selection[1] Criteria for PGP 2020-22 batch
1. Preliminary Screening In CAT-2019 there will be three sections, viz., 'Quantitative Aptitude' (QA), 'Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning' (DILR) and 'Verbal and Reading Comprehension' (VRC). Only the candidates above the following minimum cut-offs in the sectional percentile ranks, the overall percentile rank and obtaining a positive (greater than zero) raw score in all sections of CAT-2019 will be considered for all the subsequent stages.
Table 1: Minimum Cut-offs of CAT-2019 Percentile Ranks Data Interpretation Verbal and Reading Quantitative Overall & Logical Comprehension Aptitude percentile Category Reasoning percentile rank percentile rank rank percentile rank (PVRC) (PQA) (PT) (PDILR) General, EWS 70 70 70 80 NC-OBC-cum-transgender 65 65 65 75 SC 60 60 60 70 ST 50 50 50 60 PwD (General, EWS, NC-
OBC-cum-transgender, 60 60 60 70SC) PwD (ST) 50 50 50 60 Legend: Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Non- creamy Other Backward Castes (NC-OBC), Persons with disabilities (PwD). At different stages of the selection process 'Application Rating' (AR) score of an applicant will be used. An applicant's AR score is the sum of the rating scores 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' (Tables 2-5) based on their percentage of marks obtained in the 10th standard, the 12th standard (depending upon the stream, viz., 'Science', 'Commerce' and 'Arts & Humanities'), the bachelor's degree programme (depending upon the discipline) and work experience (as on July 31, 2019) respectively. For different streams/disciplines the equivalent ARs are arrived at by using a (sort of) percentile equivalence of the score distributions using previous year's CAT data. For details of academic disciplines, please refer to Table 8.
Page 24 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT[1] IIM Ahmedabad reserves the right to make changes in the Shortlisting and Selection Criteria, if considered necessary at any point.
Table 2: Rating Scores for the 10th Std. Examination (Rating Score A) Rating Score Percent score in 10th Std. Exam A <= 55 1 > 55 and <= 60 2 > 60 and <= 70 3 > 70 and <= 80 5 > 80 and <= 90 8 > 90 10 Table 3: Rating Scores for the 12th Std. Examination (Rating Score B) Science Stream Percent score in 12th Std. Exam Rating Score B <= 55 1 > 55 and <= 60 2 Arts/Humanities Stream > 60 and <= 70 3 Percent score in 12th Std.
> 70 and <= 80 5 Rating Score B
Exam
> 80 and <= 90 8 <= 45 1
> 90 10 > 45 and <= 50 2
Commerce Stream > 50 and <= 60 3
Percent score in 12th Std. Exam Rating Score B > 60 and <= 70 5
<= 50 1 > 70 and <= 85 8
> 50 and <= 55 2
> 85 10
> 55 and <= 65 3
> 65 and <= 75 5
> 75 and <= 90 8
> 90 10
Table 4: Rating Scores for the Bachelor's Degree Examination (Rating Score C) AC-1 Percent score in Bachelor's Degree Rating Score C <= 55 1 > 55 and <= 60 2 AC-3 > 60 and <= 62 3 Percent score in Rating Score > 62 and <= 65 5 Bachelor's Degree C > 65 and <= 70 8 <= 55 1 > 70 10 > 55 and <= 60 2 AC-2 > 60 and <= 65 3 Percent score in Professional courses Rating Score C > 65 and <= 70 5 <= 50 1 > 70 and <= 80 8 > 50 and <= 53 2 > 80 10 > 53 and <= 55 3 > 55 and <= 57 5 > 57 and <= 63 8 > 63 10 Page 25 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT AC-4 & AC-6 Percent score in Bachelor's Degree Rating Score C <= 60 1 > 60 and <= 65 2 > 65 and <= 70 3 > 70 and <= 75 5 > 75 and <= 85 8 > 85 10 AC-5 Percent score in Professional courses Rating Score C <= 50 1 > 50 and <= 55 2 > 55 and <= 60 3 > 60 and <= 65 5 > 65 and <= 75 8 > 75 10 Table 5: Rating Scores for Work Experience (Rating Score D) Work Experience in Month (as on July 31, 2019) Rating Score D < 12 months 0 >= 12 and <= 36 months MF * (number of months of work experience - 11) > 36 months 5 Work-experience Multiplication Factor (MF) = 0.20 Application Rating Score: AR= (A+B+C+D) Normalised AR score of an applicant is equal to their AR score divided by average of the top 50 AR scores from the applicants' pool, (the applicants' pool in this case being defined as the group of candidates who appear for CAT-2019 and apply to IIMA.) Notes about the marks obtained:
1. Percentages of marks of an applicant who is yet to complete the bachelor's degree will be computed based on their available marks.
2. For a candidate having cleared CA/ICWA/CS without having a bachelor's degree, the final examination's percentage of marks obtained and as entered in the CAT application form would be treated as their available marks.
3. For computing the AR score of an applicant, scores in all subjects that appear in their marks-
sheet of 10th and 12th Std. examinations will be considered irrespective of whether the board considers them for calculating the percentage.
4. For the bachelor's degree, the percentage of marks awarded by the candidate's institution/university will be treated as final. If the institution/university does not award the percentage of marks, it will be calculated on the basis of the marks obtained in all the subjects listed in the marks-sheet.
5. For the bachelor's degree, if the percentage of marks awarded by the candidate's institution/university does not take into account marks obtained in all the subjects as mentioned in the marks-sheet(s) for all the years, the candidates must produce a certificate from the principal/head of the department/registrar/director of the institution/university certifying details of the practice at the institution/university at the time of the interview, if shortlisted for the same.
6. If any board/institution/university awards only letter grades without providing an equivalent percentage of marks on the grade-sheet, the candidate should obtain a certificate from the board/institution/university specifying the equivalent marks which should be used for filling the online CAT application form. The original equivalence certificate needs to be submitted at the time of interview, if shortlisted for the same.
7. For candidates having undergone/completed an integrated master's degree or dual degree directly after their 12th/HSC, the percentage of marks obtained as per their institute/university norms which is considered as equivalent to bachelor's degree will be considered. For those undergoing (yet to complete) an integrated master's degree or a dual degree directly after their Page 26 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT 12th/HSC, the percentage of marks, similarly obtained, for the years/semesters completed till the date of application for CAT.
2. Shortlisting for Analytical Writing Test (AWT) & Personal Interview (PI) Shortlisting will be carried out in two stages.
Stage 1: (From the Applicants' pool: Selection of exceptional performers across different disciplines) IIMA endeavours to recognise exceptional performers in terms of their previous academic records as well as their performance in CAT across diverse academic backgrounds. Towards that, a certain number of top candidates from each of the academic disciplines will be shortlisted for AWT & PI on the basis of their composite score 'CS' (see below) subject to their fulfilling certain criteria. From each of the academic categories (AC) for which the total number of applicants to IIMA who appear for CAT-2019 from SC/ST/NC-OBC/PwD categories is at least 100, the top 5% in the respective AC limited to the respective categories (General/SC/ST/NC-OBC/PwD) among the applicants to IIMA who appear for CAT-2019, henceforth referred to as ACRC groups, (subject to upper limits on the numbers per ACRC group as specified in Table 6) will be shortlisted for AWT & PI on the basis of the composite score 'CS' (see below) subject to their fulfilling criteria C1-C3. CS (Composite Score) = ARF_CS * Normalised AR score + CATF_CS * Normalised overall score in CAT-2019 Application Rating Multiplication Factor for Composite Score (ARF_CS) = 0.35; CAT Multiplication Factor for Composite Score (CATF_CS) = 0.65 Table 6a: The upper limits (UL) on the number of candidates to be shortlisted per RC for AC-1, AC-2, AC-3, AC-5 Upper Limit (UL) Category Per ACRC[1] General 100 NC-OBC-cum-transgender 57 SC 32 ST 16 PwD 6 Table 6b: The upper limits (UL) on the number of candidates to be shortlisted per RC for AC-4 Upper Limit (UL) Category Per ACRC[2] General 150 NC-OBC-cum-transgender 85 SC 48 ST 24 PwD 9 [1] 5% or the numbers given in Table 6a, whichever are smaller. [2] 5% or the numbers given in Table 6b, whichever are smaller.
Criteria C1-C3:
C1. PVRC, PDILR, PQA and PT must not be lower than the minimum cut-offs as specified in Table 1. C2. P ≥ Minimum cut-offs (specific to the category and the stream as shown in Table 7), where P is the average of the percentages of marks scored in 10th and 12th std. examinations.
Table 7. Minimum cut-off for P across different disciplines and different categories PWD Stream (General, SC ST in General-cum-EWS NC-OBC-cum-transgender NC-OBC- PWD Categ Catego 12th std Category Category cum- (ST) ory ry . transgender , SC) Science 80 75 70 65 70 65 Comme 77 72 67 62 67 62 rce Page 27 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Arts & Humani 75 70 64 59 64 59 ties C3. (Percentage of marks in the bachelor's examination) ≥ Minimum cut-off percentage, to be set at the 80th percentile of the percentage of marks of the respective ACRC group of the applicants' pool, (the applicants' pool in this case being defined as the group of candidates who appear for CAT-2019, apply to IIM Ahmedabad and belong to the respective ACRC.) Any AC, for which the total number of applicants to IIMA who appear for CAT-2019 from SC/ST/NC-
OBC/PwD categories is less than 100, will not be subdivided into ACRCs as above. For such an AC, the top 100 or the top 5% in the respective AC among all the applicants to IIMA who appear for CAT-2019, whichever is less, will be shortlisted for AWT & PI on the basis of the composite score 'CS' (see above) subject to their fulfilling criteria C4-C6.
Criteria C4-C6:
C4. PT ≥ 80, PQA ≥ 70, PDILR ≥ 70 and PVRC ≥ 70.
C5. P ≥ 80 (Science), 77 (Commerce), 75 (Arts/Humanities), where P is the average of the percentages of marks scored in the 10th and 12th std. examinations. C6. (Percentage of marks in the bachelor's examination) ≥ Minimum cut-off percentage, to be set at the 80th percentile of the percentage of marks of the respective AC group of the applicants' pool, (the applicants' pool in this case being defined as the group of candidates who appear for CAT-2019, apply to IIM Ahmedabad and belong to the respective AC.) Stage 2: After removing the candidates selected in Stage 1 from each category (General, NC-OBC, SC, ST and PWD) the additional number of candidates to be shortlisted for AWT & PI will be selected on the basis of the composite score 'CS' (see above) subject to their fulfilling criteria C1-C2.
3. Final Selection Selection at this stage will strictly be based on the shortlisting of the candidates done separately for each category (General/SC/ST/NC-OBC/PwD) on the basis of their 'Final Composite Score's (FCS). The numbers selected in different reservation categories will be in proportions mandated by law. The FCS of a candidate who appears in AWT & PI will be computed as follows:
FCS = PIF * Normalised PI Score + AWTF * Normalised AWT Score + CATF_FCS * Normalised CAT Score + ARF_FCS * AR Personal Interview Multiplication Factor (PIF) = 0.50 AWT Multiplication Factor (AWTF) = 0.10 CAT Score Multiplication Factor for Final Composite Score (CATF_FCS) = 0.25 Application Rating Multiplication Factor for Final Composite Score (ARF_FCS) = 0.15 The normalised PI and AWT scores of a candidate are their scores in the respective field divided by the average of the top 1% scores in the same field respectively. The following information is about the admission process followed by IIMA for its PGP subsequent to CAT. It is therefore, important for the candidates to read them carefully.
1. Performance in CAT is an important input in the admission process. Candidates should note that it is important to perform well in each section of the test. In addition to the performance in CAT, IIMA uses academic performance of the candidates throughout their academic career up to the bachelor's level for shortlisting for AWT & PI.
2. Please note that IIMA shortlists candidates for AWT & PI independent of the other IIMs. Hence it is possible to observe variations in the lists of the candidates shortlisted by different IIMs.
3. Details of the candidates shortlisted will be made available on the IIMA website ( www.iima.ac.in) tentatively by the second week of January 2020 after the CAT results are published. Shortlisted candidates would also be sent AWT & PI call letters by IIMA. No communication would be sent to applicants who are not shortlisted for AWT & PI.
4. After the AWT & PI round, admission offers are made by IIMA to successful candidates. The final selection is based on a diverse set of attributes which includes performance in CAT, performance in AWT & PI, academic, co-curricular and extra-curricular achievements, work experience etc. All selected candidates for the IIMA 2-year PGP must be of 19 years age as on June 30, 2020.
5. Disclosure of information about the admission process is driven by concerns which at times conflict with each other. IIMA would like the admission process to be transparent. At the same time, IIMA would wish to protect the privacy of the individual candidates and confidentiality of the process to prevent abuse.
Based on these considerations, the details of the performance of an individual are not made available to any other person. Similarly, the details of the performance of a candidate in AWT & PI, including assessment of attributes mentioned under paragraph 4 above, is not disclosed to anyone to prevent exercise of undue pressure on the panelists participating in the admission/selection process. IIMA exercises its own discretion in disclosing weights assigned to diverse sets of attributes mentioned under Page 28 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT paragraph 4 above. To ensure that the perceived lack of transparency does not in any way affect the candidates negatively, adequate care is taken in formation of the interview panels, development of objective criteria for assessment, random allocation of candidates to interview panels and other such measures.
6. Candidates, who appear in AWT & PI will be able to view whether they have been offered admission by IIMA tentatively during the second week of April 2020 by visiting the IIMA website. Admission offer letter would be sent to all successful candidates. Candidates, who are offered admission, need to confirm their acceptance by completing all the required formalities by the first/second week of May 2020. Some candidates may also be placed on the waiting list initially during the second week of April 2020. Offers to candidates on the waiting list would depend upon the number of successful candidates accepting the offer made by IIMA.
Note:
In the event of specific guidelines being issued by the Government of India, IIMA reserves the right to, depending on the nature of the guidelines, continue with its AWT & PI as stated above OR use an alternative selection procedure which may include calling for additional information from the shortlisted candidates, a supplementary test or any other suitable process/mechanism. Care will be taken to ensure that candidates are not put to undue inconvenience. The exact cut-offs mentioned above are computed based on the previous years' CAT data. It depends on various factors like the applicants' pool, the distribution of CAT scores etc. which may change year to year. In view of this fact the Admissions Committee of IIMA reserves the right of changing the cut-offs if deemed desirable in the light of CAT-2019 data.
Table 8. Categories for bachelor's degree/integrated master's degree (as per CAT Application) AC-1 (Medicine and Surgery based subjects): MBBS, MD (USA). AC-2 (Selected Professional Degrees): Chartered Accountancy (CA), Cost and Works Accountancy (ICWA), Company Secretaryship (CS).
AC-3 (All Commerce, Economics, Finance and Management Related Degrees): Including BAF, BBA, BBE, BBI, BBM, BBS, BCAF, BCCA, BCOM, BFIA, BFM, BHM, BHMCT, BIBF, BMS (Bachelor of Management studies) and BSBA degrees.
In particular, including
1. Economics/ Economic Development and Planning
2. Any degree in Hospitality/Hospitality Studies, Catering/Catering Technology, Hotel, Travel and Tourism Management, Tourism Studies and any other related discipline.
3. Commerce (Accountancy, Auditing, Banking, Business Mathematics, Business Organisation, Finance, Information Technology, Insurance, Investment Analysis, Public Finance, Secretarial Practices etc.)
4. Management (Advertising, Agriculture and Food Business, Agribusiness Management, Agriculture Marketing and Cooperation, Agriculture and Rural and Tribal Development, Business Administration, Business Management, Business Studies, Commercial Agriculture and Business Management, Entrepreneurship, Management Studies, Sports Management, Real Estate and Urban Infrastructure, Renewable Energy Management, Oil and Gas Management, Production and Industrial Management)
5. Any other vocational degree in commerce and management.
Page 29 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENTAC-4 I (All Engineering, Technology and Architecture related Areas): Including BARCH, BE, BIT, BINFTECH, BS (ENG)/ BSC (ENG), BTECH and integrated MTECH degrees (Excluding all degrees in Accessories Design/Apparel Production/Design/Fashion Communication/Fashion Design/Fashion Technology/Interior Design/Knit Wear Design/Leather Design/Jewelry Design/Footwear Design, and BS/BSC degrees in Information Technology). In particular, including
1. Agricultural Engineering/ Dairy Technology/ Food Technology
2. Architecture
3. BE/BS (ENG)/BSC (ENG)/BTECH/integrated MTECH degrees in Biosciences, Geological Sciences, Information Technology, Mathematical Sciences and Natural Sciences
4. BE/BS (ENG)/BSC (ENG)/BTECH/integrated MTECH in all Engineering/Technology and related areas, including subjects like Chemical Technology, Electronics, Engineering Physics etc.
5. Textile Engineering/Technology
6. Others: All other fields where BE/BS (ENG)/BSC (ENG)/BTECH/integrated MTECH degrees are awarded, not explicitly included or excluded elsewhere in the list.
II (Science and Agriculture related Areas, other than Medicine and Surgery): Including all BS/BSC and integrated MS/MSC (excluding degrees in Economics, Fashion Design, Journalism, and Leather Design). Also including degrees in dentistry, paramedical, veterinary degrees. In particular, including
1. Actuarial Science
2. Agriculture (Agronomy, Soil Science, Agricultural Biochemistry, Plant Breeding and Genetics, Plant Pathology, Soil Science etc.)
3. Biosciences (Biology, Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Botany, Life Science, Zoology etc.)
4. Computer Applications (BCA, MCA)
5. Dentistry
6. Fisheries
7. Forestry
8. Geological Sciences (Geography, Geology and Geophysics.)
9. Horticulture
10. Information Technology
11.All bachelor's/integrated master's degrees in Mathematical Sciences (Computer Science, Mathematics, Statistics etc.)
12.Natural Sciences (Chemistry, Physics etc.)
13. Paramedical/Physiotherapy
14. Pharmacology/Pharmacy
15. Planning
16. Veterinary Science/ Animal Husbandry
17. Media Science, Media Science and Technology
18. Physiology
19. Any vocational degree in science (BS/BSC)
20.Science (Others): Forensic, Home Science, Nursing and all other branches of Science not explicitly included or excluded elsewhere in this list AC-5 (All Arts/Humanities Related Degrees, Design, Education, Fashion Design/Technology, Law and Rural Studies): Including any BA (excluding Economics, Geography and Geological Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics), BAA, BAJM, BCJ, BDES, BED, BFTECH, BJ, BJMC, BL, BM (Bachelor of Music), BMC, BMM, BMus, BSW and LLB.
In particular, including
1. Accessories Design/Apparel Production/Design/Fashion Communication/Fashion Design/Fashion Technology/Fashion Merchandising and Retail Management, Interior Design/Knit Wear Design/Leather Design/Footwear Design/Jewelry Design (all degrees)
2. Arts/Humanities (Archaeology, Education, Fine Arts (Dance, Drama, Film, Music, Painting etc.), History, Languages, Library Science, Literature, Mass Communication, Media Studies, Philosophy, Political Science, Public Administration, Social Work/Welfare, Sociology, etc.)
3. Education (including Physical Education and Sports)
4. Journalism/Mass Communication/Media Studies (all degrees)
5. Law (BL LLB/B.Com. LLB/BBA LLB)
6. Psychology (all degrees)
7. Rural Studies/Rural Sociology/Rural Cooperatives/Rural Banking
8. Any vocational degree in arts/education/humanities (BA) AC-6: Any other discipline not mentioned in AC-1 to AC-5.
Page 30 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENTNote:
1. Dual bachelor's degree holders will be classified in one of the categories AC-1 to AC-6 based on their field(s) and subjects. Applicants are requested to mention both the degrees of specialization separately in Bachelor Degree 1 and Bachelor Degree 2.
2. Final discretion on the academic category that an academic programme will be classified into rests with the Admissions Committee of IIMA.
3. For candidates having undergone/completed an integrated master's degree directly after their HSC, their classification into an academic category will be based on their academic discipline in the integrated master's degree programme.
4. For a candidate who has obtained further higher degrees after their bachelor's degree or their integrated Master's degree, other than those degrees listed in Table 8, the discipline(s) of the subsequent degrees will not be taken into consideration in deciding their classification in an academic category.
[1] IIM Ahmedabad reserves the right to make changes in the Shortlisting and Selection Criteria, if considered necessary at any point.
[2] For an AC for which the number of applicants to IIMA in that particular AC is more than 50% of the total applicants to IIMA, the 'UL per ACRC' numbers will be doubled (e.g., UL for General will be 200 instead of 100, UL for SC will be 64 instead of 32, and so on).
9.1 Perusal of the prospectus as set out hereinabove would suggest that the selection process is divided into two phases : Shortlisting on the basis of the CAT score for AWT and PI and the second phase i.e. Final Selection. The CAT score is only for the purposes of preliminary screening which has three sections as referred to hereinabove. Reading the prospectus would indicate that at different stages of the selection process, the application rating of a candidate is used. Application Rating is the rating of scores as set out in tables 2 to 5 of the prospectus which is based on their percentage of marks obtained in the 10 th & 12th standards depending on the streams namely Science, Commerce, Arts and Humanities, the Bachelors degree again depending upon the discipline and work experience as on 31.07.2019. Reading of the prospectus would again indicate that for different streams and disciplines, the equivalent application rating is arrived at by using a sort of percentile equivalence of the score distributions. As explained by Mr. Chudgar, if table 3 of the rating scores for standard 12 is perused, a different yardstick is adopted for application rating of students in various streams such as Science, Commerce, Arts and Humanities. Since scoring is easier in Science as compared to that of Arts and Humanities, to earn a rating of 2 for a Page 31 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Science candidate, the score in the 12th standard examination is taken as more than 55 and less than 60, whereas that of a student of Humanities to earn a score of 2 he has to have a percent score in 12 th of more than 45 and less than 50. This is obviously with a view to create a level playing field for Arts and Humanities student viz-a-viz a Science stream student.
9.2 Similarly, academic categories have been set out and they have been shown as categories AC-1 to AC-5 i.e. Academic Category 1 to Academic Category 5. These Academic Categories have been explained at the end of the prospectus which suggest that AC-1 is Medicine and Surgery based subjects, AC-2 is Chartered Accountancy, Cost and Works Accountancy, Company Secretaryship etc; AC-3 is all Commerce, Economics, Finance and Management related degrees, AC-4 is all Engineering, Technology and Architecture related areas; AC-4 also includes such sciences like Actuarial Science, Agricultural, Zoology etc; AC-5 has all Arts, Humanities related subjects, Fashion Design, Law, Rural Studies etc and AC-6 is any other discipline not mentioned in AC-1 to AC-5. Again based on the stream from which the candidate belongs, the percentage score is rated and the application rating is calculated. Naturally in this also, varying on the discipline that a student comes from, the application rating is done. That is evident from the fact that a student who comes from Engineering and Technology related area gets a higher CAT score than that of a Humanities candidate looking to the nature of test that is undertaken in CAT of Quantitative Aptitude etc. What is further seen is that after such assessment based on the application rating which is reasonably done on the basis of the management from which the candidate comes, an assessment is done.
Page 32 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT10. The submission of learned advocate Mr. Pahwa that there is an unnecessary stress on 50% of the interview also stands falsified when one appreciates the assessment done at the first phase of selection. For the first phase of selection of candidates for the purposes of AWT and PI, not only is the candidate's CAT score considered and so the application rating as in detail assessed hereinabove through the prospectus, what is important is that the same is computed on the basis of the performance in Class 10, Class 12, undergraduate course as well as work experience. The weightage to the CAT score here is 65% whereas the application rating is given a weightage of 35%. During the selection phase, what is more important is that for stage-I from the pool who take CAT, selection of exceptional performance across different disciplines is made for AWT and PI. It is also clear from such process that from each academic category top five percent in the respective academic category are shortlisted for the AWT and PI round. It is only in the second phase of the selection that the IIM considers the candidate's score on the basis of PI and AWT, CAT score and application rating. What is therefore evident is that the CAT score and the Application rating is a process or an assessment yardstick which goes into consideration for a student's admission process at two stages i.e. the first stage where CAT score is given weightage of 65% and then a weightage of 25% in the second phase of selection. Therefore, apparently at first blush it may sound incomprehensible that a student who has secured 99.95 percentile in CAT would not get selected, however, on the basis of the assessment what is evident is that there is no complete go-bye to the CAT score during the course of assessment in the admission process. The final selection of the candidate from the shortlisted candidates is done on the basis of his/her Page 33 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT 'Final Composite Score' (FCS). As shown in the prospectus and the reply, the FCS of a candidate who appears for AWT & PI will be computed as follows:
FCS = PIF * Normalised PI Score + AWTF * Normalised AWT Score + CATF_FCS * Normalised CAT Score + ARF_FCS * AR Personal Interview Multiplication Factor (PIF) = 0.50 AWT Multiplication Factor (AWTF) = 0.10 CAT Score Multiplication Factor for Final Composite Score (CATF_FCS) = 0.25 Application Rating Multiplication Factor for Final Composite Score (ARF_FSC) = 0.15 Note: The normalised PI and AWT scores of a candidate are their scores in the respective field divided by the average of the top 1% scores in the same field respectively.
11. Thus what can be deduced from the facts of the present case is that each institute has its own selection parameter and here in the present case IIM, Ahmedabad has its own. The respondent institute had very well listed its parameters well in advance in the prospectus which can be summarized as under:
PARAMETERS FOR ANALYTICAL WRITING TEST AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW Weightage for calculating Composite score :
Overall CAT score = 65% Academics = 30% Work Experience= 5% PARAMETERS FOR FINAL ADMISSION OFFER:Page 34 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
Final composite score:
Normalized PI score=50%,
Normalized AWT score 10%
CAT Score=25%,
Academics= 15%
Thus, it can be said that the final score depends on various factors like co-curricular activities, Academics, Diversity, Work-Experience, Performance in CAT, etc.
12. It has to be borne in mind that merely because a candidate has secured a higher CAT score would not automatically entitle his berth into the august institution like IIM, Ahmedabad is well explained by the respondent IIM on the basis of a chart reproduced in the affidavit in reply which needs reproduction:
RAW Score Raghav Last Selectlist Last Waitlist
Candidate Candidate
Panellist-1 (44) 7 18 16
Panellist-2 (44) 10 17 14
Avg P1 & P2 (44) 8.5 17.5 15
Co-curricular (3) 1 0 0
Extra-curricular (3) 0 2 0
AWT (10) 7 8 8
Avg PI + Co + Extra 9.5 19.5 15
(50)
AR Raw 30 30 28
CAT Total Score 206.86 163.69 205.23
Page 35 of 44
Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020
C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
The Rescaled Score in the above chart works out to be as under:
Rescaled Score Raghav Last Selectlist Last
Candidate Waitlist
Candidate
PI (out of 50) 24.2639 29.0013 26.5023
AWT (out of 10) 7.98124 9.44236 8.19625
CAT (out of 300) 206.86 163.69 205.23
AR (out of 35) 30 30 28
The Normalised Score for the purpose of ascertaining the Final Composite Score (FCS) is as under:
Normalised Score Raghav Last Selectlist Last Waitlist Candidate Candidate PI (out of 1) 0.494853 0.591470 0.540503 AWT (out of 1) 0.818880 0.968792 0.840940 CAT (out of 1) 0.689533 0.545633 0.684100 AR (out of 1) 0.857143 0.857143 0.800000 FCS (out of 1) 0.630269 0.657594 0.645370 Raghav Gupta's Normalised Weightage % FCS Score distribution Normalised PI Score 0.494853 0.50 0.247427 (out of 1) Normalised AWT 0.818880 0.10 0.081888 Score (out of 1) Normalised CAT Score 0.689533 0.25 0.172383 Page 36 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT (out of 1) Normalised AR Score 0.857143 0.15 0.128571 (out of 1) FCS (out of 1) 0.630269 12.1 What is evident from reading the chart above is that the petitioner has got an average score of 8.5 whereas the last selected candidate got an average score of 17.5 in the PI. At first blush, it would therefore suggest that such a wide variance in the interview score led to the selection of the last candidate who otherwise had secured only 163.69 in the CAT performance. However, what needs to be seen is that even the last wait- listed candidate who did almost as well as the petitioner by securing 205.23 CAT score did not even make it to the select list though he secured 15 as an average score in the PI. The reassessment on the basis of the process of rescaling and normalising of the score suggests that the assessment process for admission to IIM is a process which cannot be tinkered with or can be said to be irrationale so as to warrant interference particularly on the ground that unprecedented weightage to the interview is given. What is further borne out is that there are 64 candidates between the last selected candidate and the petitioner and there are 34 candidates between the petitioner and the last wait-listed candidate. This would suggest that the CAT score though does carry a weight it does not become the in all criteria for admission to the IIM, Ahmedabad.
12.2 A chart showing weightage of Personal Interview scores in some of the IIMs and other Top Management Schools which has been placed on record by way of the reply by Mr. Chudgar and pointed out during the Page 37 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT course of arguments, is reproduced as under:
"Personal Interview Score weightage of different IIMs:
BUSINESS NIRF 2020 WEIGHTAGE OF
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT PERSONAL
SCHOOL SCHOOL INTERVIEW
RANKING
IIM Ahmedabad 1 44% + 6% = 50% **
IIM Bangalore 2 30%
IIM Calcutta 3 48%
IIM Lucknow 4 40%
IIT Kharagpur(Department 5 40%
of Management Studies)
IIM Kozhikode 6 35%
IIM Indore 7 40%
IIM Ranchi 20 30%
IIM Shillong 30 50%
IIM Nagpur 40 40%
** Note: At IIM Ahmedabad, personal interview, in reality, is scored out of 44 marks. The remaining 6 marks are given based on the certificates submitted by the candidates related to their achievements in co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. If the candidates have some significant achievements (such as participation in Olympiads, inter-district or inter-state sports competitions, research papers, any state-level or national-level awards, etc.) and can produce certificates for them, then the candidates get 6 out of 6 marks."
12.3 From the said chart it will be appreciated that, CAT score alone is not a criterion for admission in IIMs. It has always been the combination Page 38 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT of weightage of different attributes of a candidate which is recognised by the IIMs and other top-ranking business management schools, for selecting the exceptional candidates from amongst other brilliant candidates.
13. Having considered the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the cases cited by both the learned advocates for the respective parties, though it is undisputed that the question of law decided in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) stands good today, the same criteria or yardstick cannot be attracted for considering the course of management at IIM which imparts a higher degree management course involving various subjects which I have referred to hereinabove. The rationale of weightage to PI would be necessary to assess a candidate's concept and the ability to communicate which are the essential characteristics of a management course. Unlike undergraduate degrees where admission is based purely on academic performance and such common competitive test, for undergoing a post graduate management course, particularly at IIM, it is essential to test the dynamics, the language and communication skills, the personality of a candidate and the comprehension ability in terms of general awareness which can only be adjudged on the basis of a face to face meeting with a candidate. Unlike admissions to the undergraduate courses like engineering and medicine where there is a particular stereo- type following of the course, the management course involves subjects of varied kinds such as Organisational Behaviour, Human Resource Management, Agri Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting, Marketing, Law, Educational Psychology etc and therefore the interview forms the main platform by which can the candidate's personality be tested.
Page 39 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT14. What has come forth during the course of arguments and hearing of the matter is that IIM, Ahmedabad conducts personal interviews in order to select the best candidates out of the pool of shortlisted candidates to its flagship management program (PGP). Personal interviews are a critical component in the admission process. Finding quality candidates to management program involves interacting with the candidates on a wide range of topics such as their academic background and clarity of concepts learnt in the undergraduate degree, learnings from work experience, logical reasoning and ability to frame coherent arguments, achievements and learning in co-curricular and extra-curricular fields, awareness of national as well as international events, and ability to communicate in English, among others. For the PGP Program, these are essential characteristics of a management post-graduate who will in the future become leader of an enterprise that can only be determined during a personal meeting. As reproduced at the beginning of the judgement is the message from the Chairperson of IIM, Ahmedabad which also makes it clear that other than academically intelligent students, the institute also needs candidates who can excel in wide range of areas beyond conventional business, areas that seek knowledge and expertise in management.
15. What therefore comes to the foray is that the admission policy of respondent IIM, Ahmedabad is in the public domain at the time of beginning of the admission process. It has to be kept in mind that as discussed above, the course offered by IIM, Ahmedabad is not a mere professional degree course. Here at the time of admission, not only the Page 40 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT candidate's Intelligence Quotient is assessed by way of CAT examination but also the Emotional Quotient by way of Personal Interview. At the time when due weightage has to be given to CAT score, the same has been done by giving it a weightage of 65% and when the interview is to be given more weightage, it is also so done. It has to be kept in mind that for an admission to IIM, Ahmedabad, a candidate's Emotional Quotient is rather more important than the Intelligence Quotient. The CAT score does measure a candidate's intelligence to an extent, the final selection process is based on many qualities which are necessary for a professional's career growth.
16. The institute's selection process/admission process thus cannot be faulted with as it can be seen that IIM, Ahmedabad offers studies in a higher education course which cannot be compared to graduate degrees because the course offered requires overall development of a candidate and the intellectual ability of a candidate can be judged only on the basis of an interview and not on the basis of a CAT score which includes a limited assessment in the three Multiple Choice Questions phase which the candidate undertakes. CAT score at best entitles the candidate to be short-listed for further rigorous test for the admission process.
17. So far as the contention that there is violation of Section 7(e) and Section 8(3) of the IIM Act is concerned, Section 7(e) stipulates that the IIM is obliged to conduct examinations and to establish processes for evaluation and performance assessment through a fair and transparent system. Section 8(3) of the IIM Act stipulates that every academic course Page 41 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT or programme of study shall be based on merit assessed to the transparent system and reasonable criteria disclosed through the prospectus prior to the commencement of the process of admission. From the discussions hereinabove, it cannot be said that the said sections have been violated by the respondent Institute. The prospectus has been very clear and the entire evaluation process has been fairly explained therein.
18. I would also agree with Mr. Chudgar's submission based on the judgements cited by him that it is now pleaded by the petitioner that he is not selected and such ignorance on the part of the petitioner that he was not aware of the selection process is misconceived in view of the fact that the prospectus was uploaded, reading of which would indicate that a categorical assertion was made in the prospectus that it was important for the candidate to read them carefully. When such specific instructions were laid down in the prospectus, it is not proper for the petitioner now to turn around after having found himself not been selected to challenge the selection process. The petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai (supra), relevant paragraph of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"22. It is the responsibility of the Courts to interpret the text in a manner which eliminates any element of hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly. This principle of statutory construction has been approved by this Court in Modern School v. Union of India , by reiterating that a legislation must further its objectives and not create any confusion or friction in the system. If the ordinary meaning of the text of such law is nonconducive for the objects sought to be achieved, it must be interpreted accordingly to remedy such deficiency."Page 42 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
18.1 The decision relied upon by Mr. Pahwa would not help the petitioner because in the above decision it was a case of misconstruction of statutory rules which is not the case here. Here is a case where the petitioner participated in the admission process being fully aware of the standards of assessment laid down in the prospectus. The candidate like the petitioner who has himself undergone as stated in the petition an accredited course like ACCA and has academically performed well should have understood and should be treated to have accepted the admission process and the criteria laid therein. Once having found from the prospectus that the final selection is based on a diverse set of attributes which includes performances in CAT, AWT and PI and having read such process of selection, on being unsuccessful, to challenge the same also is a ground on which the petitioner does not deserve any relief. Thus, the petitioner will have to accept the fact that he was not selected for final admission at IIM, Ahmedabad as there are number of other more meritorious candidates ahead of the petitioner.
19. What also needs to be seen that the jurisdiction of the High Court is well limited as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Ors . [(2009) 11 SCC 726]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed this principle as under :-
"17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 & Page 43 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020 C/SCA/7804/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
17) "11. ... Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. ..."
20. Thus, having found that the process of admission undergone and undertaken by the IIM, Ahmedabad being above board, as having so laid out in detail in the affidavit in reply and as so seen from the prospectus, and the limited scope of this court, coupled with the fact that different business schools have their own way of selection and parameters and this court does not think it fit to interfere with the sameuy as no arbitrariness has been borne out, the apprehension of the petitioner that undue weightage has been given to interview and the student who has secured such a high CAT score failed to secure an admission and this process being unjust, is a submission which is misconceived.
21. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, granted earlier stands vacated.
22. After the judgement is pronounced through video conferencing, Mr. Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel has requested to extend the interim relief which has been in operation. Mr. Chudgar, learned advocate appearing for IIM, Ahmedabad objects to the extension of the interim relief. Interim relief granted earlier shall operate till 04.08.2020.
sd/-
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Divya / A. B. VAGHELA Page 44 of 44 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 22:19:11 IST 2020