Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned ASG further pointed out that according to the letter dated 14.12.2020 relied on by the student, the AP Biology course at Conrad High School was designed to be equivalent to a first-year college level Biology course and was al- so aligned to the two courses offered at the University of Connecticut. The letter fur- ther clarified that “in most high schools across the US, this Course is offered dur- ing Grade 11 or 12 to students as a second year Biology course”. The ASG pointed out that as a consequence, the University acted correctly and was within its rights in refusing admission on the ground of lack of equivalence in the qualification held by the student. Even in terms of the material submitted by her, as far as the letter issued by the Consulate General of India dated 22.12.2020 is concerned, the learned ASG emphasized that it merely certified that according to the Resolution adopted at the meetings of the Equivalency Committee and the Standing Committee of the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi, the 12 Year High School Diploma of the United States of America is recognized in India as equivalent to 12 years senior secondary board examination certificate of India. However, significantly, it does not and cannot be construed as equivalent to a 10+2 qualification with Biological Sciences. Likewise, it is stated that the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education’s certificate merely declared equivalence to the intermediate examination conducted by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education. This too omitted the equivalence of the qualification held by the students in terms of the Regulation, i.e., that the candidate had to complete 2 years scholastic training in Biological Sciences, which is essential.

12. It is noticeable that each variant of what is acceptable, lays stress on certain common features: (a) that the candidate should have passed the examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology; (b) the candidate should have undergone practical tests in those science subjects (c) the candidate should have studied English and, lastly, (d) that marks obtained in Mathematics would not be tak- en into consideration for deciding admission to the MBBS course.

13. The respondent-student’s argument is twofold: one, that the letters of Conrad High School4 and the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor5 together with the certificate of the Telangana Intermediate Education Board6, establish that she had Dated 11.12.2020 and 29.01.2020 Dated 14.12.2020 Dated 23.12.2020 successfully undergone a school certificate program, equivalent to the 10+2 qualification in India, and second, that the Advanced Placement (AP) course undertaken by her is equivalent to a first-year degree qualification in Biology. This court finds the submission insubstantial. While the court cannot claim expertise and pronounce upon the curriculum and pedagogy of any course, much less the academic course which the student (in this case) qualified, what it can certainly do is examine whether the University’s stand that she does not hold a qualification equivalent to any of the five categories of qualifications spelt out [i.e., Regulation 4(2)(a) to (e)], or the sixth category [Regulation 4(2)(f)] is correct.

14. A careful reading of the said provision discloses that the MCI emphasized that the candidate should have undergone study at the 10+2 stage, (or in the intermediate course) in the specified subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology/Bio-technology. In this case, the certificate relied upon by the student7 merely clarifies that she undertook a course whilst in the 10th grade. That, by no means, is sufficient to fall within the description of “equivalent” qualification under Regulation 4(2)(f). Nor, in the opinion of this court, can it be deemed adequate having regard to the letter of the Assistant Principal of Conrad High School8 that the AP course in Biological Sciences is of college standard.

After having been given an allotment in the 4th Respondent Institu- tion, the 4th Respondent Institution cannot now undertake one more exercise and come to a completely different conclusion by reading Regulation 4 (a) into Regulation 4 (f) and thereby render the effect of Regulation 4 (f) completely nugatory and redundant.”

19. It is apparent that the High Court followed its previous judgment, and did not closely scrutinize the equivalence certificate or the subject stipulations. It also appears to have been largely influenced by the fact that the candidate was in fact admitted by the University. In the opinion of this court, the construction placed on Regulation 4(2), i.e., that each of the sub clauses (a) to (f) prescribes independent qualifications which should be deemed essential, is rather simplistic. That interpretation ignores the fact that each of the sub-clauses insists that certain subjects should have been studied, and practical examinations attempted at the 10+2 or equiv- alent level. Secondly, the college or intermediate examination [or equivalent qualifi- cations under Regulation 4(2)(f)] cannot be read in isolation, having regard to the cir- cumstances. The provision must be read in the context of the requirements for eligi- bility under Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e). The equivalence in qualification is not merely at the level of a 10+2 requirement, i.e., that the candidate should have passed an ex- amination equivalent to the intermediate science examination at an Indian Uni- versity/ Board. Additional to this requirement, Regulation 4(2)(f) requires equiva- lence in ‘standard and scope’ in an examination where the candidate is tested in Phys- ics, Chemistry and Biology including practical testing in these subjects, along with English. These subject matter requirements are consistent across Regulations 4(2)(a) to (e) and (f).