Dismissed

Kaushik Jayant Gijare, through Jayant Vishwanath Gijare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2014WP/6131/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed petitions challenging eligibility criteria for engineering admissions. Held that State Government cannot relax fixed percentage requirements mid-year to fill vacancies without harming educational standards. State retains power to revise policy but current criteria stand.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions dismissed; rule discharged; ad-interim relief vacated.

Kaushik Jayant Gijare, through Jayant Vishwanath… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dgm 1

¶2

22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6130 OF 2014

¶6

Akash Laxman Sakat, Age” 17 years, Occu. Student, Through Laxman Kisan Sakat, Age 43 years, Occu. Farmer, Residing at:- Fakhiri Hills Society Flat No.28, Kamela Kondhwa Road, Near Kubera Park, Pune Pin 412 301.

¶7

.... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1 The State of Maharashtra (Summons to be served on the Learned Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

¶10

2 Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra Through The Secretary,

¶11

(Summons to be served on the Learned Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

¶12

3 Director of Technical Education of Maharashtra,

¶13

1/12

¶14

dgm 2 22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶15

Directorate of Technical Education, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No. 1967, Mumbai Pin: 400 001. (Summons to be served on the Learned Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

¶16

4 All Indian Council for Technical Education, Western Regional Office, Industrial Assurance Bldg., 2^nd Floor, V.N. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. .... Respondents

¶17

ALONG WITH

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO.6131 OF 2014

¶19

Kaushik Jayant Gijare, Age: 17 Years, Occ. Student, ThroughJayant Vishwanath Gijare, Age 43 Years, Occ: Farmer, Residing at: Flat No.11, Shivtej, A Apartment Tejas Society Kothrud, District: Pune. Pin: 412 301. …. Petitioner Vs 1 The State of Maharashtra (Summons to be served on the

¶20

2/12

¶21

dgm 3 22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw Learned Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

¶22

2 Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, (Summons to be served on the Learned Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) 3 Director of Technical Education of Maharashtra, Directorate of Technical Education, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No. 1967, Mumbai Pin: 400 001. (Summons to be served on the Learned Government Pleader appearing for State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) 4 All Indian Council for Technical Education, Western Regional Office, Industrial Assurance Bldg., 2^nd Floor, V.N. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. .... Respondents

¶23

3/12

¶24

dgm 4

¶25

22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶26

ALONG WITH

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO.7122 OF 2014

¶28

Sachin Babasaheb Kale Through Babasaheb Dnyandeo Kale & Other 46.

¶29

…. Petitioners.

¶30

¶31

1 Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400 001

¶32

2 State of Maharashtra, The Department of Higher Technical Education, Through The Government Pleader, PWD Building, Fort, Mumbai—400 023.

¶33

3 All Indian Council for Technical Education, Through its Western Regional Office and having its address at 2^nd Floor, Industrial Assurance Building, Veer Nariman Road, Opp. Churchgate Rly. Station, Mumbai-400 020. .... Respondents

¶34

Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 6130 of 2014 and 6131 of 2014. Mr. V.P. Sawant a/w Mr. Nitin Dhumal for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7122 of 2014.

¶35

Mr. Mihir Desai with Mr. Sarnath Sariputta for AICTE. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondent/State.

¶36

4/12

¶37

dgm 5

¶38

22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶39

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶40

DATE : July 28, 2014

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT:- (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)

¶42

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶43

2 We are inclined to dispose of the above Writ Petitions by this common order, as it revolves around the issue of eligibility criteria for Maharashtra State candidate and/or outside the Maharashtra State candidate of First Year of Degree Courses in the Engineering/Technology in Government, Government aided and unaided Engineering Institute in Maharashtra State for the Academic Year 2014-15. There is no dispute that the Rules for Admission to First Year of Degree Courses in

¶44

Engineering/Technology in Government, Government Aided and Unaided Engineering institutes in Maharashtra State (For short, “the Rules”), provides the eligibility criteria as under :-

¶45

“2.1 Eligibility criteria for Maharashtra State Candidate and Outside Maharashtra State Candidate :

¶46

5/12

¶47

dgm 6

¶48

22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶49

Candidate should be an Indian National and should have passed the HSC (Std. XII) examination of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education or its equivalent examination with subjects English, Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry/Biotechnology/Biology/Technical Vocational subject.

¶50

AND

¶51

Secured minimum 50% marks (minimum 45% marks , in case of Backward class categories and Persons with Disability candidates belonging to Maharashtra State only) in the subjects Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry/Biotechnology/ Biology/Technical Vocational subject added together.

¶52

AND

¶53

Obtained a positive Composite score i.e. marks obtained after adding 50% of JEE (Main) 2014 (Paper 1) marks and 50% of normalized Standard XII (Board or Equivalent Examination) marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.”

¶54

Similar is the position of Diploma courses.

¶55

3 Circular dated 6 March 2014 issued by Director of Technical Education (DTE) also refers to the same 50% percentage for open category and 45% marks for reserved category.

¶56

4 The submission, referring to Government Resolution dated 5 July 2011 for the year 2011-12, is that the marks for

¶57

6/12

¶58

dgm 7 22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶59

eligibility criteria were reduced to 45% and 40% for the open and

¶60

the reserved categories respectively and the said criteria is not diluted and/or in existence today and therefore, for this year also the same criteria should be applied for 67600 likely vacant seats as reported on the basis of display of institute-wise vacancy position for such course in the State of Maharashtra.

¶61

5 To achieve the standard and quality of

¶62

Engineering/Technological education, if the State Government has fixed the eligibility criteria specially qualifying marks in the concerned subjects-the minimum 50% marks for open category and 45% marks for reserved category – such object and purpose cannot be faulted with. No case is made out to interfere with the already declared policy. The State of Maharashtra are always at liberty to take appropriate decision, at proper stage of Academic Year of such courses so that all the concerned will be noticed about such change in percentage of eligibility criteria in question.

¶63

6 There is no issue so far as the power of State Government to prescribe minimum percentage for eligibility criteria for respective courses. The issue here is having once published the

¶64

7/12

¶65

dgm 8 22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶66

Rules for Academic Year 2014-15, the State Government and/or

¶67

Respondent/DTE, at the fag end of this academic year's admission stage, whether can change the eligibility criteria which will affect the whole system, which they have been following since long. Everybody concerned is bound by the Admission Rules/Brochure so framed, specifically when there is nothing to show that the decision/policy so adopted by the State of Maharashtra and/or concerned Respondents in any way is unreasonable, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the declared position of law. The Rules are within the frame work of record and the law. The Petitioners and/or people at large are fully aware of these Rules, even before applying for the courses in question. Therefore, at this stage of admissions, we are not inclined to accept the submission so made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners to relax such condition so that vacant seats can be accommodated.

¶68

7 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners referred to the following judgments hereinafter mentioned. So far as the position of law is concerned, there is no issue. But, we have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case, before applying the ratio of these Judgments.

¶69

8/12

¶70

dgm 9

¶71

22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶72

State of T.N. and Anr. Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Ors.¹

¶73

This Judgment itself provides that, when there are more applicants than the available situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Center or the Central authority to short-list the applicants. We are concerned with the situation, where the seats are available but the applicants/candidates are not qualified according to the standards and/or qualifications and/or so announced, therefore this Judgment is of no assistance to the Applicants.

¶74

Visveswaraiah Technological University and Anr. Vs. Krishnendu Halder and Ors.²

¶75

This judgment itself has recognized the principle that “Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of education. The criteria of admission based upon the minimum percentage so fixed for the relevant subjects would certainly be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the

¶76

1 (1995) 4 SCC 104

¶77

2 (2011) 4 SCC 606

¶78

9/12

¶79

dgm 10 22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶80

higher educational courses. The qualifying percentage therefore, so fixed by the State in view of above figures itself shows nothing but to add to the excellence in the matter of admission of the students in higher education. The power of the State to fix a further qualification or additional qualification which has been prescribed by the AICTE, is well recognized”.

¶81

It is also observed that:-

¶82

…...“The mere fact that there are vacancies in the colleges would not be a matter which would go into the question of fixing the standard of education. Therefore, it is difficult to subscribe to the view that once they are qualified under the criteria fixed by AICTE they should be admitted even if they fall short of the criteria prescribed by the State.....”

¶83

No student or college, in the teeth of the existing and prevalent rules of the State and the University can say that such rules should be ignored, whenever there are unfilled vacancies in colleges. In fact the State/University, may, in spite of vacancies, continue with the higher eligibility criteria to maintain better standards of higher education in the State or in the colleges affiliated to the University. Determination of such standards, being part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or “adversely affect” the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment. The order of the Division Bench is therefore unsustainable.”

¶84

10/12

¶85

dgm 11 22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶86

8 Therefore, such eligibility criteria fixed by the State

¶87

Government cannot be relaxed in such fashion, at this stage of the admission. Those judgments no way deal with such situation. On the contrary, those judgments recognize that for academic standards the eligibility criteria fixed by the State Government cannot be relaxed.

¶88

9 The power of State Government to fix the Rules and frame the policy of higher eligibility criteria in no way can be tested at the instance of the Petitioners at this stage. Such policy, for this academic year 2014-2015, in no way, can be stated to be arbitrary or unreasonable as the State is also concerned with the education standard of the subjects/courses in question. Those judgments though refer to the power of State Government to review the policy from time to time, we are not in any way restricting and/or observing anything about it. The State Government is always at liberty to revise the policy, if permissible in law. However, so far as the present Petitioners claim of directing the State Government to consider the case by relaxing the eligibility criteria of percentage in view of above cannot be granted by the Court in writ jurisdiction.

¶89

11/12

¶90

dgm 12 22-wp 6130 and 6131-14.sxw

¶91

10 Based upon earlier experiences, the State Government

¶92

has taken policy decision to fix the qualifying marks/ percentage for this year. Now, in view of about 67000 vacant seats in this 2014-15 academic year, it is open for the State to take another policy decision in accordance with law in the interest of all if so advised. The Judgment in no way restricts the power and authority of the State to take fresh decision in accordance with law, at earliest to prevent waste of seats.

¶93

11 For the above reason, the following order:-

¶94

ORDER

¶95

a) All the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

¶96

b) Rule is discharged. c) Ad-interim relief already granted stands vacated. d) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶97

(A. A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶98

12/12

Kaushik Jayant Gijare, through Jayant Vishwanath Gijare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushik Jayant Gijare, through Jayant Vishwanath Gijare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Balasaheb Ram Ghodake Vs the Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr.

Shri. Balasaheb Ram Ghodake Vs the Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr.

High Court Bar Association, Nagpur through Its Secretary Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.

Kum. Aishwarya a. Ghonge Vs the Directorate, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai and Ors.

Akash Laxman Sakat, through Laxman Kisan Sakat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachin Babasaheb Kale and Ors. Vs Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State and Ors.