“52. The petitioner also argues that the
CET violates Article 14. It is argued that
the CET is to be considered as a means of
selection of students where the number of
students is more than the number of seats.
In cases where seats are running vacant,
however, it is argued that a CET is
arbitrary. This argument, however, misses
the point. The rationale for a CET, and
generally, all academic regulation at the
university level, is to ensure a minimum
standard of excellence and merit. The
purpose is not to ensure that seats are
filled up, or to sacrifice merit at the
instance of business interests of private
institutions. The classification sought to
be created by the petitioner is two-fold,
i.e. cases where seats are running vacant,
and cases where students are competing for
limited seats. In this argument, a CET
bears a rational nexus only to the latter
category. However, the state WP(C)
3262/2013 Page 54 purpose of a CET -
academic excellence - bears a rational
nexus with both instances, i.e. merit must
be protected independent of the number of
students and seats available. Merely
because some seats are vacant does not
allow the institutions to forgo the
principle of merit, or more specifically,
the manner in which merit is judged
generally. If anything, doing so would
tend towards arbitrary conduct. In fact,
this issue was considered by the Supreme
Court in Visveswaraya Technological
University and Anr. v. Krishnendu Halder
and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 606. The question
before the Court was:
