Partly allowed

Ms.Swachanda Roy, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2021WP(C)/19046/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Engineering admission weightage based on standardised qualifying marks, including notional CBSE and CISCE marks, was upheld. Four petitions challenging that method were dismissed. Two petitions concerning improvement examinations were partly allowed, extending the marks-submission deadline until publication of those results and two days thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner was directed to extend the engineering admission marks-submission deadline until CBSE and CISCE improvement examination results are published and two days thereafter.

Ms.Swachanda Roy, Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA,

¶4

1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12412 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SALVIA HUSSAIN(MINOR) AGED 17 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER K.HUSSAIN, K.K.HOUSE, KOOTTIKADA.P.O, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM-691020.(STUDYING IN STANDARD XII, NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, MUKHATHALA.P.O, KOLLAM).

¶8

2 SIBI WILSON(MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER WILSON V.SAMUEL, REBOBOTH BHAVAN, KEDIKA,KAITHAPARAMP.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-691526. (STUDYING IN STANDARD XII, PADMASREE CENTRAL SCHOOL, ENATH, PATHANAMTHITTA)

¶9

3 KERALA C.B.S.E.SCHOOL MANAGEMENTS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY P.S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, PENTA TOWER, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.

¶10

BY ADVS. P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR S.K.ADHITHYAN SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..2..

¶14

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶17

*4 ADDL.R4.

¶18

PRIVATE SCHOOL GRADUATE TEACHERS ASSOCATION KERALA (PGTA), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SUDHEER CHANDRAN, S.V.H.S., PULLAD P.O., THIRUVALLA, RESIDING AT SREE VIHAR, PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686101.

¶19

ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADER AS PER ORDER DATED 17.9.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021

¶20

BY ADVS. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.SIJI ANTONY SRI.P.S.SAJEEV (CHIRAYIL) ADV.SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN, SR.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.12788/2021, 14996/2021, 17270/2021, 18774/2021 AND 19046/21, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..3..

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶26

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943

¶27

WP(C) NO. 12788 OF 2021

¶28

PETITIONER/S:

¶29

1 THEJASWINI.S

¶30

AGED 17 YEARS REP. BY HER FATHER SASHI MALAMMEL, KRISHNAKRIBHA, VILIPPAL PARAMBA, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 571 (STUDYING IN STANDARD XII, AUXILIUM NAVA JYOTI SCHOOL KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 571)

¶31

2 SIDHARATH SAJI NAIR

¶32

AGED 17 YEARS

¶33

REP. BY HIS FATHER SAJI K.P., PANCHAJANYAM, CHELAVUR P.O., KOZHIKODE (STUDYING IN STANDARD XII, AUXILIUM NAVA JYOTI SCHOOL KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 571)

¶34

3 ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE KERALA REGION,REG.NO.TVM/TC/1052/2014 KURIAKOSE ELIAS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, MANNANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 561

¶35

REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT FR. VARGHESE EDATHICHIRA,

¶36

BY ADVS.

¶37

K.B.GANGESH ATHIRA A.MENON

¶38

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..4..

¶39

RESPONDENT/S:

¶40

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶41

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶42

3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶43

BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..5..

¶46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶49

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943

¶50

WP(C) NO. 14996 OF 2021

¶51

PETITIONER/S:

¶52

1 SAMEERA T.S AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.THALHATH, T.S.HOUSE, PULIPPARA, PANGODE P.O., PIN-695609.

¶53

2 ADHEEL MATHEW, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW PHILIP, ARA ACRE BUNGLOW, PAPER MILL P.O., PUNALUR, VILAKKUDY, KOLLAM-691332.

¶54

BY ADVS. ARJUN SREEDHAR T.K.SANDEEP ARUN KRISHNA DHAN ALEX ABRAHAM

¶55

RESPONDENT/S:

¶56

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶57

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶58

3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY

¶59

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶60

..6..

¶61

EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶62

BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶63

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.12418/2021, 12788/2021, 17270/2021, 18774/2021 AND 19046/21, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶64

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..7..

¶65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶66

PRESENT

¶67

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶68

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 17270 OF 2021

¶69

PETITIONER/S:

¶70

PRIYANKA THOMAS AGED 18 YEARS D/O. SANJU THOMAS MATHEW, TC 13/2198, GOWREESAPATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -4.

¶71

BY ADVS. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SANDEEP T.GEORGE

¶72

RESPONDENT/S:

¶73

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶74

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶75

3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶76

4 COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION (CISCE), PRAGATHI HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, 47-48, NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI - 110019,

¶77

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶78

..8..

¶79

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND SECRETARY.

¶80

BY ADVS. SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶81

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.12418/2021, 12788/2021, 14996/2021, 18774/2021 AND 19046/21, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶82

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..9..

¶83

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶84

PRESENT

¶85

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶86

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 18774 OF 2021

¶87

PETITIONER/S:

¶88

S.SIDHARTH NAIR AGED 18 YEARS S/O. G. SURESH, SARAYU, VENGOOR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683572, (PASS OUT IN 2021 FROM STANDARD XII, CHAVARA POLICE SCHOOL PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)

¶89

BY ADVS. P.M.JOSHI SIJI K.PAUL

¶90

RESPONDENT/S:

¶91

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶92

2 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.

¶93

3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY

¶94

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶95

..10..

¶96

EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶97

BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶98

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.12418/2021, 12788/2021, 14996/2021, 17270/2021 AND 19046/21, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶99

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..11..

¶100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶101

PRESENT

¶102

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶103

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19046 OF 2021

¶104

PETITIONER/S:

¶105

MS.SWACHANDA ROY, AGED 18 YEARS D/O.MATHEW.C.V., FLAT NO.501, SYNERGY ENCLAVE, SMARTO ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020.

¶106

BY ADV M.A.ASIF

¶107

RESPONDENT/S:

¶108

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶109

2 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATIION, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 067, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶110

3 CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110 092, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶111

4 REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, CTTC, ADMIN BLOCK, BSNL RTTC CAMPUS, KAIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 040.

¶112

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶113

..12..

¶114

5 COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 5TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, SS KOVIL ROAD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶115

BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE SRI.SAJITH KUMAR, SC

¶116

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.12418/2021, 12788/2021, 14996/2021, 17270/2021, 18774/2021 AND 19046/21, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶117

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..13..

¶118

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶119

W.P.(C) Nos.12412, 12788, 14996, 17270,

¶120

18774 and 19046 of 2021

¶121

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2021.

¶122

J U D G M E N T

¶123

Since common questions arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in the judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021.

¶124

The matters relate to admission to engineering degree courses for the academic year 2021-2022 through the entrance examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Government of Kerala. Ext.P3 is the

¶125

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶126

..14..

¶127

prospectus issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for the said purpose with the concurrence of the State Government. The basic qualification for admission to engineering courses as per the prospectus is a pass in the 12^th standard examination with an aggregate of 45% marks for the subjects Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. In terms of Ext.P3 prospectus, the rank list for admission is prepared by giving equal weightage to the score of the candidates in the entrance examination as also the marks in the qualifying examination for the subjects, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, after standardising the marks of the candidates in the qualifying examination conducted by different Boards applying the formula provided in the prospectus for the said purpose. The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations has invited applications for admission to various professional courses including engineering courses through the entrance examination for the ensuing academic year in terms of a notification issued by him on 31.05.2021.

¶128

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶129

..15..

¶130

Petitioners 1 and 2 are students who have completed their 12^th standard during the current year from a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). They have applied to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for admission to engineering courses for the ensuing academic year. The third petitioner is a registered association of the managements of CBSE Schools in the State. It is stated by the petitioners that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the qualifying examination was not conducted by the CBSE during the current year, whereas owing to the very same reason, the qualifying examination was conducted by the State Board in a liberalised manner. According to the petitioners, insofar as the qualifying examination was not conducted by the CBSE, the students who are applying for admission to engineering courses on the basis of the notional marks awarded to them would be prejudiced in their rankings, if they are treated at par with the candidates who are applying for admission on the strength of the marks obtained by them in

¶131

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..16..

¶132

the qualifying examination conducted by the State Boards in a liberalised manner. It is alleged that though the petitioners have brought this anomaly to the notice of the Government by way of representations, no action is taken on the same. The petitioners, therefore, seek directions to the State Government to give admission to engineering courses for the ensuing academic year based on the scores of the candidates in the entrance examination alone.

¶133

Petitioners 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.12788 of 2021

¶134

are students who have completed their 12^th standard from a school affiliated to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE). They have also applied to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for admission to engineering courses for the ensuing academic year. The third petitioner is a registered association of the managements of the schools affiliated to the CISCE in the State. As in the case of W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021, on similar pleadings, the petitioners in this case also seek direction to the State

¶135

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶136

..17..

¶137

Government to give admission to engineering courses for the ensuing academic year based on the scores of the candidates in the entrance examination alone.

¶138

Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.14996 of 2021 are students who have completed their 12^th standard from a school affiliated to the CBSE and applied to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for admission to engineering courses for the ensuing academic year. They also seek the very same relief sought for by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021. In addition, they seek a declaration that the Clauses in Ext.P3 prospectus providing for weightage for the marks secured by the candidates in their qualifying examination are violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶139

Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18774 of 2021 is also a student who has completed the 12^th standard from a school affiliated to the CBSE and applied to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for admission to engineering course for

¶140

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..18..

¶141

the ensuing academic year. He also seeks the very same relief sought for by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 on similar pleadings.

¶142

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17270 of 2021 is a student who has completed the 12^th standard from a school affiliated to the CISCE and applied to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for admission to engineering course for the ensuing academic year. It is stated by the petitioner that since qualifying examination was not conducted by the CISCE during the current year, marks have been awarded to the students based on a Scheme formulated by the CISCE which has been approved by the Apex Court in terms of the order passed in W.P.(C) Nos.522 and 636 of 2021 on 22.06.2021. It is also stated that the aforesaid Scheme provides that the candidates, for whom the marks awarded in terms of the Scheme are not acceptable, are entitled to improve the marks by undertaking an improvement examination; that the petitioner has undertaken the improvement examination for

¶143

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..19..

¶144

one subject invoking the said provision in the Scheme and that the results of the improvement examination undertaken by the petitioner are yet to be published. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations is taking steps to finalise the rank list for admission and if the rank list is finalised before publication of the results of the improvement examination undertaken by her, the petitioner will not be considered for admission for the ensuing academic year. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to refrain from finalising the rank list for admission before the declaration of results of the improvement examination undertaken by the petitioner.

¶145

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19046 of 2021 is a student who has completed 12^th standard from a school affiliated to the CBSE and applied to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for admission to engineering course for the ensuing academic year. The case set out by the petitioner

¶146

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..20..

¶147

in this writ petition is identical to the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17270 of 2021. She also seeks direction to the State Government to refrain from finalising the rank list for admission to engineering courses until the results of the improvement examination undertaken by her are announced and a week thereafter so as to enable her to make available the marks to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations.

¶148

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of

¶149

the State Government in W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021. The stand taken by the State Government in the counter affidavit is that since the marks have been awarded to the students by all Boards who have not conducted the qualifying examinations based on the Schemes formulated by them, there is no impropriety in following the same procedure that was followed in the previous years for admission to engineering courses for the ensuing academic year also.

¶150

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned

¶151

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..21..

¶152

Standing Counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

¶153

The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.12412, 12788, 14996 and 18774 of 2021, in essence, were that insofar as the qualifying examinations were not conducted by the CBSE and CISCE, the provision in the prospectus for giving weightage for the marks secured by the candidates in the qualifying examination has become redundant and unworkable and the same cannot therefore be enforced. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the notional marks awarded to the candidates by the Boards cannot be the basis for awarding weightage for admission to professional courses. It was the submission of the learned counsel that if weightage is given to the candidates on that basis, the conduct of the Government would be wholly discriminatory for having treated the candidates who could undertake the qualifying examination and who could not undertake the qualifying examination alike. In order to bring

¶154

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..22..

¶155

home the point that the conduct of the State Government in giving weightage based on the notional marks awarded by the Boards is arbitrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.14996 of 2021 has relied on the decisions of the Apex court in Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, (2003) 6 SCC 697 and Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another, (2007) 3 SCC 720. The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Self Financing Engineering College Managements Association v. State of Kerala and others, 2016 (4) KLT 1018. In addition, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 argued that insofar as the qualifying examination was conducted by the State Board in a liberalised manner, the marks secured by those students who have undertaken the qualifying examination conducted by the State Board cannot be standardised at all with the marks awarded to the

¶156

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..23..

¶157

candidates by the Boards who have not conducted the qualifying examination. In order to show that the qualifying examination was conducted by the State Board in a liberalised manner, the learned Senior Counsel has brought to my attention the question paper set for one of the examinations conducted by the State Board in such a fashion that a candidate who would answer 50% of the questions would get 100% marks.

¶158

The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos.17270 and 19046 of 2021 contended that in the light of the order passed by the Apex Court in W.P.(C) Nos.522 and 636 of 2021 dated 22.6.2021, which is produced by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19046 of 2021 as Ext.P2, the petitioners in those cases are entitled to improve the marks awarded to them in terms of the Schemes formulated by the CBSE and CISCE. It was argued by the learned counsel that the Schemes also provide that if a candidate opts for improvement, the marks secured by him/her in the

¶159

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶160

..24..

¶161

improvement examination alone will be reckoned as the marks secured in the qualifying examination. According to the learned counsel, insofar as the State Government has decided to give weightage for the marks notionally awarded to the candidates in the qualifying examination in terms of the Schemes formulated by the respective Boards, the right to opt for improvement being part of the Schemes, rank list cannot be prepared for admission without affording those students who have applied for improvement an opportunity to make available their marks for securing admission.

¶162

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General argued that insofar as marks have been awarded to the candidates by the Boards who could not conduct the qualifying examination during the current year based on the Schemes formulated by them as approved by the Apex Court, there is nothing wrong in giving weightage for the said marks in giving admission after standardising the same. It was asserted by the learned Additional Advocate General that

¶163

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶164

..25..

¶165

insofar as a process of standardisation is provided for in the prospectus, the fact that the qualifying examination conducted by the State Board for the current year was liberal does not make any difference. As far as W.P.(C) Nos.17270 and 19046 of 2021 are concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that going by the scheme approved by the AICTE, admission for the ensuing year are to be closed on or before 25.10.2021. It was pointed out that it is having regard to the said outer time limit fixed by the AICTE that the last date for providing the marks of the candidates in the qualifying examination was fixed as 17.09.2021 and if the said date is extended, the admission process cannot be concluded before 25.10.2021. It was also submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that if AICTE enlarges the time limit fixed for completing the admission process by two weeks, the State Government has no objection in granting time to the petitioners in these cases for making available their marks in the qualifying examinations. The learned Additional Advocate

¶166

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..26..

¶167

General has also pointed out that there may not be any impediment for the AICTE in enlarging the time limit fixed by them for closing the admission as they had enlarged the time limit during the previous academic year having regard to the pandemic situation prevailed in the country.

¶168

The learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE pointed out that the outer limit for closing the admission is fixed by the AICTE based on the directions issued by the Apex Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others v. All India Council for Technical Education and others, (2013) 3 SCC 385, and the outer time limit for closure of the admission cannot therefore be enlarged without obtaining orders from the Apex Court. On a query from the Court, it was clarified by the learned Standing Counsel that the outer time limit for closure of admission was enlarged last year after obtaining orders from the Apex Court in the said case.

¶169

I have perused the pleadings of the parties and examined the arguments raised by their learned counsel

¶170

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..27..

¶171

at the Bar.

¶172

It is seen that weightage is given for the marks secured by the candidates in their qualifying examinations, after standardising the same, while preparing the rank list for admission, with a view to ensure that the assessment of merit of each candidate is, to the extent possible, realistic and correct. In Kerala Self Financing Engineering College Managements Association , this Court has observed that unless the scores obtained by the candidates in the entrance examination and the marks in their qualifying examination are taken into account, there cannot be a proper assessment of the merit of the candidates. In other words, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the provision in the prospectus providing for weightage for the marks secured by the candidates in their qualifying examinations is bad for any reason. It is all the more so since the said provision has been part of the prospectus for the last so many years and it has passed the test of time.

¶173

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶174

..28..

¶175

As noted, the main contention of the

¶176

petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.12412, 12788, 14996 and 18774 of 2021 is that insofar as the qualifying examinations were not conducted by the CBSE and CISCE, the provision in the prospectus for giving weightage for the marks secured by the candidates in the qualifying examination has become redundant and unworkable and the same cannot be enforced. True, the provision for weightage for the marks awarded to the candidates in their qualifying examinations has been made in the prospectus on the assumption that qualifying examinations would be conducted by all Boards in the current year as well. The State Government does not dispute the fact that qualifying examinations were not conducted by the CBSE and CISCE during the current year on account of the Covid-19 pandemic. The State Government does not also dispute that the marks awarded to the candidates by the said Boards during the current year are notional and arrived at based on the Schemes formulated by them which have been approved by the Apex

¶177

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶178

..29..

¶179

Court. It is seen that the qualifying examinations could not be conducted by the CBSE and CISCE on account of the extra ordinary situation prevailing in the country due to Covid-19 pandemic and it is with a view to ensure that the prospects of the students shall not be affected on account of the inability of the Boards in conducting the qualifying examinations, the said Boards have formulated Schemes for awarding notional marks to the students based on the formula arrived at by the experts in the field. The said marks, in the absence of any contrary intention in the Schemes and in the order of the Apex Court approving the same, are liable to be treated as the marks secured by the students in their qualifying examinations for all purposes, including weightage for admission to professional courses. It is all the more so since it is provided for in the Schemes formulated by the Boards aforesaid that there is no compulsion for the students to accept the notional marks awarded to them and they are free to undertake improvement examinations. In other words, as far as the candidates are

¶180

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..30..

¶181

concerned, if they have not chosen to undertake the examinations specially conducted for improving the notional marks awarded to them, they cannot be heard to contend that the notional marks cannot be used for all purposes or for weightage in the matter of preparing rank list for admission to professional courses. In other words, the contention of the petitioners that the notional marks awarded to them cannot be reckoned for weightage, is liable to be rejected, even while accepting the argument that the provision for weightage is made in the prospectus on the assumption that qualifying examinations would be conducted by all Boards for the current year. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to hold that even the contention raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions that in the absence of any qualifying examination for a section of candidates seeking admission, standardisation of marks awarded to the candidates is not workable, is unsustainable, even while accepting the argument that the standardisation process was conceived and incorporated in the prospectus on

¶182

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶183

the assumption that qualifying examinations would be conducted by all Boards for the current year.

¶184

Coming to the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 that since the qualifying examination for the current year was conducted liberally by the State Board, the marks awarded to the candidates in their qualifying examination cannot be standardised with the marks awarded to the candidates by other Boards by any process of standardisation, much less the process of standardisation provided for in the prospectus, it is to be noted that standardisation, as it is well known, is only a process of equalising. 100% precision cannot be expected in a process of standardisation. The standardisation process is adopted in the context of admission to a course only in situations where treating the applicants alike would go against the principles of equality. Clause 9.7.4(b)(iii) of the prospectus dealing with the formula for standardisation of the marks secured by the candidates in their

¶185

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶186

..32..

¶187

qualifying examination reads thus:

¶188

“(iii) The formula for standardisation as has been approved by the Expert Committee constituted vide G.O. (Rt) No.1758/2011/H.Edn. dated 03.11.2011: The marks secured by a student in the qualifying examination from any Board will be standardised with respect to the statistical parameters such as Global Mean and Global Standard Deviation.

¶189

The standardised mark YBG of a candidate of the stream (B) standardised with respect to the global reference stream (G) for the subject is

¶190

YBG = MG + SG X B j – M B j SBj

¶191

Where MBj and SBj denote respectively the Mean and Standard Deviation of the marks out of 100 of all students who have passed in a subject of the final year of qualifying examination of any stream (B) of the year j and XBj is the mark of a candidate out of 100 for the subject in the stream (B) of the year j.

¶192

The Global Mean (MG) of a subject is the combined average of the marks of that subject out of hundred of all students who have passed in that subject (Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry/Computer Science/Biotechnology/Biology as the case may be), of the final year of the Qualifying Examination of Kerala HSE, Kerala VHSE, CBSE and CISCE Boards taken together for the period from 2009 to 2021. The Global Standard Deviation (SG) of the subject is the combined standard

¶193

..33..

¶194

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶195

deviation of marks of that subject out of hundred of all students who have passed in that subject (Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry/Computer Science/Biotechnology/Biology as the case may be), of the final year of the Qualifying Examination of Kerala HSE, Kerala VHSE, CBSE and CISCE Boards taken together for the period from 2009 to 2021.”

¶196

As evident from the extracted clause, the formula provided therein for standardisation has been approved by an expert committee constituted by the Government. Even this process of standardisation has been part of the prospectus for the previous entrance examinations and has passed the test of time. Though the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 assert that the marks secured by the candidates under the State Board cannot be standardised with the marks awarded to the candidates of other Boards for the qualifying examination conducted by the State Board was too liberal, the learned counsel did not demonstrate as to why the formula cannot be applied for standardisation in a situation of this nature. In other words, the aforesaid contention of the learned Senior Counsel

¶197

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶198

..34..

¶199

for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 is also liable to be rejected.

¶200

Coming to the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.14996 of 2021, the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education is that the merit for any purpose and in particular for the purpose of admission to a professional college is to be judged as far as possible on the basis of the same or similar examinations. In other words, inter se merit amongst the students similarly situated should be judged applying the same norm or standard. Likewise, the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh is that the scaling techniques would be useful and effective only if the distribution of marks in the batch of answer scripts sent to each examiner is approximately the same as the distribution of marks in the batch of answer scripts sent to every other examiner. The proposition laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Self Financing Engineering College

¶201

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..35..

¶202

Managements Association is that the admission procedure to the professional colleges has to be fair and should satisfy the test of being transparent, merit based and non exploitative. The propositions aforesaid, according to me, have no application to the facts of the present cases.

¶203

Coming to W.P.(C) Nos.17270 and 19046 of 2021, as noted, the grievance of the petitioners concerns the outer time limit prescribed by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for providing the marks of the candidates applied for admission to professional courses. It has come out that the last date for providing the marks of the candidates is now fixed as 17.09.2021. While the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17270 of 2021 states that the result of the improvement examination undertaken by her will be announced by the CISCE during the penultimate week of September 2021, the stand of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19046 of 2021 in this regard is that the results of the improvement examinations undertaken by her will be announced by the CBSE only during the last week of

¶204

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶205

..36..

¶206

September 2021. It is seen from the materials on record that Schemes have been formulated by CBSE and CISCE for awarding marks in the qualifying examinations in such a fashion that a candidate, to whom the marks awarded is not acceptable, is entitled to undertake the improvement examination. The Schemes also provides that if a candidate undertakes improvement examination, the marks secured by him/her in the improvement examination will be the one considered as the marks in the qualifying examination. In other words, as far as the candidates who have undertaken the improvement examination are concerned, they are yet to be awarded with the marks. As noted earlier, the Schemes have been formulated by the CBSE and CISCE to award marks to the candidates in the qualifying examinations as the respective Boards were not able to conduct the qualifying examinations on account of the Covid-19 pandemic so as to enable the candidates to make use of the same for all practical purposes as if the said marks were awarded after conducting the

¶207

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶208

..37..

¶209

qualifying examinations. In other words, the objective behind the formulation of the Schemes is that no candidate shall be affected in any manner on account of the inability of the Boards to conduct the qualifying examinations in the current year. The provisions of the Schemes cannot therefore create any impediment or bottleneck for any candidate in the matter of their future prospects. In that view of the matter, according to me, the conduct of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations in fixing outer time limit for providing the marks of the candidates for the purpose of weightage before announcement of the results of the improvement examinations is arbitrary and violative of the right to equality guaranteed to the candidates who have undertaken the improvement examination.

¶210

As indicated, the difficulty expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General in the matter of extending the outer time limit fixed for providing the marks is on account of the outer time limit fixed by the AICTE for closure of the

¶211

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases ..38..

¶212

admission in the current year. Since AICTE has taken the stand that the outer time limit for closure of the admission cannot be extended further in the light of the interdictions made by the Apex Court in Parshvanath Charitable Trust , the only option left is to direct the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to finalise the allotment process within a shorter period.

¶213

In the result, W.P.(C)Nos.12412, 12788, 14996 and 18774 of 2021 are dismissed. W.P.(C) Nos.17270 and 19046 of 2021 are allowed in part directing the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Government of Kerala to enlarge the time limit fixed for providing marks of the candidates applied for admission to engineering courses till the marks of the candidates who have undertaken improvement examinations in terms of the Schemes formulated by the CBSE and CISCE are published by the respective Boards and two days thereafter.

¶214

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶215

rkj

¶216

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶217

..39..

¶218

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12412/2021

¶219

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶220

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER FOR THE SUBJECT PHYSICS OF THE SECOND YEAR HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION, MARCH 2021

¶221

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.CEE/3600/KEAM-2021/TA2 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.05.2021

¶222

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR KEAM 2021 ISSUSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶223

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 11.06.2021.

¶224

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF PLUS TWO RESULT OF KERALA HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶225

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶226

..40..

¶227

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12788/2021

¶228

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶229

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSICS QUESTION PAPER OF 2ND YEAR HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION, MARCH 2021

¶230

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.CEE/3600/KEAM-2021/TA2 DATED 31.5.2021

¶231

Exhibit P3 THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROSPECTUS OF KEAM-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶232

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.6.2021 PREFERRED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶233

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES 2020-21 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶234

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶235

..41..

¶236

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14996/2021

¶237

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶238

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD/CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE PETITIONERS TO BE STUDENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE SCHOOLS.

¶239

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 17.06.2021 ISSUED BY CBSE FOR TABULATION OF MARKS FOR CLASS XII BOARD EXAMINATIONS 2021.

¶240

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU DATED 15.07.2021. Exhibit P4 THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUSKEAM 2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL POLICY 2020.

¶241

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU DATED 03.06.2021.

¶242

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶243

..42..

¶244

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17270/2021

¶245

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶246

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CISCE SCHEME FOR ICSE CLASS X, AND ISC (CLASS XII) FOR THE YEAR 2021 AS PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.06.2021.

¶247

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2021 IN WRIT PETITION CIVIL 522/2021 BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT.

¶248

Exhibit P3 A SCREENSHOT OF THE CLASS XII MARKS OF THE PETITIONER UPLOADED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ON THEIR WEBSITE.

¶249

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO HER SCHOOL DATED 03.08.2021.

¶250

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DOWNLOADED MARKS CARD FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶251

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT FOR IMPROVEMENT EXAMINATION.

¶252

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KEAM PROSPECTUS 2021.

¶253

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT ON KAUMUDI ONLINE DATED 12.08.2021.

¶254

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.08.2021.

¶255

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶256

..43..

¶257

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18774/2021

¶258

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶259

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSICS QUESTION PAPER OF 2ND YEAR HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION, MARCH 2021.

¶260

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO. CEE/3600/KEAM-2021/TA2 DATED 31.05.2021.

¶261

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROSPECTUS OF KEAM 2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶262

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.06.2021 OF KERALA C.B.S.E SCHOOL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶263

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE KEAM ADMIT CARD OF THE PETITIONER.

¶264

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶265

..44..

¶266

¶267

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶268

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ASSESSMENT POLICY FRAMED IN LIEU OF CLASS XII PUBLIC EXAMINATION PUBLISHED BY THE CBSE VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.CBSE/CE/2021 DATED 17.06.2021.

¶269

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2021 OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN WPC NO.522 & 636 OF 2021.

¶270

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 08.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE CBSE.

¶271

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CLASS XII RESULTS OF THE PETITIONER BASED ON EXT.P1 ASSESSMENT POLICY.

¶272

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF KEAM-2021 PROSPECTUS.

¶273

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 13.08.2021.

¶274

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 13.08.2021.

¶275

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2021 OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN WPC NO.925 OF 2021.

¶276

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.AICTE/AB/ACADEMIC CALENDAR/2021-22 DATED 10.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE AICTE.

¶277

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2021 & con. cases

¶278

..45..

¶279

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS HALL TICKET FOR THE CLASS XII CBSE IMPROVEMENT EXAMINATIONS.

¶280

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.CEE/3600/KEAM-2021/TA2 DATED 09.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Ms.Swachanda Roy, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms.Swachanda Roy, v. State of Kerala

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

Sajesh Kumar P.H. Vs Chola Mandalam Investment Finance Company Ltd.

DM Education and Research Foundation Vs Dr.Vipul Aggarwal

M.Anitha Vs v.P.Joy

Unnikrishnan Nair, Vs the District Level Authorization Committee

S.Sidharth Nair Vs State of Kerala

Juliet E. J. Vs the District Supply Officer