Dismissed

The State of Tamilnadu v. All India Council for

Madras HC17 Apr 2013WA/1794/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ appeal and petition challenging AICTE regulations that raised the minimum eligibility for SC/ST candidates to engineering courses from 35% to 40%. The court held States cannot prescribe standards lower than the central expert body and that vacancies do not justify lowering eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal and writ petition were dismissed; AICTE regulations fixing 40% minimum marks for SC/ST candidates were upheld. Status quo regarding admitted students was maintained.

The State of Tamilnadu Vs All India Council for — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated:17::04::2013

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr.R.K.AGRAWAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

¶5

Writ Appeal No. 1794 of 2012
&
Writ Petition No.22832 of 2012
and
connected miscellaneous petitions

¶6

W.A.No. 1794 of 2012
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Additional Chief
Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai -600 009.… Appellant / Petitioner
vs.

¶7

1. All India Council for Technical Education,

¶8

7^th Floor, Chanderlok Building,

¶9

 Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶10

2. Union of India,
 Represented by its Secretary to
 Government of India,
 Ministry of Human Resources Development,
 New Delhi – 110 001.

¶11

3. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Delhi – 110 001. … Respondents

¶12

W.P.No.22832 of 2012

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Technical Education
SC/ST Employees Welfare Association,
Rep. by its General Secretary,
P.S.Shenbagaraja,
“AMBU” (Regn. No.58/76),
CPT Campus, Tharamani,
Chennai – 600 113.… Petitioner
Vs.

¶15

1. The Member Secretary,
 All India Council for Technical Education,
 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building,
 Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶16

2. Union of India,
 Rep. by its Secretary,
 Ministry of Human Resources Development,
 New Delhi – 110 001.

¶17

3. The Secretary,
 Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs,
 Government of India,
 New Delhi- 110 001.

¶18

4. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶19

5. The Anna University,
 Rep. by its Registrar,
 Guindy, Chennai – 25.… Respondents

¶20

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order passed in W.P.No.17670 of 2012 dated 20th
July, 2012 on the file of this Court.

¶21

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
to call for the records relating to first respondent’s
notification No.1-MS/AICTE/2011 dated 4.7.2011 and the
regulations in Chapter VI in Appendix I in clause 1.1 of the
Approval Process Hand Book 2012-2013, quash the same and
consequently direct respondents 1 to 5 to follow
G.O.Ms.No.151, Higher Education (J2) Department dated

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

14.6.2010 by adhering the mere pass as the minimum
eligibility prescription for SC/ST category.

¶24

For Appellant in
W.A.No.1794 of 2012 :::Mr.A.L.Somayajee,
Advocate General,
Assisted by
Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan,
Additional Govt.Pleader

¶25

For Respondent 1 in

¶26

W.A.No.1794 of 2012::: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel for
Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
For Respondents 2 & 3
in W.A.No.1794 of 2012::: Mr.K.Mohana Murali
For Petitioner in
W.P.No.22832 of 2012::: Mr. L.Chandrakumar
For Respondent 1
in W.P.No.22832 of 2012::: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
 Senior Counsel
 for Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
For Respondents 2 & 3
in W.P.No.22832 of 2012::: Mr.K.Mohana Murali
For Respondent 4
in W.P.No.22832 of 2012::: Mr.A.L.Somayajee,
 Senior Counsel
 Assisted by
 Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan,
 Additional Govt.Pleader

¶27

For Respondent 5::: Mr.V.Shanmugasundaram
in W.P.No.22832 of 2012

¶28

THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

W.A.No.1794 of 2012 has been filed by the State of Tamil
Nadu, represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Higher Education Department against the order
passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.17670 of 2012,

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking writ
of certiorari to quash the impugned regulations in Chapter VI
in Appendix-I in Clause 1.1 of the Approval Process Hand Book
2011-2012 issued by All India Council for Technical
Education, New Delhi came to be dismissed.

¶32

2. W.P.No.22832 of 2012 has been filed by the Government
of Tamil Nadu, Department of Technical Education, SC/ST
Employees Welfare Association, represented by its General
Secretary seeking to quash the regulations mentioned herein
before, as also directing respondents 1 to 5 to follow
G.O.Ms.No.151, Higher Education (J2)Department dated
14.6.2010 by adhering the mere pass as the minimum
eligibility prescription for SC/ST category in respect of
admissions to be made in the Engineering Colleges in the
State of Tamil Nadu.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

¶33

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal
are as follows:-

¶34

In the State of Tamil Nadu, there are number of
engineering colleges established with the approval of All
India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the AICTE’)-first respondent. The AICTE is vested with
the statutory powers under the provisions of the All India
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’) enacted by the Parliament. Under
the aforesaid Act, the AICTE is vested with the statutory
powers to formulate guidelines for entry level qualification
for Under-Graduate Degree programmes in the technical
education. The Entry Level Qualification prescribed by the
AICTE from time to time is detailed below:-

¶35

Sl.No. Year Entry level qualification prescribed by AICTE 1. 1992-2001 A pass in the 10+2 Senior AICTE guidelines Secondary examination with a Dated 15.6.2012 minimum aggregate of 60 per cent marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. In respect of SC/ST candidates a pass in the 10+2 Senior Secondary Examinations with a minimum aggregate of marks prescribed by the respective State Government/Union Territory Administration obtained in a single sitting.

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

2002-2007 Should be a pass in 10+2
1) F.No.- examination with Physics and
AICTE/UG/Imp- Mathematics as compulsory
Corr/2002/G-8, subjects along with one of
dated the following subjects:
31.10.2002. “Chemistry/Bio-
2) AICTE Technology/Computer
Advt.No.AICTE/Le Science/Biology”
gal/2/ 2004
3. AICTE Handbook for Physics and Mathematics as
Approval process compulsory subjects along
for the year 2008- with one of the following
2009 subjects:
“Chemistry/Bio-
Technology/Computer
Science/Biology”
4. 2010-2011 Should be a pass in 10+2
AICTE Approval examination with Physics and
Process hand book Mathematics as compulsory
published dated subjects along with one of
9.1.2010 the following subjects.
“Chemistry/Bio-
Technology/Computer
Science/Biology”
5. 2011-2012 Passed 10+2 examination with
AICTE approval Physics and Mathematics as
process hand book compulsory subjects along
(2011-2012) with one of the
Chemistry/Biotechnology/Biolo
gy
Obtained at least 50% marks
(45% in case of candidate
belonging to reserved
category) in the above
subjects taken together.
6. AICTE Notification 45% at qualifying level for
No.1-MS/AICTE/2011 general category students and
dated 4 th July, 40% for reserved category
2011 students.

¶38

4. The State Government has also from time to time
prescribed the entry level qualification for admission to
Under Graduate Degree Programmes (B.E/B.Tech courses), as
given below:-

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

State Government Norms

¶41

1) G.O. (Ms.) No.521, Education Department dated 13.5.1989
2) G.O (Ms.) No.361, ES & T Department dated 9.5.1995

¶42

A pass in HSC/Equivalent with minimum mark

¶43

__________________________________________________

Community Maths Physics & Chemistry Minimum
aken together aggregate
in Maths,
Physics &
Chemistry
------------------------------------------------------------
OC 60% 60% 70%
------------------------------------------------------------
BC 60% 60% 65%
------------------------------------------------------------
--MBC 55% 55% 60%
SC/ST Mere pass in the qualifying examination innot more
than three appearances
Years: 2002-2007
G.O.(Ms.) No.222, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated
29.6.2002
A pass in HSC/Equivalent with minimum marks
------------------------------------------------------------
OC 60% Average in the related subjects
------------------------------------------------------------
BC 55% Average in the related subjects
------------------------------------------------------------
MBC/DNC 50% average in the related subjects
------------------------------------------------------------
--
SC/ST Mere pass

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶45

Year: 2008-2009

¶46

G.O.(Ms.) No.263, Higher Education (J2) Department, dated
30.6.2008
A pass in HSC/Equivalent with minimum marks
------------------------------------------------------------
OC 55% Average in the related subjects
------------------------------------------------------------
BC 50% Average in the related subjects
MBC/DNC 45% average in the related subjects
SC/ST Mere pass
Year: 2010 onwards
G.O.(Ms.) No.151, Higher Education (J2) Department, dated
14.6.2010 A pass in HSC/Equivalent with minimum marks
------------------------------------------------------------
OC 50% Average in the related subjects
------------------------------------------------------------
BC 45% Average in the related subjects
------------------------------------------------------------
MBC/DNC 40% average in the related subjects
------------------------------------------------------------
SCA/SC/ST Mere pass

¶47

5. From a perusal of the aforementioned charts, it would
be seen that AICTE norms reveal that entry level
qualification prescribed by it since 2002 till 2010 for
admission to Under Graduate Degree programmes in Engineering
had been a mere pass in the 10 +2 examinations with
prescribed subjects of study as applicable to SC/ST
candidates . Further, for the year 2011-2012, the AICTE has
published the entry level qualification in its approval
process handbook 2011-2012 prescribing minimum marks of 45%
(40% in case of candidates belonging to reserved categories)
in 10 + 2 examinations. According to the State Government,
the AICTE in a sudden transition has hiked the marks criteria

¶48

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

for admission to Under Graduate programmes in respect of
SC/ST candidates from a mere pass, which varies from State to
State – from 33% to 35%) to 40% for the year 2011-2012. The
existing State Government norms comply with AICTE norms for
Open Competition - 50%, Backward class Muslims – 45%, and
Backward Class-45%, it do not comply with the AICTE norms for
Most Backward Classes/Denotified Communities and Scheduled
Caste/SC-Arunthathiyar/Scheduled Tribe communities. The
compliance statement is given below:-

¶50

`Category`	`AICTE norms`	`Existing` `State` `Government` `Norms`	`Compliance of` `State Norms` `with` `AICTE` `Norms`
`OC`	`45%`	`50%`	`Complied`
`BCM/BC`	`40%`	`45%`	`Complied`
`MBC/DNC`	`40%`	`40%`	`Complied`
`SC/SCA/ST`	`40%`	`35%`	`Not Complied`

¶51

6. Thus, the students belonging to Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Caste-Arunthathiyar/Scheduled Tribe, who were
required to have a minimum of 40% marks, will be eligible for
admission in the Engineering Courses only if they get 40%
marks. According to the appellant, the requirement of higher
percentage of marks will put the socially backward students
of these categories to a serious disadvantage in gaining
admission to B.E/B.Tech Degree programmes. Most of the
students from these categories are from rural areas and the
very purpose of granting relaxation of marks to the
candidates belonging to these categories on account of their
social backwardness will fail, if the AICTE norms are to be
complied with by these categories.

¶52

7. According to the appellant, the fact that there were 52371 vacancies during the year 2009-2010 and 33093 vacancies during the year 2010-2011 will certainly lead to the conclusion that the introduction of the new AICTE norms for entry level qualification prescribing a higher percentage of marks – 45% (40% for candidates belonging to reserved categories) for the year 2011-2012 will increase the vacancies in Engineering colleges to a great extent and will not be beneficial to the students. It is also pertinent to note that the introduction of the impugned clause into the present prospectus in Chapter VI of Appendix I in Clause 1.1 and Clause 1.2 (A) & (B) whereby the percentage of marks for eligibility for engineering has been increased is totally against the policy of the State in providing education to the poor, needy students from villages; lower and middle class people in semi-urban and urban areas. The students who have passed +2 examinations are eligible to join the Engineering and Technology courses either from the entry level or from the later entry level (i.e., to the 2^nd year for those who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶53

obtained diploma course certificate). It is the further case
of the appellant that the students who come from socially
economically and educationally backward families should be
encouraged by the State by providing them scope for pursuing
a professional course which they desire. In this present era
of globilisation, it is imminent to generate a large number
of professionals to cater to the needs of the international
and national community. But by the impugned requirement
prescribed by the first respondent, the State Government is
incapacitated to serve the students.

¶54

8. Faced with this situation, the State of Tamil Nadu had
approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶55

9. The learned single Judge, after referring to the
various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had held as
follows: -

¶56

“21. The present attempt by the State
Government to lower the standards and
fixing 35% marks, will not only do harm to
the academic excellence, but also will make
students admitted with such marks in not
completing their course. In the long run,
the precious funds spent by the State will
become a waste. If the State is so
concerned about such students who have only
secured 35%, the State should very well
appoint Counsellors and counsel such
students to get admitted to other
institutions to suit their aptitude and
eligibility, so that they can also become
useful human resources for this Country. It
is not as if every child born in Tamil Nadu
should become an Engineer. Even if that
happens, there is hardly any scope for
employment for those candidates. Surveys
done of these self financing engineering
colleges published in newspapers showed
that most of the colleges produced results
with less than 20% pass percentage. If that
is the outcome of persons admitted with
existing minimum standards, one can
understand what will happen if the student
with a lower pass marks granted entry into
the institution by utilizing the State
funding. It will largely result in such
students passing time in colleges at the
expenses of the State and finally become a
drop out with load of arrears on their
shoulders, thereby being neither useful to

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶58

the Society nor to the family, which had
supported their education all through. “

¶59

The learned single Judge further held that the State has no
legal or constitutional authority to challenge the regulation
framed by the AICTE. Holding so, the learned single Judge
dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the State of
Tamil Nadu has preferred this appeal.

¶60

10. W.P.No.28832 of 2012

¶61

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Technical
Education SC/ST Employees Welfare Association represented by
its General Secretary has approached this Court by means of
public interest litigation challenging the Notification No.1-
MS/AICTE/2011 dated 04.07.2011 and the regulations in Chapter
VI in Appendix I in Clause 1.1 of the Approval Process Hand
Book 2012-2013 and consequently direct respondents 1 to 5 to
follow G.O.Ms.No.151, Higher Education (J2) Department dated
14.06.2010 by adhering the mere pass as the minimum
eligibility prescription for SC/ST category.

¶62

11. According to the petitioner, taking note of the fact
and the situation in which the people of SC/STs dwell, the
Constitution itself classify three categories of SC/STs as
socially, economically and educationally backward families,
thereby, either due to suppression or oppression of the
community, the Constitution of India has provided reservation
protecting the rights to a certain extent so that in the
competitive world the representation of these categories of
SC/STs are safeguarded not only in the matter of appointment,
but also in education, so that minimal representation is
achieved. It is further stated by the petitioner that it is
on the above said basis and with the avowed objective, the
State of Tamil Nadu had prescribed entry level qualification
for admission to the Under Graduate Degree programmes, and
also prescribed norms for minimum eligibility marks for
admission to First year and second year lateral entry
courses, in compliance with the new AICTE norms for 2011-
2012, and had also redefined AICTE norms, which is made
applicable for the year 2012-2013. The said norms read as
under:-

¶63

`Admissions to`	`Firstyear B.E/B.Tech`	`Degree courses:`
`Community`	`Minimum Eligibility` `Marks prescribed as`	`Compliance with AICTE` `redefined norms (45% for`
	`per` `State`	`General and 40% for`
	`Government Norms`	`reserved` `categories)` `applicable for 2012-13`
`Ref:`	`G.O.(Ms.) No.151,`	`AICTE Notification No.1-`
	`Higher` `Education`	`MS/AICTE/2011` `dated`
	`(J2)` `Department` `dated 14.6.2010`	`04.07.2011.`

¶64

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶65

`OC`	`50% aggregate in` `relevant subjects`	`45% -` `Norms` `than` `no is`	`State Go` `(50%) is` `AICTE norms` `sues`	`vernment` `higher` `. Hence`
`BV/BCM`	`45% aggregate in` `relevant subjects`	`40% =` `norms` `than` `Hence`	`State Go` `(45%) is` `AICTE (40%)` `no issues`	`vernment` `higher` `norms.`
`MBC/DNC`	`40% aggregate in` `relevant subjects`	`40% -` `norms` `AICTE`	`State Go` `(40%) is e` `norms.`	`vernment` `qual to`
`SCA/SC/ST`	`35% aggregate in` `relevant subjects`	`40%` `Gover`	`-` `But` `nment norms`	`State` `is 35%`

¶66

12. According to the petitioner, while taking into
account the totality of the above statement, it would
establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the State
Government was always reasonable in fixing the minimum
eligibility criteria, as extracted above, and there are no
issues in so far as all other categories are concerned. Only
in case of SC/STs, the State Government norms are said to
have not been properly construed by the AICTE and instead the
minimum eligibility has been increased by 5% making it as
40%, which virtually denies and deprives the aspirants for
the professional course in disarray and also resulting in
there being no representation or aspirants to the extent of
reservation earmarked to these categories. The petitioner has
stated that the above fact can be established on the basis of
the statistics, as obtained from the State Government, that
where the minimum eligibility of a mere pass i.e., 35% to
reach the quota intended for the SC/STs categories cannot be
achieved. Further, there is already a vacuum and there are no
takers due to ineligibility at the level of mere pass, and
moreover the notification of the first respondent dated
11.07.2011, enhancing the minimum eligibility to 40%, insofar
as SC/STs are concerned, would render a further under-
representation and would also defeat the constitutional
protection. The petitioner, by way of a chart, which is
extracted below, has given the vacancy positions in
Engineering Colleges in the State during the last five years
in respect of SC/SC(A)/ST categories:-

¶67

`Academic`	`Sancti`	`Sea`	`ts`	`Admit`	`ted`	`Vac`	`ancy`
`Year`	`oned`	`Rese`	`rved`
	`Intake`
		`SC/SC`	`ST`	`SC/SC`	`ST`	`SC/`	`ST`
		`(A)`		`(A)`		`SC(A)`
		`18%`	`1%`

¶68

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶69

`1.`	`2007-2008`	`110789`	`19942`	`1108`	`9036`	`204`	`10906`	`904`
`2.`	`2008-2009`	`136140`	`24505`	`1361`	`12475`	`269`	`12030`	`1092`
`3.`	`2009-2010`	`172445`	`31040`	`1724`	`12668`	`284`	`18372`	`1440`
`4.`	`2010-2011`	`195324`	`35158`	`1953`	`17689`	`403`	`17469`	`1550`
`5.`	`2011-2012`	`226034`	`40686`	`2260`	`17821`	`387`	`22865`	`1873`

¶70

13. It is the case of the petitioner that by the impugned
notification the prescription of minimum eligibility criteria
of 40% aggregate marks to the reserved category works out
against the constitutional protection of the quota intended
for the SC/ST which goes without being filled up, and thereby
there is a less representation than the quota earmarked for
these categories; and by the impugned notification, the
further protection, as enshrined in Part IV of the
Constitution of India and the rights conferred on the State
in and for applying their policy towards upliftment of
downtrodden by prescribing minimum eligibility, has now been
thwarted, and that the impugned regulations and the policy of
the State Government with regard to the admission in the
reserved category runs contrary and opposing each other, and
the same shall lead to adverse effect thereby affecting the
welfare of the reserved category of SC/STs and that of the
constitutional protection. It is the further case of the
petitioner that the first respondent had failed to consider
various aspects such as shortage of rural literacy, financial
constraints of the students, etc. Moreover, the AICTE has
approved about 400 self-financing Engineering Colleges
throughout the State including the rural areas, and
therefore, the State Government considering the above aspects
framed a policy to admit the students belonging to SC/ST, who
have passed the plus two examination with minimum of 35%
marks to the Engineering Courses and that the AICTE has
failed to miserably consider the same in its proper
perspective before issuing the impugned notification, which
has resulted in grave injustice to the students belonging to
the reserved categories.

¶71

14. It is submitted by the petitioner that the first
respondent has failed to miserably consider that the
economically weaker sections viz., SC/STs should be brought
to the level of the main stream by giving proper concession
both in the education as well as in employment. However,
according to the petitioner, by the impugned notification the
same is sought to be defeated. It is submitted by the
petitioner that the students, who have passed in the last
academic year by securing more than 35%, but less than 40%,

¶72

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶73

are discriminated by the impugned regulations of the AICTE
for the sole reason that the above students are having right
to get admission in the previous year, but for the same set
of students their right of admission is denied by the
impugned regulations. This, according to the petitioner is
violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
It is further submitted by the petitioner that the impugned
notification of the first respondent without allowing the
State Government to apply its policy and prescribing a mere
pass to achieve the quota/reservation intended and earmarked
for SC/ST categories, as embedded in the Constitution of
India, is detrimental to the economically, socially and
educationally backward community and hence, the same is
liable to be quashed and a direction should be issued to
permit the State Government to prescribe its requirement as
per policy.

¶74

15. A counter affidavit has been filed by the AICTE-first
respondent in the writ appeal, wherein it is inter alia
stated that the AICTE, which is an expert body created under
the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education
Act, has got the authority for regulating technical
education, prescribing uniform norms and standards,
qualification etc. The council has a body of experts
constituted under Section 3 of the Act comprising members
from various departments representing various stake holders
and is a broad based body. The council has got power under
Section 10 of the Act to prescribe the norms and standards
for technical education. It is stated that the AICTE, while
framing the regulations for the year 2011-12, was of the
opinion that minimum eligibility marks should be prescribed
for admission to Engineering Colleges for the purpose of
maintaining good standards in technical education and to
maintain excellence in higher education and also to ensure
that there is no deterioration in the quality of candidates
participating in the professional Engineering Courses. The
standards, which have been prescribed by the AICTE, are 50%
for General Candidates and 45% for candidates coming under
the reserved category in the core subjects viz., Physics and
Mathematics along with Chemistry/Bio-technology and Biology.
It is stated that subsequently, the Council reviewed the same
in its Executive Committee meeting held on 28.6.2011 and in
the Council meeting held on 30.06.2011, it had decided to fix
the minimum eligibility criteria as 45% for General Category
and 40% for Reserved Category for the academic year 2011-12.
In the Approval Process Handbook for the year 2012-2013
published by the AICTE, the minimum eligibility marks for
admission to Undergraduate Degree programmes was fixed at 45%
for General category and 40% for Reserved category. It is
stated that the State Government is bound by the norms that
have been fixed by the Central authority established under

¶75

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶76

the Central Act in respect of professional courses and higher
education, and power has been carved out for the State
Government only to increase the eligibility criteria that has
been fixed by the expert body constituted under the Central
Act, and the State Government cannot reduce the standards
that have been fixed by the Expert Bodies under the Central
Act. It is further stated that a stand has been taken by the
petitioner that even during the years when minimum
eligibility was not fixed by the AICTE and a pass in the
qualifying examination was sufficient for admission to
Undergraduate degree course there has been vacancy of seats.
At any rate, the fact that the seats are vacant cannot be a
ground to reduce the eligibility criteria, and if the
eligibility criteria are reduced, it will adversely affect
the norms and standards and quality and excellence in higher
education. Lastly, it is stated that the minimum eligibility
prescription, which is applicable all over the country,
cannot be reduced for the State of Tamil Nadu alone.

¶77

16. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS

¶78

We have heard the learned Advocate General assisted by
Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Government Pleader in
the writ appeal; Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing
in the writ petition; Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior
counsel, assisted by Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, appearing for the
respondent 1-AICTE; Mr.K.Mohana Murali, learned Central
Government Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3
and Mr.V. Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the
fifth respondent in the writ petition.

¶79

17. Learned Advocate General submitted that the 40% marks
fixed by the AICTE in respect of candidates belonging to
reserved categories, as the minimum eligibility criteria, is
irrational, unreasonable and has been fixed without
understanding the ground reality prevailing in the State of
Tamil Nadu. Learned Advocate General further submitted that
it adversely affects the interest of the students belonging
to reserved categories in the State of Tamil Nadu, as the
minimum percentage to be obtained in the qualifiying
examination i.e., plus two level, has been fixed by the State
of Tamil Nadu at 35%. Further, the students belonging to
reserved categories will not get an opportunity to pursue the
engineering/technical education courses. According to the
learned Advocate General, the students, who have passed in
the last academic year i.e., 2010-2011, and who have obtained
more than 35% marks, but less than 40%, in the plus two
level, and who have not been successful in getting admission
in the Academic Session 2010-11, would become ineligible for
getting admission in the engineering courses for the academic
years 2011-12 and 2012-2013, which is discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶80

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶81

The implementation of the minimum eligibility criteria, as
fixed by the AICTE, would result in denying admission to the
candidates belonging to SC/ST categories on the one hand and
on the other, leaving many engineering seats vacant, thus
depriving these candidates from pursuing their studies in
engineering courses. In support of his submission, he has
relied upon the following decisions:-

¶82

1) The Comptroller & Auditor General vs. K.S.Jagannathan,
(AIR 1987 SC 537)

¶83

2) Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477

¶84

3) Dr.Preeti Srivastava vs. State of M.P, 1999 (7) SCC 120

¶85

4) State of Punjab vs. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital,
AIR 2001 SC 3006

¶86

5) M.Nagaraj vs. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 21

¶87

6) Visveswaraiah Technical University and others vs.
Krishnendu Halder & others

¶88

2011 (4) SCC 606.

¶89

18. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the writ petition, while adopting the arguments
of the learned Advocate General, submitted that the
implementation of the norms fixed by the AICTE would result
in depriving the candidates belonging to SC/ST categories
from seeking further studies in technical education like
engineering and therefore, the minimum eligibility criteria
fixed by the AICTE at 40% should be reduced to 35%, as fixed
by the State Government.

¶90

19. In reply, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the AICTE submitted that the AICTE has not
interfered with the policy of reservation adopted by the
State Government. It had only fixed the eligibility criteria
which had been fixed after due consideration of the various
factors, as also for maintaining the minimum standards of
technical education like engineering course. In support of
his submission, he has relied upon the following decisions:-

¶91

1) Harish Varma and others vs. Ajay Srivastava and another,
2003(8) SCC 69.

¶92

2) State of T.N. and others vs. S.V.Prateep (Minor) & Others,
2004 (4) SCC 513.

¶93

3) All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surindar
Kumar Dawan& others 2009 (11)SCC 726.

¶94

4) Visveswaraiah Technical University and others vs.
Krishnendu Halder & others2011 (4) SCC 606.

¶95

20. DISCUSSION

¶96

The only question which arises in the present case for adjudication is as to whether the norms fixed by the AICTE https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶97

for the eligibility criteria, viz. minimum of 40% marks to be
obtained at plus two level by the candidates belonging to the
reserved categories, is justified or not?

¶98

21. We find that the AICTE has been constituted under the
All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and has
been entrusted with the authority for planning, formulation
and maintenance of norms and standards, etc., in respect of
technical education in the country. The All India Council for
Technical Education Act, 1987 which has been enacted by
Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of the 7th Schedule to the
Constitution of India derives its powers to make laws in
respect of technical education whereas the State Legislature
has power to enact laws relating to technical education under
Entry 25 of List III to 7th Schedule of the Constitution of
India. However, the State’s power has been made subject to
the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 & 66 of List I. Thus,
the powers, which the State Government can exercise for
framing laws for technical education, are subject to the laws
made by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of the
Constitution of India. While it is true and admits of no
doubt the State Government has the power to make reservation
for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in order
to uplift them and bring them in the main stream, the AICTE
has not interfered with the percentage of reservation
accorded by the State of Tamil Nadu for various categories.
It has only fixed only the minimum eligibility criteria for
admission to various technical courses. Whereas, the AICTE
has fixed 40% as the minimum marks to be obtained by the
candidates belonging to reserved categories seeking admission
to engineering course, the State Government has fixed 35%
marks for SC/SC(A)/ST candidates . The difference is only 5%.

¶99

22. In the case of The Comptroller & Auditor General vs.
K.S.Jagannathan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
in paragraph-21 as under:-

¶100

“…Fromtheprovisionsofthe
Constitution referred to above, it is
transparently clear that it is a
discretion to be exercised in the
discharge of the constitutional duty
imposed by Article 335 to take into
consideration the claims of the members
of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, consistently with the
maintenanceofefficiencyof
administration, in the making of
appointments to services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the
Union or of a State. This duty is to be
exercised in keeping with the Directive

¶101

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶102

Principle laid down in Article 46 to
promote with special care the
educational and economic interests of
the weaker sections of the people, and
in particular, of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes, and to
protect them from social injustice and
all forms of exploitation. Article 37of
the Constitution provides that the
Directive Principles of State Policy
contained in Part IV of the
Constitution, in which Article 46
occurs, are fundamental to the
governance of the country and that it
is the duty of the State to apply these
principles in making laws. As said by
Murtaza Fazal Ali., in State of Kerala
vs. N.M.Thomas (1976) 1 SCR 906 (at
page 906) : (AIR 1976 SC 490 at p.548)
“the directive principles form the
fundamental feature and the social
conscience of the Constitution and the
Constitution enjoins upon the State to
implement these directive principles.”
23. In the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- (see
para-520, page 692)
“Articles 15(4) and 16(4) refer to the
same classes of backward citizens. But
they do not refer to identical
remedies. While Article 15(4) speaks
of special provisions for the
advancement of backward classes,
Article 16(4) expressly permits the
Statetomakereservationof
appointments or posts in public
services in favour of such classes. It
is true that both are enabling
provisions allowing the State to adopt
such affirmative action programmes as
are necessary including reservation of
seats or posts. But, unlike Art.16(4),
Art.15(4) is not so worded as to
suggest that it is exclusionary in
character. The ‘special provision’
contemplated in Art.15(4) is an
emphatic reference to the affirmative
action which the State may adopt to
improve the conditions of the
disadvantaged members of the backward

¶103

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶104

classes of citizens. Significantly,
Art.15(4) does not specifically speak
of reservation, but it has been
generally understood to include that
power . M.R.Balaji v. State of Mysore,
(1963) Supp (1) SCR 439; (AIR 1963 SC
649). While the State may adopt all
such affirmative action programmes as
itdeemsnecessaryforall
disadvantaged persons, any special
provision amounting to reservation and
consequentexclusionfrom
consideration of all the others in
respect of the reserved quota in
matters falling under Art.16(4) must
be subjected to even greater scrutiny
than in the case of even greater
scrutiny than in the case of those
falling under it.”

¶105

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had further held: - (para.526,
page 693)

¶106

“The object of the special protection
guaranteed by Articles 15(4) and 16(4)
is promotion of the backward classes.
Only those classes of citizens who are
incapable of uplifting themselves in
order to join the mainstream of upward
mobility in society are intended to be
protected. The wealthy and the
powerful,howeversociallyand
educationally backward they may be by
reason of their ignorance, do not
require to be protected, for they have
the necessary strength to lift
themselves out of backwardness.”

¶107

24. In the case of Dr.Preeti Srivastava vs. State of M.P
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose,
however, of higher medical education is not to fill the seats
which are available by lowering standards; nor is the purpose
of reservation at the stage of post-graduate medical
education merely to fill the seats with the reserved category
candidates. The purpose of reservation, if permissible at
this level, is to ensure that the reserved category
candidates having the requisite training and calibre to
benefit from post-graduate medical education and rise to the
standards which are expected of persons possessing post-
graduate medical qualification, are not denied this
opportunity by competing with general category candidates.
The general category candidates do not have any social
disabilities which prevent them from giving of their best.

¶108

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶109

The special opportunity which is provided by reservation
cannot, however, be made available to those who are
substantially below the levels prescribed for the general
category candidates. It will not be possible for such
candidates to fully benefit from the very limited and
specialised post-graduate training opportunities which are
designed to produce high calibre well trained professionals
for the benefit of the public

¶110

25. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Dayanand Medical
College and Hospital (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held in paragraph-11 as follows:-

¶111

“Indeed the power to be exercised
under Article 15(4) by the States is a
power arising under the Constitution.
Though in a sense the Medical Council
of India could also be a State for
certain purposes, such a body would
not be suited to make the necessary
reservation in respect of socially and
educationally backward classes in
terms of Article 15(4) of the
Constitution because of the need or
the necessity for prescription, taking
into account several considerations
such as different levels of social,
economic and educational development
of the State or different regions in
the State. Such considerations arise
in the context of Article 16 as well.
It is well known that the States often
do appoint Backward Classes Commission
toidentifythesociallyand
educationally backward classes and the
manner in which their conditions have
to be ameliorated. These vital aspects
of policy necessitated equally by
great public and general importance
can be properly appreciated by the
Government, Central or State, rather
than the Medical Council of India,
though in the context of fixing the
standards and the extent to which the
difference in standards have to be
maintainedbetweenthegeneral
category and the reserved category
must be left to Medical Council of
India as noticed in Dr. Preeti
Srivastavas case [supra]. Therefore,
whatever observations have been made
by this Court in Dr. Preeti

¶112

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶113

Srivastavas case cannot be considered
in isolation and stretched beyond what
this Court ultimately stated in its
conclusions. The question whether the
Medical Council of India Regulations
excluded reservation to be made in
favour of socially and educationally
backward classes either expressly or
by necessary implications does not
arise for consideration in the view we
have taken that the Government
State/Central are better suited to
exercise powers under Article 15(4) of
the Constitution and hence we do not
propose to examine that aspect of the
matter.”

¶114

In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
further held that the prescription made by the respondents
reducing the minimum marks to 40% in the entrance examination
for considering the eligibility of the candidates for
admission to postgraduate medical courses and in respect of
the basic subjects fixing no minimum standard is plainly in
contravention of the Regulations framed by the Medical
Council of India and that part of the notification will have
to be ignored.

¶115

26. In the case of M.Nagaraj vs. Union of India (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proviso inserted
at the end of Article 335 of the Constitution (Eighty-second
Amendment) Act, 2000 was following the benefit of reservation
in promotion conferred upon SCs & STs alone. The proviso was
inserted keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of S.Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India, 1996
(6) SCC 580, which took the view that relaxation in matters
of reservation in promotion was not permissible under Article
16(4) of the Constitution in view of the command contained in
Article 335. Once a separate category is carved out of clause
(4) of Article 16, then that category is being given
relaxation in matters of reservation in promotion. The
proviso is confined to SCs and STs alone and is compatible
with the scheme of Article 16(4-A).

¶116

27. In the case of Visveswaraiah Techl.University and
others vs. Krishnendu Halder and others (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the main object of prescribing
the eligibility criteria higher than those fixed by the AICTE
is not to ensure that all seats in colleges are filled, but
to ensure that excellence in standards of higher education is
maintained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that
the State/University should periodically, at such intervals

¶117

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶118

as they deem fit, review the prescription of eligibility
criteria for admissions, keeping in balance, the need to
maintain excellence and high standard in higher education on
the one hand, and the need to maintain a healthy ratio
between the total number of seats available in the State and
the number of students seeking admission, on the other. If
necessary, they may revise the eligibility criteria so as to
continue excellence in education and at the same time being
realistic about the attainable standards of marks in the
qualifying examinations.

¶119

28. In the case of Harish Verma and others vs. Ajay
Srivastava and another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that requirement of minimum qualification marks cannot
be lowered or relaxed contrary to the Medical Council of
India Regulations framed in this behalf.

¶120

29. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others vs.
S.V.Prateep (Minor) and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the standards prescribed by the State
Government should not be adverse to or lower than those
prescribed by the AICTE for admission in Engineering
colleges. But the State Government can prescribe standards
higher or additional to those prescribed by the AICTE.
However, the standards should be realistic and attainable.

¶121

30. In the case of All India Council for Technical
Education vs. Surindar Kumar Dawan and others (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Courts interference in
academic/educational matters is not proper, except where
interpretation of a statutory provision or of law is
involved, and the Courts cannot by their orders create
courses or continue courses or prescribe lower qualifications
for admission.

¶122

31. In the case of Visveswaraiah Techl.University and
others vs. Krishnendu Halder and others (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, after considering all its earlier decisions,
has summarized the position as follows:-

¶123

“(i) While prescribing the eligibility
criteria for admission to institutions
ofhighereducation,the
State/Universitycannotadversely
affect the standards laid down by the
centralbody/AICTE.Theterm
“adversely affect the standards”
refers to lowering of the norms laid
down by the central body/AICTE.
Prescribing higher standards for
admissionbylayingdown
qualifications in addition to or
higher than those prescribed by AICTE,

¶124

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶125

consistent with the object of
promotinghigherstandardsand
excellence in higher education, will
not be considered as adversely
affecting the standards laid down by
the central body/AICTE.

¶126

(ii) The observation in para 41(vi) of
Adhiyaman2 to the effect that where
seats remain unfilled, the State
authorities cannot deny admission to
any student satisfying the minimum
standards laid down by AICTE, even
though he is not qualified according
to its standards, is not good law.

¶127

(iii) The fact that there are unfilled
seats in a particular year, does not
mean that in that year, the
eligibility criteria fixed by the
State/University would cease to apply
or that the minimum eligibility
criteria suggested by AICTE alone
would apply. Unless and until the
State or the University chooses to
modify the eligibility criteria fixed
by them, they will continue to apply
in spite of the fact that there are
vacancies or unfilled seats in any
year. The main object of prescribing
eligibility criteria is not to ensure
that all seats in colleges are filled,
but to ensure that excellence in
standards of higher education is
maintained.
(iv) The State/University (as also
AICTE) should periodically (at such
intervals as they deem fit) review the
prescription of eligibility criteria
for admissions, keeping in balance,
the need to maintain excellence and
high standard in higher education on
the one hand, and the need to maintain
a healthy ratio between the total
number of seats available in the State
and the number of students seeking
admission, on the other. If necessary,
they may revise the eligibility
criteria so as to continue excellence
in education and at the same time
being realistic about the attainable
standards of marks in the qualifying
examinations.

¶128

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶129

32. Insofar as the seats remaining vacant is concerned,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-15 of the judgment has
held as follows:-

¶130

“The primary reason for seats
remaining vacant in a State is the
mushrooming of private institutions in
higher education. This is so in
several States in regard to teachers
training institutions, dental colleges
or engineering colleges. The second
reason is certain disciplines going
out of favour with students because
they are considered to be no longer
promising or attractive for future
career prospects. The third reason is
the bad reputation acquired by some
institutionsduetolackof
infrastructure, bad faculty and
indifferent teaching. Fixing of higher
standards, marginally higher than the
minimum, is seldom the reason for
seats in some colleges remaining
vacant or unfilled during a particular
year. Therefore, a student whose marks
fall short of the eligibility criteria
fixed by the State/University, or any
college which admits such students
directly under the management quota,
cannot contend that the admission of
students found qualified under the
criteria fixed by AICTE, should be
approved even if they do not fulfil
the higher eligibility criteria fixed
by the State/University.”

¶131

33. From the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the following principles emerge: -

¶132

(1)The State Government is empowered under Articles 15(4) and 16 of the Constitution of India read with Article 335 to make reservations for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in order to uplift them and to bring them in the mainstream. This power is not vested with the All India Council for Technical Education.

¶133

(2)The State cannot prescribe minimum eligibility criteria lower than what has been prescribed by the AICTE. However, it can prescribe higher eligibility criteria.

¶134

(3)If the State fixed a higher minimum eligibility criteria than that fixed by the AICTE, admissions to the

¶135

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶136

technical courses has to be made only on the basis of
the eligibility criteria fixed by the State, even though
seats meant for reserved category candidates remained
unfilled.

¶137

34. Applying the above principles laid down by the Supreme
Court to the facts of the present case, we find that the
State Government could not have prescribed lower eligibility
criteria in respect of reserved category candidates belonging
to Scheduled Caste/SC-Arunthathiyar/Scheduled Tribe i.e., 35%
instead of 40% prescribed by the AICTE. It could have, at the
best, only prescribed equal to or higher than the minimum
eligibility criteria prescribed by the AICTE.

¶138

34. So far as the issue that many seats had remained
vacant in the Engineering Colleges in the State on account of
the prescribed 40% eligibility criteria for Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Caste-Arunthathiyar/Scheduled Tribe is
concerned, from the chart, which has been reproduced herein
above, we find that even before the AICTE had prescribed the
minimum eligibility criteria of 40% for these reserved
categories, seats in the Engineering colleges relating to
such categories remained vacant. In the year 2007-08, about
10906 seats reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Caste-
Arunthathiyar and 904 seats for the Scheduled Tribes remained
vacant. Similarly, in the year 2008-09, 12030 seats reserved
for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Caste-Arunthathiyars and 1092 seats for Scheduled Tribe
candidates remained vacant. Similar is the position with
regard to the year 2009-10, where 18372 seats reserved for
the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Caste-
Arunthathiyars and 1440 seats reserved for Scheduled Tribe
candidates remained vacant. In fact, for the year 2011-12,
when for the first time the AICTE had prescribed the
eligibility criteria of 40% for the reserved categories, the
number of seats, which were lying vacant in respect of
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Caste-Arunthathiyars, was reduced
to 17469 as compared to 18372 seats during the previous year.
The seats remaining vacant had reduced, even when number of
seats reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates
had increased from 31040 to 35158. For the year 2011-12,
there was a increase in the seats reserved for Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Caste-Arunthathiyars from 35158 (previous
year) to 40686 i.e., a increase of 5500 seats. The seats
which remained vacant for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Caste-
Arunthathiyars candidates during the year 2011-2012 was only
22865 i.e., about 5400 more than the previous year, which
corresponds to the increase in the seats for these
categories. Thus, the seats, which remained vacant for
ScheduledCaste/ScheduledCaste-Arunthathiyars/Scheduled
Tribe candidates cannot be attributed to fixing of 40% marks

¶139

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶140

as the minimum eligibility criteria for the reserved
categories by the AICTE. It may be for other reasons.

¶141

36. CONCLUSION

¶142

In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no legal
infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge.
The writ appeal fails, and it is hereby dismissed. Likewise,
we do not find any good ground to exercise our extra-ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to direct the respondents to lower the minimum eligibility
criteria from 40%, as fixed by the AICTE to 35% as fixed by
the State Government for the reserved Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. The writ petition also
fails, and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶143

37. Before parting, we may mention here that vide order
dated 22nd August, 2012 passed in the present writ appeal and
writ petition, this Court directed the parties to the writ
appeal and writ petition to maintain status quo. Interim
order was also operating during the pendency of the writ
petition before the learned single Judge. Students belonging
to SC/SC(A)/ST candidates, who have obtained 35% marks, but
less than 40% marks, in the 10+2 examinations, got admission
in the Engineering Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu and at
present they are pursuing their studies. Hence, all such
admissions made during the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 in
respect of SC/SC(A)/ST candidates shall not be disturbed, and
they shall be allowed to pursue their course as per the
statutory provisions applicable in the respective Engineering
Colleges.

¶144

Pv/-

¶145

Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar

¶146

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶147

To,

¶148

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai -600 009.
2.The Member Secretery,
All India Council for Technical Education,
7th Floor, Chanderlok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.
3.The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
New Delhi – 110 001.
4.The Secretary to Government of India,
Union of India,
Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs,
New Delhi – 110 001.
5.The General Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Technical Education
SC/ST Employees Welfare Association,
“AMBU” (Regn. No.58/76),
CPT Campus, Tharamani,
Chennai – 600 113.
6.The Registrar,
Anna University,
Guindy, Chennai – 25.

¶149

+one cc to Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi, (SR.No.22639)
+two ccs to Mr.V.Shanmugha Sunder(SR.22544 & 22543)
+one cc to Mr.K.Mohana Murali(SR.No.22282)
+one cc to Govt Pleader,(SR.No.22342)
+one cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar,(SR.No.22631)

¶150

tej(co)
gn 22/04/2013

¶151

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The State of Tamilnadu v. All India Council for

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamilnadu v. All India Council for

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

All India Council for Vs Veludaiyar Educational Trust

The Board of Governors in Vs Dr.M.G.R.Educational and

The Home Secretary Vs Era.Selvam, State Deputy

S.Srinivasan, Vs the Presiding Officer

Union of India Vs Govt of Tamilnadu

Thecharman Vs Dr. S. Bhuvaneswari