Everest Educational Society ... vs The Admissions Regulating ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4667 Bom

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                            WRIT PETITION NO. 7434 OF 2016




                                                                          
    Everest Educational Society,




                                                 
    Aurangabad, through its President
    Dr. Abdul Gaffar Quadri s/o
    Abdul Razzaq quadri, Age : 59 years,
    Occu. Medical Practitioner,




                                                
    R/o Azam Colony, Roshan Gate,
    Aurangabad                                                       PETITIONER

           VERSUS




                                         
    1.     The Admissions Regulating Authority
           for Unaided Private Professional
                                  
           Educational Institutions, Room No. 305,
           3rd Floor, Government Polytechnic 
           Campus, 49, Kherwadi, Bandra (East),
                                 
           Mumbai

    2.     The Competent Authority for
           Admissions to Private Professional
      

           Educational Institutions, Room No. 305,
           3rd Floor, Government Polytechnic 
   



           Campus, 49, Kherwadi, Bandra (East),
           Mumbai

    3.     The Director of Technical Education,





           Government of Maharashtra,
           Mumbai

    4.     The Secretary,
           Higher and Technical Education,





           Government of Maharashtra,
           Mumbai                                                    RESPONDENTS

                              ----
    Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the Petitioner
    Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 3 and 4
    None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though served
                              ----




         ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2016             ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2016 00:40:21 :::
                                              2                            wp7434-2016


                                        CORAM :   S.S. SHINDE AND
                                                  SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.




                                                                              
           JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                   :    10th AUGUST, 2016
           JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                 :    12th AUGUST, 2016




                                                      
    JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned A.G.P., heard finally.

2. The petitioner has sought the relief of setting

side the condition of eligibility of the candidates to

be admitted at institutional level after fourth round of

Centralized Admission Process (for short, "C.A.P.") for

admission to first year Engineering courses from amongst

those candidates only who obtained the marks at the

qualifying examination and the conditions of non-zero

CET (Common Entrance Test) Score/non-zero GATE (Graduate

Aptitude Test in Engineering) Score and of his

registration with C.A.P. only.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, based

on the averments made in the petition and the documents

3 wp7434-2016

annexed thereto, submits that as per the Notification

dated 11th March, 2016 (Exhibit-B to the petition) for

admission to Engineering and Technology professional

courses, first year, Clause 1 (A) (1) (iii) of Schedule-

B to the said Notification mandates that the candidate

must obtain score in CET conducted by the Competent

Authority. Respondent No. 3 - the Director of Technical

Education, Government of Maharashtra issued Circular

dated 25th May, 2016 laying the conditions for admission

to the first year courses therein making it compulsory

that the candidate seeking admission in private

institutions shall be from the merit list of the

candidates prepared by the C.A.P. It has been clarified

in the said circular that the candidate, whose name does

not find place in the merit list, would not at all be

considered for admission to the seats to be filled up by

the Institution.

4. The respondents published Information Brochure

for the academic year 2016-17 for admission to

undergraduate technical courses wherein also it has been

mentioned that after the fourth round of C.A.P. is over,

the seats remaining vacant of the respective

4 wp7434-2016

institutions shall be returned to the respective

institutions to be filled up by the institution

concerned from amongst the candidates appeared in CET

conducted by the State CET, obtained non-zero score

(marks) in CET, had applied for C.A.P. and find place

in the merit list of C.A.P.

5. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, there are 1,50,000 seats for the first year

of B.E. and B.Tech. Courses in all private aided

professional institutions in the State of Maharashtra.

There are only 1,12,000 candidates who have applied and

whose names are there in the merit list of C.A.P. If

the above mentioned conditions laid down by the

respondents are to be followed, 38,000 seats would

remain vacant in the State of Maharashtra. He submits

that the CET is meant for getting selected meritorious

candidates from amongst the large number of the

candidates appearing for CET for being admitted to the

limited number of seats available in the Educational

Institutions. When the number of the candidates

appearing for CET is less than the seats available for

the Engineering professional courses, there is no point

5 wp7434-2016

in imposing a condition that the candidate to be

admitted at the institutional level should be from

amongst the candidates who figure in the merit list of

C.A.P.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner sent a representation dated

5th July, 2016 to respondent No.1 for waiver of the above

mentioned conditions giving justification for doing so.

However, respondent No.1 did not respond to that

communication. He, therefore, submits that the above

mentioned conditions being illegal and illogical, may be

quashed and set aside.

7. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the

respondents strongly opposed the petition. He submits

that the conditions laid down by the respondents in the

abovementioned Notification dated 11th March, 2016, the

Circular dated 25th May, 2016 and Information Brochure

cannot be relaxed only because there is possibility of

certain seats remaining unfilled for want of meritorious

candidates. According to him, the petitioner has no

legal right to challenge the said conditions. Relying on

6 wp7434-2016

the judgment in Visveswaraiah Technological University

and another Vs. Krishnendu Halder and others (2011) 4

S.C.C. 606, he submits that the eligibility criteria

fixed by the respondents cannot be relaxed by this Court

in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. He, therefore,

submits that the writ petition may be dismissed.

8. In the case of Visveswaraiah Technological

University and another (supra), the question involved

was whether the eligibility criteria for admission to

the engineering courses stipulated under the statutory

rules and regulations of the State Government/university

could be relaxed or ignored, and candidates who do not

meet with such eligibility criteria can be given

admission, on the ground that a large number of seats

would remain unfilled in professional colleges, if such

candidates possess the minimum eligibility prescribed

under the norms of the central body (AICTE).

9. The Division Bench of the High Court of

Karnataka at Bangalore had directed to relax the

eligibility criteria. After considering the facts of the

case and the legal position applicable thereto, the

7 wp7434-2016

Hon'ble the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside

the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court with

the following observations in paragraph No. 17 of the

judgment :

"No student or college, in the teeth of the

existing and prevalent rules of the State and the University can say that such rules should

be ignored, whenever there are unfilled vacancies in colleges.

ig In fact, the State/University, may, in spite of vacancies, continue with the higher eligibility criteria

to maintain better standards of higher education in the State or in the colleges affiliated to the University. Determination

of such standards, being part of the academic

policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary

or "adversely affect" the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment. The order of the Division Bench is

therefore unsustainable."

10. In the present case, the respondents have

imposed a condition for admitting a candidate to the

8 wp7434-2016

seat to be filled up at the institutional level only

from amongst the candidates figuring in the merit list

of the C.A.P. This will ensure that the standard of the

candidates to be admitted would be upto the mark. In

any case, there cannot be compromise with the merit of

the candidates for the purpose of admission in any

Educational Institution. Only because some seats are

likely to remain vacant, it would not be desirable that

the candidates, who otherwise are not found to be

eligible on the touchstone of the merit criteria

prescribed by the respondents, should be admitted in any

institution. In the circumstances, in view of the

judgment in Visveswaraiah Technological University and

another (supra) and the fact that there cannot be any

compromise with the merit of the candidates to be

admitted in any Educational Institution, we are not

inclined to interfere in the selection criteria fixed by

the respondents for admitting the candidates to the

seats at institutional level for Engineering

professional courses. In that view of the matter, we do

not find any substance in this writ petition. Hence, we

pass the following order :-

                                       9                          wp7434-2016

    (i)           The Writ Petition is dismissed.


    (ii)          Rule stands discharged accordingly.




                                                                     
                                             
    (iii)         The parties shall bear their own costs.




                                            
           [SANGITRAO S. PATIL]               [S.S. SHINDE]
                   JUDGE                          JUDGE




                                     
    npj/wp7434-2016