Ms. Sonal Arora vs Ggsip University & Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 3563 Del

          THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                        Judgment delivered on: 04.09.2009


+      W.P.(C) 11452/2009


MS. SONAL ARORA                                              ..... Petitioner

                                  - versus-


GGSIP UNIVERSITY & ANR.                                      ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Saini For the Respondents : Mr. G.D. Goel, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Jatan Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? yes

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that she is not being considered

for admission to the part time MBA course of the Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University (hereinafter referred to as „the University‟). The

grievance of the petitioner is that the requirement of having work experience

of a minimum of one year at the level of Executive/Supervisor/Teaching

Faculty in an institution located in NCR region, is arbitrary and beyond what

has been prescribed by the AICTE which is the national regulatory body for

all technical education including management courses.

2. Mr. Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the full

time MBA course is of two years, whereas the part time MBA course of the

said University is of three years. He submitted that this condition of one

year work experience has not been specified insofar as admission to the full

time course is concerned and, it has only been made a condition for the

MBA part time course. He also referred to the norms and standards for

management education and technical education stipulated by the AICTE.

He submitted that the said norms and standards do not prescribe that one

year work experience would be an eligibility condition for seeking

admission to any of the post-graduate management courses. The learned

counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme

Court in the case of State of T.N. And Another v. Adhiyaman Educational

& Research Institute And Others, (1995) 4 SCC 104. In particular, he

placed reliance on the following observation of the Supreme Court

appearing in paragraph 22 of the said report:-

"...The norms and standards have, therefore, to be reasonable and ideal and at the same time, adaptable, attainable and maintainable by institutions throughout the country to ensure both quantitative and qualitative growth of the technically qualified personnel to meet the needs of the country. Since the standards have to be laid down on a national level, they have necessarily to be uniform

throughout the country without which the coordinated and integrated development of the technical education all over the country will not be possible which will defeat one of the main objects of the statute...."

3. He also placed reliance on the following observations appearing in

paragraph 41 of the said decision:-

"...However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally."

4. We have also heard the learned counsel for the AICTE as well as the

learned counsel for the University. The learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the AICTE submitted that the AICTE is the national regulatory body

insofar as the technical education is concerned. He submits that the MBA

course is covered under the definition of „Technical Education‟ as appearing

in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, 1987. He submitted that the norms and

standards prescribed by the AICTE have to be adhered to by all the

educational institutions. He also submitted that the standards prescribed are

the minimum standards. The institution may prescribe higher standards.

The learned counsel for the University submitted that the norms and

standards prescribed by the AICTE have been adhered to by the University.

He submitted that there was no non-compliance of the norms and standards.

According to him, the criteria for eligibility for the MBA course included

academic records/work experience. He referred to the norms and standards

and to the portion which specifies the „entry qualification‟. The said portion

reads as under:-

"ENTRY QUALIFICATION The minimum qualification for entry of Postgraduate Programme in Management is any Bachelor degree recognized by Association of Indian Universities. The selection of candidates to the programme should be done on the following basis: A. An All India Written Admission Test to assess applicants attitude and preparedness as given in Annexure I. B. Academic Records/Work Experience, and C. Performance in group discussion and interview. NOTE:

1. Scores obtained in the All India Written Test would have a minimum weightage of 50%.

2. University may have their own admission test for the institutions affiliated.

3. If admission is not done on the basis of All India Written Test, it is essential to stipulate minimum requirement of 50% aggregate marks in the qualifying bachelors degree if the screening is done at the local/state/regional level."

5. The learned counsel for the University also submitted that the

petitioner participated in the Common Entrance Test which was held for the

academic session 2009 and secured the rank of 3222. He further submitted

that the petitioner was not successful in the first round of counseling and it is

only in the second round of counseling that the petitioner has raised this

issue, belatedly. The learned counsel for the University submitted that the

condition with regard to the requirement of one year work experience was

clearly stipulated in the admission brochure for professional programmes

which was made available for sale on 10.02.2009 and it is pursuant to the

said brochure that the petitioner applied and appeared in the entrance test.

He submitted that for this reason also, the writ petition ought to be

dismissed.

6. In rejoinder, Mr. Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the entry qualification specified by the AICTE indicates that

the selection of candidates to the programme has to be done on the basis of,

inter alia, "academic records/work experience". He submitted that this

meant either the academic records are to be looked into or the work

experience has to be seen and, this is also to be done at the time of selection

of the candidates and not as an eligibility condition. According to Mr. Saini,

after the first round of counseling, 213 seats in MBA part time course and 52

seats in MBA-IB (International Business) course remained vacant and the

last candidate who was offered admission in the MBA part time course had

ranked 2495 at the end of the first round of counseling. Thus, according to

Mr. Saini, the petitioner has a good chance of getting admission in the MBA

part time course in the second round of counseling if this condition of one

year work experience is not insisted upon.

7. We have heard the counsel for the parties, without requiring

respondents to file their counter-affidavits because of the urgency of the

matter. The second counseling is in progress and is likely to go on to

08.09.2009. The learned counsel for the University states that it may even

close earlier, in case all the seats are filled up by then. We find that the

petitioner had graduated from BLS Institute of Management after

completing her course of Bachelor of Business Administration. She applied

for the MBA course of the said University and appeared in the Common

Entrance Test-2009. As aforesaid, she obtained the rank of 3222. At this

juncture, we may note that the eligibility condition stipulated by the

University for the MBA and MBA part time courses are as under:-

"MBA Any recognized Bachelor‟s Degree in any discipline with a minimum of 50% marks in aggregate.

OR Bachelor‟s Degree in Engineering, Technology or any other subject with minimum of 50% marks in aggregate or any qualification recognized as equivalent thereto with minimum of 50% marks in aggregate.

OR Passed the Final Examination of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India or England, the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India or England or the Institute of Company Secretaries of India.

MBA (Part Time)

(a) Graduate from any discipline from a recognized University OR Passed the Final Examination of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India or England, the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India or England or the Institute of Company Secretaries of India.

(b) Must have work experience of minimum one year at the level of Executive/Supervisor/Teaching Faculty in an institution located in NCR Region.

(c) No Objection Certificate from the employer for pursuance of MBA (PT) programme.

The classes of MBA (PT) programme will be held in the evening from 5.00 p.m. onwards."

8. Apart from this, we also observe that the notification with regard to

the counseling/admission to the MBA/MBA(PT)/MBA (International

Business) Course for the year 2009-10 also carried a note, namely, Note -2

to the following effect:-

"2. The requirement for taking admission in MBA (PT) programme should be post qualification experience of minimum one year at the level of Executive/Supervisor/Teaching Faculty in the institution located in NCR. No other experience will be counted in this regard."

9. The petitioner is apprehensive that when she goes for counseling and,

because of her rank, she is offered admission, she would not be granted

admission because she does not meet the eligibility criteria of having „one

year work experience‟. It is for this reason that the petitioner has

approached this Court seeking the striking down of the eligibility criteria of

„one year work experience‟ for admission to the MBA part-time course.

10. The norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE, as mentioned

above, clearly indicate, under the head „Entry Qualification‟, that the

minimum qualification for entry to post graduate programme in management

is any Bachelor degree recognized by the Association of Indian Universities.

It also prescribed that the selection of candidates to the programme should

be done on the basis of - (A) An All India Written Admission Test to

assess applicants aptitude and preparedness as given in Annexure-I thereto;

(B) Academic records/work experience; (C) Performance in group

discussion and interview.

11. Insofar as work experience is concerned, we find that it has been

clearly stipulated under the norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE.

Even if the argument of Mr. Saini is accepted that either academic records or

work experience are to be taken but not both, we find that the University has

not veered away from these norms and standards. This would be apparent

from a look at the eligibility conditions prescribed for the full time MBA

course and the part-time MBA course. For the full time MBA course,

academic records have been considered. This is so, because, for the full

time course, one of the eligibility conditions is that the applicant must have a

recognized Bachelor‟s degree in any discipline with a minimum of 50%

marks in aggregate or a Bachelor‟s degree in Engineering/Technology or

any other subject with 50% marks in aggregate. Such a minimum criteria of

obtaining 50% marks in the aggregate has not been stipulated for the MBA

part-time course. The only requirement is that the applicant must have

graduated from any discipline from a recognized University. However, in

alternative to the stipulation of minimum 50% marks in the aggregate, there

is the stipulation of minimum one-year work experience at the level of

Executive/Supervisor/Teaching Faculty in an institution located in NCR

region.

12. From the above, two things are clear. First of all, the stipulation of

work experience for the MBA part-time course is not contrary to the AICTE

norms and standards because, as mentioned above, the AICTE norms and

standards specifically talks of „work experience‟ as being one of the entry

qualifications. Secondly, even if the argument of Mr. Saini is to be accepted

that academic records and work experience are to be used as alternatives and

only for selection of candidates, that also stands satisfied inasmuch as for the

full-time MBA course, the academic records are looked into, whereas for the

MBA part time course, the alternative, that is, the work experience is looked

into.

13. Mr. Saini‟s argument that this has to be looked into only at the time of

selection is of no consequence as it is ultimately the entry qualification that

has to be based either on academic record or work experience and if one of

them is specified for a particular course then the applicant must satisfy that

requirement. Therefore, we do not find any difficulty in observing that the

University has not contravened the norms and standards prescribed by the

AICTE. There is no conflict between the eligibility conditions prescribed by

the University and the norms and standards stipulated by the AICTE.

14. We now come to the observations of the Supreme Court which have

been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first

observation which was relied upon and which appears at paragraph 22 of the

decision in Adhiyaman's case, makes it clear that the norms and standards

have to be reasonable and ideal and at the same time, adaptable, attainable

and maintainable by institutions throughout the country to ensure both

quantitative and qualitative growth of the technically qualified personnel to

meet the needs of the country. The Supreme Court also observed that since

the standards have to be laid down at a national level, they have necessarily

to be uniform throughout the country without which the coordinated and

integrated development of technical education all over the country would not

be possible and which would defeat one of the main objects of the statute.

It is obvious that these observations are made in the context of norms and

standards to be prescribed by the AICTE. The petitioner in the present case

has no grievance against the norms and standards of the AICTE and,

therefore, reliance on this observation would be of no help to the petitioner‟s

case.

15. With regard to other observation of the Supreme Court, we find that

the Supreme Court observed that when the situations/seats are available and

the State Authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the

applicant has no qualification according to its standards or qualifications, as

the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or

qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. We

are of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner‟s reliance on this

observation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is also

misplaced. This is so because, as we have already observed above, the

University has not prescribed any standards different from those stipulated

by the AICTE. The eligibility conditions of the University are in

consonance with the norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE.

Therefore, reliance on this observation is clearly misplaced.

For the foregoing reasons and circumstances, there is no merit in the

writ petition. The same is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2009 srb