Kerala High Court
Ebin Tom vs Admission Supervisory Committee on 16 February, 2024
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
WP(C) No.12433/2019 1 / 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
Friday, the 16th day of February 2024 / 27th Magha, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12433 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONER:
EBIN TOM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. TOM T. JOSEPH, KUZHIMATTATHIL
THIRUNILAM HOUSE, MATTAKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 564.
RESPONDENTS:
1. ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES IN KERALA,
T.C. 15/1553-4, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS, M.P. APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
2. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM, TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3. THE PRINCIPAL, AMAL JYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOOVAPPILLY,
KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM 686 518.
4. THE DISTRICT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL
EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to issue an interim order, directing the 1st respondent to take
urgent decision of Exhibit-P13 representation expeditiously, pending
disposal of this Writ Petition.
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition
and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this court's order dated
11.07.2019 and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR, Advocate
for the petitioner, SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, STANDING COUNSEL for respondent 1,
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J., Advocate for respondent 2, SMT.G.VIDYA, Advocate for
respondent 3 and of SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for respondent 4,
the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.12433/2019 2 / 15
"C.R."
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, P.G.AJITHKUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2024
ORDER
Does the interpretation given by a Division Bench of this Court
in the judgment in W.A.No.1864/2018 (Ext.P13) that an Associate Member
of the Institute of Engineering (AMIE) cannot aspire for admission to
M.Tech course without a valid GATE score, suffer from any infirmity, is the
controversy that needs to be answered in this reference. The clauses of the
prospectus which were interpreted to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, are
identical to the clauses in the prospectus (Ext.P7) involved in the case on
hand. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in W.P.
(C)No.10430/2019.
2. The relevant clauses of Ext.P7 prospectus issued by the third
respondent, namely, the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University for
admission to the post graduate degree course for engineering reads thus-
"V. Eligibility for admission
a) The candidates shall be an Indian National.
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
b) The candidates should have studied the Graduate course in an
institution approved by the AICTE / Deemed Universities in India.
c) Candidates should have a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in
the Engineering Degree examination. For SC/ST candidates a pass
in the Engineering Degree course is sufficient. For SEBC (OBC)
students, a minimum of 54% aggregate marks in the Engineering
Degree examination is mandatory.
d) Candidates, who have passed AMIE / AMIETE Examinations
and satisfying the following conditions, are eligible for
admission.
1) They must have valid GATE score.
2) A minimum of 55% marks for section B in AMIE/AMIETE
examination.
e) Candidates who have appeared for the final semester
examination can also apply, provided he/she has passed all the
subjects up to and including the 6th semester exam (8th semester
for B. Arch students). Confirmation of admission of such candidates
shall be subject to the production of qualifying degree -before the
date stipulated by the affiliated University.
f) Admission shall normally be restricted to those with valid GATE
score. However, this stipulation is relaxed in the case of Sponsored
candidates.
g) In case seats remain vacant due to lack of candidates with valid
GATE score, candidates from Kerala State without valid GATE
score will be considered against such vacancies. If seats are still
remaining vacant, candidates from other states will be
considered for admission.
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
VIII. Selection of Candidates
1. For Institutions in Annexure A and Annexure B
a) Candidates will have to register their option while submitting the
application.
b) The selection of Candidates will be supervised by the selection
committee consisting of the Director of Technical Education
(Chairman), the Senior Joint Director (ECS) and the principal.
College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram. The Principal,
College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram will be the co-
ordinator and venue of admission work is College of Engineering
Thiruvananthapuram.
c) Selection of candidates will be based on the GATE score. In case
of tie, advantage will be given to the candidates who secure highest
aggregate marks up to 6th semester in their qualifying examination
(8th semester for B. Arch students).
d) If sufficient GATE qualified candidates are not available, the
selection will be made from Keralite candidates based on the
aggregate marks up to 6th semester in their qualifying
examination (8th semester for B.Arch. students). Candidates who
produce Nativity Certificate in original obtained as per Annexure-C,
at the time of admission will only be admitted in this case. A Rank
List will be published based on the GATE Score/Percentage of
marks. Candidates are requested to verify their
branch/Marks/Category etc. at the time of publishing draft Rank
List. After finalizing the Rank List, any alternation on those factors
will not be entertained under any Circumstances.
e) xxx xxx xxx
f) xxx xxx xxx
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
g) xxx xxx xxx
h) xxx xxx xxx
i) xxx xxx xxx
j) xxx xxx xxx" (Emphasis supplied)
3. Before we proceed to answer the controversy, a brief narration
of facts in the referred writ petitions is necessary. Rajasree S., the petitioner,
in W.P.(C)No.10430/2019, holder of Diploma in Electronics Engineering (3
year course) and pass in Sections 'A' and 'B' examinations of AMIE in the
branch of Electronics and Communications and working as Demonstrator in
N.S.S. Polytechnic College, Pandalam, applied for admission to M.Tech in
Engineering in the fifth respondent Engineering College relying on Clauses
V(a), (b) and (d) read with the exemption/relaxation clauses provided in
Clauses V(f) and (g) of Ext.P7 prospectus. The petitioner secured
admission in the fifth respondent College pursuant to which she
successfully completed the first semester. However, after the
commencement of classes for the second semester, the fourth respondent,
that is, the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) issued Ext.P11 order
dated 31/01/2019 withholding approval of admission of the petitioner on the
ground that being an AMIE certificate holder, the petitioner is to produce
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
valid GATE score card. This direction was given based on Ext.P13
judgment dated 22/01/2019.
3.1. According to the petitioner herein, there was no challenge and
hence no adjudication in Ext.P13 case on the question of unreasonable
classification of candidates possessing equivalent qualifications in the
matter of getting admission to the seats lying vacant for want of candidates
with valid GATE score. The relief sought was to direct the ASC not to
insist on the production of GATE score card of the petitioner therein, also an
AMIE certificate holder, as there was no such requirement in the prospectus
and hence the ASC had no authority to insist for the same. The clauses in
Ext.P7 prospectus stipulating eligibility for admission makes an
unreasonable classification of candidates possessing equivalent
qualifications, that too, in respect of giving exemption/relaxation from
having valid GATE score card for filling up the seats lying vacant for want
of candidates with valid GATE score card. Such a classification is irrational,
arbitrary, unreasonable and without any rational nexus to the purpose for
which such classification is made. Hence the writ, seeking inter alia
quashing of Clause V(d) of Ext.P7 prospectus to the extent it makes an
unreasonable classification among B. Tech and AMIE qualified candidates,
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
as it is unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and offending Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India.
4. Ebin Tom, the petitioner, in W.P.(C)No.12433/2019 had earlier
filed W.P(C)No.26850/2017 raising similar issues. The said petition was
dismissed as per judgment dated 26/02/2018. This judgment has been
confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P13 judgment. The
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.10430/2019 by an interim order was permitted to
continue her course at her own risk subject to the result of the writ petition.
The Division Bench also allowed her to write the examinations and the
result to be published. It was in this background, Ebin Tom filed W.P.
(C)No.12433/2019 seeking a similar order.
5. When the aforesaid writ petitions were taken up for hearing, a
Division Bench of this Court doubted the correctness of Ext.P13 judgment
and hence the Reference. Sri. Ebin Tom, the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.26850/2017, an AMIE qualified candidate obtained admission for
M.Tech in the 3rd respondent college, namely, Amal Jyothi College of
Engineering. He was faced with the same situation as faced by the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.10430/2019. In W.P.(C)No.26850/2017, on a
consideration of the various sub-clauses to Clause V in the prospectus, the
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
learned single Judge concluded that persons who had passed
AMIE/AMIETE examinations form a class of their own and hence could
not be included in the general prescription or exemption granted in Clause
V(g) and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
5.1. Aggrieved, Ebin Tom preferred W.A.No.1864/2018 in which
the Division Bench in Ext.P13 held thus -
"7. Assailing the legality of the impugned judgment, the learned Senior
Counsel Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam would refer to the notification
dated 16.1.2006 (Ext.P1) of the Ministry of Human Resource Development to
point out that AMIE qualification obtained through distance mode from the
Institution of Engineers (India), is declared to be equivalent to a B. Tech
degree in Engineering from recognised Universities in India. He also refers
to the communication dated 14.10.2013 (Ext.P2) of the University Grants
Commission which also provides that the degree awarded by the Open and
Distance Learning Institutions should be treated as equivalent, to the
corresponding award of degree of the traditional Universities. Placing heavy
reliance on the Exts.P1 and P2 communications, the counsel would argue
that such equivalence declaration should be extended for the purpose of
securing admission to Post Graduate curriculum by those, with AMIE
qualification.
8. In the context of the above argument, the first thing that strikes us is that
Exts.P1 and P2 do not speak of equivalence of the degrees, for the purpose of
Post Graduate admission. Moreover in the absence of any challenge to the
Ext.P4 prospectus, which prescribes the eligibility norms for Post Graduate
admission under which the petitioner is clearly ineligible, it will be difficult
for us to interpret the Exts.P1 and P2 equivalence declaration, in the manner
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
suggested by the appellant's counsel. This is because the aggrieved party has
made no challenge to the provisions of the prospectus on the ground that they
are against the Exts.P1 and 2 prescription.
9. A reading of the Ext.P4 prospectus and the eligibility criteria prescribed
therein under Clause V clearly suggest that the candidates having a
Graduate Engineering Degree from an institution approved by the AICTE or
deemed University in India are eligible for M. Tech admission, even without
GATE score. Additionally, those Engineering degree holders with valid
GATE score are entitled to preferential ranking in the rank list, prepared for
the eligible candidates. But for the candidates having AMIE/AMIETE
qualification, a valid GATE score is a mandatory eligibility criteria and they
must satisfy the requirement in the Clause (d) so as to merit inclusion in the
rank list of the candidates to be admitted. It is also relevant to note herein
that Sub-clauses (f) and (g) of Clause V deal with situation, where normally
those in possession of valid GATE score, can only be considered for
admission. The GATE score is optional for those holding B. Tech degree, to
determine eligibility for Post Graduate admission. These Sub clauses in our
understanding can apply only for those candidates with a regular
engineering degree, for whom the GATE score is optional. Consequently it
would not apply to those with AMIE qualification where GATE score is a
mandatory requirement, under Clause V(d) of the Ext.P4 prospectus.
10. In the above circumstances, the decision taken by the learned Judge to
dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground that the aspirant with AMIE
qualification without GATE score, were ineligible under the Ext.P4
prospectus to secure admission into the M. Tech curriculum, would not justify
our intervention."
6. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that the expression
"Eligibility for admission" which is the title of Clause V, has to be
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
understood as 'fit and proper to be chosen for admission' or 'qualified to be
selected for admission' [See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Pg.521).
As Clause V contains different sub-clauses, the same have to be interpreted
harmoniously. As evident from Clause V, sub-clause (c) dealing with the
eligibility criteria of candidates who have passed Engineering Degree
Examination, does not stipulate that they must have valid GATE score in
order to become eligible for admission. Whereas, sub-clause (d) dealing
with eligibility criteria of candidates who have passed AMIE/AMIETE
Examinations stipulates that they must have valid GATE score in order to
become eligible for admission. Sub-clause (f) though does not deal with
eligibility criteria for seeking admission, it provides that admission shall
normally be restricted to those with valid GATE score. Of course, it is
clarified in the said sub-clause itself that the stipulation therein is relaxed in
the case of Sponsored candidates. Sub-clause (g) is a provision intended to
deal with a contingency, namely, where seats remain vacant due to lack of
candidates with valid GATE score. It provides that in such a situation,
candidates from Kerala State without a valid GATE score will be considered
for admission against such vacancies. According to the petitioners in the
referred writ petitions, relaxation of the requirement to have valid GATE
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
score as contained in sub-clauses (f) and (g) is available to candidates who
have passed Engineering Degree Examination as also AMIE/AMIETE
Examination. Whereas the stand taken by the Admission Supervisory
Committee (ASC) is that the relaxation of the requirement to have valid
GATE score as contained in sub-clauses (f) and (g) is available only to those
candidates who have passed Engineering Degree Examination.
7. A perusal of the reference order indicates that the learned
Judges of the Division Bench were of the view that there is no distinction
provided in sub-clauses (f) and (g) between the candidates who have passed
Engineering Degree Examination and AMIE/AMIETE Examinations and as
such, the said sub-clauses should apply to both categories of candidates. It is
in this background that the question formulated for decision arises for
consideration.
8. As seen from Clause V, sub-clauses (a) to (e) deal with the
eligibility criteria for seeking admission to M. Tech Course and sub-clauses
(f) and (g) deal with relaxation from the requirement to have a valid GATE
score. In sub-clause (f), before providing for relaxation in favour of
Sponsored candidates, it is stipulated that admission shall normally be
restricted to those with valid GATE score. The relaxation provided in sub-
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
clause (f) is therefore relaxation from the stipulation made therein that
admission shall normally be restricted to those with valid GATE score. It is
due to this reason that the candidates are required to produce along with
their application, the valid GATE score card. In other words, sub-clause (f)
is a clause dealing with the relaxation from the admission criteria. A clause
dealing with relaxation of admission criteria can be availed of only by
eligible candidates. Likewise, sub-clause (g) also is a sub-clause dealing
with relaxation from the admission criteria fixed and not eligibility criteria,
as it is a provision to manage the contingency as regards seats remaining
vacant due to lack of candidates with valid GATE score. Needless to say, the
relaxations provided for in sub-clauses (f) and (g) are not relaxations from
the eligibility criteria, but only relaxations for claiming admission after
complying with the eligibility criteria which in terms of sub-clause (f), is
restricted to those candidates with valid GATE score. It appears to us that it
is on account of the said reason that the word 'normally' is used in sub-
clause (f). If the interpretation as canvassed for by the petitioners and as
endorsed by the Division Bench which referred the matter, is accepted, in
the case of candidates who have passed AMIE/AMIETE Examinations and
aspiring to seek admission under sub-clause (g), the terms of the prospectus
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
would appear to be one enabling them to apply for admission, expecting the
contingency of seats remaining vacant, even when they are not eligible to
the considered for admission if the contingency does not arise. If that were
to be the intention of the makers of the prospectus, there would not have
been any reason at all to prescribe the eligibility conditions in sub clauses
(c) and (d), differently.
9. In Ext.P13, the vires of the Clauses in the prospectus therein,
which are identical to the Clauses in Ext.P7 was not under challenge and
hence the same was never considered by either the learned single Judge or
by the Division Bench. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench
only interpreted the relevant Clauses in the prospectus, which interpretation
has been doubted in the reference order. Therefore, we have confined our
findings to the same only and have not gone into the challenge and
arguments advanced by the petitioner assailing the vires of Clause V(g) in
Ext.P7 as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,
as adjudicating on the same would be beyond the scope of the reference.
10. We answer the reference thus - The Division Bench judgment
in Ext.P13, that is, W.A.No.1864/2018, has rightly interpreted the relevant
Clauses in the prospectus as per which AMIE/AMIETE candidates must
W.P.(C)Nos.10430 and 12433 of 2019
have a valid GATE score for securing admission to M.Tech. The exemption
from GATE score granted is available only to Engineering Degree
candidates.
The writ petitions shall be placed before the Bench concerned
as per roster.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA,
JUDGE
ami/
16-02-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12433/2019
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.1.2019 OF THIS
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.A. NO. 1864/2018
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION IN
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.4.2019
SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
16-02-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
