Kerala High Court
Roshan K.J vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2024
1
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18600 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 ROSHAN K.J.,
AGED 18 YEARS,
S/O M KAMARUDEEN,
196 SHANTHI NAGAR,
AYATHIL.P.O, KOLLAM-691021.
2 AEBEL JOB,
AGED 18 YEARS,
S/O JOB K L, GRACE VILLA,
KATTADI HOUSE, SOUTH BAZAR,
EAST FORT.P.O, NELLIKUNNU, THRISSUR-5.
3 FARHAN IZAAZ,
AGED 18 YEARS,
S/O ISMAIL KUNNUMANJADGOTHI,
KUNNUMANJAGOTHI HOUSE,
MINICOY ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682559.
BY ADVS.
SAJU J PANICKER
SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
SMT. AISWARYA V.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
2 SENIOR DIRECTOR,
JEE(MAIN), NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WEST BLOCK-1,
WING NO.6, 2ND FLOOR, R K PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
3 REGISTRAR,
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE,
INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, CORE 6A,1ST FLOOR,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
4 CHAIRMAN,
CENTRAL SEAT ALLOCATION BOARD-2019,
NATIONAL INTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
THIRUCHIMRAPALLI, TAMIL NADU-620015.
5 CHAIRPERS0N,
JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY 2019,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
THIRUCHIRAPALLI, TAMIL NADU-620015.
6 ADDL.R6-THE REGISTRAR,
SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE, BHOPAL,
NEELBAD ROAD, BHAURI, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH - 462030.
7 ADDL.R7-THE CHAIRPERSON,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS
P.O, CALICUT - 673601 [IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
04.06.2024 IN IA.1/2024 IN WP(C) 18600/2019]
BY ADVS.
SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN, CGC
SMT.Laya Mary Joseph, GP
Sri.NIRMAL S, SC, NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY
SRI.SHYAM PADMAN (SR.)(K/939/1990)
SRI.C.M.ANDREWS(K/000070/1989)
SRI.HARISH ABRAHAM(K/764/2007)
SMT.ASHWATHI SHYAM(K/1451/2020)
SMT.SWATHY SUDHIR(K/2677/2022)
SRI.BOBY M.SEKHAR(K/422/2008)
SRI.ISAC T.PAUL
SRI.JOHN NELLIMALA SARAI
SRI.RAM MOHAN(K/2812/2023)
3
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
OTHER PRESENT:
S.NIRMAL,ADDL.R7
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition
challenging Exts.P14 and P15 cancellation letters, issued by the 4th
respondent, by which their admission to the B-Arch course was
cancelled.
2. Straightaway, it may be noticed that the 1st petitioner has
not pursued admission to the course and as of now, the grievances
of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners alone need to be considered in this writ
petition.
3. Petitioners 2 and 3 had completed their plus two course
and they had applied for being considered for admission to the B-
Arch Course. The petitioners claim that they made such applications
on the basis of Ext.P16 notification issued by the Council of
Architecture dated 29.05.2017, wherein the qualification prescribed
was as under:
"(1) No candidate shall be admitted to architecture course
unless she/he has passed an examination at the end of the
10+2 scheme of examination with 50% marks in Physics,
Chemistry and Mathematics and also 50% marks in
aggregate of the 10+2 level examination"."
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
4. Again, the petitioners point out with reference to Exts.P17
and P19 dated 12.02.2019 and 25.09.2018 respectively, that the
qualifications prescribed in Ext.P16 were repeated. It is on the basis
of the above qualifications, being satisfied by petitioners 2 and 3,
that they applied for the B-Arch Course Entrance Examinations
conducted by the 2nd respondent-Agency. The petitioners further
point out that, pursuant to Exts.P8 and P9, the results as regards the
entrance examinations attended by them were declared and both of
them were declared as qualified. On that basis, the petitioners point
out that Exts.P11 and P12 allotment letters were also issued by
allotting the 2nd petitioner to the School of Planning and Architecture,
Bhopal, and the 3rd petitioner to the NIT, Calicut. Till the above, the
petitioners were satisfied.
5. However, the matters took a u-turn pursuant to Exts.P14
and P15 dated 02.07.2019 and 29.06.2019 respectively, by which
the allotment granted to 2nd and 3rd petitioners stood cancelled, as
they did not have the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed. The
petitioners pointed out that they were surprised upon receipt of
Exts.P14 and P15.
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
6. Therefore, they made further enquiries, upon which they
came to know about Ext.P20, Business Rules for Joint Seat Allocation
for the Academic Programs offered by the IITs, NITs, IIEST, IIITs and
Other-GFTIs for the academic year 2019-20 issued on 16.06.2019.
As per the said business rules, the petitioners point out that the
minimum eligibility criteria stood revised and as against the 50%
required for the plus-two examination in aggregate, 75% minimum
aggregate was prescribed for the 1st time pursuant to Ext.P20. The
amendment, as above, in Ext.P20 is as under:
"1. One of the criteria for admission to NITS/IIITS/Other
participating GFTls is that the candidate should satisfy at
least one of these two criteria: (i) The candidate is within
the category-wise top 20 percentile of successful candidates
in their respective Class XII (or equivalent) examination of
respective stream and Board.
(ii) The candidate has secured minimum 75% (for GEN or
OBC-NCL) or minimum 65 % (for SC, ST or PWD) of
aggregate marks in the Class XII (or equivalent) examination
of respective stream and Board."
It is in the above situation that petitioners 2 and 3 have filed the
captioned writ petition, challenging Exts.P14 and P15, contending
that there is no justification for the change in the qualification after
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
the date of Ext.P16.
7. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of
respondents 1, 3 and 5, essentially supporting the impugned action
and relying on the changes notified in the JEE exams as above. A
separate counter affidavit was filed by the additional 7th respondent.
8. I have heard Sri.P.K.Vijaya Mohanan, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri.Jagadeesh Lakshman, the learned Central
Government Counsel for respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5, Smt.Laya Mary
Joseph, the counsel for the additional 7th respondent, and
Sri.S. Nirmal, represented by Smt.Keerthi Johnson for the 2nd
respondent.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
it is the settled principle of law that a qualification, once prescribed
and acted upon by the applicant, cannot be changed to his detriment
after the original date of notification/application. Therefore, he points
out that Ext.P20 dated 16.06.2019, by which the increase in the
minimum qualification from 50% to 75%, cannot be made
applicable, as against petitioners 2 and 3.
10. Per contra, Sri.Jagadeesh Lakshman, the learned Central
Government Counsel, points out that Ext.P20 has to be taken into
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
account while considering the eligibility for admission of the
petitioners, insofar as, the examinations attended by the petitioners
were during 2019.
11. Smt.Laya Mary Joseph, the learned counsel for the
additional 7threspondent, vehemently points out that the petitioners
are not entitled to succeed insofar as, the reliance based on Ext.P16
was out of place. According to her Ext.P16 is only the notification by
which the Council of Architecture prescribed the qualification. She
would submit that the examinations are being conducted pursuant
to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent. She would place
reliance on Ext.R7(a) and point out that it is only pursuant to the
above that the prescription of the minimum qualification was carried
out, as regards the admission to the B-Arch Course. Therefore,
according to her, it is Ext.R7(a) which has to govern the field and not
Ext.P16. She would also place reliance on the Judgment of the Delhi
High Court in Prateek Singhal v. National Testing Agency [2019
IXAD (Delhi) 68], which considered an identical situation with
reference to an examination for the JEE/B-Arch entrance during
2019.
12. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
connected records.
13. The admitted facts are that petitioners 2 and 3 made an
application for attempting the entrance examination conducted by
the 2nd respondent for the B-Arch course. The petitioners claim that
they are entitled for admission on the basis of the qualifications
prescribed under Ext.P16. However, the above contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be accepted for the
reason that it is not in pursuance of Ext.P16 that the entrance
examinations were being conducted by the 2nd respondent herein.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the additional 7 th
respondent, it was pursuant to Ext.R7(a) that the entrance
examinations were carried out. When that be so, the petitioners 2
and 3 ought to have secured the minimum qualifications prescribed
therein. They cannot take refuge under Ext.P16. The judgment of
the Delhi High Court cited by the counsel for the additional 7 th
respondent has considered an identical issue as laid down in
paragraphs 33, 34 and 36 in Prateek Singhal v. National Testing
Agency [2019 IXAD (Delhi) 68], which read as follows:
"33. That the Council of Architecture being a regulatory
body, has prescribed the minimum eligibility criteria under
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
the 1983 Regulations, cannot take away from the fact that
a higher benchmark of excellence can be prescribed for
admission to Institutions, who have agreed to participate in
the JEE (Main) Examination, 2019 conducted by the
respondent No.1/NTA wherein, a more stringent criteria has
been prescribed by the respondent No.2/JoSAA in the
Information Bulletin for JEE (Main) 2019, First Attempt and
Second Attempt which remained unaltered all along.
Candidates attempting the said entrance examination were
still expected to secure at least 75% marks in the 12 th
standard examination or be in the top 20 percentile in the
12th class examination conducted by the respective Boards.
34. When examined in the aforesaid background, we have
no manner of doubt that the requirement of 50% aggregate
marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and
50%marks in aggregate of the 10+2 examination
prescribed by the Council of Architecture on revising the
eligibility criteria laid down in the 1983 Regulations for the
B.Arch course for the academic session 2019-20 onwards,
cannot prescribe the respondent No.2/JosAA from setting a
higher benchmark in the examination conducted for joint
seat allocation in the NIT's, IIT's and CFTI's, which had all
along remained consistent and a candidate had to secure
minimum of 75% marks in the 12th class examination or to
be in the top 20 percentile for general category candidates
and 65% marks for candidates in the SC/ST categories, as
contained in the two Information Bulletins published in
September, 2018 and 08.02.2019, respectively.
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
35. xxx xxx xxx
36. The Notification dated 21.08.2018 issued by the MHRD,
UOI clearly states that the JAB is the final authority for
formulating policies, rules and regulations for conducting the
JEE (Mains) twice a year, it being an expert body that has
been entrusted with the duty of conducting the JEE Main-
2019 examination in IITs/NITs and other CFTI's. Towards
this end, JAB is required to take all necessary steps as it may
think fit for making admissions in the participant institutions
which would include prescribing the eligibility criteria that
may even be more rigorous than the minimum prescribed
standard set down in the 1983 Regulations, with the object
of advancing the cause of higher education in India. Just
because the Council of Architecture has prescribed a
minimum standard for admission in the B.Arch course cannot
in any way inhibit the JAB from fixing an additional and more
stringent eligibility criteria for candidates who elect to
participate in the Common Seat Allocation Process regulated
by the JEE (Main) 2019 examination. Moreover, the need of
allowing a higher eligibility criteria was duly examined by the
Committee of eminent persons appointed by the IIT Council
and the Committee's report had been duly approved by the
Chairman, IIT Council for conducting the JEE (Mains) 2017
examination and ever since then, it has been applied for the
succeeding years, without any exception.
In the light of the above, petitioners 2 and 3 may not be entitled for
claiming an admission, on the basis of Ext.P16.
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
14. In the normal course, petitioners 2 and 3 are now to be
non-suited, on account of the afore circumstances and the legal
position. However, this Court notices that the petitioners have filed
the captioned writ petition on 08.07.2019 challenging Exts.P14 and
P15. On 19.07.2019, while admitting the writ petition, this Court
specifically directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to join
the course, in accordance with the allotment at Exts.P11 and P12. It
is true that this Court had also noticed that such admission would be
provisional and subject to final orders to be passed by this Court.
15. Sri.P.K.Vijaya Mohanan, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, points out that pursuant to the said orders, petitioners 2
and 3 had joined for the B-Arch course, and they have also
completed the course. He points out that after such competition,
petitioners 2 and 3 attended the final examinations and came out
successful in the examinations. He points out that what remains now
is only the issue of the degree certificate to the petitioners 2 and 3.
16. In such circumstances, he points out that indulgence may
be shown as regards petitioners 2 and 3 and they be permitted to
enjoy their success in the final exams.
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
17. I have considered the said submission made by
Sri.P.K.Vijaya Mohanan. The Apex Court in Monika Ranka and
Others v. Medical Council of India and Others [(2010)10 SCC
233], considering the situation where irregular/illegal admissions
were provided to certain students, had considered the question as to
whether they be permitted to continue in the course pursuant to the
admission after the entrance examination. Considering the afore
situation, the Apex Court found as under:
"5. In the Regulation published it was stated that the
candidates should have secured more than 50% marks in
the entrance examination. There is nothing on record to
show that these appellants were informed of the marks
secured by them in the entrance examination. As these
appellants have already completed one year of their course,
equities are in favour of the appellants. But, however, we
maintain the judgment of the High Court, as regards the
principle laid down, but we direct that these appellants may
be allowed to continue their MBBS course as a special case
and their results of the 1st year MBBS course may also be
declared so that they may continue with their studies."
Again, in National Board of Examinations v. Ami Rajesh Shah
and Others [(2012) 13 SCC 528], the Apex Court considered the
admission to the DNB course, pursuant to some confusion in the
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
mind of students/hospital to which they were admitted. Considering
the above, the Apex Court laid down the following:
"6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties to the lis,
we are of the that there existed a confusion in the minds of
the students and the hospital while admitting the
respondents - doctors for the Diplomate of National Board
Course ('DNB course' for short) despite the rules framed by
the Board. Because of this confusion the students had taken
admission in the respondent - hospital, though there were
rules framed by the Board. Be that as it may.
7. Since the respondent - doctors possess the necessary
qualification and have already taken admission in the
respondent college and have been prosecuting their studies
for nearly two and a half years out of three years' course,
we need not come in the way of students from completing
their course. Keeping this in view and in the interest of
welfare of students, we decline to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
8. Shri M.L. Verma, submits that the rules framed by the
Board are binding on all the colleges which are accredited to
the Board. We do not intend to comment on this issue, since
we are granting relief to the respondent on the principles of
equity. Therefore, broad proposition canvassed by the
learned Senior Counsel is kept open to be agitated in an
appropriate case."
Again, this Court in Christy Joseph v. Mahatma Gandhi
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
University and Others [2022(4) KLT 780], has laid down the
following principles:
"12. In this regard, my path is fully illuminated by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Selin Mary
Mammen v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others (2008
KHC 7286), wherein, in a different set of circumstances,
namely where a candidate fell short by one mark out of the
total of 1000 marks, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed
regularization of her admission as a One Time Measure, but
without making it a precedent.
13. In the case at hand, the petitioner is, in fact, the victim
of an action committed by the Principal of the College; who,
in turn, went by the advice of the Academic Council, which
had at least three nominees of the University. When the said
nominees did not bring it to the notice of the Principal that
the Prospectus had been altered or changed, I cannot find
fault with the former in having admitted the petitioner. This
is more so because the University has not explained in their
pleadings, how their nominees had omitted to bring to the
notice of the Principal that the Prospectus had been altered,
from that which was published in the year 2017.
For the afore reasons and singularly in the realm of facts
above noticed, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P7
and P8%; with a consequential direction to the University to
regularize the admission of the petitioner in the 3rd
respondent - College and allow him to complete the course
and to issue the Certificate of Degree, subject to every other
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
statutory condition and criterion being satisfied. This shall be
done by the University not later than six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say and
merely for reiteration, this judgment is only intended for the
petitioner and for no other person, since it has been issued
in the specific and peculiar circumstances noticed."
Thus, in deserving cases, it is true that this Court is having power
and authority to permit the students to continue the course and also
come out after attending the final examinations.
18. In the case at hand, it is to be noticed that the petitioners
2 and 3, joined for the course during 2019, pursuant to the interim
orders issued by this Court. As noticed above, they have also
completed the course and have come out successful after the final
examinations. Petitioners 2 and 3 have also filed I.A.No.4/2024,
seeking direction to the educational institutions in which, they have
studied, to issue the degree certificates. Thus, it is proved that they
have completed the course and also come out successfully.
19. In such circumstances, considering the petitioners' case a
special case, this Court would direct respondents 6 and 7, to process
the petitioners' claim for degree certificates and issue the same
immediately in view of the assertion by the learned counsel that the
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
convocation is scheduled to be conducted on 24.10.2024.
The writ petition is disposed of, as above.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ANA
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18600/2019
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS STATEMENT OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS STATEMENT OF
THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS STATEMENT OF
THE 3RD PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ISSUED TO
THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ISSUED TO
THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ISSUED TO
THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT ENTRANCE
EXAMINATION(MAIN)-2019 NTA SCORE OF THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT ENTRANCE
EXAMINATION (MAIN)-2019 NTA SCORE OF THE
2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT ENTRANCE
EXAMINATION (MAIN)-2019 NTA SCORE OF THE
3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SEAT
ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 28.06.2019 ISSUED
TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SEAT
ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 27.06.2019 ISSUED
TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SEAT
ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 27.06.2019 ISSUED
TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEAT CANCELLATION
LETTER DATED 01.07.2019 OF THE 1ST
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEAT CANCELLATION
LETTER DATED 01.07.2019 OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEAT CANCELLATION
LETTER DATED 01.07.2019 OF THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION DATED
06.06.2017 IN THE GAZETTE.
EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION DATED
13.02.2019 IN THE GAZETTE.
EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICES DATED
25.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUSINESS RULES.
Exhibit P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD OF THE
2ND PETITIONER NO. SPAB/AEO/2018-19 DATED
22.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE SCHOOL OF PLANNING
AND ARCHITECTURE, BHOPAL.
Exhibit P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION RECORD DATED
20.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE NIT CALICUT, IN
RESPECT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
Exhibit P23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT
DATED 14.05.2024 FROM ASIAN PAINTS TO THE
2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION
DATED 19.09.2024 FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P25 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
04.10.2024 FOR REMITTANCE OF THE
CONVOCATION FEE.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R7(a) True copy of the relevant extract of
information bulletin published by the 2nd
respondent for JEE (Main) - January 2019.
WP(C)No.18600 of 2019 2024:KER:77305
Exhibit R7(b) True copy of the information bulletin
published by the 2nd respondent for JEE
(Main) - April 2019.
