JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. Petitioner No.1 was granted admission by respondent No.4-College to the diploma/engineering course in Civil Engineering in the year 2011. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were granted admission for the same course but in the Electrical Engineering field. They were denied permission to sit in the examination for the first semester which took place in December, 2011 on the ground that petitioner No.1 had not passed matriculation with English. Petitioner No.2 had not passed matriculation with Science and Petitioner No.3 had not passed matriculation with Mathematics. The petitioners by means of this petition challenged the said order and a Division Bench of this Court on 1st December, 2011 clarified that in case the petitioners succeed in the writ petition the 3rd respondent shall conduct a separate examination for the petitioners. 2. The short point involved in this petition is whether the petitioners fulfilled the minimum eligibility criteria for being admitted to the said courses or not. In the prospectus issued by respondent No.3 H.P.Takniki Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) the eligibility criteria prescribed for being eligible to appear in the Polytechnic Admission Test (PAT) was that the candidate should have either passed the matriculation examination or should have appeared in 2011 in the matriculation examination or its equivalent examination with Science, Mathematics and English from H.P.Board of School Education or any other recognized board in India. Prima facie it appears that this was the eligibility criteria to appear in the test. Even the eligibility prescribed for admission to the courses lays down the minimum eligibility qualification/criteria and as per the prospectus the seats available in the first year of the Engineering and Architectural courses will be filled in through candidates who had passed 10th class from the H.P.School Education Board or equivalent examination from any other recognized Board with Science, Mathematics and English. Thereafter, the admission would be made on the basis of the merit obtained in the PAT. 3. It appears that after the test was conducted a large number of seats remained vacant in the various polytechnic colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, the admission would be made on the basis of the merit obtained in the PAT. 3. It appears that after the test was conducted a large number of seats remained vacant in the various polytechnic colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh. From the letter dated 12th July, 2011 sent by the Director (Technical Education) to the Principal Secretary (Technical Education) it is apparent that out of 7550 seats available in various Government and Private Polytechnics in Himachal Pradesh less than 2700 seats had been filled up after the first round of counselling. Since so many seats had remained vacant, a representation was sent by the Himachal Private Polytechnic Association praying that the eligibility criteria be relaxed and admission may be permitted on relaxed basis so that the seats are not left vacant. The Director (Technical Education) in so far as the present writ petition is concerned, proposed as follows:- (a) For making admission to 1st year in Private Polytechnics in H.P. by the management in the following order for management quota seats and seats remained vacant after last round of central counselling:- (i) On the merit of PAT; (ii) 10th pass with 50% marks (in case of reserved category 45% marks) from recognized State Board of Education or its equivalent; (iii) 10th pass with minimum 35% marks (As per minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the AICTE) from recognized State Board of Education or its equivalent. 4. The proposal of the Director (Technical Education) was duly approved by the Special Secretary (Technical Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 16th July, 2011. Petitioner No.1 has done his matriculation from Bihar School Examination Board. Though he has cleared other subjects, he has not passed in English but overall he has been declared to have passed his 10th class examination. As far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he appeared for the 10th class examination conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling. He did not pass in Science but overall his result is that he has passed. Petitioner No.3 also appeared for the 10th class examination conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling and she has not appeared in Mathematics. This was not one of her subjects. 5. He did not pass in Science but overall his result is that he has passed. Petitioner No.3 also appeared for the 10th class examination conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling and she has not appeared in Mathematics. This was not one of her subjects. 5. After the issuance of the letter dated 12th July, 2011 as approved by the Special Secretary on 16th July, 2011 respondent No.4 granted admission to the applicants despite their not having passed in the subjects of English, Science and Mathematics, respectively. The explanation given by respondent No.4 is that as per the relaxed criteria laid down it was the criteria of the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) which had to be followed and in this criteria there is no stipulation that the candidates should have passed the 10th class examination in these subjects. We are presently concerned only with the subjects falling in the fields of Engineering and Technology and as per the guidelines of AICTE the criteria is as follows: - Programme Duration Eligibility Engineering & Technology 3 / 4 years. Passed 10th std/SSC examination obtained at least 35% marks at the qualifying examination 6. Thus as per the AICTE to be eligible to be admitted to the programme in Engineering and Technology the candidate should have passed his 10th standard examination and should have obtained at least 35% marks at the qualifying examination. 7. At the outset, it may be stated that the criteria laid down by the Board cannot be said to be wrong. For admission to the Engineering and Architectural courses it was compulsory for the candidates to have passed in the subjects of Science, Mathematics and English. However, thereafter the State took a conscious decision to dilute this criteria. As per the recommendation made by the Director (Technical Education) which have been approved by the Government the Management was to fill up the management quota seats firstly on the basis of the merit obtained in PAT wherein the petitioners would definitely not eligible; secondly, having passed 10th class examination with 50% marks (45% marks in case of reserved category) in which also the petitioners would not be eligible. However, as far as the 3rd category is concerned the State approved the recommendation that those who had passed 10th class with minimum 35% marks as per minimum eligibility criteria by the AICTE would be eligible for admission under this category. As pointed out above that as per the criteria laid down by the AICTE in its Approval Process Hand Book (2011-2012) there is no requirement that the candidates should have passed matriculation or 10th class examination in the subjects of Science, Mathematics or English. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid factors, I am of the considered view that respondent No.4 College was fully justified in granting admission to the petitioners on the basis of their having passed 10th class examination with more than 35% marks even though they may not have passed in the subjects which according to the H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board were compulsory. The stand of the State as reflected in the affidavit of the Director (Technical Education) is that the eligibility criteria of having passed 10th class with these subjects was not in any manner whittled by the subsequent relaxation. I am afraid that this does not appear to be correct especially when we read clause-iii of the relaxation clause which clearly states that admission would be granted as per the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the AICTE. Therefore, in my view the petitioners were wrongly denied permission to appear in the examination for the first semester to the courses to which they belong. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to conduct special examination of the petitioners in accordance with the order of this Court dated 1st December, 2011. 9. Before parting with the case, I want to make it clear that the H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board is well within its right to lay down higher qualification(s) than those laid down by the AICTE and this judgement has been delivered specifically in the context of the letter dated 12th July, 2011 as approved by the State Government on 16th July, 2011. In future if the State feels that it is necessary and desirable that the candidates must have passed the 10th class examination with the subjects of Mathematics, English and Science the State can lay down such criteria but that should be clearly set out in its communication. In future if the State feels that it is necessary and desirable that the candidates must have passed the 10th class examination with the subjects of Mathematics, English and Science the State can lay down such criteria but that should be clearly set out in its communication. While allowing this writ petition, I am also taking into consideration the fact that these young students were not at fault. The petitioners did not misrepresent any facts. The College in a sense was not also at a fault because the letter issued by the State Government indicated that it was only the qualifications of the AICTE which were to be followed. In case the State Government intended that the candidates should have passed these examinations, it should have clearly said so in the letter whereby relaxation was given. Examination of the petitioners be conducted latest by 31st January, 2012 and the petitioners shall be given provisional admission as per the rules to the second semester.