Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the minimum eligibility criteria as Mathematics at 10 +2 level for MCA admission by the first respondent as ultravires the Constitutioni, being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of Constitution of India, with a consequential prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the TANCET examination scheduled on 30.03.2012. 2. The Secretary, TANCET (Examination and Administration), Anna University invited application for admission to Master of Computer Application Course, which is a Post Graduate Degree Course in Computer Application. 3. The admission to Master of Computer Application Course was on the basis of entrance examination conducted by the State Government, now being conducted by the Secretary, TANCET (Examination and Administration), Anna University. 4. The eligibility criteria for admission to M.C.A. Course reads as under:- "2.) M.C.A: A pass in a recognised Bachelor's degree of minimum three years duration in 10+2+3/4 years (or) 10+3 years Diploma + 3 years pattern in any discipline with Mathematics at +2 level and obtained atleast 50% (45% in case of candidates belonging to reserved category) at the qualifying examination. Note: (i) candidates admitted through lateral entry in degree courses are not eligible except, B.E./B.Tech. degree courses. (ii) Candidates with B.E./B.Tech./M.C.A./M.Sc. degrees obtained through weekend courses and B.E./B.Tech. through distance mode are not eligible. Those who are appearing for final year / semester examination of the above qualifying degree in April / May 2012 can also apply for TANCET 2012. Application Form is common for all the three entrance tests. Candidates have to submit only one application. The candidates have to pay a fee of Rs.500/- (Rs.250/-for SC/SCA/ST candidates belonging to Tamil Nadu on production of a copy of Permanent Community Certificate in card format) as entrance test fee for any one of the programmes either (1) M.B.A. or (2) M.C.A. or (3) M.E./M.Tech./M.Arch./M.Plan. If a candidate desires to appear for more than one programme, for every additional programme, he / she has to pay Rs.500/- (Rs.250/-for SC/SCA/ST candidates belonging to Tamilnadu). Note: Spot Registration can be made at all the Centres on all the days as above between 9.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. except on Sundays and Public Holidays. If a candidate desires to appear for more than one programme, for every additional programme, he / she has to pay Rs.500/- (Rs.250/-for SC/SCA/ST candidates belonging to Tamilnadu). Note: Spot Registration can be made at all the Centres on all the days as above between 9.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. except on Sundays and Public Holidays. For further details, visit Anna University Website: www.annauniv.educ/tancet2012" 5. The petitioner applied for admission to M.C.A. Course and he was given the hall ticket for the examination, scheduled on 31.03.2012. The petitioner has qualified in Bachelor of Computer Application with the following subjects:- "FIRST YEAR SUBJECTS:- 1. French 2. Communication English (Interpersonal Communication) 3. E-Programming 4. Digital Fundamental and Computer Organization 5. Mathematics 1 6. Lab 1 (C Programming) 7. Lab 2 (Office Automation) SECOND YEAR SUBJECTS:- 1. Core Java 2. Data Base Management System 3. Operating System 4. Computer Application in Bank, Insurance and Textiles 5. Business Accounting 6. Programme of Java (Lab) 7. DBMS (Lab) 8. Diploma in Professional Grooming & Practice 9. Foundation Course (Environment of Study) 10. Visual Basic and Visual Basic Net Programming 11. Computer Graphics and Multimedia 12. Data Communication and Network 13. Business Process Outsourcing 14. Principles of Marketing Management THIRD YEAR SUBJECTS:- 1. HTML 2. UML 3. Ethics 4. Object Oriented Analysis and Design 5. Software Engineering 6. Information Security System 7. Web Technology 8. XML 9. Data Warehousing 10. Software Testing 11. Enterprise Resource Planning" 6. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 issued a notification, calling upon the authorities to get back the hall ticket issued to the students on the ground that the first respondent / All India Council for Technical Education has issued guidelines in the Approval Process Hand Book (2011-2012), AICTE specifying the eligibility for admission to M.C.A. Course as follows:- MCA 3 Yrs Recognised Bachelors Degree of minimum three years duration with Mathematics at 10+2 level. Obtained at least 50% (45% in case of candidate belonging to reserved category) at the qualifying examination. 7. The petitioner did not have Mathematics as one of the Subjects in +2 level, but did Computer Science. However, he has studied the subject of Mathematics in his B.C.A. Degree Course. 8. The notification issued by the respondent no.1 debars the candidates who have done +2 in Statistics as one of the subjects, from taking of M.C.A. Course. 9. 7. The petitioner did not have Mathematics as one of the Subjects in +2 level, but did Computer Science. However, he has studied the subject of Mathematics in his B.C.A. Degree Course. 8. The notification issued by the respondent no.1 debars the candidates who have done +2 in Statistics as one of the subjects, from taking of M.C.A. Course. 9. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notification, on the following grounds: i) That the condition of Mathematics at +2 level, is arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, as it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. ii) That the impugned condition even otherwise is arbitrary and discriminatory as students who possessed the degree of B.C.A. with +2 Statistics as subject, have no avenue of further studies, whereas their classmates, who have undergone the same course of B.C.A. with +2 Mathematics are eligible for admission to MCA course. This creates artificial classification between similarly situated students, thus, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution; iii) That the impugned notification is also contrary to the curriculum for M.C.A. Degree issued by the respondent No.1, which contemplates as follows:- The students entering M.C.A must have a B.C.A / B.Sc. / B.Com / B.A degree with Mathematics as one of the subjects at 10 +2 level or at graduation" 10. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, on the ground that it is prerogative on the University to prescribe the eligibility condition, being an expert body and the decision of the University in this regard is outside the purview of judicial review, as it is not open to the Court to decide as to what should be the eligibility condition for admission to the course, being not an expert. 11. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.M.Bhargava vs. University Grants Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 661 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under: "13.) The Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the UGC shows that the UGC constituted a nine-member Committee which after discussion and deliberations recommended opening of the departments of "Jyotir Vigyan" in universities for award of degrees. The Committee has recommended to create such courses only in 20 out of 41 universities which had applied for the same and the degree which would be awarded will be B.A./B.A.(Hons.)/M.A./Ph.D. The decision to start the course has been taken by an expert body constituted by the UGC. The courts are not expert in academic matters and it is not for them to decide as what course should be taught in university and what should be their curriculum. This caution was sounded in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 wherein Gajendragadkar,J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench held that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. In this case challenge was made to certain appointments and the Bench held that what the High Court should consider is whether the appointment made by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Board had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations on which the Chancellor has acted. This principle was reiterated in J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University 1980 (3) SCC 418 wherein it was held as under: "While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But university organs, for that matter any authority in our system are bound by the rule of law and cannot be law unto themselves. If the Chancellor or any other authority lesser in level decides an academic matter or an educational question, the court keeps its hands off; but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the court out." 14.) The above mentioned principle has been consistently followed by this Court and it is not necessary to burden this judgment by giving references of those cases. 15.) The appellants do not allege breach of any statutory provision, rule or regulation. 15.) The appellants do not allege breach of any statutory provision, rule or regulation. Their complaint is that the inclusion of Jyotir Vigyan as a course of study in the university is wrong as the accuracy or correctness of the subject, namely Jyotir Vigyan has not been established by the scientific tests or experiments. The precise question as to whether Jyotir Vigyan should be included as a course of study having been considered and examined by an Expert Body of UGC and they having recommended for including the said course for study and award of degree in universities, it will not be proper for this Court to interfere with the aforesaid decision specially when no violation of any statutory provisions is demonstrated." 12. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that: "It is the University Authority who knows best as to what is their requirement. If it was necessary for the University to fill up the post from the stream of Industrial Chemistry, it would have so indicated in the advertisement itself for in subsequent years specific advertisement was issued by the University for filling up the post of Lecturer in Industrial Chemistry by issuing an advertisement specifically in that regard. The University, according to its Statutes 22, 21, 19 and 17(2)(i), undertakes multitier exercise for laying down essential qualification for a particular post and then it is advertised. It is also established from the records that Pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different subjects. The post advertised was meant for a person belonging to Pure Chemistry Department for if it was otherwise, then it would have been so mentioned in the advertisement itself that a person holding a Master's degree in Industrial Chemistry should only apply or that a person holding such a degree could also apply along with other persons. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself. In the matter of selection of candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee should be final, but at the same time, the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in the selection process midstream. In the matter of selection of candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee should be final, but at the same time, the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in the selection process midstream. There could have been intending candidates who would have applied for becoming candidate as against the said advertised post, had they known and were informed through advertisement that Industrial Chemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up the said post. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement. 13. This judgment has no application to the facts of the case, as the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was, regarding the decision of the selection committee, being an expert body, which was to be respected, it was held, that selection committee cannot change selection criteria midway, therefore, this judgment has no application to the point raised in this writ petition. 14. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. The All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, has issued curriculum for MCA degree, as suggested by All India Board of Computer Science, Engg./Tech and Applications, wherein pre requisites for MCA course, is prescribed as under: "2.1 MCA Course Pre-requisites and Period:- M.C.A is a three year (6 semester) course. The students entering M.C.A. must have a B.C.A/ B.Sc./ B.Com/ B.A. Degree with Mathematics as one of the subjects at 10 +2 level or at graduation. Of the six semesters one semester is to be spent in any industry developing a software system. The M.C.A. Programme is planned to have 5 theory subject plus two laboratories each semester. The curriculum has a strong core covering information technology, business management and mathematics." 15. It cannot be disputed, that the instructions issued by the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, are binding on the university. It is not for the University to deviate from the curriculum prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education. 16. The curriculum has a strong core covering information technology, business management and mathematics." 15. It cannot be disputed, that the instructions issued by the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, are binding on the university. It is not for the University to deviate from the curriculum prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education. 16. Once the expert body, like the All India Council for Technical Education, has prescribed, that the students entering MCA must have B.C.A./B.Sc./B.Com./B.A.degree with Mathematicsas one of the subjects at 10+2 level or at graduation, it was not open to the University to modify the curriculum to exclude the students, who had done Mathematics at 10+2 level, to exclude the candidates, who had Mathematics at graduation level. 17. The impugned eligibility condition, therefore, is contrary to the recommendations of the expert body. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.M.Bhargava vs. University Grants Commission, (supra), did not rule out the judicial review completely, but was pleased to lay down that in case decision of the university is in violation of any statutory provisions of law, then it can be examined by the Courts. 18. It is well established law, that even in case of exercise of legislative function by the Government, if the decision is in violation of Statute or is arbitrary or is in violation of the constitutional provisions, then it is open to judicial review. 19. The impugned eligibility condition is on the face of it arbitrary, as it defeats the object sought to be achieved, and further defeats the right of the eligible students to education. The impugned condition debars a student, though qualified BCA examination, which is the eligibility condition for admission to MCA from consideration for admission to MCA, based on artificial classification. 20. The impugned condition is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it makes artificial classification between similarly situated persons, i.e. BCA / B.Sc., graduation from the same university, who have studied together and have obtained the same degree, merely, on the basis of their having taken the subject of Statistics or Mathematics in +2, this artificial classification between similarly situated persons would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, cannot be sustained. 21. 21. The impugned eligibility condition is not only contrary to the statutory instruction, issued by the All India Council for Technical Education, but is also violative of Constitution Guarantee to Education, thus, is on the face of it arbitrary, thus not sustainable in law. 22. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 cannot justify imposing of arbitrary condition for admission to MCA course to make a candidate, who is eligible under the instructions of the All India Council for Technical Education, to be ineligible by the university. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also did not rule out the judicial interference with the decision of the University, if the decision is in violation of Statute or otherwise arbitrary or violative of Constitutional provisions of law. 24. For the reasons stated herein above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned eligibility condition is quashed. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued to accept the candidature of the petitioner for MCA course based on his merit in the competitive examination, by considering the eligibility condition, as laid down by the All Indian Council for Technical Education in their curriculum for MCA degree based on the expert opinion. 25. The respondents are directed to declare the results of the competitive examination of petitioner and if eligible, admit him, as the petitioner has already taken the competitive examination under the interim order passed by this Court. 26. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.