Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, who is aspiring for admission to B.Arch degree course in anyone of the colleges affiliated to Anna University, Chennai-25, has filed this writ petition challenging the circular issued by the first respondent dated 30.4.2012 to quash the wordings "Business Mathematics not eligible" occurring under Note to Clause 1 of Guideline No.13 and to direct the first respondent to consider the application No.1920 of the petitioner for admission to B.Arch degree Course 2012-2013. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner passed Plus Two (+2) examinations held in March, 2012 from the Tamil Nadu State Board and secured 1130 out of 1200 marks. Petitioner passed Business Mathematics as one of the subject in Plus Two and appeared for National Aptitude Test in Architecture, conducted by the second respondent, Council of Architecture. She scored 82 out of 200 marks in the Aptitude Test. The eligibility prescribed for admission to B.Arch degree course fixed by the second respondent is 80 out of 200 marks in Aptitude Test. Petitioner belongs to Puthirai Vannan community, which is recognised as Scheduled Caste community by the State Government. The Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk issued community certificate, certifying that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled caste community. 3. Petitioner applied for admission to B.Arch degree course with registration No.1920. An objection was raised based on the circular of the first respondent dated 30.4.2012 stating that the candidates, who studied Business Mathematics paper in Plus Two, are not eligible for admission to B.Arch degree course. It is the contention of the petitioner that the syllabus and course contents of Business Mathematics is similar to the syllabus and course contents of other branches of Mathematics and there is no material to declare that the candidates, who took Business Mathematics in Plus Two are ineligible for admission to B.Arch degree course. The second respondent by communication dated 18.6.2012 addressed to the first respondent certified that the candidates with Business Mathematics are eligible for admission to B.Arch course. In view of the said clarification issued by the second respondent, which is the supreme authority as far as Architecture Course is concerned, the stand taken by the first respondent through his circular is illegal and unsustainable. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said circular with consequential prayer for admission to B.Arch course in 2012-2013. 4. In view of the said clarification issued by the second respondent, which is the supreme authority as far as Architecture Course is concerned, the stand taken by the first respondent through his circular is illegal and unsustainable. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said circular with consequential prayer for admission to B.Arch course in 2012-2013. 4. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that in the Co-ordination Committee Meeting for admission to 2012-2013 was held on 30.3.2012 and this subject was discussed which noted that the subject Mathematics is taught at Plus Two level focusing on science/Engineering/Architectural streams and the subject Business Mathematics is taught primarily for commerce students and the syllabus for the subjects in Mathematics and Business Mathematics are not identical. For admission to Engineering/Architectural programme, the students, who have studied Mathematics focusing on science/Engineering/ Architectural stream alone can be considered as eligible for pursuing B.Arch degree course. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that based on the resolution adopted by the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admission Co-Ordination Committee, the first respondent issued guidelines by circular dated 30.4.2012 and there is no illegality in the said decision communicated through the impugned circular. 5. In view of the said stand taken in the counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed M.P.No.4 of 2012 praying to call for a report from the second respondent as to whether the course contents of Business Mathematics offered in Plus Two in Tamil Nadu will satisfy the eligibility criteria for admission to B.Arch course in the opinion of the concerned Committee Members of the Council for Architecture, pending disposal of the writ petition. The said direction sought for was ordered by this Court on 26.7.2012 and a direction was issued to consider the issue with reference to specific case of Tamil Nadu syllabus regarding Business Mathematics and report was directed to be filed by 3.8.2012. 6. The second respondent, pursuant to the said direction, constituted an Expert Committee consisting of Dr.A.Kalanidhi, former Vice-Chancellor of Anna University, former Advisor AICTE, former Principal and Board of Architectural Education, AICTE and COA, as Chairman and Professor D.Soloman and Dr.P.Sekar as Members to ascertain the equivalence by comparing the syllabus in both the subjects. 6. The second respondent, pursuant to the said direction, constituted an Expert Committee consisting of Dr.A.Kalanidhi, former Vice-Chancellor of Anna University, former Advisor AICTE, former Principal and Board of Architectural Education, AICTE and COA, as Chairman and Professor D.Soloman and Dr.P.Sekar as Members to ascertain the equivalence by comparing the syllabus in both the subjects. The said Expert Committee, after comparison of the syllabus of both General Mathematics and Business Mathematics, submitted a report and submitted its recommendations stating that the syllabus in Business Mathematics is covering more than 75% of the syllabus in the subject General Mathematics at Plus Two level. The said report was placed before the Executive Committee of the second respondent Council and the same was approved and accepted. The said report as well as the fact about its approval and acceptance is filed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 7. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit with regard to the said report filed by the Expert Committee of the second respondent stating that certain States in India are offering only General Mathematics for students of all the streams and in Tamil Nadu alone for Commerce students Business Mathematics is taught and for science students Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics are offered. Thus, there is lot of difference between Business Mathematics and General Mathematics in Tamil Nadu. After abolition of Entrance Examination from the year 2007 for admissions, the Government issued orders regarding eligibility criteria for first year admission to B.E., B.Tech and B.Arch courses and Mathematics is a compulsory subject to be taken in Plus Two level besides Physics and Chemistry. Candidates, who have studied Mathematics alone are considered and the applicants, who have applied with Business Mathematics were rejected. It is further stated that though the second respondent is controlling the Architectural Education, it has to consider the rules and regulations prevailing in the State of Tamil Nadu. The third respondent is further praying for constitution of a Committee consisting Mathematics Professors at University level and Mathematics Teachers at Plus two level and a person from the Government, who is conducting Plus Two examinations to ascertain the equivalence of the syllabus. It is further stated that those candidates who have studied Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and in vocational subjects who have studied mathematics can be considered for admission. It is further stated that those candidates who have studied Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and in vocational subjects who have studied mathematics can be considered for admission. In CBSE pattern for both Arts and Science students only one mathematics is prescribed as a subject of study. The Commerce students are studying Business Mathematics and they should not be given avenue to study B.Arch as they can easily score marks than the students studying Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. 8. The second respondent, even before constitution of the Expert Committee, filed counter affidavit stating that the second respondent is the competent authority to prescribe eligibility for admission to B.Arch degree course and the State Government is not empowered to take any decision independently as it is in the occupied field of the second respondent as per the Architectures Act, 1972 and the regulations framed thereunder. 9. The third respondent has adopted the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order issued by the first respondent is without jurisdiction as the power to fix eligibility for admission to B.Arch course is vested with the second respondent in terms of Section 21 of the Architectures Act, 1972 and the regulations framed thereunder. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the action of the first respondent cannot be treated as fixing higher norms for admission as the issue involved in this case is regarding eligibility and not fixing higher norms. The learned counsel further submitted that the Expert Committee constituted by the second respondent pursuant to the orders of this Court having found that the syllabus in Plus Two Mathematics and Plus Two Business Mathematics are more or less identical and both are eligible for admission to B.Arch degree course which was approved by the second respondent Council, the respondents 1 and 3 are not entitled to deny admission to the petitioner as she is very much interested in joining in B.Arch course. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in the previous years several students who passed Plus Two with Business Mathematics were granted admission and such admissions were approved by the third respondent and the learned counsel also pointed out certain instances and prayed for allowing this writ petition. 11. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in the previous years several students who passed Plus Two with Business Mathematics were granted admission and such admissions were approved by the third respondent and the learned counsel also pointed out certain instances and prayed for allowing this writ petition. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submitted that the State Government is competent to fix eligibility for admission to B.Arch course as comparison of syllabus in Business Mathematics and General Mathematics, experts gave opinion that both are not similar. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to claim admission, contrary to the impugned circular issued. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the State Government will appoint Expert Committee and take a decision considering the report of the Expert Committee, which was submitted pursuant to the directions of this Court, and any such decision to be taken would be for the next academic year 2013-2014. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent while supporting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 21 and 45(2)(e) of the Architectures Act, 1972, it is the function of the Council for Architecture to fix eligibility based on the Central Legislation and the same would prevail over any decision taken by the first respondent or the State Government and in support of the said contention the learned counsel cited the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC 1943 : (2004) 11 SCC 755 (Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra) and AIR 2005 SC 2026 (Yashpal v. State of Chattisgarh) and argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. I have considered the rival submissions made by the respective learned counsels. 14. The point arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the impugned circular declaring that the candidates passed Plus Two (+2) course with Business Mathematics are not eligible for admission to B.Arch course, is valid or not. 15. The petitioner has passed Plus two (+2) with Business Mathematics and secured 193 marks out of 200 in the said paper and overall she has scored 1130 marks out of 1200 in the Public Examinations held in March, 2012 conducted by the Department of Government Examinations, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-6. 15. The petitioner has passed Plus two (+2) with Business Mathematics and secured 193 marks out of 200 in the said paper and overall she has scored 1130 marks out of 1200 in the Public Examinations held in March, 2012 conducted by the Department of Government Examinations, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-6. Petitioner also applied for National Aptitude Test in Architecture i.e., Entrance Test conducted for selection to B.Arch course in the institutions which are not coming within the purview of Anna University and scored 82 out of 200 and the said certificate is valid upto 5.11.2014. The minimum eligibility prescribed for admission to B.Arch course is 80 out of 200 marks in National Aptitude Test. Thus, the petitioner is found eligible for admission to B.Arch degree course as per the Architecture Act, 1972. 16. Section 21 of the Architectures Act, 1972 clearly states that the Council may prescribe minimum standard for architectural education required for granting recognised qualifications by Colleges or Institutes in India. Section 45 states that the Council may, with the approval of the Central Government make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder to carry out the purpose of the Act. As per Section 45(2)(e), it is the prerogative of the second respondent that the course and period of study and all practical training, if any to be undertaken, the subject of examinations and standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in any college or institution for the grant of recognised qualifications. 17. The power to legislate by the Central Government regarding technical education is provided under Entry 66 of List-I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. 17. The power to legislate by the Central Government regarding technical education is provided under Entry 66 of List-I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. Whether a State Government can fix a norm, which is contradictory to the norms fixed by the Central Government through Central legislation was considered in several decisions right from the year 1963, in the following decisions: (i) AIR 1963 SC 703 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 112 (Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar) (ii) (1995) 4 SCC 104 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute) (iii) (1999) 7 SCC 120 : AIR 1999 SC 2894 (Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.) (iv) AIR 2004 SC 1943 : (2004) 11 SCC 755 (Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra) (v) AIR 2005 SC 2026 : (2005) 5 SCC 420 (Yashpal v. State of Chattishgarh) The first three decisions cited supra were followed in the 4th decision viz., AIR 2004 SC 1943 : (2004) 11 SCC 755 (cited supra), wherein in paragraphs 10 to 17 the Supreme Court held thus, "10. In order to appreciate the various contentions put forth, we have to first examine the scope of Entry 66 of List I, which reads: “66. Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.” 11. The expression coordination has been explained by this Court in more than one decision. Firstly, in Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and recently in State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute. In these two decisions it is stated that the expression coordination used in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It will include power to do all things, which are necessary to prevent what would make coordination either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. 12. It will include power to do all things, which are necessary to prevent what would make coordination either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. 12. So far as standard of education is concerned, this Court in Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P. has explained that the process of admission falls within the scope of determining standards and held as follows: (SCC p. 154, para 36) “36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example, a State may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher education.” 13. After specifically adverting to the decisions in State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain and Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar this Court disagreed with the proposition that standards come into picture after admissions are made and held as follows: (SCC p. 160, para 48) “It is the result of a sum total of all the inputs calibre of students, calibre of teachers, teaching facilities, hospital facilities, standard of examinations etc. that will guarantee proper standards at the stage of exit. We, therefore, disagree with the reasoning and conclusion in Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan.” 14. It was also held that the concept of prescribing standards would include the process of admission. Hence, selection and admission cannot be compartmentalised but it is one single process. 15. We, therefore, disagree with the reasoning and conclusion in Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan.” 14. It was also held that the concept of prescribing standards would include the process of admission. Hence, selection and admission cannot be compartmentalised but it is one single process. 15. The High Court has also adverted to the decisions in Nivedita Jain case4 and Ajay Kumar Singh case which stood overruled in Preeti Srivastava case3 to state that admission is one of the areas which will come after selections are made and, therefore, in that area the Government can play certain role and in this context in the absence of appropriate rules, rules will have to be framed and such rules have been framed by the Government, such rules having been framed though purporting to be under Section 65 of the Maharashtra Act, would be applicable to institutions of the appellant. 16. It is now settled position in law that within the concepts of coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, the entire gamut of admission will fall. Therefore, if any aspect of admission of students in colleges would fall within Entry 66 it necessarily stands excluded as has been held in Gujarat University case. After examining the power of the State to prescribe medium of instruction in institutions for higher education it is stated in that decision as follows: (AIR p. 715, para 23) Item 25 of the Concurrent List confers power upon the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact legislation with respect to vocational and technical training of labour. It is manifest that the extensive power vested in the Provincial Legislatures to legislate with respect to higher, scientific and technical education and vocational and technical training of labour, under the Government of India Act is under the Constitution controlled by the five items in List I and List III mentioned in Item 11 of List II. Items 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items the power to legislate is vested exclusively in Parliament.” (emphasis supplied) 17. Items 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items the power to legislate is vested exclusively in Parliament.” (emphasis supplied) 17. If the power to legislate in regard to those aspects are entirely carved out of the subject of education and vested in Parliament even at a time when education fell under List II, we find no reason now not to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that once an institution comes within the scope of Entry 66 of List I, it falls outside the control of the provisions of Entry 25 of List III." (Emphasis Supplied) 18. Whether the University can fix different norms contrary to the Central enactment was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 2026 : (2005) 5 SCC 420 (cited surpa). In paragraph 33 (in SCC) the Supreme Court held thus, "33. The consistent and settled view of this Court, therefore, is that in spite of incorporation of universities as a legislative head being in the State List, the whole gamut of the university which will include teaching, quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and also research activity being carried on will not come within the purview of the State Legislature on account of a specific entry on coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical education being in the Union List for which Parliament alone is competent. It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that proper standards are maintained in institutions for higher education or research throughout the country and also uniformity in standards is maintained." Same is the view taken in the decision reported in (2007) 10 SCC 210 (Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal). The said decision was followed by the First Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2011 (6) CTC 801 (The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University v. P.Anand) and the S.L.P.Nos.35070-35110 of 2011 filed against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.12.2011. The said proposition of law is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2011) 3 SCC 617 (Chowdhury Navin Hemabhavi v. State of Gujarat) wherein in para 12 and 18 the Supreme Court held thus, "12. The said proposition of law is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2011) 3 SCC 617 (Chowdhury Navin Hemabhavi v. State of Gujarat) wherein in para 12 and 18 the Supreme Court held thus, "12. Mr Amarendera Sharan submitted that this Court had repeatedly held that the Regulations made by the MCI are statutory, mandatory and binding in character and admissions to medical courses could not be made in violation of the MCI Regulations. He cited the decision in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka5 in which this Court has held that the Indian Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and prevails over any State enactment to the extent that the State enactment is repugnant to the provisions of the Act. He submitted that the MCI Regulations will therefore prevail upon the State Rules, 2008 and the contention on behalf of the appellants that the appellants were admitted in accordance with the State Rules, 2008 and their admissions are valid, even though contrary to the MCI Regulations, has no force. 18. On a comparison of the minimum criteria for admission to the MBBS course laid down in the MCI Regulations and the State Rules, 2008, we find that both the MCI Regulations and the State Rules, 2008 insist that a candidate must have obtained 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination. The only difference between the MCI Regulations and the State Rules, 2008 is that while the MCI Regulations require the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes to secure in the competitive entrance examination for admission 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together, the State Rules, 2008 do not contain such a requirement. But as the State Rules, 2008 had prescribed a qualification standard which was less than that of the MCI, the seven appellants, who took the Gujarat Common Entrance Test for academic year 2008-2009, got selected on the basis of their merit for the seats in the MBBS course reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and got admitted in the College even though they had not secured 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the Gujarat Common Entrance Test. The qualification requirements prescribed by the State cannot be lower than those prescribed by the MCI. Therefore, in law, the order of the High Court is right." 19. Thus it is clear that the circular issued by the first respondent cannot be treated as fixing higher norms. If it is coming within the purview of higher norms, the State may be justified in sustaining the contention as per the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 1861 : (2004) 4 SCC 513 (State of Tamil Nadu v. S.V.Bratheep) and AIR 2011 SC 1429 : (2011) 4 SCC606 (Visveswaraya Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder). In the latter decision in para 9 (in AIR) the Supreme Court held thus, "9. The object of the State or University fixing eligibility criteria higher than those fixed by AICTE, is twofold. The first and foremost is to maintain excellence in higher education and ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of candidates participating in professional engineering courses. The second is to enable the State to shortlist the applicants for admission in an effective manner, when there are more applicants than available seats. Once the power of the State and the examining body, to fix higher qualifications is recognised, the rules and regulations made by them prescribing qualifications higher than the minimum suggested by AICTE, will be binding and will be applicable in the respective State, unless AICTE itself subsequently modifies its norms by increasing the eligibility criteria beyond those fixed by the University and the State. It should be noted that the eligibility criteria fixed by the State and the University increased the standards only marginally, that is, 5% over the percentage fixed by AICTE. It cannot be said that the higher standards fixed by the State or University are abnormally high or unattainable by normal students, so as to require a downward revision, when there are unfilled seats. During the hearing it was mentioned that AICTE itself has revised the eligibility criteria. Be that as it may." In this case, the issue is regarding fixing of eligibility/equivalence and not fixing higher percentage of marks or additional qualifications for admissions. Thus, there is a repugnancy in fixing eligibility. 20. During the hearing it was mentioned that AICTE itself has revised the eligibility criteria. Be that as it may." In this case, the issue is regarding fixing of eligibility/equivalence and not fixing higher percentage of marks or additional qualifications for admissions. Thus, there is a repugnancy in fixing eligibility. 20. Applying the principles mentioned in the above judgments to the facts of this case and having regard to the report of the Expert Committee, which is approved by the second respondent, which decision was taken pursuant to the interim direction of this Court, I am of the view that the impugned circular is invalid and the petitioner is qualified to get a seat in B.Arch degree course. If any seat is available under the Scheduled Caste quota and if the petitioner is having the required cut-off marks for selection to B.Arch course, the respondents 1 and 3 are bound to select and admit the petitioner in any one of the colleges. If the petitioner is not coming within the zone of selection for Counselling, the petitioner is entitled to get admission in any Private Self-Financing College of her choice in B.Arch course 2012-2013. The third respondent is directed to consider as to whether the petitioner has the required cut-off marks for selection under counselling and intimate the same within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.