Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1419 (GUJ)

Chirag Dinkarbhai Dave v. State of Gujarat

2017-08-24

R.SUBHASH REDDY, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2017
ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. By way of this petition which is filed in the nature of public interest litigation, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “12(A) Be pleased to allow the present petition. (B) Be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus either any other writ in the nature considering the interest of the public at large directing the respondent authority to act in the manner to provide the fair opportunity of education to these students belongs to general category considering the vacant seats which are available after the admission procedure. (C) Be pleased to pass any such or further order/s as it may deem fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anvesh Vyas for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Antani for the respondent no. 1-State on receipt of advance copy. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that the respondent-State has started the admission process for Bachelor of Engineering and Technology Courses for the academic year 2017-18. The admission brochure for the same is issued. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 has also issued All India Council for Technical Education Approval Process Handbook-2017-2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the handbook of 2017-2018’) prescribing the procedure for grant of admission to B.E and Technical courses. 4. Learned advocate has referred the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2007’) and to the provision for eligibility of admission prescribed in the admission brochure as well as the Handbook of 2017 which provides that for the purpose of admission, a candidate shall have passed the qualifying examination with minimum eligibility criteria of percentage of marks in subjects prescribed by AICTE from to time. At this stage, it is submitted that AICTE has prescribed 45% of marks for grant of admission so far as general category students are concerned whereas 40% marks are prescribed for reserved category students. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas thereafter contended that the petitioner came to know that this year, more than 28,000 seats remained vacant after grant of admission by the Admission Committee and therefore necessary direction be issued to the respondents to grant admission to the students who have secured marks between 40% to 45% so far as general category students are concerned. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas thereafter contended that the petitioner came to know that this year, more than 28,000 seats remained vacant after grant of admission by the Admission Committee and therefore necessary direction be issued to the respondents to grant admission to the students who have secured marks between 40% to 45% so far as general category students are concerned. In support of said contention, it is submitted that when the respondent-authorities have prescribed minimum qualifying marks of 40% for reserved category students, in the facts of the present case, minimum qualifying marks of 40% may also be provided for general category students. Thus, it is submitted that the students who secured marks between 40% to 45% will get admission on the vacant seats and therefore necessary direction be issued to the respondents. 6. On the other hand, learned AGP submitted that admission process is already over. The said process was started by issuance of advertisement on 11.5.2017, copy of which is produced on record. Clause-(1) of the said advertisement provides that aspiring candidates should have passed standard 12th science stream with minimum 45% in three subjects viz. two compulsory subjects i.e. physics and mathematics and any one of optional subjects i.e. Chemistry, Biotechnology/Biology/Technical Vocational subjects prescribed by respective boards from single board and should have appeared in GUJCET to become eligible for admission. It is submitted that said minimum qualifying marks are prescribed by AICTE and therefore the submission of the petitioner is misconceived. It is contended that son of the petitioner has not secured 45% marks as averred in the petition and therefore this is not a public interest litigation but the petition is filed for the private interest and therefore this petition may not be entertained. 7. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that the son of the petitioner has not secured the minimum qualifying marks of 45% prescribed for the general category and therefore the present petition cannot be termed as public interest litigation. 8. Moreover, it is required to be noted that Section 7 of the Act of 2007 reads as under: “7. No student shall be admitted in the professional course unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria including the minimum qualifying marks, as may be prescribed.” 9. 8. Moreover, it is required to be noted that Section 7 of the Act of 2007 reads as under: “7. No student shall be admitted in the professional course unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria including the minimum qualifying marks, as may be prescribed.” 9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the/Handbook of 2017-2018 has provided eligibility criteria in Appendix-1. Clause 1.0 of the Appendix-1 provides for Norms for Duration, Entry Level Qualifications and Statutory Reservations for the Technical Programmes for undergraduate degree programme (Full Time). The eligibility for engineering and technology four years course is as under: “Passed 10+2 examination with Physics and Mathematics as compulsory subjects along with one of the Chemistry/Biotechnology/Biology/Technical Vocational subject. Obtained at least 45% marks (40% in case of candidate belonging to reserved category) in the above subjects taken together.” 10. Similarly, brochure for the year 2017 for B.E technical courses for academic courses 2017-18 also stipulates in clause-D that for purpose of admission, a candidate shall have passed the qualifying examination with minimum eligibility criteria of percentage of marks in subjects prescribed by AICTE from time to time. As submitted by learned AGP, AICTE has prescribed minimum qualifying marks of 45% for granting admission to degree engineering courses so far as general category students are concerned. Therefore, the advertisement was issued on 11.5.2017 by the Admission Committee for professional courses in the concerned newspaper. Clause-I of the said advertisement prescribes as under: “(1) Admission Eligibility for Degree Engineering Courses: The aspiring candidates should have passed Std.12 (Science Stream) with minimum 45%(40% for SC/ST and SEBC) in three subjects viz. two compulsory subjects i.e. Physics and Mathematics and any one of optional subjects i.e (Chemistry/Biotechnology/Biology/Technical Vocational Subjects prescriped by respective boards) from single board and should have appeared in GUJCET 2017 to become eligible for the admission. For further details please refer Notifications related to Rules of admission issued by Government of Gujarat from time to time and available on committee's website.” 11. Thus, when the concerned expert body/academic body has prescribed the minimum standards for giving admission in the professional engineering courses, it would not be proper for this Court to say that such minimum qualifying marks should be reduced from 45% to 40% as contended by learned advocate for the petitioner. It is for the academic body to prescribe and maintain the minimum standards for the professional courses. It is for the academic body to prescribe and maintain the minimum standards for the professional courses. Merely because, the number of seats remained vacant for engineering courses, no direction can be given to the respondent authorities to reduce the minimum qualifying standards prescribed by them for grant of admission in professional and educational courses. It is required to be noted that minimum 40% marks are prescribed for the candidates of reserved category by the expert body for certain reasons and as per the policy framed by the government. Thus, the submission that minimum 40% marks are prescribed for students of reserved category and therefore the same standard be applied to the general category candidates is misconceived. 12. In the view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is required to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.