1
Court No.39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5225 of 2010
Jitendra Chauhan
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
~~~~~~~
Counsel for the petitioner :- Sri S.N. Chauhan and Sri V.P. Shukla
Counsel for the respondents :- Sri Rajesh Khare
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
The petitioner has sought the quashing of that essential qualification
prescribed by the Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology for
admission to the Under Graduate Programme which prescribes that the
minimum percentage of marks in Class X and 10+2 Examination shall be
70% for appearance at the Admission Test.
Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Institute’) is a deemed University under Section 3 of the
Universities Grants Commission Act, 1956 and has been set up under the
Department of Space, Government of India in the academic year 2007-08.
The Institute offers Under Graduate (B. Tech.) Programmes in Aerospace
Engineering, Avionics and Physical Sciences and has been developed as a
Centre of Excellence in the area of advanced Space Science and
Technology with Post Graduate, Doctoral and Post Doctoral Programmes
in niche areas of Space Science, Technology and Applications to cater to
the sophisticated technological requirements of Indian Space Research
Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ISRO’). The education is fully
integrated with high technology research work being carried out at ISRO
Centres. The Institute presently functions from a specially created
Alternative Campus adjacent to the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Thiruvananthapuram, though the permanent campus is being established at
Valiamala about 20 Kms. from Thiruvananthapuram city. Every student
who completes the B.Tech Programme from the Institute, meeting
specified academic standards, is absorbed in ISRO as Scientist/Engineer.
The total number of seats for the Under Graduate Programme in the
Institute for the session 2010-11 is 156. Admission to the Under Graduate
Programme is made through an Admission Test consisting of two papers.
2
The eligibility conditions deal with Citizenship, Date of Birth, Qualifying
Examination and also the Minimum Percentage of Marks in Class X or
Equivalent Examination and Class 10+2 or Equivalent Examination.
The petitioner has challenged the requirement of having a minimum
percentage of marks in Class X and 10+2 or Equivalent Examinations and
the said conditions are reproduced below:-
“4. Minimum Percentage of Marks in Class X or
equivalent examination
Candidates belonging to GEN and OBC
categories must have at least 70% in all subjects
combined and those belongings to SC, ST and PD
categories must have at least 60%.
5. Minimum Percentage of Marks in 10+2 or
equivalent examination
Candidates belonging to GEN and OBC
categories must have at least 70% in aggregate in
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (PCM) papers and
those belongings to SC, ST and PD categories must
have at least 60%.”
It is stated in the petition that the petitioner had obtained 52% in the
High School Examination 2007 and 66% in the Intermediate Examination
2009 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate
Examination, U.P. and, therefore, does not possess the conditions stipulated
in Clauses 4 and 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the Entrance
Examination conducted by IIT’s, students who opt for admission in B.Tech
in Aerospace Engineering, Avionics and Physical Sciences are required to
have obtained at least 60% in the 10+2 Examination and so the condition
prescribed by the Institute that the candidates belonging to the General
Category should obtain at least 70% in Class X Examination and 70% in
aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Matehmatics in the Class 12
Examination is not only discriminatory but also arbitrary as many
meritorious candidates who may not have obtained such minimum
percentage of marks are excluded from appearing at the admission test. It is
his submission that the admission to the said course should depend upon
the merit of the marks obtained by the candidates at the Entrance Test
Examination and not on the marks awarded to the candidates in the
qualifying examination. It is also his contention that since there is disparity
3
amongst the various Boards in awarding marks the percentage of marks
obtained by a candidate who has appeared from the Central Board of
Secondary Education cannot be compared with that of a candidate who has
appeared at the High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by
the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, U.P.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the
Institute was justified in prescribing the minimum percentage of marks to
be obtained by a candidate at the qualifying examination and the petitioner
cannot insist that the Institute should prescribe the same percentage of
marks as are prescribed by other Institutes in the country.
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties.
The admission to the Under Graduate Programme in the Institute is
made through an Admission Test and for the purposes of eligibility to
appear at the Test, the Institute has prescribed the minimum percentage of
marks to be obtained by a candidate in the Class X and 10+2 Examination.
It is 70% in all subjects combined for General Category for Class X and
60% for SC, ST and PD categories. The candidates belongings to the
General Category must also obtain 70% in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry
and Mathematics at the 10+2 or equivalent examination.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
Institute should not prescribe any minimum percentage of marks for the
qualifying examination and in any view, the requirement of 70% is not
only on the higher side but also discriminatory.
This submission cannot be accepted. It is for the Institute to consider
whether it should fix some minimum percentage of marks to be obtained by
candidates who intend to appear at the Admission Test in the qualifying
examination and what should be the minimum percentage. The Court
cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy formulated by experts
in the field of Education. As noticed hereinabove, the Institute is a Centre
of Excellence in the area of advanced Space Science and Technology. In
this Institute, education is fully integrated with the high technology
research work being carried out at ISRO Centres. The Institute is of
international standard to create an excellent academic and research
4
ambience. Students who pass out are absorbed as Scientist/Engineers in
ISRO.
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh
Kurmarsheth, etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543, the Supreme Court emphasised
that the Courts should be extremely reluctant in substituting their news in
academic matters and the relevant observations are as follows:-
“……….The Court cannot sit in judgment over the
wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the
subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise
policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the
enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and
hence calling for revision and improvement. But any
drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or
regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court
cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion,
it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish
one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the
purposes of the Act. ………
…………As has been repeatedly pointed out by this
Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to
substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent
and proper in relation to academic matters in
preference to those formulated by professional men
possessing technical expertise and rich experience of
actual day-to-day working of educational institutions
and the departments controlling them. It will be
wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and
purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature,
isolated from the actual realities and grass root
problems involved in the working of the system and
unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if
a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one
were to be propounded…………….” (emphasis supplied)
Excellence in higher education, particularly in specialised courses, is
essential as has been held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava
Vs. State of M.P.(1990) 7 SCC 120. If higher percentage of minimum
marks is prescribed, it will certainly add to the excellence.
In State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors., (2003) 7
SCC 83, the Supreme Court explained why there was a need for a common
entrance test and minimum qualifying marks in the field of medical
5
education and the same principles will apply for Aerospace Engineering
also. The observations of the Supreme Court are
“In the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of
M.P.(1990) 7 SCC 120, the Constitution Bench has
expressly discarded the submission that there need not
be any qualifying marks prescribed for the common
entrance examination………….. A pass mark is not a
guarantee of excellence. There is a great deal of
difference between a person who qualifies with the
minimum marks and a person who qualifies with
high marks. If excellence is to be promoted at the
postgraduate level, the candidates qualifying should
be able to secure good marks while qualifying.
Attaining minimum qualifying marks has a direct
relation with the standards of education. Prescription of
qualifying marks is for assessment of the calibre of
students chosen for admission. If the students are of a
high calibre, training programmes can be suitably
moulded so that they can receive the maximum benefit
out of high level of teaching. If the calibre of the
students is poor or they are unable to follow the
instructions being imparted, the standard of teaching
necessarily has to be lowered to make them understand
the course which they have under taken; and it may not
be possible to reach the levels of education and training
which can be attained with a bright group. The
assemblage of students in a particular class should be
within a reasonable range of variable calibre and
intelligence, else the students will not be able to move
along with each other as a common class. Hence, the
need for a common entrance test and minimum
qualifying marks as determined by experts in the
field of medical education.
The eligibility test, called the entrance test for the
pre-PG test, is conducted with dual purposes. Firstly, it
is held with the object of assessing the knowledge and
intelligence quotient of a candidate whether he would
be able to prosecute postgraduate studies if allowed an
opportunity of doing so; secondly, it is for the purposes
of assessing the merit inter se of the candidates which is
of vital significance at the counselling when it comes to
allotting the successful candidates to different discipline
wherein the seats are limited and some disciplines are
considered to be more creamy and are more coveted
than the others. The concept of a minimum qualifying
percentage cannot, therefore, be given a complete go-
by. If at all there can be departure, that has to be
minimal and that too only by approval of experts in the
field of medical education, which for the present are
6
available as a body in the Medical Council of India.”
(emphasis supplied)
These observations were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Harish
Verma & Ors. Vs. Ajay Srivastava & Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 69.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Institute
should have fixed 60%, which percentage has been fixed by IIT cannot be
accepted. Each University is free to fix its own standards looking to the
requirement and a candidate cannot insist that the same eligibility
requirement should be maintained by all the Universities.
Thus, in view of the above observations of the Supreme Court, the
requirement of having a minimum percentage of marks at the qualifying
examination for appearing at the Entrance Test for Admission to the
B.Tech Programme in Aerospace Engineering cannot be said to be
arbitrary or discriminatory.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Date:-04.02.2010
SK/-