Anupama C. and others v. State of Kerala and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 4002 of 2018 ## PETITIONERS - 1 ANUPAMA.C 1ST YEAR B.ARCH STUDENT, HOLY CRESCENT COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA. - 2 BISMI S.MOOPPAN, 1ST YEAR B.ARCH STUDENT, HOLY CRESCENT COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA. - 3 FARAH LUBAINA J.S., - 1ST YEAR B.ARCH STUDENT, HOLY CRESCENT COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA. 4 HOLY CRESCENT COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA-683105, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.NEMISH NIRANJAN ZAVERI ## RESPONDENTS: ## 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES IN KERALA, TC-1553-4, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE, INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, CORE 6A, 1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 4. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686630, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R3 BY ADV. SMT.SINDHU RAVISHANKAR R1 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M.A.ASIF R BY SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROF. COLLEGES R BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2018 ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 4640/2018 & 4003/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4002 of 2018 (A) APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION VIDE REF.NO.CA/28/NATA 2017 DATED 15/06/2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS BOOKLET ISSUED BY THE ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF APTITUDE TEST (TANATA 2017) IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF APTITUDE TEST (TANATA 2017) IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS OF APTITUDE TEST (TANATA 2017) IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ASC 100/17/B.ARCH/HCCA DATED 24/01/2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ## 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE 1: RELEVANT PAGES OF PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES – 2017. ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS).NO.169/2017/H.Edn. DATED 23.6.2017. /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE ## _**K.SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V ASHA, JJ.**_ **----------------------------------------------------W.P(C) Nos.4002 of 2018-A, 4003 of 2018-A and 4640 of 2018-D** **----------------------------------------------------** _**Dated this the 27[th] day of March, 2018**_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ ## _Surendra Mohan, J._ These writ petitions are all filed challenging the orders passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee declining to approve admission granted to students to the B.Arch Degree Course for the Academic Year 2017-2018 in different Self Financing Colleges. Though grant of approval to the students, who are the petitioners before us, has been declined by separate orders, the ground on which approval has been declined is common. Reason is that, the students have not qualified the National Aptitude Test in Architecture (`NATA' for short). According to them, they have qualified **W.P(C) Nos.4002 of 2018-A, 4003 of 2018-A & 4640 of 2018-D** 2 the Tamil Nadu Aptitude Test in Architecture (`TANATA 2017' for short). They have been granted admission on the basis of the scores obtained by them in TANATA 2017. However, the Admission Supervisory Committee has declined to grant approval to their admissions. Aggrieved by the said order, the students as well as the colleges are before us. Since the issue that arises to be determined is common, these cases are all considered and disposed of together. 2. According to the learned Senior Counsel Sri Jaju Babu, who appears for the petitioners, as per Ext.P1 in W.P(c).No.4640 of 2018 the Council of Architecture, the 3[rd] respondent, has clarified on 15.6.2017 that the candidates, who have qualified NATA or any specially designed aptitude test in Architecture conducted by the competent authority of the Central/State Governments, shall also be eligible to be granted admission to the B.Arch Degree course. It is pointed out that Ext.P2 is the Information and Instructions Booklet relating to TANATA 2017. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the prospectus issued by the State of Kerala was on 30.1.2017. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between the Government **W.P(C) Nos.4002 of 2018-A, 4003 of 2018-A & 4640 of 2018-D** 3 of Kerala and the Self Financing Colleges on 7.6.2017. It could not have been in the contemplation of either the colleges or the State Government that a clarification in the nature of Ext.P1 would be issued on 15.6.2017. It is for the said reason that, scores of TANATA 2017 have not been prescribed as a criterion for eligibility in the State. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the students may not be made to suffer for the omission on the part of the State to make necessary amendments to the prospectus. Reliance is placed on the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in _**Global Institute of Architecture v. Secretary Higher Education Dept.**_ [2016 (4) KHC 560] to point out that regulations framed by the Council of Architecture are per se binding on the State Government and that, the minimum standards prescribed would be applicable to all courses conducted by the Government. In view of the above, it is contended that the orders passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee require to be interfered with and set aside. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, in so far as admissions to any course is concerned, it is the Prospectus that governs. As **W.P(C) Nos.4002 of 2018-A, 4003 of 2018-A & 4640 of 2018-D** 4 far as the State of Kerala is concerned, the State Government has decided not to accept the scores of an Aptitude Test conducted by any other State Governments. Since the State Government has not conducted any such test, admissions are made only on the basis of the scores of candidates at the National Aptitude Test. It is contended that admissions were granted to the petitioners in these cases in violation of the stipulations contained in the Prospectus, and therefore, their admissions were rightly declined to be approved by the Admission Supervisory Committee. 4. We have also heard Advocate Mary Benjamin, who appears for the Admission Supervisory Committee. 5. In the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel _**Global**_ _**Institute of Architecture v. Secretary Higher Education Dept.**_ ( _supra_ ) it has been held in para.30 as follows: “30. The provisions under the Regulations framed by the Council of Architecture referred to herein before, make it explicitly clear that, if the State Government finds that an institution is conducting architecture course in violation of the minimum standards prescribed by the Council, it would be always open to the Government to write to the said Council and also to the affiliating University, to enable them to initiate appropriate action against the said institution, including withdrawal of recognition as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act.” There cannot be any doubt on the above proposition of law. However, it is **W.P(C) Nos.4002 of 2018-A, 4003 of 2018-A & 4640 of 2018-D** 5 settled position of law that the regulations referred to above, prescribe only the minimum standards and that the State Governments are at liberty to prescribe higher standards in the interests of maintaining excellence in the education. In the present case, according to the State of Kerala, they have stipulated in the prospectus that only persons who are qualified in the NATA shall be eligible for being admitted to the B.Arch Degree Course. The said stipulation cannot be found fault with. Ext.P1 clarification only relaxes the above requirement to make even candidates who have qualified in similar aptitude tests conducted by the Central/State Governments also eligible for admission, which has not been implemented by the State. We are informed that the State Government stands firmly by the position that only scores of the NATA shall be accepted as eligibility for admission in the B.Arch Degree Course. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P2 information and instructions booklet shows that the TANATA-2017 was a test conducted for admissions under the “management quota” and “Government lapsed seats”. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the scores in the said test cannot be **W.P(C) Nos.4002 of 2018-A, 4003 of 2018-A & 4640 of 2018-D** 6 equated to the scores in the NATA. Though Ext.P1 clarification has been issued by the Council of Architecture, the State Government has not thought it fit to carry the said relaxation to the prospectus in these cases. The said decision cannot be found fault with. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the orders that are impugned in these writ petitions. For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. _Sd/-_ _**K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge**_ **==> picture [26 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> Sd/-<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> _**P.V.ASHA Judge**_ rtr/