P.ANOOP v. State of Kerala and Others (WP(C) No. 21255 of 2008)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930** **WP(C).No. 21255 of 2008(E)** **-------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **--------------------** **P.ANOOP, S/O.P.RAJENDRAN, IRIKKOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.MANGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 673 642.** **BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU)** **RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT IMPLEADED - THE COUNSIL OF ARCHITECTURE, INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, CORE 6A, 1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003** - **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R.SABU ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,C.OFARCHITECT FOR ADDL.R3** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.21255 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 25[th] day of August, 2008.** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner herein is a candidate who aspires for admission to the Bachelor's degree course in Architecture in colleges in Kerala for the year 2008. He is a Scheduled Caste candidate. Ext.P1 is the prospectus issued by the Government of Kerala for admission to B.Arch. course this year. As per clause 6.2.3, thereof, in addition to the minimum academic qualifications, the candidates are expected to pass the National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA) conducted by the Council of Architecture, India with minimum 40% marks. But in clause 6.2.3(b) of the prospectus, there is relaxation of this qualification in respect of SC/ST/SEBC candidates to the effect that, for them the minimum marks required in the NATA is only 35% instead of 40% applicable to other candidates. Pursuant to this prospectus, the petitioner applied for admission. He wrote the NATA and secured 37% marks. In the mean time, by Ext.P6, the Government sought to amend Ext.P1 prospectus making the minimum marks required for admission for the NATA test as 40% **W.P(C)No.21255 of 2008** - 2 - uniformly for all candidates, taking away the relaxation applicable to SC/ST/SEBC candidates. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 amendment to Ext.P1 relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in **Varghese Philip v. State of Kerala [2004(1) KLT 581],** which held that it is not permissible to change the eligiblity criteria for a course by modification or amendment of the prospectus, after the last date for submission of applications. In this case, as per Ext.P1, the last date fixed for submission of applications was 21.2.2008. Ext.P6 was issued on 17.4.2008. The petitioner's contention is that in view of the Division Bench decision, Ext.P6 cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of denying admission to the petitioner, who is admittedly qualified as per Ext.P1 prospectus, Ext.P6 having been issued after the last date prescribed for submission of applications, pursuant to Ext.P1. 2. In answer to the same, the additional 3[rd] respondent would submit that in so far as the NATA is being conducted in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Council and the guidelines do not prescribe any relaxation in minimum marks prescribed for NATA for any category of persons, the **W.P(C)No.21255 of 2008** - 3 - Government themselves corrected Ext.P1 in tune with the guidelines and therefore, Ext.P6 is not an amendment or modification of Ext.P1, but only a correction of the mistake committed in Ext.P1, in tune with guidelines issued by the Council, which did not prescribe any relaxation of the minimum marks in NATA prescribed as qualification for admission to B.Arch. course. Therefore, according to the additional 3[rd] respondent, in so far as the petitioner did not secure the minimum marks in NATA prescribed by the guidelines, he is not eligible for admission. 3. In answer to the same, the counsel for the petitioner would point out that in so far as the Regulations applicable does not prescribe that the institutions conducting admissions are mandatoryly required to follow the guidelines, it is open to the Government to prescribe relaxed standards, which only has been prescribed in Ext.P1, which cannot be altered after the last date for submission of application is over. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Clause 4 of the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architecture Education) Regulations, 1983 which **W.P(C)No.21255 of 2008** - 4 - ## prescribes the minimum qualifications for admission to B.Arch. course, reads thus: “4.Admission to the Architecture Course: a. No candidate, with less than 50% marks in aggregate, shall be admitted to the architecture course unless he/she has passed an examination at the end of the new 10+2 scheme of Senior School Certificate Examination or equivalent with Mathematics as a subject of examinations at the 10+2 level. b. Where 10+2 scheme is not introduced, candidates must have passed after 11 years schooling the Higher Secondary/pre-university/pre-engineering or equivalent examinations in the Science group of any recognized University or Board with English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as compulsory subjects. c. The institutions may subject the candidates, seeking admission to the architecture course, to aptitude tests specially designed to assess the candidates' aptitude: Provided that no separate aptitude tests may be conducted where admissions are made through competitive examinations. d. The institutions shall not give weightage of more than 50% marks for aptitude tests in the matter of admissions.” 6. Clause (c), which is the relevant clause for our purposes, does not specifically mandate the institutions conducting admissions to adopt the aptitude test conducted by Council as such. On the other hand, it is left to the institutions to decide as to whether they should conduct any aptitude test for the purpose of admission. Of course, guidelines have been prescribed for conducting the NATA, by the council, as per which, no relaxation - 5 - **W.P(C)No.21255 of 2008** of minimum marks in the NATA, for admission is stipulated. But going by clause (c) of the regulations, it is not mandatory on the institutions to adopt the guidelines as such. Therefore, notwithstanding the guidelines, the institutions who have adopted the NATA for admission are free to adopt their own minimum marks for admission even for NATA. In the present case, by Ext.P1, the Government decided to adopt passing of the NATA conducted by the Council of Architecture as a necessary qualification for admission to B.Arch course. But in Ext.P1, notwithstanding the minimum marks prescribed in the guidelines, they incorporated a relaxed standard in so far as the SC/ST/SEB candidates are concerned. It cannot be assumed to be mistake. If the relaxed standards were there in the previous guidelines and the Government mistakenly adopted that previous guidelines instead of the current guidelines it could have been accepted that in Ext.P1 the relaxed standard was mistakenly included. But in so far as nowhere in the Regulations such a relaxed standard was prescribed at any time, the assumption is that it is not a mistake, but the Government consciously included the relaxation for SC/ST/SEBC candidates, which relaxation is **W.P(C)No.21255 of 2008** - 6 - granted by the Government to other admissions like MBBS and other Engineering courses. Therefore, at the time of issue of Ext.P1, the Government must be taken to have consciously included a relaxed standard for SC/ST/SEBC candidates, which is not in any way contrary to the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architecture Education) Regulations, 1983 in so far as the Regulations do not mandatorily prescribe adoption of the NATA conducted by the Council or any minimum marks in the NATA for admission. Once it is accepted that the inclusion of relaxation in Ext.P1 is not contrary to any mandatory prescription in the Regulations, the amendment of Ext.P6 after the last date prescribed for submitting application is clearly against the decision in Varghese Philip's case (supra). Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner's admission has to be regulated by Ext.P1 without reference to Ext.P6. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner has the other qualifications as per Ext.P1 prospectus. That being so, the petitioner is eligible to be given admission if he otherwise comes within the rank for admission. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to give the petitioner admission to the seat kept **W.P(C)No.21255 of 2008** - 7 - vacant as per my direction dated 12.8.2008, if he is otherwise entitled to such admission in accordance with his rank. But I make it clear that the relief in this judgment shall be confined to the petitioner alone and it shall not be necessary to rearrange the rank list by including other similarly placed candidates like the petitioner also, since no other candidate has approached this court and the last date for completion of admissions falls shortly. The writ petition is allowed as above. **S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** rhs