LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus S.V. BRATHEEP (MINOR) AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
v.
S.V. BRA THEEP (MINOR) AND ORS.
MARCH 16, 2004
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN
AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]
University:
C
Admission-Engineering colleges-State Government prescribed standard
for admission to Engineering colleges which were different from those
prescribed by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)-Validity
of-Held: State Government competent to ftx higher qualifications than those
prescribed by AICTE-But such standards should always be realistic and
D attainable-However, such standards should not be adverse to or lower than
those provided by AJCTE-State Government also entitled to prescribe higher
marks than the minimum ftxed by AICTE for participation in the Common
Entrance Test-Constitution of India, 1950-Sch. VII List I Entry 66 and List
II Entry 25.
E
The Higher Education Department of the appellant-State issued
G.O.Ms prescribing qualification or minimum eligible marks for SC/ST
as mere pass, most backward at 50% average marks in the related subjects
and other classes at 60% average marks in related subjects.
The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court for
F quashing of t_he said G.O.Ms and for a direction to consider their admission
to engineering colleges without reference to the minimum eligible marks
prescribed by the appellant. A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
On appeal, High Court held that there was a glaring difference in the
norms fixed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
G and the norms fixed by the State Government, and struck down the
G.O.Ms. Hence the appeals and the SLPs.
H
The following question arose before the Court:
"Whether the norms prescribed by the State Government are
1218
I
...
'
-
-
STATE v. S.V. BRATHEEP
. 1219
1
contradictory to the norms fixed by the AICTE or are only in the nature A
of higher qualifications above the minimum prescribed by AICTE for
admission to the Engineering Colleges?"
Partly allowing the appeal and dismissing the SLPs, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be B
read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an
exclusivity in the matter of admission but if certain prescription of
standards have been made pursuant to Entry 66 of List I, then those
standards will prevail over the standards fixed by the State in exercise of
-
powers under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect the c
"""
standards laid ~own by the Union of India or any other authority
functioning under it. [1225-B-C)
1.2. But if higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government
than what had been prescribed by the AICTE, it cannot be said that it is
in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE or reduces D
the standard fixed by it. (1225-E]
2. If the norms fixed by the AICTE would allow admission only on
the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination then the
additional test made applicable is the common entrance test by the State
Government. If the standard fixed by the AICTE is considered to be the E
--
common entrance test then the prescription made by the State Government
of having obtained certain marks higher than the minimum in the
qualifying examination in order to be eligible to participate in the common
e.ntrance test is in addition to the common entrance test. In either event,
the streams proposed by the AICTE are not belittled in any manner. The F
ma.oner in which the High Court has proceeded is that what bas been
prescribed by the AICTE is inexorable and that, that minimum alone
should be taken into consideration and no other standard could be fixed,
even the higher. {1225-F-G]
Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP., {1999) 7 SCC 120, relied on.
G
J.. The standards fixed should always be realistic which are
attainable and are within the reach of the candidates. It cannot be said
-
that the prescriptions by the State Government in addition to those of
AICTE in the present case are such which are not attainable or which are
not within the reach of the candidates who seek admission for engineering H
1220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004) 2 S.C.R.
A colleges. 1t is not a very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed
r
as minimum of 60% downwards, but definitely higher than the mere pass
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
marks. (1226-A-B)
State of TN. v. Adhiyaman Educational Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC
104, relExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.