VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR. versus KRISHNENDU HALDER AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1007 · Decided: 18-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 1007 
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND 
ANR. 
v. 
KRISHNENDU HALDER AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1947 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Education/Educational Institutions: Rules and 
Regulations of State and University prescribing minimum 
C 
higher educational qualification for admission to Engineering 
courses are valid and binding - University and State are 
always entitled to prescribe higher standards than what is 
suggested by the central body (AICTE) so as to maintain the 
excellence in higher education - The fact that there are D 
unfilled seats in a particular year, would not mean that in that 
year; the eligibility criteria fixed by the State/University would 
cease to apply or that the minimum eligibility criteria 
suggested by AICTE alone would apply - Unless and until 
the State or the University chooses to modify the eligibility E 
criteria fixed by them, they would continue to apply in spite of 
the fact that there are vacancies or unfilled seats in any year 
- The main object of prescribing eligibility criteria is not to 
ensure that all seats are in colleges are filled, but to ensure 
that excellence in standards of higher education is maintained 
F 
"'.'" Also, higher minimum marks prescribed by State 
Government cannot be said to be adverse to the standard 
fixed by AICTE . 
The question involved in these appeals was whether 
the eligibility criteria for admission to the Engineering 
G 
courses stipulated under the Statutory Rules and 
Regulations of the State Government/University could be 
relaxed or ignored, and candidates who do not meet with 
'such eligibility criteria can be given admission, on the 
1007 
H 
1008 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 2 S.C.R. 
A ground that a large number of seats have remained 
unfilled in professional colleges, if such candidates 
possess the minimum eligibility prescribed under the 
norms of the central body (AICTE). 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
Held: 1.1. The object of the State or University fixing 
eligibility criteria higher than those fixed by AICTE, is two 
fold. The first and foremost is to maintain excellence in 
higher education and ensure that there is no deterioration 
C in the quality of candidates participating in professional 
Engineering courses. The second is to enable the State 
to shortlist the applicants for admission in an effective 
manner, when there are more applicants than available 
seats. Once the power of the State and the Examining 
D Body, to fix higher qualifications is recognized, the rules 
and regulations made by them prescribing qualifications 
higher than the minimum suggested by AICTE, will be 
binding and will be applicable in the respective State, 
unless the AICTE itself subsequently modifies its norms 
E by increasing the eligibility criteria beyond those fixed by 
the University and the State. In the instant case, the 
eligibility criteria fixed by the State and the University 
increased the standards only marginally, that is 5% over 
the percentage fixed by AICTE. It cannot be said that the 
F higher standards fixed by the State or University are 
abnormally high or unattainable by normal students, so 
as to require a downward revision, when there are 
unfilled seats. [Para 9] [1021-D-G] 
State of Tamil Nadu v. S. V. Bratheep (2004) 4 SCC 513; 
G Dr Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1999) 
7 SCC 120; State of Tamil Nadu. v. S. V. Bratheep (2004) 4 
sec 513 - referred to. 
1.2. While prescribing the eligibility criteria for 
H 
VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY v. 1009 
KRISHNENDU HALDER 
admission to institutions of higher education, the State/ 
A 
University cannot adversely affect the standards laid 
down by the Central Body/AICTE. The term 'adversely 
affect the standards' refers to lowering of the norms laid 
down by Central Body/AICTE. Prescribing higher 
standards for admission by laying down qualifications in 
B 
addition to or higher than those prescribed by AICTE, 
consistent with the object of promoting higher standards 
and excellence in higher education, will not be 
considered as adversely affecting the standards laid 
down by the Central Body/AICTE. [Para 10(i)] (1022-0-E] c 
1.3. The observation in para 41 (vi) of* Adhiyaman to 
the effect that where seats remain unfilled, the state 
authorities cannot deny admission to any student 
satisfying the minimum standards laid down by AICTE, 
even though he is not qua

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.