Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Kunal Butle and Vaibhavi Shende, filed a writ petition challenging the Government Resolution dated 31/10/2012 issued by the State of Maharashtra, which fixed the eligibility criteria for admission to Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) courses in the State. The resolution prescribed that candidates must have obtained at least 50% marks in the 12th standard examination for general category and 45% for reserved category. The petitioners, who belonged to the general category and had secured 46.77% and 47.08% marks respectively, were denied admission as they did not meet the 50% threshold. They argued that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) had prescribed a lower eligibility criterion of 45% for general category and 40% for reserved category, and that the State could not prescribe a higher standard. The court examined the legislative competence of the State under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, which allows the State to legislate on education, including technical education, subject to central laws. It noted that AICTE norms are minimum standards and the State can prescribe higher standards to ensure quality. The court also considered the principle that there is no fundamental right to admission to a particular course and that policy decisions are subject to limited judicial review. The court found that the Government Resolution was not arbitrary or unreasonable, as it aimed to maintain academic excellence. The petition was dismissed, and the State's resolution was upheld.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Education - Eligibility Criteria for Professional Courses - State's Power - The State Government has the power under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to prescribe eligibility criteria for admission to engineering courses higher than those prescribed by AICTE, as AICTE norms are only minimum standards. The court held that the State can fix higher standards to ensure quality education and maintain academic excellence. (Paras 7-10) B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Policy Decision - The court held that a policy decision fixing eligibility criteria for admissions can be interfered with only if it is arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of constitutional provisions. The Government Resolution dated 31/10/2012 fixing 50% marks for general category and 45% for reserved category was found to be reasonable and not arbitrary. (Paras 11-13) C) Education Law - Admission to Engineering Courses - Eligibility Criteria - The petitioners, who secured 46.77% and 47.08% marks in 12th standard, challenged the Government Resolution requiring 50% for general category. The court held that there is no fundamental right to admission to a particular course and the State's decision to fix higher criteria was valid. (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government can prescribe eligibility criteria for admission to B.E. Courses higher than those prescribed by AICTE, and whether the Government Resolution dated 31/10/2012 fixing 50% marks for general category and 45% for reserved category in 12th standard is arbitrary or unreasonable.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The Government Resolution dated 31/10/2012 fixing eligibility criteria of 50% marks for general category and 45% for reserved category for admission to B.E. courses is upheld as valid.
Law Points
- Eligibility criteria for professional courses can be fixed by State Government higher than those prescribed by AICTE
- State's power under Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule
- AICTE norms are minimum standards
- no right to admission merely on passing entrance test
- judicial review limited to arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
