G SATISH KUMAR Vs. CONVENOR ECET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Diploma Holder. He appeared for Engineering Common Entrance Test ECET (FDH) 99. The said common entrance test is conducted for admission to a short term Engineering Course specially meant for Diploma Holders like the petitioner. The petitioner has secured the rank 183. He was also admitted in the Engineering College in Warangal District. He is challenging the action of the respondents viz., A.P. State Council of Higher Education and the Convenor, ECET (FDH) 99, JNTU College, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad, in not entertaining the application of the petitioner for retotalling/personal verification as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised only ground on the touch-stone of equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution. He has made a twofold submission. First, he submits that the JNTU is the nodal authority for conducting entrance test for Engineering Courses meant for diploma holders as well as conducting entrance test for Agriculture, Medical and. Engineering courses, better known by its cognomen "EAMCET-99" in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, he submits that when EAMCET rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 184 Education, dated 20-8-1993 in exercise of the powers under Section 3 read with Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (hereafter called the Act) provide for personal identification and retotalling on payment of Rs. 500/-, there is no reason why such a rule is conspicuous by its absence in ECET (FDH) 99 Rules. The relevant rule in EAMCET Rules (i.e.,) XI. 1 reads as follows:

(2.) The students who seek admission either in Engineering or Medical course after intermediate are a separate class in contra distinction to the Engineering Diploma Holders who are entitled to appear in ECET examination. They are being two different distinct classes, it is always permissible for the rule making authority to provide for two different set of rules. The fact that for the year 1999 the nodal authority for conducting the two entrance tests is the Convenor of JNT University does not, in any way, dilute this principle. It is just a coincidence that this year the JNTU is made the nodal authority for conducting both the entrance tests. The rationality and the reasonableness of such a rule in EAMCET can as well be appreciated. The students who appear for EAMCET-99 are of tender age who have just passed Intermediate examination. Therefore, the rule making authority thought it fit to provide for verification of response sheet only on payment of Rs. 500/- within 15 days from the date of announcement of the results. However, the rule making authority in the case of Engineering Diploma Holders qualified to appear in ECET examination thought it fit to omit it. It is not the case of the petitioner that the ECET rules are ultra vires of the Act. When this position is admitted, the wisdom or otherwise of not providing for revaluation/retotalling/ personal identification in the ECET examination is beyond the purview of the Court of judicial review. On this, this Court is well supported by the dictum of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and High Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with similar question of Reg. 104(3) of Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977 held as follows:

(3.) The provisions of Rule 37(1) and (2) of the Rules framed by the Administration of Goa, Daman and Diu under Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and High Secondary Education Board Act which prohibited inspection and/or revaluation of answer books was challenged before the Panaji Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Following the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and High Secondary Education, Pune, the Panaji Bench of the High Court of Bombay declared the provisions of clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 37 of the Rules as ultra vires and invalid in so far as the rule prohibited revaluation/inspection of answer papers. The matter came up before the Supreme Court in Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary Education vs. Kumari Hema Load. The Supreme Court following the Judgment in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth's case (supra) allowed the appeal filed by the Government of Goa.