The State Of Odisha vs Orissa Private Engineering College

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION

In this legal case, the High Court of Orissa ruled in favor of a writ petition filed by the Orissa Private Engineering College Association (OPECA). The court permitted student admissions for the B.Tech (Engineering) degree course for the academic session 2020-21 based on marks obtained in qualifying examinations, rather than the statutory requirement of centralized entrance tests. This ruling diverged from the Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007, which requires entrance tests and centralized counseling for admissions to private professional educational institutions. The case brought up issues concerning the discretion allowed in B.Tech admissions and whether similar exceptions could apply to other courses.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Admissions to all seats in private professional, government, and sponsored institutions, including lateral entry seats, must be done through Government-approved Entrance Tests and centralized counseling based on merit.
2.  After the OJEE/DET counseling rounds, the Government will set procedures for filling vacant seats, which are based on Entrance Test scores. Seats unfilled due to non-reporting are considered vacant, and colleges can fill these out according to government guidelines.
3.  In response to the pandemic, AICTE issued a circular on August 19, 2020, relaxing eligibility criteria for PGDM/MBA admissions based on qualifying exam marks, due to disruptions in entrance tests.
4. AICTE clarified on January 6, 2021, that the relaxation was specific to PGDM courses due to their situation and that no similar circular was issued for B.Tech courses, as states had provisions to decide admission modalities.
5.  The High Court found an error in the January 7, 2021 letter which restricted B.Tech admissions based on qualifying exam marks, ruling that the same benefit given to PGDM/MBA students should apply to B.Tech admissions.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the High Court had the authority to direct that admissions to B.Tech courses be based on qualifying examination marks, despite existing statutory requirements for entrance tests.
2. Whether the benefits extended to PGDM/MBA courses, due to the relaxation of eligibility criteria amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, should also be applied to B.Tech courses.
3. The legality of bypassing the Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007, which mandates entrance tests and centralized counseling for admissions to private professional educational institutions.
4. Whether AICTE and the State Government have the discretion to alter admission procedures, particularly under extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic.

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALING

1. The appellants argued that the High Court’s directive allowing B.Tech admissions based on qualifying exam marks contradicts Section 3(1) of the 2007 Act, which mandates admissions through a government-approved entrance test followed by centralized counseling based on merit.
2. The AICTE had previously indicated that B.Tech courses should not be treated the same as PGDM/MBA courses, leaving the decision regarding B.Tech admissions to the state government in line with state legislation.
3. The High Court instructed the State Government to permit B.Tech admissions based on qualifying exam marks, contrary to the established process in the 2007 Act.
4. The respondent’s counsel highlighted that approximately 592 students were admitted directly to B.Tech courses and 243 through lateral entry in Odisha under the High Court’s directive, advocating for the continuation of these benefits.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, representing the institutions, indicated that 592 students were admitted to B.Tech courses under direct entry and 243 under lateral entry, based on the High Court’s directive. The Solicitor General confirmed these figures after consulting the competent authority.
2. The High Court’s order mandating the admission of students to B.Tech courses based on qualifying exam marks was explicitly against Section 3(1) of the 2007 Act, which requires admissions through government-approved entrance tests and centralized counseling.
3. The High Court had earlier left it to the AICTE and State Government to decide whether to extend the same benefits given to PGDM/MBA students to B.Tech aspirants. The AICTE clarified that B.Tech courses should not be equated with PGDM/MBA courses, leaving the final decision to the State Government.
4. While Mr. Siddhartha Dave argued that the State Government’s decision on January 7, 2021, misinterpreted the AICTE’s letter, it remains that the State Government must adhere to Section 3(1) of the 2007 Act. The High Court’s directive was unjustified as it contradicted the statutory requirements of Section 3(1).

JUDGEMENT 

1. he judgment of the High Court was based on a legal misconception and has been set aside.
2. Due to the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic and the limited number of students who could appear for the entrance exams, the Supreme Court decided that the admissions of 592 students under direct entry and 243 students under lateral entry to B.Tech courses should not be disturbed for the current academic year, using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
3. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, maintaining the admissions of the students in question while settling the legal issue. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

ANALYSIS

1. After completing at least two rounds of centralized counseling for Odisha Joint Entrance Examination (OJEE) and Diploma Entrance Test (DET), the government will decide the methods for filling vacant seats in technical and professional institutes. These vacancies arise from unsponsored candidates and non-reporting cases, and the institutions can admit students to these seats based on the government’s set procedures.
2. A circular dated 19 August 2020, which relaxed eligibility criteria for PGDM courses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was not extended to B.Tech courses. The circumstances necessitating the circular for PGDM courses, such as the inability to conduct entrance tests, did not apply to B.Tech.
3. The Approval Process Handbook 2020-21 and the Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007, stipulate that the state government or relevant authorities decide the admission modalities for vacant seats in engineering courses, indicating that a general circular for B.Tech admissions was unnecessary.

CONCLUSION

In the case, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision allowing B.Tech admissions based on marks obtained in qualifying examinations, as it contradicted Section 3(1) of the Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2007, which mandates admissions through entrance tests and centralized counseling. However, recognizing the exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to protect the admissions of 592 students under direct entry and 243 under lateral entry who had already secured seats based on the High Court’s order. This decision balanced the need to uphold legal provisions with considerations of fairness and the students’ educational future. The appeal was thus allowed, with the Court ensuring that the admitted students would not be disturbed for the current academic year.

REFERENCES

1. SCC
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78559703/
3. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/636116de8df9a026df15cefa

This Article is written by ASTHA SINGH student of USLLS (GGSIPU) ; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin