Supreme Court Upholds Entrance Test for B.Tech Admissions in Odisha: State of Odisha vs. OPECA (2021)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether admissions to B.Tech degree courses can be based on marks obtained in qualifying examinations, bypassing the mandatory entrance test.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Statutory Interpretation
Case Name: The State of Odisha & Ors vs. Orissa Private Engineering College Association (OPECA) & Anr
[Judgment Date]: 29 June 2021

Date of the Judgment: 29 June 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No 2274 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 5014 of 2021)
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, R Subhash Reddy, J, S Ravindra Bhat, J. The judgment was authored by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Can a High Court direct a State Government to bypass a statutory requirement for entrance tests in professional courses? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, overturning a High Court order that allowed admissions to B.Tech courses based on qualifying exam marks instead of entrance test scores. This case highlights the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in education admissions, even amidst extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, R Subhash Reddy, J, and S Ravindra Bhat, J, with the judgment authored by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The case arose from a dispute regarding the admission process for B.Tech (Engineering) degree courses in Odisha for the academic session 2020-21. The Orissa Private Engineering College Association (OPECA), the first respondent, sought to admit students based on their qualifying examination marks, citing a relaxation given by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for PGDM/MBA courses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The State of Odisha, the appellant, insisted on admissions through a centralized entrance test as mandated by the Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act 2007 (the “2007 Act”).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Orissa initially directed the AICTE and the State Government to consider extending the relaxation given to PGDM/MBA courses to B.Tech courses. When the AICTE clarified that the relaxation was not meant for B.Tech courses and the State Government refused to allow admissions based on qualifying exam marks, the High Court directed the State Government to allow admissions to B.Tech courses based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. This was challenged by the State of Odisha before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 3 of the Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act 2007. Section 3(1) of the 2007 Act states:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, admission of students in all private professional educational institutions, Govt. institutions and sponsored institutions to all seats including lateral entry seats, shall be made through Entrance Test(s) approved by the Government followed by centralized counselling in order of merit, in accordance with such procedure as recommended by the Policy Planning Body and approved by the Government.”

This provision mandates that admissions to all professional educational institutions in Odisha, including B.Tech courses, must be based on an entrance test approved by the government, followed by centralized counseling. The Act aims to ensure merit-based admissions through a standardized testing process.

Arguments

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellants (State of Odisha)

• The State argued that the High Court’s direction to allow admissions based on qualifying exam marks is a clear violation of Section 3(1) of the 2007 Act.

• They emphasized that the AICTE, in its communication, had clarified that the relaxation given to PGDM/MBA courses was not applicable to B.Tech courses.

• The State contended that the State Government is bound to follow the statutory mandate of the 2007 Act, which requires admissions to be based on entrance test scores.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents (OPECA)

• The respondents argued that the AICTE circular relaxing admission criteria for PGDM/MBA courses should also apply to B.Tech courses, considering the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

• They highlighted that many seats remained vacant due to the pandemic, and allowing admissions based on qualifying exam marks would fill these seats.

• The respondents pointed out that many students had already been admitted based on the High Court’s order, and these admissions should not be disturbed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the State Government to allow admissions to B.Tech degree courses based on marks obtained in the qualifying examination, in contravention of Section 3(1) of the 2007 Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court did not rely on any previous case laws or books in this judgment. The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 3(1) of the Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act 2007: This section mandates that admissions to professional institutions in Odisha must be through an entrance test.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s direction to allow admissions based on qualifying exam marks was contrary to Section 3(1) of the 2007 Act. The Court, however, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to protect the admissions of 592 students admitted under direct entry and 243 students admitted under lateral entry, considering the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court observed:

“The direction by the High Court to the State Government which operates as a mandamus to admit students to the B.Tech Degree courses on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination is expressly contrary to the terms of Section 3(1) of the 2007 Act.”

The court also stated:

“To displace such a body of students who have already been admitted would not be in the interests of justice.”

The court further stated:

“We direct that the admission of the above students shall not be disturbed, while setting the legal position to rest.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the rule of law and the statutory mandate of the 2007 Act. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s order was a clear violation of Section 3(1), which requires admissions to be based on entrance test scores. However, the Court also considered the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that many students had already been admitted based on the High Court’s order. This led the Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 to protect the admissions of these students, while clarifying the legal position.

Key Takeaways

• Statutory provisions regarding admissions to professional courses must be strictly adhered to.
• High Courts cannot issue directions that contravene existing laws.
• The Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 to balance legal principles with practical realities, especially in extraordinary circumstances.
• The AICTE circular relaxing admission criteria for PGDM/MBA courses was not applicable to B.Tech courses.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the admissions of 592 students under direct entry and 243 students under lateral entry to the B.Tech degree courses should not be disturbed for the current academic year.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that statutory provisions regarding admissions to professional courses must be strictly adhered to, and High Courts cannot issue directions that contravene existing laws. This case reinforces the importance of following the due process of law, while also highlighting the Supreme Court’s power to provide relief in extraordinary situations. It clarifies that relaxations given for certain courses cannot be automatically extended to others without proper legal backing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Odisha vs. OPECA underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in education admissions. While the Court set aside the High Court’s order that allowed admissions based on qualifying exam marks, it also protected the admissions already granted by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. This decision highlights the need to balance legal principles with practical realities, especially during extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic.