NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to stay the June 27 Madras High Court judgment quashing the Tamil Nadu Government order scrapping the Common Entrance Test (CET) for admissions to medicine, engineering and other professional courses for 2005-2006.

A vacation Bench, consisting of Justice D.M. Dharamadhikari and Justice S.H. Kapadia, while rejecting the Government's plea for interim relief, directed that the special leave petition (SLP) be listed for hearing after the Supreme Court reopened after the summer vacation. It will reopen on July 11.

When senior counsel P.P. Rao, appearing for the State, insisted that the judgment be stayed, the Bench said, "Let admissions be made this year on the basis of the CET. You have issued the GO after holding the CET. In this situation, in the interest of thousands of students, let admissions be made for this year on the basis of the CET."

However, Mr. Rao said that in the interest of the poor and rural students, the court should entertain the matter. The High Court had upheld the policy decision on improvement examination but said it could be given effect to only next year. He pleaded for a stay of at least this portion of the judgment.

Regulations violated

The Bench pointed out that the High Court quashed the GO only on the ground that it violated the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India and the All-India Council for Technical Education.

"How can you find fault with this order? You await the judgment of the seven-judge Bench (dealing with the various issues on admissions). You give the quietus to the policy decision for this year," the Bench said and rejected the plea for interim relief. Though caveats had been filed on behalf of the students to oppose the stay, the Bench felt that there was no need to hear their counsel as it had rejected the stay.

In its SLP, the Government said the June 9 GO was necessitated by two reasons. The CET, being held since 1984-1985, was found to operate to the disadvantage of poor students, both rural and urban, as they could not get specialised coaching. On the other hand, affluent students in urban areas had intense coaching.

Improvement exam

Similarly, the improvement examination was found to operate against the interests of poor students. They could not afford to spend one more academic year to improve their performance.

It said the policy of judging the relative merits of students with reference to the qualifying examination was fair, just and reasonable, and ensured equal opportunity.

The matter involved substantial questions of law of great public importance, the SLP said.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |