The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Orders on surrender of seats tomorrow

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2007
ePaper

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Orders on surrender of seats tomorrow

Special Correspondent

Arguments on the matter remained inconclusive on Monday

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court, hearing writ appeals on the surrender of seats by unaided professional colleges to the Government quota and the mode of admission of students for management quota, has said orders would be delivered on Wednesday.

As arguments on the matter remained inconclusive on Monday, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice P. Jyothimani said if Advocate-General R. Viduthalai completed his submission on Tuesday, the orders would be passed on Wednesday.

In the course of arguments on Monday, the Bench also wondered as to how the Government could insist that the unaided college admit students only on the basis of marks in qualifying examinations.

Whether it is common entrance test or any other method, it is for the colleges to decide, the Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice P. Jyothimani said adding that the colleges would have the right to decide their own admission method in respect of seats under the management quota.

Earlier, senior counsel R. Krishnamoorthy submitted that Sections 4(1) and 5(4) of the impugned Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act sought to reduce the right of the managements and their control over admission process to nothing. The unaided institutions are entitled to have their own method of admission, provided it ensured the mandatory conditions of fairness, transparency and non-exploitation.

While senior counsel N.R. Chandran said the role of the Government was only to monitor the process, another senior advocate R. Muthukumaraswamy said Sections 4(1) and 5(4) were opposed to the Supreme Court’s order in the P.A. Inamdar case.

Satish Parasaran, representing an unaided medical college, said a consensual contract could not be substituted by legislation, because while the former was mutual the latter was unilateral.

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