THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA W.P.No.36212 of 2024 and WMP.No.39094 of 2024 P.C.Akash Minor represented by his Natural Guardian P.Chandrasamy, No.5, Santhosh Nagar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 21.04.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 02.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA
W.P.No.36212 of 2024
and
WMP.No.39094 of 2024
P.C.Akash
Minor represented by his
Natural Guardian P.Chandrasamy,
No.5, Santhosh Nagar,
Vazhuthu Reddy Village and Post,
Villupuram 605 602. … Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore 641 003.
2.The Chairman (Admission) and
Dean (Agriculture),
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore 641 003.
3.The Controller of Examinations
Central Board of Secondary Education
Regional Office at (old No) 3 New No 163 (0)
A J Block 16th Main Road, Annanagar West,
Chennai 600 040.
4.The Principal,
Naahar Public School (CBSE)
Chennai Trichy High Ways, Ayyur Agaram,
Villupuram 605 601.
5.The Principal,
Vanavarayar Institute of Agriculture,
Manakadavu,
Divansapudur Post,
Pollachi 642 103. … Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 2 and 5 to permit the petitioner to continue his studies of B.Sc., (Hons.) Agriculture in 5th respondent college and complete the course on the basis of the present Grade -12 Mark Sheet issued by Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran,
Senior Advocate
for M/s.M.Guruprasad
For Respondents : M/s.S.Manikandan
for RR1 and 2
Mr.T.Saikrishna Bhagavath
for R3
Mr.S.K.Chandrakumar
for R4
Mr.Omprakash,
Senior Advocate
for M/s.A.Rithikha
for R5
O R D E R
Writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 2 and 5 to permit the petitioner to continue his studies in B.Sc., (Hons.) Agriculture, in the 5th respondent college, and allow him to complete the course, on the basis of his present Grade-12 mark sheet issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
2. The petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture course in the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University (TNAU), has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
3. The petitioner after passing Grade 12 applied for admission for B.Sc., (Hons) Agriculture course in Tamil Nadu Agriculture University (TNAU), on 22.05.2024, vide application No.202419138640. The TNAU on 26.06.2024, rejected the petitioner’s candidature, on the ground that he did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria. Whileso, the petitioner joined the 5th respondent college for B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture course, on 07.08.2024, subject to verification of his certificates by TNAU. On 31.08.2024, the 5th respondent college, called the petitioner to attend the certificate verification to be held on 02.09.2024, for Management quota. During the certificate verification process, the college orally informed the petitioner that he was ineligible for admission, as he had studied Biology only as an additional subject. Meanwhile, the petitioner obtained clarificatory letter from the 4th respondent school on 12.09.2024, stating that the petitioner had chosen Biology as one of the core subjects, but errorneously in the mark sheet issued by CBSE, Biology was shown as 6th subject, and so the issue was taken up for rectification with the CBSE officials in New Delhi. The 4th respondent also requested the 5th respondent institute, to permit the petitioner to continue his studies without any hindrance. The petitioner later sent an e-mail on 13.09.2024, to TNAU attaching the said letter of the 4th respondent school and prayed TNAU to permit him to continue his studies. The petitioner as a follow-up to the e-mail, submitted multiple representations, but there was no response. The petitioner was therefore constrained to file the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
4. The 3rd respondent, Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, submitted that the process of issuing the mark sheet was based on the LOC received from the school. The order of the subjects (6 subjects) and the names of students as verified by the student along with their parents, were sent by the school. It was stated that, the 3rd respondent had no other role except to print the mark sheet along with the marks obtained in each of the subjects in the order submitted by the school. It was further stated that, based on the list of candidates submitted by the school, the petitioner appeared in the board examinations conducted in 2024. The 3rd respondent submitted that as per the LOC submitted by the school and as per its norms, the first five subjects including language were treated as compulsory subjects, and the sixth subject, (i.e) Biology, was treated as an additional subject. It was further stated that in the scheme of studies for composite courses of Class XI and XII, the candidates had an option to offer additional elective subject. The subject could either be a language at the elective level or any other elective subject. The subjects under the Academic Elective- Group A, Biology could also be chosen as an additional subject. From the LOC of the petitioner, it was clear that the petitioner had voluntarily selected Biology as sixth additional subject. The 3rd respondent submitted that after publication of the examination results, there was no provision in the Board’s regulations for amendment or rectification of the order of subjects as reflected in the marks statement. The respondent further submitted that the demand for modification was untenable, since the elective subject was chosen by the petitioner voluntarily. The 3rd respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed a detailed counter stating inter alia, that for admission to the under graduate courses for the academic year 2024-2025, elaborate Information Brochure, was issued by the respondents laying down various guidelines. The respondents submitted that the Government had issued clear guidelines for admission of students to the lapsed seats (Management seats). The guidelines made it clear that the concerned colleges should strictly follow the qualifications and merits prescribed in the brochure and that, in case of violation, the students admission was liable to be cancelled by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU). The respondents stated that the petitioner submitted his online application for admission to the course of B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture, by enclosing the mark sheet of the qualifying examination. From the mark sheet, it was clear that the petitioner had chosen Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Physical Education as his main subjects and Biology as an additional subject. The respondents stated that as per Information Brochure issued for the academic year 2024-2025, Physical Education was not a qualifying subject, and so the petitioner’s candidature was rejected. The rejection was notified in the website of the University on 20.06.2024. The respondents stated that the college had admitted the petitioner in violation of the Information Brochure for admission and the guidelines issued in G.O. (D).No.309, and therefore the admission of the petitioner was cancelled by the University. The respondents relied on the order dated 26.09.2024, of this court in W.P.(MD).No.21571 of 2024, in support of the submission that in the absence of a challenge to the rejection order, the writ was not maintainable. The respondents therefore prayed that there were no merits in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.
6. The 4th respondent school filed a detailed counter, and submitted that the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) for admission to undergraduate B.Sc. (Agriculture) program under Group-A was Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner studied all the fours subjects as part of his curriculam and therefore, the order of subjects in the List of Candidates (LOC) submitted to the CBSE and the marksheet, had no bearing on the eligibility requirement. Hence, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the basis of sequencing of subjects was errorneous and unsustainable. The respondent further submitted that the school in the interest of the student, approached the CBSE to explore the possibility of issuing a revised mark statement reflecting the requested change in subject order, but the CBSE refused to make any alterations to the original mark sheet. The respondent submitted that students who studied Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology in Class XII, irrespective of the sequence of subjects in the marksheet were found eligible for admission to Medicine and allied courses, and so by applying the same yardstick, the petitioner should also be treated eligible for admission. The 4th respondent therefore submitted that as the petitioner studied Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology, he was eligible to continue his studies in the 5th respondent college. The 4th respondent therefore prayed that writ petition be allowed.
7. The 5th respondent college submitted that the petitioner was admitted based on the mark sheet submitted by him. The respondent submitted that the petitioner was admitted based on the main subjects studied by him without looking into the sequencing of subjects as it was considered irrelevant. The respondent further submitted that at the time of verification of the educational certificates of the petitioner, TNAU rejected the same only on the basis of sequencing of subjects, which was not right. The respondent further submitted that the institution had not received any written communication on the non-suitability of the petitioner. For all the above reasons, the 5th respondent prayed for appropriate directions to the respondents 1 to 3.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sequencing of the subjects in the mark sheets should have no relevance, as long as the petitioner was found to have studied biology as a subject in the 11th and 12th standards. The learned senior counsel submitted that the TNAU’s objections solely on the basis of the sequencing of the subjects in the mark sheets was highly technical and the same should not be endorsed. The learned senior counsel prayed that the writ petition be allowed.
9. The learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the writ petition deserved to be rejected at the threshold, for not challenging the University’s notification in the website dated 20.06.2024, rejecting the petitioner’s candidature. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this court in W.P.(MD) No. 21571 of 2024, dated 26.09.2024, in support of the said contention. The learned counsel further submitted that as per ranking procedure mentioned in Clause 2.1.2 of the Information Brochure for the academic year 2024-2025, the petitioner was found in-eligible for admission to the course. The learned counsel submitted that though the petitioner satisfied the eligibility condition under Clause 2.1 of the Information Brochure, the petitioner had opted for Biology as an additional subject and therefore, as per Clause 2.1.2 of the Information Brochure, the petitioner was found in-eligible and hence his candidature was rejected. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there were no merits in the writ petition and same deserved to be dismissed.
10. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that from the LOC, it was clear that the petitioner and his parents voluntarily selected Biology as sixth additional subject. The learned counsel relying on scheme of studies for composite courses for Class XI and XII, submitted that the petitioner had an option to select additional elective subject, which could either be a language at the elective level or any other elective subject. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the 3rd respondent norms, the first 5 subjects including the language, as first subject were compulsory core subjects and the sixth subject fell under the category of additional subject. The learned counsel further submitted that after publication of the examination results, there was no provision in the boards regulations to amend or rectify the order as reflected in the mark sheet and therefore, the subject order could not be revised. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there were no merits in the writ petition and same deserved to be dismissed.
11. The learned counsel for the 4th and 5th respondents submitted that the petitioner having studied biology as one of the subjects in class 11th and 12th standard, the sequencing of subject in the LOC made no difference and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the sole ground of sequencing of subject in the LOC was unfair and unreasonable. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the writ petition deserved to be allowed.
12. I have heard all the learned counsels and perused the materials on record.
13. The petitioner was admitted in the 5th respondent college for B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture course for the academic year 2024-2025. The petitioner’s admission was subject to the approval of the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University (Hereinafter referred to as TNAU). Whileso, on 31.08.2024, the 5th respondent college was asked to report for verification of the candidates admitted under the management quota. Accordingly, on 02.09.2024, the 5th respondent college furnished details of all the students admitted by it for the academic year 2024-2025, under management quota, to TNAU for approval. During the verification of the certificates, the TNAU, found the petitioner ineligible as per sequencing of subjects in the mark sheet. From the mark sheet, it appears that the petitioner had chosen Biology, only as an additional subject and therefore, the petitioner’s admission was rejected. According to TNAU, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was notified by it in its web site, as early as on 20.06.2024. In fact, it was only after the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature by TNAU, in its web site, that the petitioner sought admission in the 5th respondent college, under Management quota on 07.08.2024. Even the admission by the 5th respondent college, was subject to verification of certificate by TNAU. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note here that the petitioner without challenging the rejection order, dated 20.06.2024, of TNAU has filed the present writ petition, for the aforesaid relief.
14. Be that as it may, let me now consider the merits of the case. The petitioner was found ineligible, because in the sequencing of subjects given in his 12th standard mark sheet, the petitioner had opted for Biology as additional subject. Though the petitioner claims that it was the 4th respondent’s mistake, from the counter filed by the 4th respondent, it is clear that the petitioner while submitting his LOC on 10.08.2023, chose the following subject order;
S.No. Code Subjects
1 301 English Core
2 48 Physical Education
3 41 Mathematics
4 42 Physics
5 43 Chemistry
6 44 Biology
15. It is therefore clear that it was the petitioner along with his parents, who chose Biology as sixth subject (Additional subject). From the counter of the CBSE, it is clear that the first five subjects including language are compulsory subjects and the sixth subject is additional subject. As per the scheme of studies of the CBSE, the candidates have an option to offer additional elective subject, which could either be a language, at the elective level or any other elective subject. As per the list of subjects under the academic elective and Group-A, Biology could also be chosen as additional subject. As already seen, the petitioner in the List of Candidates (LOC) voluntarily selected Biology, as sixth additional subject. When the petitioner voluntarily selected Biology, as additional subject, the 4th respondent cannot be blamed for the mistake.
16. The University in its Information Brochure for the academic year 2024-2025, in Clause 2.1 and Clause 2.1.2, laid down the eligibility for admission for all the under graduate programs. As per clause 2.1.1, relating to educational qualifications, the candidates should have passed all the subjects in Academic stream of the qualifying examination, with 10+2 years of schooling, under any board including CBSE, for B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture course. The relevant Clause for the purpose of deciding the present issue would be Clause 2.1.2, relating to ranking procedure. Clause 2.1.2 reads as follows:
“2.1.2. Ranking Procedure
The calculation of aggregate is based on the marks obtained by the candidate and not the grades. The candidate has to upload the mark sheet (in percentage) given by the appropriate authority. The subjects that have a mention as “additional subjects” in the mark sheet shall not be considered for eligibility and ranking.
Grace marks awarded will not be counted for calculating aggregate marks and ranking.
Aggregate marks = Marks obtained in each subject
x 50
Maximum Mark for that subject
17. From the above Clause, it is clear that the additional subject shown in the mark sheet would not be considered for eligibility and ranking. Unfortunately, for the petitioner, the petitioner opted for Biology as additional subject. Therefore, as per the aforesaid Clause of the Information Brochure 2024 – 25, the petitioner is ineligible for admission. It would be pertinent to point out here that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the aforesaid Clause of the Information Brochure, and in the absence of a challenge to the clause, the plea of the petitioner that sequencing of the subject in the LOC was irrelevant cannot be countenanced. In this regard, useful reference can also be made to the CBSE examination bye-laws. In the said bye-laws, in the scheme for studies for secondary school examination (Class XII), it is stated as follows:
(b) If a student has taken 6 subjects, and if he/she fails in any one of first five subjects, the same will be replaced by the 6th subject provided the candidate satisfies the scheme of studies viz. after replacement by the 6th subject, either Hindi or English remains as one of the main five subjects.
(c) For candidates who take 6 subjects (5 main and 1 additional subject) and pass in all 6 subjects, the percentage is to be calculated, as per their requirement/rule, by the employer/institution/university according to the norms of Institution/University/Employer in which the candidate will be seeking admission/employment. CBSE does not calculate and provide the percentage.
18. From a reading of the Class-C of Scheme of Studies, it is clear that for candidates who passed in all 6 subjects, the percentage to be calculated, was left to the employer/institution/university, in which the candidate sought admission/employment. Therefore, the ranking and the eligibility of the petitioner would be only as per the Information Brochure of TNAU, and as the TNAU’s ranking procedure clearly states that additional subject would not be considered for eligibility and ranking, the same shall only apply to the petitioner. As the petitioner’s admission under the Management quota was subject to the approval of the TNAU and as the petitioner does not possess the requisite eligibility as per the Information Brochure of TNAU, I am of the view that the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be countenanced.
In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
dsn
To
1.The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore 641 003.
2.The Chairman (Admission) and
Dean (Agriculture),
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore 641 003.
3.The Controller of Examinations
Central Board of Secondary Education
Regional Office at (old No) 3 New No 163 (0)
A J Block 16th Main Road, Annanagar West,
Chennai 600 040.
4.The Principal,
Naahar Public School (CBSE)
Chennai Trichy High Ways, Ayyur Agaram,
Villupuram 605 601.
5.The Principal,
Vanavarayar Institute of Agriculture,
Manakadavu,
Divansapudur Post,
Pollachi 642 103.
N.MALA, J.
dsn
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P.No.36212 of 2024
Order Delivered on 02.06.2025
