Reservation Under Central Educational Institutions (Reservation And Admission) Act Applies To IIMs: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Kozhikode would have to follow the reservation policy stipulated under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation and Admission) Act, 2006 ('Act, 2006'), for admission to Ph.D. Practice Track Course. 

The Court noted that the proviso to Section 8 of the Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017, says that every Institute shall be a Central Education Institution for the purposes of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation and Admission) Act, 2006.

"There can hence be no dispute that the 2006 Act will apply insofar as the admissions to the Indian Institute of Management are concerned," the Court observed.

Rejecting IIM's argument that the provisions of the Act, 2006 as regards reservation would apply only to cases where there is an annual permitted strength, which is identified earlier and not in case of Ph.D.(PT) for which there is no annual permitted strength prescribed,  Justice T.R. Ravi, observed:

"The requirement of reservation under the enactment cannot be defeated by not prescribing the number of seats that are permitted to be filled up for a particular course in a particular year. If there is no annual permitted strength as contended, the only manner in which the provision can be understood is the total number of seats that are sought to be filled up in a particular year is the annual permitted strength". 

The petitioner had applied for Ph.D. Practice Track Programme [Ph.D. (PT)] at IIM, Kozhikode in the Other Backward Classes-Non-Creamy Layer (OBC-NC) category. The petitioner was aggrieved by the institute's denial of admission to him due to an erroneous application of the reservation policy. 

The petitioner states that he was informed upon enquiry that admissions to PhD course would purely be on the basis of merit, and no reservation policy would be applied. The petitioner submitted that he got to know that IIM had decided to adopt a 10% cut-off mark system. He states that the fixing of cut-off marks had already been invalidated by the Apex Court in P.V.Indiresan v. Union of India & Ors. (2011). 

The petitioner averred that he only later came to know that a cut-off mark of 40 had been fixed for OBC candidates in the interview, and that he had obtained 37.5 marks, and thus did not meet the cut-off criteria for selection. 

The petitioner added that admission was being denied to deserving candidates from socially and economically disadvantaged groups. 

He submitted that as per the Act, 2006, reservation has been stipulated as 15% for SC, 7.5% for ST, and 27% for OBC-NC Candidates for admission. He thus stated that out of the total number of 24 students admitted to the PhD Course, 18 of them belonged to the general category, 3 of them to the SC Category, and 3 to the OBC Category. 

The petitioner averred that going by the Act, 2006, if the total number of 24 were to be taken as the annual permitted strength, OBC candidates would be entitled to 6 seats, being 27% of 24 seats. He thus submitted that the Institute had violated statutory prescriptions and the constitutional mandate. 

The Institute argued that of the 80 candidates who had become eligible on applying the cut-off mark, 74 were general category candidates and 18 of them had been given offers. It added that 3 eligible OBC candidates and 3 eligible SC candidates were also given offers. 

It was thus contended by the Institute that there was nothing wrong in fixing the qualifying mark in the entrance examination at 10% less than the qualifying mark from the general category, and that the said decision was not violative of the Apex Court decision in this regard. 

The Court was thereby posed with the question as to whether fixing of cut-off mark at the stage of the interview was proper and whether by fixing a mark at the stage of the interview, the requirement of the Act for providing 27% reservation for OBC candidates would be defeated. 

The Court took note that the candidates had not been alerted before the interview of the fixing of the cut-off marks, nor was there any provision specifying cut-off marks in the notification inviting applications. 

Relyig upon the decision in K.Manjusree v. State of Andra Pradesh & Anr. (2008), and perusing the Act, 2006, the Court was of the considered view that the selection criteria could not changed after the selection process was over, and that the provisions of the statute would apply insofar as admissions to the Institute were concerned. 

"Admittedly, 24 seats were filled up during this year. If 24 seats are to be filled up, then necessarily, the general candidates can aspire only for 50.5% of the seats, and 15%, 7.5%, and 27.5% will have to be reserved for candidates belonging to SC, ST, and OBC. As such, the process of selection is not in accordance with the requirement of the Statute," it found. 

However it ascertained that the entire selection process would not have to be set aside in the present case, and the respondents were directed to admit the petitioner in the course, on taking note that there were no other candidates who had secured more marks than the petitioner in the OBC-NC category. 

The plea was thus disposed. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates K.A. Salil Narayanan and MKS Menon

Counsel for the Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General of India S. Manu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 644

Case Title: Mahesh Mohan v. Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode & Anr. 

Case Number: WP(C) No. 30510 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment