GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* *Minor V.Amrutha Vs. Council for Archietecture & Anr.* W.P.No.16762 of 2017 Dated: 07.09.2022 *Honourable Mr. Justice R. Subramanian * allowed the Writ Petition and awarded compensation and costs in the matter relating to *“NATA – Education – ”* and further observed and held as follows:

[9/10, 07:27] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/10/judge-r-subramaniyam-order-view-of-the-above-while-condemning-the-second-respondent-for-its-outrageous-and-inexplicable-conduct-i-direct-the-second-respondent-to-pay-a-compensation-of-rs-1000000/
[9/11, 07:18] Sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
*Minor V.Amrutha Vs. Council for Archietecture & Anr.*
W.P.No.16762 of 2017
Dated: 07.09.2022
*Honourable Mr. Justice R. Subramanian * allowed the Writ Petition and awarded compensation and costs in the matter relating to *“NATA – Education – ”* and further observed and held as follows:

i) The Council for Architecture, the 1st Respondent, had been insisting that a candidate who wants to join Bachelor Degree Course in Architecture should clear the National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA).

ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order on 24.07.2008 observing that apart from NATA, there could be other qualifying examinations and it will be open to different State Governments or the Central Board of Secondary Education to conduct an aptitude test for the purposes of admission in Bachelor of Architecture Course. It was also observed that it will not be necessary for students to pass NATA. A notice issued, making a pass in NATA mandatory for B.Arch Admission was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Despite such stay having been granted several State Boards and the second respondent continued to insist upon a pass in NATA. The 1st Respondent issued a circular stating that a pass in NATA was not necessary and candidates qualified in any other specially designed aptitude test would be eligible.

iii) However, during the admission of 2017-18 for B.Arch, NATA 2016-17 was required and specifically provided that those not appeared and qualified in NATA were not eligible for admission. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition was preferred. During admission, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras permitted the Petitioner to make application to the University in-person. However, despite the order of the Hon’ble High Court, that application was also rejected on the same ground that NATA 2016-17 was not complied.

iv) It is not disputed that the 2nd Respondent University is bound to follow the direction of the 1st Respondent, viz. NATA not being a requirement for admission into B.Arch. It was also clear that the authorities were cognizant that NATA was not mandatory. Once there is a positive direction of this Court that the petitioner should be considered for admission having passed JEE Paper-II, the 2nd Respondent ought not to have rejected the application.

v) Hon’ble Supreme Court in _Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jasmine Kaur and others, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 521_, has held that in the event of improper denial of admission, the Court has the power to compensate the student who has been wronged by the actions of the Authorities. Also referred: _Ms.A.E.Durga v. The Directorate of Medical Education, reported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 10695_, _S.Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1609_ & _G.Arun Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu, in WP (MD) No.18059 of 2019 dated 06.01.2021_.

vi) Held that the 2nd Respondent was solely responsible for Petitioner being denied a seat in B.Arch, directed 2nd Respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- @ 9% from 30.06.2017 and cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Petitioner.

 

[9/10, 07:27] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/10/judge-r-subramaniyam-order-view-of-the-above-while-condemning-the-second-respondent-for-its-outrageous-and-inexplicable-conduct-i-direct-the-second-respondent-to-pay-a-compensation-of-rs-1000000/
[9/11, 07:18] Sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
*Minor V.Amrutha Vs. Council for Archietecture & Anr.*
W.P.No.16762 of 2017
Dated: 07.09.2022
*Honourable Mr. Justice R. Subramanian * allowed the Writ Petition and awarded compensation and costs in the matter relating to *“NATA – Education – ”* and further observed and held as follows:

i) The Council for Architecture, the 1st Respondent, had been insisting that a candidate who wants to join Bachelor Degree Course in Architecture should clear the National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA).

ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order on 24.07.2008 observing that apart from NATA, there could be other qualifying examinations and it will be open to different State Governments or the Central Board of Secondary Education to conduct an aptitude test for the purposes of admission in Bachelor of Architecture Course. It was also observed that it will not be necessary for students to pass NATA. A notice issued, making a pass in NATA mandatory for B.Arch Admission was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Despite such stay having been granted several State Boards and the second respondent continued to insist upon a pass in NATA. The 1st Respondent issued a circular stating that a pass in NATA was not necessary and candidates qualified in any other specially designed aptitude test would be eligible.

iii) However, during the admission of 2017-18 for B.Arch, NATA 2016-17 was required and specifically provided that those not appeared and qualified in NATA were not eligible for admission. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition was preferred. During admission, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras permitted the Petitioner to make application to the University in-person. However, despite the order of the Hon’ble High Court, that application was also rejected on the same ground that NATA 2016-17 was not complied.

iv) It is not disputed that the 2nd Respondent University is bound to follow the direction of the 1st Respondent, viz. NATA not being a requirement for admission into B.Arch. It was also clear that the authorities were cognizant that NATA was not mandatory. Once there is a positive direction of this Court that the petitioner should be considered for admission having passed JEE Paper-II, the 2nd Respondent ought not to have rejected the application.

v) Hon’ble Supreme Court in _Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jasmine Kaur and others, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 521_, has held that in the event of improper denial of admission, the Court has the power to compensate the student who has been wronged by the actions of the Authorities. Also referred: _Ms.A.E.Durga v. The Directorate of Medical Education, reported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 10695_, _S.Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1609_ & _G.Arun Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu, in WP (MD) No.18059 of 2019 dated 06.01.2021_.

vi) Held that the 2nd Respondent was solely responsible for Petitioner being denied a seat in B.Arch, directed 2nd Respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- @ 9% from 30.06.2017 and cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Petitioner.

 

[9/10, 07:27] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/10/judge-r-subramaniyam-order-view-of-the-above-while-condemning-the-second-respondent-for-its-outrageous-and-inexplicable-conduct-i-direct-the-second-respondent-to-pay-a-compensation-of-rs-1000000/
[9/11, 07:18] Sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
*Minor V.Amrutha Vs. Council for Archietecture & Anr.*
W.P.No.16762 of 2017
Dated: 07.09.2022
*Honourable Mr. Justice R. Subramanian * allowed the Writ Petition and awarded compensation and costs in the matter relating to *“NATA – Education – ”* and further observed and held as follows:

i) The Council for Architecture, the 1st Respondent, had been insisting that a candidate who wants to join Bachelor Degree Course in Architecture should clear the National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA).

ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order on 24.07.2008 observing that apart from NATA, there could be other qualifying examinations and it will be open to different State Governments or the Central Board of Secondary Education to conduct an aptitude test for the purposes of admission in Bachelor of Architecture Course. It was also observed that it will not be necessary for students to pass NATA. A notice issued, making a pass in NATA mandatory for B.Arch Admission was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Despite such stay having been granted several State Boards and the second respondent continued to insist upon a pass in NATA. The 1st Respondent issued a circular stating that a pass in NATA was not necessary and candidates qualified in any other specially designed aptitude test would be eligible.

iii) However, during the admission of 2017-18 for B.Arch, NATA 2016-17 was required and specifically provided that those not appeared and qualified in NATA were not eligible for admission. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition was preferred. During admission, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras permitted the Petitioner to make application to the University in-person. However, despite the order of the Hon’ble High Court, that application was also rejected on the same ground that NATA 2016-17 was not complied.

iv) It is not disputed that the 2nd Respondent University is bound to follow the direction of the 1st Respondent, viz. NATA not being a requirement for admission into B.Arch. It was also clear that the authorities were cognizant that NATA was not mandatory. Once there is a positive direction of this Court that the petitioner should be considered for admission having passed JEE Paper-II, the 2nd Respondent ought not to have rejected the application.

v) Hon’ble Supreme Court in _Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jasmine Kaur and others, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 521_, has held that in the event of improper denial of admission, the Court has the power to compensate the student who has been wronged by the actions of the Authorities. Also referred: _Ms.A.E.Durga v. The Directorate of Medical Education, reported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 10695_, _S.Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1609_ & _G.Arun Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu, in WP (MD) No.18059 of 2019 dated 06.01.2021_.

vi) Held that the 2nd Respondent was solely responsible for Petitioner being denied a seat in B.Arch, directed 2nd Respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- @ 9% from 30.06.2017 and cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Petitioner.

[9/10, 07:27] Sekarreporter1: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2022/09/10/judge-r-subramaniyam-order-view-of-the-above-while-condemning-the-second-respondent-for-its-outrageous-and-inexplicable-conduct-i-direct-the-second-respondent-to-pay-a-compensation-of-rs-1000000/
[9/11, 07:18] Sekarreporter1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
*Minor V.Amrutha Vs. Council for Archietecture & Anr.*
W.P.No.16762 of 2017
Dated: 07.09.2022
*Honourable Mr. Justice R. Subramanian * allowed the Writ Petition and awarded compensation and costs in the matter relating to *“NATA – Education – ”* and further observed and held as follows:

i) The Council for Architecture, the 1st Respondent, had been insisting that a candidate who wants to join Bachelor Degree Course in Architecture should clear the National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA).

ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order on 24.07.2008 observing that apart from NATA, there could be other qualifying examinations and it will be open to different State Governments or the Central Board of Secondary Education to conduct an aptitude test for the purposes of admission in Bachelor of Architecture Course. It was also observed that it will not be necessary for students to pass NATA. A notice issued, making a pass in NATA mandatory for B.Arch Admission was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Despite such stay having been granted several State Boards and the second respondent continued to insist upon a pass in NATA. The 1st Respondent issued a circular stating that a pass in NATA was not necessary and candidates qualified in any other specially designed aptitude test would be eligible.

iii) However, during the admission of 2017-18 for B.Arch, NATA 2016-17 was required and specifically provided that those not appeared and qualified in NATA were not eligible for admission. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition was preferred. During admission, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras permitted the Petitioner to make application to the University in-person. However, despite the order of the Hon’ble High Court, that application was also rejected on the same ground that NATA 2016-17 was not complied.

iv) It is not disputed that the 2nd Respondent University is bound to follow the direction of the 1st Respondent, viz. NATA not being a requirement for admission into B.Arch. It was also clear that the authorities were cognizant that NATA was not mandatory. Once there is a positive direction of this Court that the petitioner should be considered for admission having passed JEE Paper-II, the 2nd Respondent ought not to have rejected the application.

v) Hon’ble Supreme Court in _Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jasmine Kaur and others, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 521_, has held that in the event of improper denial of admission, the Court has the power to compensate the student who has been wronged by the actions of the Authorities. Also referred: _Ms.A.E.Durga v. The Directorate of Medical Education, reported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 10695_, _S.Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1609_ & _G.Arun Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu, in WP (MD) No.18059 of 2019 dated 06.01.2021_.

vi) Held that the 2nd Respondent was solely responsible for Petitioner being denied a seat in B.Arch, directed 2nd Respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- @ 9% from 30.06.2017 and cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Petitioner.