CBSE students fail to get Kerala High Court relief against engineering admissions criteria

Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S ruled that the challenge against the method of normalisation introduced in the prospectus for KEAM 2026 is not legally tenable.

Unequals treated as equals: Students

• The appellants, six students of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) aspiring for admission to engineering courses in Kerala for the 2026-27 academic year, had challenged a government order and the consequent amendments made in the prospectus of KEAM 2026 regarding the change in the subject weightage and standardisation formula.
• The government had amended the subject weightage for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry from 1:1:1 to 5:3:2 and also the standardisation formula.
• The petitioners contended that while introducing a new standardisation formula and subject weightage, the state government bypassed the findings of an expert committee, i.e., the standardisation review committee.
• It was submitted that for introducing the new standardisation formula and subject weightage, the state government relied on minutes of the internal committee, which was not an expert committee consisting of statisticians and academicians.
• It was argued that the new standardisation formula treats unequals as equals, resulting in cross-board discrimination of meritorious candidates.

Allegations unsupported: Court

The high court observed that the committee’s recommendations were reasoned and also found that allegations of mala fides against the state were unsupported by specific pleadings or evidence.

“It was alleged…that, by unilaterally bypassing the findings of that Expert Committee…, the respondents have acted with evident mala fides, to confer unlawful and undue advantage upon the students of the State syllabus, to the detriment of others, the said allegation of mala fides is neither supported by any specific pleadings in that writ petition nor it can be inferred from the proof of facts,” the court noted.

The court held that the policies can be interfered with only if it is shown that the policy is against any statutory provision or the Constitution, or is so absurd that no reasonable or prudent person could have adopted it.

It ruled that the challenge against the method of normalisation introduced in the prospectus for KEAM 2026 is not legally tenable.

“Since the petitioners could not make out any such case, the learned Single Judge rightly declined interference in the policy of the 1st respondent State in amending Clauses 1.4(a) and 9.7.4(b) of the prospectus for KEAM, vide government order dated 26.12.2025,” the court held.

Holding that no interference is required, the division bench dismissed the appeal.

“For the reasons stated hereinbefore, conclusion is irresistible that, no interference is warranted on the judgment of the learned Single Judge…whereby that writ petition was dismissed, declining the reliefs sought for,” the order read.

State’s contention

The additional advocate general for the state, P A Mohammed Shah, and the commissioner for entrance examinations contended that the single judge had rendered the decision after taking note of the legal and factual issues of the case.

It was contended that the reasoning of the single judge was neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting an interference in this intra-court appeal.

It was argued that the impugned judgment of the single judge was rendered after taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth that, in academic matters involving technical expertise, the court should not ordinarily interfere.