The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Orissa Private Engineering College Association (OPECA) & Anr.
Background
Odisha's engineering college admissions are normally required by state law to go through a centralized entrance test and counselling process. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the AICTE relaxed eligibility criteria for PGDM/MBA admissions to vacant seats based on qualifying-exam marks, and some B.Tech colleges in Odisha sought the same relaxation. The Orissa High Court directed the State to extend this benefit to B.Tech admissions too, even though AICTE itself had clarified that this relaxation was not meant for engineering courses. The State of Odisha appealed to the Supreme Court against this High Court direction.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction was contrary to Section 3(1) of the Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007, which mandates admission only through an approved entrance test followed by centralized counselling. The Court noted AICTE had expressly clarified that the PGDM/MBA relaxation did not extend to B.Tech courses, so the High Court's mandamus was legally unsustainable and was set aside. However, invoking its special power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the Court protected the roughly 835 students (592 under direct entry and 243 under lateral entry) who had already secured admission under the now-invalidated High Court order, directing that their admissions not be disturbed given the extraordinary hardship caused by the pandemic.
Lesson Learnt
Courts cannot direct government bodies to override a validly enacted statute, even for a sympathetic cause like pandemic relief, but the Supreme Court can still protect people who relied in good faith on a court order later found to be wrong, rather than punishing them for the system's error.