Chennai, June 13: Madras High Court was today flooded with litigations challenging the Jayalalithaa government’s decision to scrap the common entrance test for admission to professional colleges.
Instead of easing the burden on students, the government’s order that admissions should be on the basis of marks obtained in the Plus Two examinations has opened a Pandora’s box of complaints.
While over 120 students filed writ petitions in batches today, challenging the abolition of the common entrance test from 2005-06, another set objected to the cancellation of improvement exams that gave Plus Two students the opportunity for re-tests in the core papers.
The petitions will be heard in the high court tomorrow.
The common entrance test for 2005-06 had been conducted by Anna University and the results declared before the government announced its decision. Students who had done well in the test are a disgruntled lot, especially those with a CBSE certificate.
They feel their chances have been jeopardised by the new admission procedure as marks given by the Delhi board were not as high as those obtained by students who have studied under the state board.
The government has also said that for students who passed their Plus Two exams last year but took an improvement exam this year, only marks obtained in the “first attempt” will count during admission to professional colleges.
Sources said the government’s move has particularly hit Dalit students ' they were allowed to take two improvement exams.
Sathyapriya, a student from Tiruvannamalai district, says in her petition that she sat for her improvement exam last year and was hoping to get into medicine this year on the basis of a better performance.
Although the Jayalalithaa government’s decision has been welcomed by all political parties, there have been criticism of certain facets like the drawing of lots if two or more candidates have the same aggregate.
PMK leader S. Ramadoss was the first to lambast the “tiebreaker”. He said: “The move to draw lots or to decide on the basis of the date of birth of candidates in a tie-breaker (which means that slightly younger candidates could get penalised for no fault of theirs) is patently absurd.”
All these arguments will feature in what is likely to be a complex long-drawn court battle starting tomorrow.