A student was recently awarded Rs. 10 lakh in compensation by the Madras High Court from Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions for denying her entrance to the Architecture programme. The court further noted that the respondent's actions were absurd and unfathomable because they were flagrant violations of a prior court order.
In the instant case titled Minor v. Amrutha v. Council for Architecture and another, the issue raised before the Madras High Court was:
Whether National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA) was mandatory for admission to Tamil Nadu Engineering college?
With regard to the issue, the court stated 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 to the Bachelor of Architecture Course including JEE Paper-II Aptitude Test in Architecture.
The court also observed that it will not be necessary for students to pass NATA, the notice issued by the Council for Architecture making a pass in NATA mandatory for admission to Bachelor of Architecture.
The petitioner, who had taken the JEE II and received 226 out of a possible 390 points, was refused admission since the TN Engineering Admission brochure stipulated that the applicant must have passed NATA. The petitioner went to the High Court, and as an interim relief, the court ordered the respondent to take into account the application form that the petitioner may personally submit to the university. However, the respondent denied the petitioner's application, claiming that she did not meet NATA requirements.
The court categorically stated that:
“Second respondent is solely responsible for the petitioner being denied a seat in Bachelor of Architecture Course for the academic year 2017-2018, I am of the considered opinion that the second respondent should be made to compensate the petitioner. Such compensation cannot be decided with mathematical precision, but if the Court reaches the conclusion that the Authorities had not only acted in ignorance but had acted in wilful violation of the orders of this Court, the compensation should definitely be more, as the petitioner has been denied of an opportunity, despite the fact that she had approached this Court and was favoured with a resoned interim order.”
Hence, the court directed the second respondent for its outrageous and inexplicable conduct to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner.