The Kerala High Court has dismissed petitions filed by CBSE students challenging the State government's new marks normalisation formula for engineering admissions under the Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical (KEAM) 2026 prospectus [Jomon Jaison & ors v The State of Kerala & anr and connected case].
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that there was no arbitrariness, unfairness or illegality in the revised system.
The Court observed that the revised method, adopted on the basis of recommendations made by an internal committee, was intended to address disparities caused by the earlier standardisation process.
The Court added that it could not be interfered with this new system merely because some students disagree with a policy choice.
"The system of normalization recommended by the Internal Committee is not a new system. It has been in vogue in the State of Tamil Nadu for several years without any complaint. As noted earlier, the said system does not reveal any reduction in marks for any student from any Board. In the absence of any explicit arbitrariness or prejudice being shown to have been caused to any student due to the method of normalization adopted by the Prospectus 2026, this Court ought to restrain itself from interfering with such a process," the Court held.
The petitions were filed by students studying under the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) who challenged Clauses 1.4 and 9.7.4 of the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses 2026 (Prospectus 2026) issued by the State government.
The 2026 prospectus introduced a new normalisation formula for calculating marks obtained in the qualifying examination while preparing the engineering rank list.
Engineering rank lists are usually prepared by giving equal weightage of 50 percent each to KEAM entrance examination scores and marks obtained in the qualifying examination.
The controversy raised by the petitioners concerned the method adopted to normalise marks obtained by students from different education boards such as CBSE, ICSE and the State board.
The petitioners contended that the new normalisation method was introduced without adequate scientific study or expert review and would adversely affect CBSE students.
The State, however, countered that the earlier standardisation formula had generated widespread complaints as it often resulted in a downward revision of marks secured by students from certain boards.
An internal committee comprising the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, the Director of Technical Education and the Director of SCERT reviewed this issue and recommended adopting the normalisation method followed in Tamil Nadu.
Under the revised system, the highest mark secured in each board is treated as 100 percent and the marks of other students are normalised accordingly.
The State argued that this method took into account the differences in evaluation standards across boards and ensured that students were not subjected to a reduction in their marks because of the board they studied under.
The Court accepted the State's submissions. It emphasised that the revised system was not a new or untested model, but one that has been followed in Tamil Nadu for several years and had even received judicial approval from the Madras High Court.
It rejected the argument that the internal committee lacked expertise in evaluating the new model. The committee consisted of senior officials who were familiar and associated with entrance examinations and educational administration, the Court noted. As such, they could not be regarded as incompetent to review the existing system, the Court held.
The Court concluded that judicial interference was unwarranted in the present matter as educational policies and methods of evaluation were academic and policy matters primarily within the domain of expert bodies and government authorities.
"Merely because there can be minor errors in a system of examination and evaluation introduced by the Government, the court ought not to sit in judgment over the wisdom of such a scheme or system unless serious prejudice is expressly shown to exist in the new scheme or method. Though absolute equality is the ideal situation, that may not be possible to be achieved, especially when there are different Boards following different curricula," the Court said.
Advocates TS Harikumar and PB Sahasranaman appeared for some of the petitioners.
Senior counsel KP Satheesan and advocates P Mohandas, K Sudhinkumar, Sabu Pullan, R Bhaskara Krishnan and Bharath Mohan appeared for the petitioners in a connected matter.
Senior government pleader PG Pramod and State attorney N Manoj Kumar represented the State.
[Read Judgment]