Judicial Interference and Privatisation: A case study of ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/95978/5/14_chapter5.pdf · 169 Chapter V Judicial Interference and Privatisation:

169

Chapter V

Judicial Interference and Privatisation: A case study of

Self Financing Professional Education

State Legislation vis-à-vis Self Financing Education

Consequent to the violation of the condition – reservation of 50% seats as

government quota – in the aftermath of the T M A Pai Foundation case

verdict put the UDF government in severe confusion. The government

introduced “The Kerala self financing professional colleges (prohibition of

capitation fees and procedure for admission and fixation of fees) Act. 2004.

This is the first law brought by the Kerala government to control and

regulate the self financing professional colleges in the state. The

managements challenged this law in court and finally they got favorable

verdict. It was rightly found that the law had no statutory relevance since

the Supreme Court had explicitly opined in the T M A Pai case in favour of

the private managements.

The second law passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly in July

2006 is known as ‘The Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions

(Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-

Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in

Professional Education) Act. Interestingly, the law was passed by the

unanimous support of the house.

It indicates that, both the left and right political parties arrived at a

consensus about the political control of the self financing institutions are

necessary. There was also the public opinion in favour of the legislation

which forced the UDF to support it. The different sections of the Kerala

society supported the new bill, except some caste-communal groups

(Prasannakumar 2006).

Naturally, the managements didn’t accept this bill and they dragged

the issue in to the court in the name of constitutional validity and minority

rights. The history repeated and the court declared vital provisions of the

170

bill as against constitutional provisions and minority rights. In fact, the

managements obtained a more favourable verdict ever than before, which

made them more powerful in the matter of admission and fixation of fees.

Obviously, the verdict rendered the government defensive. The question is

remaining here-“Does the court has the power to suspend a law passed by a

legislature unanimously? And moreover, is it democratic? After the failure

of this law the self financing college problem became more complicated and

legal disputes have been continuing.

The Kerala professional colleges or institutions Act 2006 is an Act to

ensure social equity, values and justice in self financing professional

colleges. In simply says, it is trying to impose a socio-political control over

self financing professional colleges to improve the quality of education and

ensure social justice (Prabhash 2006). The important provisions in this Act

are prohibition of capitation fee, regulation of admission, fixation of non-

exploitative fee and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in

professional education sector.

The first important feature of the Act is the provision of single

window system for the admission procedure, i.e. common entrance

examination and centralized allotment process to ensure merit based

admission and to prevent the malpractices. Secondly, the Act envisaged

reservation for not only the SC/ST students but also for other weaker

sections in the society including the economically backward students of

upper castes. The reservation category according to this Act was SC/ST –

10%, OBC – 25%, PH – 3%, socially forward and economically backward –

12%, NRI – 15%, management – 15%, sports and culture – 2% and remained

18% for general merit. The Act also suggested for the organization of an

‘Admission Supervisory Committee’ to monitor the admission procedure,

under the chairpersonship of a retired judge in Supreme Court or High

Court.1 This committee has equal power to civil court.

The Bill contains another provision to organize a committee for the

fixation of fee in self financing professional colleges, under the

chairmanship of a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge (Govt. of

Kerala 2006). The bill strictly prohibited receiving fee of more than one

171

year. If anybody receive the fee of more than one year, that should be

considered as capitation fee. The Act removed the ambiguity regarding

capitation fee by defining the amount collected from the students

exceeding the total amount of fee for one year. If any self financing college

violates provisions of the bill and it find clearly, then the punishment is up

to 50 lakhs rupees fine and one to three year imprisonment (Govt. of Kerala

2006). The money collected through the fine would be invested in the

‘Higher Education Scholarship Fund’ to be given to the students who got

admission on the basis of merit and coming under the category of socio-

economic backwardness. Though the UDF and LDF are seemed to be

committed to the cause of state control in self financing education, a

detailed study of their legislations shows differences between these two

Fronts. A comparison of the two legislations is given in the following table.

Table No.1: Legislations of UDF and LDF Governments: A Comparison.

Comparing

Factor

UDF’s Legislation in

2004- 05

LDF’s Legislation in 2006

Allocation of

Seats

Government Seat –

50%

Management Seat –

50%

(including 15 seats

for NRI

Different way in Majority Institutions and

Minority Institutions. Majority Institutions:

Compulsory Reservation – 37%, The

Reservation Through Negotiation – 15%, Merit

Seat – 18%, NRI Seat – 15%, Management Seat

– 15%. Minority Institutions:

College Owned Community – 50%, NRI – 15%,

Admission A Common Entrance

Examination in

Government Seat.

A Separate Entrance

Examination

Conducted by

Managements’

Consortium in

Management Seat.

(Vacant Government

Seats for

Managements)

Single Window System; The Admission is only

on the basis of Common Entrance Examination

except in NRI seats.

172

Fees No Capitation Fees

Government Fees in

Government seat

and in Management

Seat, Fees as they

like

The Committee to be appointed by the

Government will decide the Fees in whole seat;

within this in reservation seat fees

concession/government fees, high level fees in

NRI/management seat, KT Thomas Commission

fees in general merit seat. Don’t receive

advance more than one year fees, The fees will

re allot in every 3 year.

Reservation# No Provision SC/ST – 10%, Socially and Educationally

Backward – 25%, Arts/…. – 2%, PH – 3%, Other

than above mentioned – 12%*

Scholarship/Free

ship

No Provision Provision for both. Scholarship – Higher

Education Scholarship Fund for Socially and

Economically Backward students. Free ship –

Full/partial Fees Concession for Reservation

category students.

Punitive

measures

Fine up to 5 lakh and

Withdrawal of

institutions’

recognition

Three kind of Punishments:

1. Violation of law relating to admission:

Fine up to 10 lakh rupees and

withdrawal of recognition

2. Common violation of law: 1 – 3 year

imprisonment and fine up to 50 lakh

rupees

3. Bureaucrats: the bureaucrat, who is

making corruption in giving income

certificate and the student, who is

taken admission through this will get

same punishment as above.

# Not Applicable in the case of minority institutions.

* In accordance with the consent of managements because of no constitutional validity

Source: Legal and Constitutional Digest, Vol.20, No.3, Kerala Legislative Assembly Library,

Trivandrum, 2006, pp. 81-92

Government of Kerala, Gazette – Extra Ordinary, Trivandrum, 2004, pp. 1-6

Besides the socio-economic and political factors, the judiciary also played a

crucial role in helping the growth of self financing education institutions in

Kerala. Historically speaking, the judiciary in the name of constitution stood

against radical legislations of the progressive political forces. Kerala has a

173

long history of legal controversy vis-à-vis education. For example, in 1957,

the court viewed that some of the provisions of the Education Bill were

against constitutional provisions and minority rights. In 1993, the Supreme

Court came forward with a new scheme in the verdict of Unnikrishnan case.

Emphasis on 50:50 government – management seats and the concept of

cross subsidies indicated that the private managements have to undertake

some social responsibilities. But, in TMA Pai Foundation case Supreme

Court banned the cross subsidies in education institutions. Subsequent

verdicts in Inamdar case and Islamic Academy case also supported the

commercialization of education accelerating the pace of privatization in the

professional education sector. Laws passed by the UDF in 2004 and LDF in

2006 were largely emasculated by the court. A comparison of the two

legislations in Chapter III also proves that the LDF is more committed to

bring about social control of self financing sector than the UDF.

The constitutional issue is mainly relating to two things. Firstly,

Article 19(1)(g) ensures that the citizens can do any business or profession

and accordingly the court opined that the government control over self

financing institution was against this fundamental right. The second one is

relating to minority rights under Article 30, which gives the right to establish

and run the educational institutions by the minority communities. By

ratifying both of them in various verdicts the judiciary has paved way for

outright commercialization of education in the name of privatization.

Judiciary approved that education is a business or trade because it is

protected under Article 19(1)(g). At the same time, court is keeping mum

about the right to education, which is a most important right of every

citizen. Thus it becomes clear that both the constitution and the judiciary

are trying to protect the interest of the private educational entrepreneurs.

Recently, the Left was also forced to accept the idea of self financing

education, but they held strong reservations about the private institutions

working without any socio-political control. The study also finds out that the

political constraints of the Left as a regional force and the fear of possible

debacle in the electoral politics force the LDF to moderate ideological views.

Two regional political parties - Kerala Congress and Muslim League – always

take strong position in favour of privatization and they are pressurizing the

174

Congress within the UDF. The caste/communal organizations having strong

clout vis-à-vis the education sector of Kerala also exert strong pressure in

favour of privatization. The minority politics in the state is another reason

behind the growth of private self financing colleges and these minority

groups constitute nearly 40% of population. This population has a strong

bargaining power in the electoral politics and the religious organizations

mobilize these people against the governments which dare to take strong

decisions. The media also largely give support to the commercialization of

education through manufacturing public opinion for this.

Quality of Self Financing Education

It is very difficult to define and measure the ideas of merit and quality.

However, there are certain commonly accepted mechanisms to evaluate

merit. In the case of education, standardized examinations are

acknowledged as the primary tool to test the merit of the students.

However, we can’t rank the students only on the basis of their performance

in examination, because their socio-economic conditions are very different.

Hence a meritocratic system naturally helps those students who are coming

from relatively affluent background (Kaul 2000). Positive discrimination,

otherwise called as reservation system helps those students to a great

extent. Reservation of seats was also justified on the basis of benign

principles of democratization of education providing equal access for a

substantial majority of children to education (Weisskopf 2004).

Commercialization of education alters the principles of reservation and

merit giving predominance to money.

The quality and merit are closely related to each other. Every society

wants quality education for its development. Quality implies 3 different but

interrelated factors. They are:

1. The quality of students enrolled

2. The quality of teachers and adequate infrastructural facilities

3. The quality and competence of persons in securing job opportunities

in future.

175

The faulty selection procedure of students in self financing colleges

is the first reason for the decline of quality. In the beginning the proportion

of government seats to management seats was fixed at 50:50. Admission to

government seats was purely based on the mark and rank secured in the

common entrance examination conducted by the government. But in the

admission to remaining 50% of seats managements had greater discretion.

But the Supreme Court verdict which declared that the government would

have no power to interfere in the admission procedure seriously altered this

situation too (Venkatesan 2005). In addition to this, in the Inamdar case

managements were given the right to conduct separate entrance test. All

these helped the managements to hold sway in determining the terms and

conditions of admission on the basis of money, rather than merit. It is quite

natural that the profit – hungry managements of self financing colleges

were not ready to give admission on the basis of merit. The arguments and

activities of managements in recent times further substantiate this point.

Moreover, they are wary of the centralized allotment process or admission

through single window system. They are arguing for separate entrance

examination for management seats, but its transparency is dubious. There

are several examples for this malpractice in Kerala where the corrupt

managements misused their power to conduct examination and admission.

Entry barriers on the basis of money downgrade the quality of

students. Thus, 42 students out of 96, who attended the first year

examination in 2003, failed in Thiruvalla Pushpagiri Medical College (Jacob

2004). Ironically, the students having 32680th and 33728th rank in the state

Medical Entrance Examination got admission in that batch (Jacob 2004). The

same decline of quality is visible in colleges in the co-operative sector also.

In 2004, the High Court of Kerala banned admission to management seats of

Pariyaram and Cochin co-operative medical colleges. Supreme Court also

agreed with the High Court verdict and criticized the admission procedure

of those institutions. Surprisingly, a student, who got only 10 marks out of

960 in the common entrance test having 40012th rank was able to secure

admission in Pariyaram Medical College (Prasannakumar 2004).

It is very difficult to prove the decline of quality in self financing

colleges by means of statistical data. But the graver misconduct in

176

admission and the pressure exerted by the managements on university

bodies like syndicates to get moderation in public examinations indicate

that the quality of students is decreasing day by day (Jacob 2004).

The quality of teachers is important and is as equal to the quality of

students, because these two factors greatly decide the quality of output in

education system. In several self financing colleges there is a dearth of

qualified and experienced faculties. Quality is compromised mainly to

assure profit for the management. Naturally, the profit-hungry

managements will appoint teaching staff having poor quality anticipating

that the latter would be satisfied with less salary. In addition to this, there

are many cases in which retired teachers have been appointed as guest

faculty. This causes a severe blow to the quality because the old teachers

may fail to teach the students about recent developments in the discipline.

Moreover, there is no uniform provision for the selection and appointment

of faculties and non-teaching staffs in the self financing educational

institutions. Importantly, the lack of job security and deplorable wage and

service conditions negatively affect the morale of the teaching staff

(Prabhash 2006). K. T. Thomas Committee observed that the absence of

adequate infrastructure also leads to the decline of quality in self financing

professional colleges.

The decline of quality in professional education not only affects the

concerned professionals but also it has a telling impact on the society as a

whole (Menon 2004). Proliferation in the number of engineers and doctors

without ensuring their quality brings up a lot of social problems. Its

precariousness may be dormant today, but surely it would become a reality

within the next 10-15 years. This decline worsens the plight of health and

other sectors like information technology. The aforesaid description raises

doubts about the perceived propaganda of Neoliberals: ‘liberalization of

education leads to greater quality and economic development’ (Iqbal 2004).

Self Financing Education: The Social Cost

Apart from the conventional queries involved in the issue of self financing

professional education newer issues are also coming to the fore. The social

cost due to the proliferation of professional colleges is enormous. The

177

analysis focuses on some issues of social concerns relating to self financing

Medical Education and Engineering Colleges.

a) Medical Education and Social Health

Increasing number of medical colleges and engineering colleges consequent

to privatization creates several social problems also. The increasing number

of doctors will lead to over hospitalization and educated unemployment.

Moreover, privatization changes the moral values of the doctors, and the

health sector faces deterioration in ethics and values. The decline of quality

in health sector not only affects the poor people but the whole society. In

the health sector, global market shows no stability in demand for medical

professionals. And also some of the developed countries have already

passed anti-migration laws. Moreover, the decline in quality partly due to

the privatization of medical education raises doubts about the chances of

competition in the free market.

Proliferation of medical colleges contributes to the unlimited growth

in the number of doctors. In 2005, the doctor – people ratio in Kerala was

1:960. As a result of the increase in number of colleges and seats the ratio

in 2025 will be 1:430. Further it will become 1:283 if the doctors in

Ayurveda and Homeo streams are taken for consideration. The supply of

doctors further increases it the statistics include those who complete

medical courses outside Kerala (Ekbal 2004).

According to World Health organization (WHO) doctor- people ratio

of 1:3000 is more than sufficient. It shows that there is a big difference

between the existing ratio and the actual need of the society. It is also

opined that modernization of health sector including employment of new

mechanical devices for diagnosis and treatment has also reduced the need

for large number of doctors (Ekbal 2004). All of these suggest that, Kerala

seldom require large number of doctors in future, and what it really needs

is highly qualified doctors. Since quality-wise the doctors from self financing

medical colleges do not seem to be competent such hopes are in vain.

Therefore, the self financing Medical Colleges which produces a large

number of ill-qualified doctors is becoming a social burden (Ekbal 2004).

178

Disproportionate increase in the number of doctors irrespective of

the social demand creates many problems. It has already become a burden

in the case of United States of America, Australia, Hong Kong and some

European states. American Government appointed a committee to examine

this issue. Their policies on medical education propose to reduce the

number of medical seats. They are also discouraging migration of medical

professionals from foreign states. It is worth mentioning that the mounting

resistance to immigration of medical staff in the west has a telling impact

for Kerala because the protagonists of self financing professional education

always point out the increasing job opportunities in western countries as a

strong reason for their case. On the contrary to what is usually argued and

propagated, the current trends show that there would be a slump in job

opportunities especially in medical profession in the global market.

There has been a serious decline in professional ethics in the health

sector. While decline in job opportunities on the one hand spread

disappointment among the medical professionals, the increase in number

also would have graver social concerns. Like any other service it has become

converted into a profitable business. Naturally, doctors enjoy the monopoly

of knowledge in medical science which makes the patients accept without

question the identification, definition and diagnosis of the disease (Nabae

2003). Thus, the doctors who are worry of declining income due to the

increasing competition are compelled to misuse this monopoly. This leads

to problems like over hospitalization and over administration of medicines.

Over hospitalization, over administration of drugs and the misuse of

medical knowledge by doctors are having strong structural relations with

the privatization of Health care and deregulation of the Pharmaceutical

industry. The profit seeking drug companies and mushrooming private

hospitals obviously capitalize from the crisis due to the proliferation of

doctors (Nabae 2003).

A study conducted by Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishath (KSSP) in 1996,

shows that there is 898% increase in health expenditure in the last ten years

in Kerala. The increase in medicine’s price is also a reason behind it.

Definitely, the increase in doctor’s consultation fee has also contributed to

this. It also reveals another significant point that the increasing number of

179

doctors is not helping to decrease the doctor fee and health expenditure

until recently. At the same time instances are not rare when patients were

exploited by the wilful medical practitioners. For example, in Kerala 98.5%

of deliveries is happening in hospitals, because of the high literacy of

people, of which 27% is caesarean. WHO says that, there is no medical

justification if the caesarean operations exceed 10% of total deliveries. But

in Kerala, even in villages, 17% of deliveries are by caesarean (Ekbal 2004).

All these prove that over hospitalization is already a reality in the health

sector of Kerala, and in future, there are sufficient chances to worsen this.

While increasing competition leads to over hospitalization, it also

leads to growing concerns about specialization. It also creates worries. At

present, in Kerala 50% of the doctors are specialists. Growth in Specialty

Hospitals is to be read along with this. Increasing number of specialists

naturally leads to increase in health expenditure. Recent statistics show

that, in Kerala the per capita health expenditure and the ratio between

family expenditure and health expenditure are increasing very rapidly. The

low expenditure for quality health protection, which is an important feature

of Kerala Model of Development, has almost diminished (Gasper and

Sebastian 1999: 398-401). Needless to say in detail, it would have negative

consequences for the marginalized people and low income groups.

Even though the self financing medical education is promoted on the

basis of the propaganda about its positive impact on the society reality

proves otherwise. There are many points in the tall talks about self

financing education which can be disproved through a critical analysis. For

example, there is an argument in support of opening more private medical

colleges that the qualified medical professionals can sell their labour and

skill at the international level. Due to globalization and that the number of

doctors in one state is not to be fixed based on the ratio of doctor-people of

that state. This argument seems to be ignorant about the fact that in spite

of globalization free flow of labour is a distant possibility and export of

human capital is extremely difficult on account of various reasons. In

addition to this, job opportunities in the international market are not

sustainable. Even if one concede for the sake of argument that there is a

constant demand for doctors from Kerala. Another question comes to the

180

mind: Are the medical students of the self financing colleges eligible and

able to compete in international market?

Proliferation of self financing colleges is also justified on another

reason that it would help the backward regions and states to get the service

of doctors (Nabae 2003). But it sounds little logic became there is no ground

to imagine that after spending huge money from their pocket in the self

financing colleges these doctors would be willing to work for the services of

the backward regions for lower financial returns. Such arguments, in fact,

would help to shift critical focus from the real issues faced by the health

sector of Kerala. If the backward regions and rural areas have a dearth of

doctors. It should be resolved through implementing effective health

policies, for instance, expansion of rural health infrastructure and

compulsory village services for the doctors. Instead of implementing strong

measures to tackle the issue the government policies favouring self

financing education would destroy the public health care system.2

The decline of quality in medical field has dreadful impact on the

whole society. The self financing colleges are producing more number of

doctors without sufficient quality which further causes to degrade the

moral standards of medical profession. A doctor’s profession is considered

as service more than a job for income and profit. The self financing colleges,

whose ultimate aim is to make profit, may cause attitudinal change among

the young doctors’. Those who are obtaining degrees from these colleges

and would be more concerned about money than service. Since the

students, of self financing medical colleges spend a large amount of money,

when they start medical practice their main objective would be to recollect

it at any cost.

b) Self Financing Engineering Colleges

Self financing engineering education also has the same story to tell. Growth

of IT industry in the recent one and a half decade has become a strong

reason for shifting the focus of engineering education to Information

Technology. Since the colleges in public and aided - private sector can alone

satisfy the demand self financing education in IT is promoted.

181

The objective of self financing colleges is to increase the quantity

and export these human resources to different part of the country and

other foreign states (Menon 2004: 13). High quality is necessary to compete

in the international and national market. But the self financing engineering

colleges are not producing that much of quality persons (Menon 2004: 13).

The uncontrolled growth of engineering colleges is making many social

problems. It is a false idea that IT can give job to everyone, who completed

engineering degree. It is well ascertained that it may also cause to educated

unemployment. The study conducted by KSSP proves that 20% of students

can’t complete their engineering course. The major reason behind it is the

increasing number of seats which are filled up with unqualified students.

The engineering education is gaining wider currency because of the

growth of Information Technology. But since the market laws dictate the

demand for professionals, engineering graduates also face the problems of

unemployment and under employment. The market economy promotes the

growth of self financing education because it will ensure cheap labour

through increasing the number of job seekers. Preponderance shown to the

professional education also affects other streams of higher education for

example, social sciences and basic sciences. It has negative implication from

the vantage point of production of knowledge.

Kerala’s educational achievements attracted global attention and

even the developed countries were looking at its merits surprisingly.

Educational development, which made the state first among the Indian

states in literacy, health security, social development, political participation

etc., was also the major factor behind all achievements summed up as

‘Kerala Model of Development’. However, it is acknowledged that the high

social development is compounded with a low economic growth. So it led to

a large scale export of human resources to all over the world and the

remittance from abroad sustains Kerala economy. Majority of the new

generation migrants are educated persons and it makes a difference from

the manual labour migration of the previous decades. Higher education

played a vital role in realizing greater migration of educated people.

182

State intervention in the higher education sector, including

professional education made it accessible to all sections of the Kerala

society and it led to the social development, particularly the social

mobilization of backward sections. This positive intervention of state was

realized by various factors like social reform movements, strong presence of

left politics, princely states’ welfare policies, role of Christian missionaries

etc. The introduction of neoliberal policies in the state followed by the

Central government’s economic reforms, led to the privatization of higher

education and mushroom growth of self financing professional colleges in

Kerala. It raises several problems in professional education for example,

questions of quality, social equity and justice.

Formation of Kerala state in 1956 witnessed a turning point in the

educational development of the state. The newly elected government of CPI

introduced an Education Bill to bring about radical changes in this sector,

but the right wing political parties and caste/communal groups opposed

this. The intervention of Supreme Court diluted the radical character of this

bill and it became a big success for the caste/communal pressure politics.

After this the caste/communal groups (which are the institutionalized form

of erstwhile social reform movements) became strong pressure groups in

Kerala politics and they made direct and indirect alliance with political

parties. However, education policies in the first two-three decades after the

formation of state were able to maintain a balance between public and

private participation in the education sector. But since 1990s the education

sector has been moving to a different direction due to the emergence of

self financing institutions. These newly emerged private institutions

demand for greater freedom and autonomy in management.

The origin and development of self financing colleges is not a unique

feature of the state, but it is a nationwide phenomenon. Privatization and

liberalization of education sector resulted in the withdrawal of state from

providing education to the people and the rise of private institutions. Birla-

Ambani Report, GATS, Knowledge Commission Report and the policies of

UGC give support to self financing education. Following this, the UDF

government (1991-96) first started self financing colleges in the cooperative

sector. The UDF government (2001-06) initiated steps to permit self

183

financing professional colleges in private sector without any political

control.

The unbridled growth of self financing colleges not only affects the

poor students, but in the long time it can pose many threats to the society

as a whole. It is true that self financing education denies the right to

education to the poor people. It also creates a situation in which the

professional education is monopolized by the affluent sections. It resembles

the time of feudalism with a subtle difference that while in the older system

caste was used for discrimination of people and denial of education to the

majority; it is the class factor which acts as the criteria of discrimination in

the contemporary times. However, in both cases denial of the basic rights is

most glaring.

Judiciary and Self financing Education: Impact Assessment Study

To assess the impact of judicial pronouncements vis-à-vis self financing

institutions, a field survey was conducted at Thiruvananthapuram District,

Kerala. The study analysed the impact of judicial intervention on issues

related to quality, equity and social justice. The study has specifically taken

Thiruvananthapuram District as the field to carry out the survey.

Thiruvananthapuarm District has some unique features in education,

particularly in higher professional education in Kerala. The first Medical

College and Engineering College were established in this District. Southern

Kerala, particularly Thiruvananthapuram, is well known for the over

emphasise of educational consciousness of middle class. The presence of

different categories of professional education institutions distinguishes this

District from rest of the Kerala. Three medical colleges were selected from

different sectors, one from Government, one from corporate management

and one from single management. The classification of three engineering

colleges are based on government sector, government/university self

financing and private self financing.

Six colleges were selected - three medical colleges and three

engineering colleges - as samples. The population of the survey was the

MBBS and B. Tech students in these Colleges. The total population of the

survey is 6478. Ten percent of samples were collected from Medical

184

Colleges and five percent from each engineering college. Consequently the

sample size was 436. The samples were collected through the method of

simple random sampling. This survey is conducted during July-August 2014.

A general profile of the survey is given in the Table No. 1. The study

included Government Medical College (GMC), Thiruvananthapuram, CSI

Medical College (CSIMC), Karakonam, a corporate management institution

and Sree Gokulam Medical College (SGMC), Venjaramoodu. The engineering

colleges are College of Engineering (CET), Thiruvanathapuram, University

College of Engineering (UCE), Kariavattom and St. Thomas Institute of

Science and Technology (STIST), Kazhakuttam.

Table No.2: General Profile of Survey

Name of College Course Population Sample

Size Percentage

Govt. Medical College, Tvm MBBS 1000 100 10

CSI Medical College,

Karakonam

MBBS 500 50 10

SG Medical Collge,

Venjaramoodu

MBBS 750 75 10

College of Engineering, Tvm B. Tech 2308 115 5

University College of

Engineering, Kariavattom

B. Tech 720 36 5

STIST, Kazhakuttam B. Tech 1200 60 5

Total 6478 436 6.73

A brief profile of the colleges surveyed is given below.

Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMC)

Government Medical College Thiruvananthapuram was established in 1951.

This is the oldest and the most prestigious medical college in Kerala. It has

an annual intake of 200 students for MBBS and 89 students for MD/MS. The

185

Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram is the principal agency

in emanating the Kerala Model of health care. The establishment of the

college and hospital was a fulfilment of popular ambitions and paved way

for the rise of Kerala in the health sector. The institution has been upgraded

to the status of All India Institute of Medical Sciences due to its unique

achievements. It is regarded as an important tertiary care-provider to the

southern parts of India. Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram

is one among the top 25 colleges in the nation; ranked 21 in the India Today

survey.

Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College (CSIMC), Karakonam,

Thiruvananthapuram

Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College was established in 2002,

attached to the Dr. Somervell Memorial Mission Hospital at Karakonam,

Thiruvananthapuram. The Medical College is a self-financing, minority

institution affiliated to the University of Kerala. The Medical College is run

by the South Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India and is managed by

the South Kerala Medical Mission. The South Kerala Medical Mission is a

Charitable Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary,

Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act XII of 1955. The office of

the South Kerala Medical Mission is in the LMS Compound, the Head Office

of the CSI South Kerala Diocese. It has an annual intake of 100 students for

MBBS and 20 students for MD/MS.

Sree Gokulam Medical College (SGMC), Venjaramood, Thiruvananthapuram

Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation was established in

2004 and is located at Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram by Foundation

of Non Resident Indians Trust. This institution started MBBS course in the

academic year 2005-06. This institution is recognised by Medical Council of

India for the conduct of MBBS course in the year 2010 and is affiliated to

the Kerala University of Health Sciences. The annual intake currently

permitted is 150 for MBBS and 43 for MS/MD.

186

College of Engineering, Trivandrum (CET)

The College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram was established in 1939 by

Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, king of Travancore. The college was

ranked 18th overall among 100 Top Engineering colleges of the country by

Dataquest-CMR Top T-Schools Survey 2011. With the establishment of the

Directorate of Technical Education in the late 1950s, the college

administration came under the direct control of the Government. In 1960,

the college was shifted to its present campus at Kulathoor, Sreekaryam. The

undergraduate and postgraduate courses are accredited by AICTE. In 1990,

the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, ranked

the college as one among the high ranking institutions in comparison with

the performance of National Institute of Technology(NITs) in the area of

training and placement. It is one of the few technical institutions in South

India, which admits students mostly on merit basis through an All Kerala

Engineering Entrance Examination. Besides the regular B.Tech, B.Arch,

M.Tech, M.Plan and MCA programmes, the college also conducts part time

B.Tech and M.Tech classes for meritorious Diploma Holders. The total

intake for regular B. Tech is 577 per year. The survey is conducted among

the regular B. Tech students.

University College of Engineering (UCE), Kariavattom

The University College of Engineering was established in 2000, at the

Kariavattom campus of University of Kerala. This is a self financing college

directly managed by the University of Kerala. The College aspires to emerge

as a model institution for technical education in the State. The college has

also served as a model in several matters including the fee structure. The

college also admits students under the NRI quota and management quota.

The College offers B. Tech in Electronics and Communication, Computer

Science and Engineering and Information Technology. The total intake of

students in every year is 180.

St. Thomas Institute of Science and Technology (STIST), Kazhakuttam

The St Thomas Institute of Science and Technology (STIST) is promoted by the

Mar Thoma Church Educational Society, Trivandrum (MTCES) registered in

187

1966 under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies

Registration Act. The Society has established the St Thomas Institute of

Science and Technology (STIST) in July 2010. The courses offered are B. Tech

in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Electronic

Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering and Computer

Science Engineering. This is an ISO 9001:2008 certified institution and

approved by AICTE. This is a private self financing college affiliated to the

University of Kerala. The total intake of students in an academic year is 300.

1. Quality of Students

Even though it is very difficult to define and measure the ideas of merit and

quality, there are certain commonly accepted mechanisms to evaluate

merit. In the case of education, standardized examinations are

acknowledged as the primary tool to test the merit of the students.

However, we can’t rank the students only on the basis of their performance

in examination, because their socio-economic conditions are very different.

Hence a meritocratic system naturally helps those students who are coming

from relatively affluent background (Kaul 2000). The quality and merit are

closely related to each other. Every society wants quality education for its

development. Quality mainly implies three different but interrelated

factors. They are the quality of students enrolled, the quality of teachers,

existence of adequate infrastructural facilities and the quality and

competence of persons in securing job opportunities in future. Among

these four factors, it is very difficult to assess the quality of teachers and the

availability of infrastructural facility of a college through a survey, as the

students are scared to reveal these facts. Naturally, they are inclined to

answer to these questions in the affirmative.

The survey focused to understand the quality of students enrolled in these

institutions.

The faulty selection procedure of students in self financing colleges is the

first reason for the decline of quality. In the beginning the proportion of

government seats to management seats was fixed at 50:50. Admission to

government seats was purely based on the mark and rank secured in the

common entrance examination conducted by the government. However, in

188

the admission to remaining 50% of seats managements enjoyed greater

discretion and elasticity. But the Supreme Court’s verdict which declared

that the government would have no power to interfere with the admission

procedure seriously altered this situation too (Venkatesan 2005). This point

is very clear in the table given below.

a) Rank Position in the State Entrance Examination

The survey conducted gave the following regarding the quality of students.

Table No. 2 shows that the difference in the rank position of the students

enrolled in the government and self financing medical colleges.

Table No. 3: Rank Position of students in Medical colleges

College Name Below

500

500 to

1000

1000 to

2000

2000 to

5000

Above

5000

GMC, TVM 58.33 25.00 8.33 8.33 0.00

CSIMC, Karakonam 0.00 10.00 35.00 35.00 20.00

SGMC, Venjaramoodu 2.44 12.20 43.90 29.27 12.20

58% of students in Government Medical College are under the category of

below 500 rank. No student got admission in the CSI Medical College under

this category. SG Medical College has only a nominal representation, ie

2.4% in this category. Table indicates that no students got admission in Govt

Medical College whose ranking position was above 5000. This includes

students falling under reservation. At the same time 16 percentage of

students got admission in self financing colleges (CSIMC, Karakonam and

SGMC, Venjaramoodu) who got category above 5000 rank. Moreover, 83.3

percentage of students in the Government College comes under below

1000 category. But it is only 10% in CSI Medical College and 14.6% in SG

Medical College in the same category. It refers to the difference in the

quality of students in the Government and self financing Medical Colleges.

The situation in the Engineering College is also similar to this

condition. Table No. 3 indicates the difference in the rank position of the

189

students in government and self financing engineering colleges. 11.9% of

students in the government college come under the category of below

1000. But no student got admission from this category in the two self

financing colleges under study. 64.2% of students in the government college

got below 10000 rank; on the other hand it is only 2.86% in the University

College of Engineering and 0% in the STIST. When we take care of students

who got rank above 15000, there are only 4.7% in the government college

and it is 31.4% in University College and 83.3% in STIST.

Table No.4: Rank Position of Students in Engineering Colleges

College Name Below

1000

1000 to

5000

5000 to

10000

10000 to

15000

Above

15000

CE,Tvm 11.90 52.38 19.05 11.90 4.76

UCE, Kariavattom 0.00 2.86 37.14 28.57 31.43

STIST, Kazhakuttam 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33

b) Marks Scored in the Qualifying Examination (Plus Two)

The quality of students in the self financing and government colleges are

also evaluated in this survey on the basis of their marks in the qualifying

examination (Plus Two). The comparison of students in the self financing

and government colleges proves the lower quality of students in self

financing colleges. Table No. 4 explains this distinction.

Table No. 5: Percentage of Plus Two Marks (Medical College)

College Name Below

80

80 to

84

85 to

89

90 to

94

95 &

Above

Govt. Medical College, Tvm 0.00 0.00 8.33 41.67 50.00

CSIMC, Karakonam 7.32 9.76 39.02 29.27 14.63

SGMC, Venjaramoodu 2.44 17.07 29.27 36.59 14.63

190

Table shows that the 50 percentage of students in the Government Medical

College scored 95% and above for their plus Two course. But it is only 14.6%

each in two self financing medical colleges. Moreover, no student in the

government medical college has below 85% and only 8.3% of students come

under 85-89 category. 91.6% are scored 90% and above in their qualifying

exam. 56.1% of students in CSI Medical College scored below 90% in their

Plus Two course and it is 48.78% in the case of SG Medical College. 7.3% in

CSI Medical College and 2.4% in SG Medical College scored below 80%.

Table No. 5 says that self financing engineering colleges failed to

attract the qualitatively superior students. 23.4% of students in the

government college got 95 and above percentage of marks for their Plus

Two course. It is 53.1% in the category of 90 and above. There is only 9.1%

in the category of below 80. In STIST 34.15% of students have marks below

80% for their Plus Two course and no students got 95% and above. 82.8% in

this college are in the category of below 85%. In the case of University

College of Engineering only 5.7% are above 95% category. But it has 45.9%

of students 90 and above category.

Table No.6: Percentage of Plus Two Marks (Engineering College)

College Name Below

80 80 to 84 85 to 89 90 to 94

95 &

Above

CE, Tvm 9.15 22.77 14.89 29.79 23.40

UCE, Kariavattom 12.57 14.29 27.14 40.29 5.71

STIST 34.15 48.78 14.63 2.44 0.00

c) Backlog

To assess the quality of students admitted, backlog of papers of the

students studying in govt and self financing colleges was taken as this

indicates the quality of students, institution and teaching. Table 6 shows the

backlog status of students and its difference between govt and self

financing institutions. Only 4% of students have backlog papers in Govt

Medical College. But its percentage in CSI Medical College is 26 and SG

191

Medical College it is 21. It is 16% in the case of govt engineering college and

38 and 55 percentage in University College of Engineering and STIST

respectively. When we compare the medical and engineering sector, the

statistics shows that the number of backlog is very high in engineering field

than medical field.

Table No.7: Backlog Papers

College Name Yes No

Govt Medical College, Tvm 04 96

CSI MC, Karakonam 26 74

SGMC, Venjaramoodu 21 79

CET 16 84

UCE, Kariavattom 38 62

STIST, Kazhakuttam 55 45

To evaluate the quality of students in the self financing medical and

engineering colleges on the basis of their rank position in state entrance

examination and the percentage of their Plus Two marks, there is a huge

difference with government colleges. Quality of students has a predominant

role to maintain the quality of institution. In that sense, it is clear that the

self financing medical and engineering colleges cannot maintain higher

quality, at least in the case of the students admitted there and their

performance in these colleges.

2. Equity, Social Justice and class character of self financing

professional education

Growth of self financing colleges is viewed differently by its critics and

supporters. For its protagonists, self financing colleges enhance quality of

education, provide job opportunities, ensure competition and encourage

investment. The opponents of this view raise questions of quality, equity

and justice as the basic concerns. They apprehended that liberalization of

professional education would wash away social justice from the education

sector and the monopolization of education by the rich.

192

The powerful middle class of Kerala which is striving for better

quality of life usually find the intervening state as a nuisance. The middle

class has strong predilections for new economic reforms and generally, this

new middle class is favouring privatization in general and privatization of

higher education in particular.

a) Capitation Fee

Capitation fee is an evil in self financing education. As it is an illegal practice,

both students and managements are not ready to reveal about the capitation

fee in any self financing institutions. Even though, the survey explore that the

practice of capitation fee is happening even now in these institutions. Table 7

indicates that capitation fee is almost compulsory to get an admission in NRI

and Management Quota. Some students got admission in open merit and

reservation categories are also revealed that they have given capitation fee for

getting admission violating all rules and regulations.

Table No.8: Capitation fee

College Name

Open Merit Reservation NRI MGT

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

CSIMC, Karakonam 0 100 14 86 32 68 38 62

SGMC, Venjaramoodu 0 100 18 82 28 72 33 67

UCE, Kariavattom 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

STIST, Kazhakuttam 14 86 25 75 38 62 44 56

Table 7 indicates that 32% of NRI quota students and 38% of management

quota students in CSI Medical College agree that they have given capitation

fee for admission. This is more or less similar in the case of SG Medical

College also, because the table shows that 28% of NRI quota and 33% of

management quota students paid capitation fee. Engineering sector is also

not free from this practice. The students got admission in NRI (38%) and

management quota (44%) in STIST revealed that they have given capitation

fee. It does not mean that the remaining students in these colleges have not

given capitation; the reality is they are not ready to reveal this matter. It is

193

very interesting to see that no student in the university self financing

college opined that they have given capitation fee. Thus the practice of

capitation fee is happening only in private self financing sector. It is very

vital to see 14% of students got admission in open merit and 25% of

students got admission in reservation category in STIST said that they have

given capitation fee. 14% in CSI Medical College and 18% in SG Medical

College of students got admission in reservation category replied they have

given capitation fee.

b) Income Level of Parents

Income level of parents shows that the class character of the self financing

professional education, especially in management quota and NRI quota.

There is no doubt that the higher professional education, particular medical

and engineering is representing an affluent section of society. Majority of

the parents of students in these institutions belong to upper middle class.

However, the government colleges are representing the different section of

society through different methods like reservation. But in the case of self

financing institutions, NRI and management quota are not affordable to a

common man. It is very visible in the Table No 8.

Table No.9: NRI-MGT Quota Admission and Annual Income of Parents

College Name

NRI MGT

Below 0.5

Lakh

0.5 to

2.5 Lakh

2.5 to 5

Lakh

Above 5

Lakh

Below

0.5

Lakh

0.5 to

2.5 Lakh

2.5 to 5

Lakh

Above 5

Lakh

CSIMC,

Karakonam 0 0 50 50 8 46 15 31

SGMC,

Venjaramoodu 0 0 70 30 0 0 56 44

UCE, Kariavattom 0 0 90 10 43 14 29 14

STIST,

Kazhakuttam 0 0 10 90 20 0 60 20

From the above table it is clear that no student got admission in NRI quota

in these 4 institutions whose parents have less than 2.5 lakh rupees as

194

annual income. Moreover, 50% in CSI Medical College, 30% in SG Medical

College and 90% in STIST are under the category of above 5 Lakh. When

compared with other institutions, it is a good indicator that only 10% belong

to above 5 lakh category. The management quota admission also supports

the class character of the self financing education. However, the University

college of Engineering is an exception. 43% of students got admission in

management quota come under the below 0.5 lakh category. It shows the

self financing education in govt/university sector is better than the private.

Only 8% of students got admission in management quota under the

category of below 0.5 lakh in CSI Medical College and it is 0% in SG Medical

College. 80% of students in STIST come under the category of 2.5 lakh and

above. Notably, 44% in SG Medical College and 31% in CSI Medical College

have 5 lakh and above annual income. It is only 14% in University College of

Engineering and 20% in STIST. It can say that the class character of self

financing medical education is more rigid than the engineering sector.

c) Employment/Profession of Parent

Besides the annual income of the parents, their employment/profession is

also very important to understand the social status. Table No 9 analyses the

admission wise employment/profession of parent.

Table No.10: Occupation of Parent (category wise)

Name of

College Open Merit Reservation NRI MGT

Go

vt

Pri

va

te

Bu

sin

ess

NR

I

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

Go

vt

Pri

va

te

Bu

sin

ess

NR

I

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

Go

vt

Pri

va

te

Bu

sin

ess

NR

I

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

Go

vt

Pri

va

te

Bu

sin

ess

NR

I

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

GMC 63 13 25 0 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CSIMC 63 25 6 6 0 86 14 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 15 54 31 0 0

SGM C 52 16 16 16 0 50 17 17 17 0 0 0 0 100 0 11 22 67 0 0

CET 21 60 9 7 2 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UCE 31 50 12 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 29 57 14 0 0

STIST 61 22 17 0 0 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 8 50 33 8 0

195

Table underlines the domination of govt job in open merit both in govt and

self financing colleges. In Govt Medical College, 63% of parents of students

in open merit are the govt employees. The statistics is same in the case of

CSI Medical College. It is 52% in SG Medical College, 21% in Govt

engineering college, 31% in University College of Engineering and 61% in

STIST. Business, private job and NRI parents in the open merit is very low in

medical colleges and is comparatively high in engineering colleges except

private self financing engineering college. It is not a good sign to see that

there is no representation of farmer/agriculture sector. The representation

of farmer/agriculture is limited only in the category of open merit, that too

only in two colleges, ie. College of Engineering and University College of

Engineering; but it is only nominal, ie., 2% and 4% respectively. The

employment of parents of students, those who got admission in

management quota in self financing medical and engineering colleges,

indicates the difference with open merit.

Only 15% of parents have government employment in the

management quota in CSI Medical College and remaining 85% have private

job and business. In SG Medical College, 11% have government employment

and remaining 89% comes under private job and business. In STIST, 8% have

only government job and 83% have private job or business. Table No 10 is

capable to give an overall idea about economic background of the students

in government and self financing colleges.

Table No. 11: Annual Income of Parent (category wise)

College Name Below

0.5 Lakh

0.5 to 2.5

Lakh

2.5 to 5

Lakh

Above 5

Lakh

Govt Medical College, Tvm 16.7 41.7 31.7 10

CSIMC, Karakonam 12.4 30.8 26.1 30.8

SGMC, Venjaramoodu 14.7 34.0 24.9 26.4

CET 44.7 34.0 14.9 6.4

UCE, Kariavattom 27.3 36.4 24.2 12.1

STIST, Kazhakuttam 18.9 27.0 27.8 26.2

The above table indicates that the number of low income is high in

government sector and high income students are more accommodated by

self financing sector. It is only 10% in Government Medical College, whereas

it is 30.8% and 26.4% in CSI

respectively. In the case of

category of below 0.5 Lakh. There is only 6.4% under the category of above

5 lakh. But in the case of STIST, it is 18.9% and 26.9% respectively.

d) Education Loan

Another parameter for analysing the economic dimension of self

education is education loan. The education loan is providing an opportunity

to attain higher professional education even for poor students. The

supporters of self financing education argue that every student has equal

opportunity in self financin

who do not have economic capability can take education loan to meet their

expenditure. But the survey proves that this argument is not true. Those

who meet their expenditure by education loan are only applicabl

merit in self financing colleges. There is only a very minimum number in

management quota, actually which constitute the half of the total seats.

Following graph explain this reality.

Figure No.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Open Merit

56

78

90

CSIMC, Karakonam

UCE, Kariavattom

196




it is 30.8% and 26.4% in CSI Medical College and SG M

respectively. In the case of College of Engineering, 44.7% come under the



Education Loan

Another parameter for analysing the economic dimension of self




opportunity in self financing sector whether they are poor or rich. Those



who meet their expenditure by education loan are only applicabl



Following graph explain this reality.

Admission wise Education loan in Self Financing Colleges

Open Merit Resevation NRI MGT

19

0

25

11

0

11

90

10

0

62

15

0

CSIMC, Karakonam SGMC, Venjaramoodu

UCE, Kariavattom STIST, Kazhakuttam




Medical College

gineering, 44.7% come under the



Another parameter for analysing the economic dimension of self financing




g sector whether they are poor or rich. Those



who meet their expenditure by education loan are only applicable for open



Financing Colleges

MGT

0

23

SGMC, Venjaramoodu

STIST, Kazhakuttam

197

From among the total students, those who availed education loan in CSI

Medical College 56% is in the category of open merit, 19% comes under the

category of reservation and remaining 25% is in the management quota. In

SG Medical College 78% of the beneficiaries of education loan got admission

in open merit and 11% in reservation category. The remaining 11% only got

admission in management quota. In the case of University College of

Engineering, none from the management/NRI quota availed education loan.

The open merit and reservation category constitute 77% in STIST. The

remaining 23% are in management quota. Notably, there is no

representation in NRI quota in these 3 colleges as the beneficiary of

education loan.

The survey explores different class dimensions of the self financing

education, especially in medical and engineering. It evaluates the economic

mobilization of lower class and serves the interest of the upper class. Even

though liberalization of education helps to increase the number of

professional education institutions, it prevents the lower class from getting

admission, making education accessible only to wards of upper and upper

middle class. The unbridled growth of self financing colleges not only

affects the poor students, but in the long time it can pose many threats to

the society as a whole. It is true that self financing education denies the

right to education to the poor people. It also creates a situation in which the

professional education is monopolized by the affluent sections. It resembles

the time of feudalism with a subtle difference that while in the older system

caste was used for discrimination of people and denial of education to the

majority; it is the class factor which acts as the criteria of discrimination in

the contemporary times. However, in both cases denial of the basic rights is

most glaring.

3. Self financing education: Attitude of students and their awareness

The self financing professional education, particularly medical and

engineering sector, is a topic of hot debates both in academic and popular

circles. It has involved a lot of issues like legal, constitutional, political,

economic, minority rights etc. However, the students in concerned sector

are not aware about the issues well. Moreover, many students do not have

198

a minimum knowledge about the difference in the fee structure between

government and self financing. It is very important to analyse how they see

this issue and their opinion about the self financing education. Their

attitude to concerned subject and profession is also very vital.

a) Transfer

The survey asked a question: would they prefer a transfer from the present

to another institution. The question was tossed to discern information

regarding their satisfactory level. Table No. 11 tell about the satisfaction of

students in their institution.

Table No.12: Preference of Transfer

College Name Yes No

Govt Medi College, Tvm 0 100

CSIMC, Karakonam 44 56


CET 9 91



From the selected samples in the govt medical college, no one prefers a

transfer to any other institution. But 44% of students in the CSI Medical

College prefer a transfer to other institutions if they are given an

opportunity. 25% of students in the SG Medical College would like a transfer

if they got an opportunity. It is only 9% of students who demand a change

from their institution in College of Engineering. 48% of students in

University College of Engineering and 28% of students in STIST favour with a

transfer. The dissatisfaction of the students may be because of many

reasons like low quality of institution, lack of adequate infrastructural

facilities, high fee and any other practical inconvenience. But the fact that

199

the so called argument in favour of self financing education likes it will give

quality, efficiency and development is not correct. That is why a

considerable number of students in self financing colleges are dissatisfied

there and seek a transfer.

b) Higher Studies

The attitude of students to their profession and subject in the self financing

colleges is another matter of debate. Table No 12 shows the difference in

the attitude of students in govt and self financing colleges.

Table No.13: Higher Studies in the same Profession

College Name Yes No

Govt Medical College, Tvm 100 0

CSIMC, Karakonam 77 23


CET 88 12



All the students in the government medical college would like to go for

higher studies in the same profession. 23% of students in the CSI Medical

College and 15% of students in the SG Medical College would not like to go

for higher studies in the same profession. In the same matter, the number

in engineering sector is very high. Even in govt engineering college, 12% of

students do not want to go for higher education or at least in the same

profession. The percentage is very high in self financing engineering college.

It is 34 and 45 in University College of Engineering and STIST respectively.

T he result of the survey indicates that the majority of the students

support self financing institution in govt sector or controlled by the govt.

30% of students express that self financing education institutions should be

in govt sector. 13% of students support self financing institution in aided

sector. 32% opined that self financing education institutions should be

controlled by the govt. only 6% of students suppo

institutions without any governmental control. 19% did not response to this

question. The diagram given below refers the opinion of the students.

Figure No.2

When we set aside the non respondents, it is clear that only 7.4% of students

support private self financing education. The popular propagation in favour of

private sector or privatisation of education does not have a popular support

other than a microscop

The main attraction of any professional course is its employability.

The self financing professional education is also propagating a reputed job

market. But the critics argue that low quality and high quantity will

negatively affect the employability of st

education institutions, especially in engineering sector where the

competition is very high. The survey is also analysed the opinion of the

students about the employability of their course. A considerable number of

students in the self financing engineering college think their course is not

Private Sector

6%

200



controlled by the govt. only 6% of students support self financing



Figure No.2 Opinion about Self Financing Education




other than a microscopic minority of private entrepreneurs.




negatively affect the employability of students in the self financing




the self financing engineering college think their course is not

Govt. Sector

30%

Aided Sector

13%

Controled by

the Govt.

32%

Private Sector

6%

No Opinion

19%



rt self financing



Opinion about Self Financing Education







udents in the self financing




the self financing engineering college think their course is not

that much of employable. Comparatively, it is very minimum in medical

colleges. Even students in govt engineering college opined that they are not

sure about employment. The chart given below

percentage of students those who think their course is not employable.

Figure No. 3: Employab

No students in Government Medical College think their course is not

employable. 5% of students are belonging in C

in SG Medical College have the opinion that their course in not more

employable. Comparatively the students in engineering colleges are very

high in this matter. 15% of students are in

and 41 percentage in University College

respectively.

This chapter has highlighted the attempts of different ruling front

(UDF and LDF) in Kerala to

0%

41%

201



sure about employment. The chart given below indicates the college wise


Figure No. 3: Employability of Course


employable. 5% of students are belonging in CSI Medical College and 10 %

have the opinion that their course in not more


high in this matter. 15% of students are in College of engineering and 29

ntage in University College of Engineering and STIST

has highlighted the attempts of different ruling front

to contain the effects of Indian judiciary’s incursions

5% 10%15%

29%

GMC, Tvm

CSIMC, Karakonam

SGMC, Venjaramoodu

Got. Eng TVM

UCE, Kariavattom

STIST, Kazhakuttam



indicates the college wise



and 10 %

have the opinion that their course in not more


engineering and 29

and STIST

has highlighted the attempts of different ruling fronts

the effects of Indian judiciary’s incursions

SGMC, Venjaramoodu

202

into the higher education policy making domain of the governments. As

noted, higher education policy making involves all the three organs of the

State: legislature, executive and higher judiciary (the High Courts and the

Supreme Courts). As happened in all democracies including India, ‘the

courts have tended to move from the byways onto the highways of policy

making’ (Horowitz 1977: 9). The Inamdar Case has incontrovertibly testified

that the courts have not only laid on policy in higher education, but also

engaged in the nitty-gritty of the implementation of policies. The survey

found out the poor quality of students enrolled in self financing institutions;

lack of equity and social justice in student enrollment; and higher skewness

in student enrollment in favour of the affluent middle class.

The aftermath of this judicial interference is the absence of a

differential treatment of the weaker sections, or what John Rawls called a

‘difference principle’. When education is commodified, when the fiscal

investment in higher education sector is plummeting, when educational

qualification becomes the main factor for every youth to compete in the job

market, and when globalisation sets the law of market to determine the life

of all including the poor, merit, social justice and quality in higher education

is compromised. It should be emphasised that half of the world’s poor

dwell in India and increasing privatization/proliferation of self financing

institutions restrict poor’s access to higher education.

1 The government organized a committee, under the chairpersonship of retired High

Court judge, Justice P, A Muhammad and it known as Muhammad Committee

2 India has the biggest number of medical colleges including highest number of medical

seats. According to the census of 2000, there are 181 medical colleges in India, out of

which 26 has not been approved by the (AIME). 19,613 medical seats are available in

India per annum, out of this 64.7% in government sector and 35.3% in private sector.

Documents

Judicial Interference and Privatisation: A case study of ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/95978/5/14_chapter5.pdf · 169 Chapter V Judicial Interference and Privatisation: