Centre proposes changes in controversial eligibility criterion from next year onwards.
The IIT admission muddle this year has forced the government to rethink the admission policy for future.
According to sources in the HRD ministry, the Centre has proposed changes to the top-20-percentile eligibility criterion for admission to the IITs next year. This was discussed at the meeting called by HRD minister MM Pallam Raju last week to review the IIT and NIT admissions this time.
Officials present at the meeting confirmed that top-20-percentile criterion for IITs could carry a rider from next year that a candidate who has cleared JEE-Advance will be eligible for admission if he/she is in the top 20 percentile of the Class XII board examination or has secured at least 80% in the Boards exams, which ever is lower.
“This, however, is not a final decision and is subject to the approval of Joint Admission Board and the IIT Council,” said Professor HC Gupta, organising chairman of JEE -Advance this year. The JAB is scheduled to meet on August 25 and the IIT Council on September 3.
This rethink has come in wake of a recent admission controversy where 79 aspirants were denied admission to the IITs after getting initial offer as they did not meet the top-20-percentile cut-off marks of their respective schools boards. Many of such aggrieved students were from Andhra Pradesh, who had cleared the entrance test but missed the 92% cut-off marks of Andhra Boards exams by just one or two per cent.
“We don’t want to penalise a student who is so good that he has managed a good rank in the JEE Advance and even got above 80% in Board exams but hasn’t met the 20 percentile cut-off which is in the 90s,” said Gupta explaining the rationale of proposing the rider to the 20 percentile eligibility rule. He, however, ruled out any concession for the 79 students who were denied admission this year.
According to ministry sources, the government could also revisit the normalisation formula meant for admission to the NITs but subject to the ruling of the Supreme Court where a matter regarding the formula is still pending.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}