High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON : 19.09.2025DELIVERED ON : 08.10.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.4792, 4793, 5379, 5380 and 18823 of 2025Association of Management of Coimbatore,Anna University Affiliated Colleges (Registration No.140 of 2008), Represented By Its Co-ordinator, No.119, Bhavani Road, Erode 638 004. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4283 of 2025AVS College of Technology, Represented By Its Administrative Officer,Attur Main Road, Chinnagoundapuram,Salem District 636 106. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4856 of 2025-Vs-1. Anna University, Represented By Its Registrar, Chennai 600 025.2. The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, Anna University, Chennai 600 025.3. All India Council for Technical Education,Page 1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025 Represented By Its Member Secretary, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070. ... Respondents in both W.PsCommon Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent viz. 'Norms for Faculty Recruitment in Affiliated Colleges' uploaded on 22.01.2025 in Anna University website and quash the same in so far as it relates to the “Norms For Adjunct Faculty / Industry Experts / Professor of Practice' and directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to follow the norms and qualifications prescribed in the guidelines for Appointment of Professor of Practice (PoP) issued by All India Council for Technical Education. In both W.PsFor Petitioners : Mr.Kandhan DuraisamiFor R1 and R2 : Mr.Avinash Wadwani Standing CounselFor R3 : Mr.B.Rabu Manohar SCGC COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent viz. 'Norms for Faculty Recruitment in Affiliated Colleges' uploaded on 22.01.2025 in Anna University website and quash the same in so far as it relates to the “Norms For Adjunct Faculty / Industry Experts / Professor of Practice' and directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to follow the norms and qualifications prescribed in the guidelines for Appointment of Professor of Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025Practice issued by All India Council for Technical Education.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.3. The National Education Policy 2020 seeks to transform higher education by focusing on skill based education to meet the needs of the industry and the economy. It recommends integrating vocational education with general education and strengthening industry-academia collaboration in higher educational institutions. Therefore, an initiative is being taken to bring the industry and other professional expertise into the academic institutions through a new category of positions called “Professor of Practice”(herein after called as “PoP”). It will help to take real world practices and experiences into the class rooms and simultaneously industry and society would benefit from trained graduates equipped with the relevant skills. As per the guidelines for Industry-Academic Mobility issued by All India Council for Technical Education (herein after called as “AICTE”), PoP is a faculty member who brings extensive professional experience and expertise to the academic setting. In order to recruit the PoPs, the third respondent introduced norms for faculty recruitment and cadre ratio in Diploma/Under Graduate/Post Graduate levels under Clause Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 20256.14(d) of the Approval Process Handbook for the years 2024-25 to 2026-27 as follows:-“ i) For Design Courses, services of Adjunct Faculty/Industry Experts Professor of Practice can be utilized up to 20%. ii) For Planning Courses, services of Adjunct Faculty/Industry Experts Professor of Practice can be utilized up to 30%. iii) In all other Programmes, Institutions may avail the services of 'Adjunt Faculty' or 'Professor of Practice (with rich Industry experience)' up to 15% of the required faculty strength, however number of 'Professor of Practice' shall not be less than 10%. Guidelines issued by UGC shall be followed strictly in the appointment of Professor of Practice.”On the similar lines of Professor of Practice, Institutions may avail the services of Industry experts having 5 years & 8 years experience in emerging/multidisciplinary area as Assistant Professor of Practice & Associate Professor of Practice respectively for teaching emerging/ multidisciplinary area course within the maximum permissible limit of 15% as mentioned above (Adjunct Faculty+Professor of Practice, Assistant Professor of Practice & Associate Professor of Practice=15% of total faculty required as per SFR).NOTE: Guidelines issued by AICTE shall be followed strictly in the appointment of Assistant Professor of Practice & Associate Professor of Practice.”4. Accordingly, the third respondent prescribed the qualification and norms for recruitment of faculties prescribed by the AICTE under the PoP scheme is as follows:-DesignationUG/PG/PGDM courses: Professor of Practice (PoP) Associate/Asst.PoPDiploma courses: Associate/Asst.PoPPage 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025DesignationUG/PG/PGDM courses: Professor of Practice (PoP) Associate/Asst.PoPEligibility for Degree coursesProfessor of Practice (PoP)Ph.D with relevant 10 year of experience in large conglomerate**ORMasters with relevant working experience of 15 year in large conglomerateORB.Tech with relevant working experience of seventeen (17) year of experience in large conglomerateOR Ph.D/Masters in B.Tech with minimum five (5) patents and five (5) years of experience in the start-upPh.D is desirable for guiding researchers at Ph.D level but not mandatory for teachingAssociate PoPPh.D with relevant 5 year of experience in large conglomerate**ORMasters with relevant working experience of 10 year in large conglomerateORB.Tech with relevant working experience of Twelve (12) year of experience in large conglomerateOR Ph.D/Masters in B.Tech with minimum five (5) patents and three (3) year of experience in the start-upPh.D is desirable for guiding researchers at Ph.D level but not mandatory for teaching Assistant PoPMasters with relevant working experience of 5 year in large conglomerateORB.Tech with relevant working experience of seven (7) year of experience in large conglomerateOR Ph.D/Masters in B.Tech with minimum three (3) patents and three (3) year of experience in the start-upPh.D is desirable for guiding researchers at Ph.D level but not mandatory for teaching5. However, the second respondent uploaded the norms for faculty recruitment dated 22.01.2025 as follows:-Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025 Norms for Adjunct Faculty/Industry Experts/Professor of PracticeThe norms for Adjunct Faculty/Industry Experts/Professor of Practice in affiliated Colleges to a maximum of 15% of the faculty strength.1. The qualification prescribed in B.E/B.Tech and M.E/M.Tech in relevant discipline with the following requirement of Industrial experience.2. Adjunct Faculty/Industry Experts/Professor of Practice should be appointed as full-time faculty members for consideration of Faculty student ratio. They cannot work in two institutions.3. Attendance Register should be maintained and the proof of salary paid in bank account should be produced during inspection.6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Centre for Affiliation of Institutions of Anna University uploaded the norms for faculty recruitment with drastic deviation from the guidelines issued by the third respondent. The third respondent classified and permitted four types of qualifications/experience for recruitment of PoP, Associate PoP and Assistant PoP with B.Tech/M.Tech/Ph.D qualification with industrial experience, whereas in the norms of the second respondent, arbitrarily, industrially experienced people with B.Tech qualification are not allowed, which is contrary to ground reality to the norms and guidelines issued by the third respondent. He further submitted that the “Technical Education” is included as Entry 25 in List III-concurrent list of our Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent to ensure compliance with the guidelines and norms issued by the third respondent for appointment of PoP's. Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025However, it is not considered so far.7. A perusal of the counter filed by the first and second respondents and on the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the first and second respondents revealed that the writ petition filed by the Association is not at all maintainable, since it cannot seek to espouse the causes of affiliated colleges. The affiliation issued is separate and each college is separately governed. As per the qualification and norms issued by the second respondent, the recruitment process was initiated for the post of PoP, Associate PoP and Assistant PoP and 6000 applications were received so far. The guidelines issued by the second respondent is in line with the third respondent. The second respondent has a power to prescribe higher qualification if it so desires. If the second respondent prescribed lower qualification than the qualification prescribed by the third respondent, it is illegal.8. As per the norms extracted supra, the second respondent prescribed the qualification for the post of PoP, Associate PoP and Assistant PoP with the qualification of B.E./B.Tech and M.E/M.Tech in relevant discipline with the Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025experience of 15 years of industrial experience for the post of PoP, 10 years of industrial experience for the post of Associate PoP and 5 years of industrial experience for the post of Assistant PoP.9. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2004 4 SCC 513 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs S.V.Bratheep (Minor) and others, wherein it was held that the standards prescribed by the State Government could not be adverse to, or lower than, the standards fixed by the AICTE. But the State Government can prescribe standards higher or additional to those prescribed by AICTE. Therefore, the standards fixed should always be realistic which are attainable. Hence, the State Government can prescribe higher or additional clarification for the post of PoP/Associate PoP/Assistant PoP. 10. He further submitted that the determination of standards, being part of the academic policy of the University are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or “adversely affect” the standards, if any, fixed by the third respondent. Therefore, prescribing higher standards for recruitment to post of PoP/Associate PoP/Assistant PoP by laying down qualifications in addition to or higher than Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025those prescribed by the third respondent, consistent with the object of promoting higher standards and excellence in higher education, will not be considered as adversely affecting the standards laid down by the third respondent herein.11. He also relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in 2012 1 CWC 87 in the case of S.Tharani kirthika (Minor) represented by her father and natural guardian R.Subramaniam Vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, wherein it was held as follows:-“ 15. The State Government or University can prescribe higher norms for admission for promoting the excellence of education. A similar issue regarding fixing higher marks for admission to Engineering courses was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Visveswaraya Technological University and Another Vs. Krishnendu Halder and Others, and in paragraphs 13 and 17 (in SCC) it is held thus,13. The object of the State or University fixing eligibility criteria higher than those fixed by AICTE, is twofold. The first and foremost is to maintain excellence in higher education and ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of candidates participating in professional engineering courses. The second is to enable the State to shortlist the applicants for admission in an effective manner, when there are more applicants than available seats. Once the power of the State and the examining body, to fix higher qualifications is recognised, the rules and Regulations made by them prescribing qualifications higher than the minimum suggested by AICTE, will be binding and will be applicable in the respective State, unless AICTE itself subsequently modifies its norms by increasing the Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025eligibility criteria beyond those fixed by the University and the State.17. ...the State/University, may, in spite of vacancies, continue with the higher eligibility criteria to maintain better standards of higher education in the State or in the colleges affiliated to the University. Determination of such standards, being part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or ""adversely affect"" the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment.”12. Therefore, the first and second respondents cannot prescribe minimum eligibility criteria lower than what is prescribed by the third respondent. They can prescribe higher eligibility criteria than what is prescribed by the third respondent. Insofar as the power of the second respondent is concerned, the learned standing counsel for the first and second respondents also relied upon the Judgment reported in 2021 2 SCC 564 in the case of A.P.J.Abdul Kalam Technological University and another Vs Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology and others wherein it was held as follows:-“30. As we have seen earlier, the power to lay down norms and standards and the power to affiliate to itself the Colleges, flow out of clause (iii) and (iv) of Section 8. This power is exercisable by University in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. It is the very same Section 8 which confers power upon the University to make Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations, under clause (xxvi).”Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025 13. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the Norms for Faculty Recruitment in Affiliated Colleges' uploaded by the first respondent on 22.01.2025 and the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 08.10.2025Internet: YesIndex : YesNeutral Citation: YesSpeakingmnPage 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo1. The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai 600 025.2. The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions, Anna University, Chennai 600 025.3. The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070. Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.Nos.4283 and 4856 of 202508.10.2025Page 12 of 12