Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya Polytechnic College, Swamy Anuragananda v. The Secretary to Government, Education Department

ORDERThe petitioner is a Polytechnic College. It was founded bySri Ramakrishna Mission, which is a registered society severaldecades ago. It is offering Diploma courses in TechnicalEducation. It is affiliated to the 2nd respondent. UnderG.O.Ms.841, Education Department, dated 07.05.1980 the 2ndrespondent granted academic autonomous status to the petitionerPolytechnic College. Fulfilling all the conditions stipulatedtherein, the petitioner polytechnic college was all alongfunctioning enjoying the full status of autonomy. While so, AllIndia Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 ( in short , theAICTE Act") came into being. As per the said Act, the AICTE hasissued guidelines on the scheme of autonomous polytechnic collegesand other Diploma level institutions throughout the country. The 2ndrespondent by letter D.Dis.No.21930/H5/96, dated 10.05.1996communicated the said guidelines to the petitioner indicatingthereby, that the petitioner Polytechnic should follow the saidguidelines scrupulously.2. As per the guidelines, an autonomous polytechniccollege will have freedom in respect of the following:(i) to determine and prescribe its owncourses of study and syllabi in close collaborationwith the user system;(ii) to prescribe rule of admission as perAICTE regulations, subject to the reservationpolicy of the State Government;(iii) to evolve methods of evaluation andto conduct examination; and(iv) the autonomy shall be a means toachieve higher standards and greater creativity inthe future. An autonomous institution will befully accountable for the content and quality ofeducation that it imparts. It will be responsiblefor evaluation of students for awards ofDiploma/Certificate which will be accepted by theparent Board.3. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is the parent Board.After the coming into force of the said guidelines, indisputably,there was no need to get fresh affiliation or autonomous status.The affiliation granted earlier to the petitioner polytechniccollege and the autonomous status granted hold good. 4. While the petitioner polytechnic college was enjoyingthe autonomous status, a letter was sent by the 3rd respondent on17.03.2009 vide Ref. No.112386/M1/2008 directing the petitionerpolytechnic college to take corrective measures to the effect that (1) Proposal for the Internal EvaluationSystem to be in consonance with the State Board'snorms;(2) Grading of classes to be in conformity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the State Board's norms; and(3) To frame the curriculum within thetime limit and get them approved by the StateBoard;5. It was further informed that in the event of thepetitioner failing to take corrective measures, the State Board ofTechnical Education may have to review the autonomous status forthe institution which may lead to taking action to abridge orwithdraw the autonomous status of the petitioner polytechniccollege. In response to the said letter, the petitioner sent aletter dated 01.04.2009 requesting the respondents to convene theaward committee meeting on 11.04.2009 and to depute DOTE nomineesfor the same. Thereafter, under letter No.112386/M1/2008, dated08.04.2009, the 3rd respondent again informed the petitioner thathe would be allowed to convene the award committee meeting onlyafter corrective measures as advised in the letter dated 17.03.2009have been taken. As a result, though the students have taken theexamination and evaluation has been done by the college, since,award committee meeting was not held, the college could notrecommend to the second respondent for awarding of certificates.Challenging these two letters the petitioner has come forward withthis writ petition.6. The crux of the contentions of the petitioner is asfollows:-(i) The impugned letters tend to interferewith the internal administration of thepetitioner polytechnic college which isimpermissible in law.(ii) Refusal to convene the awardcommittee to recommend for awarding of Diplomacertificates to the candidates who have done thefirst year Diploma course during the year 2008-2009 is highly arbitrary.(iii) The petitioner polytechnic collegewhich is enjoying complete academic autonomyis free to prescribe its own curricula, method ofvaluation, etc., which have been rightly done.The impugned letters directing the petitionerpolytechnic college to change the same isviolative of the guidelines of AICTE. (iv) Neither the State Government nor theDirector of Technical Education has got power todirect the petitioner to change the curricula,method of evaluation, in view of the CentralRegulation which occupies the field.7. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent, inter alia,it is contended that under the executive power of the StateGovernment under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, in orderto achieve higher standards of education, the Government has gotpower to prescribe higher qualifications than the qualificationsprescribed by the AICTE. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.It is further contended that, the petitioner polytechniccollege is bound by the guidelines stipulated by the specialcommittee which prescribes modes for internal evaluation forawarding of marks. But, the petitioner institution has proposedfor internal evaluation system in a different manner, moreparticularly, the petitioner institution proposes to award 10marks for students appraisal , which is contrary to the specialcommittee's report. 9.The next contention is that in the matter of awardingFirst class as per the Special Committee's Report , a student whocompletes all the papers including that of the I and II semesterswithin the stipulated period of study without break of study aloneis entitled for First class and for First class with distiction;whereas according to the petitioner polytechnic college, inspecial cases, such as break in studies due to genuine reasons(e.g.,) medical / financial grounds, as per the recommendations aof the special committee constituted by the Principal for thispurpose, even though a student has not completed the semesterswithin the stipulated study period and without any break of study,he is entitled for First class with honours and I class. This againruns contrary to the guidelines of AICTE. 10. Yet another contention is that, there cannot be twostandards adopted for awarding of Diplomas by the State Board forTechnical Education and Training, one as per the guidelinesissued by the Directorate and the other by the petitioner accordingto its own regulations.11.It is further contended that, if the proposal of thepetitioner polytechnic college in the matter of internal evaluationsystem and the proposal regarding grading of classes are accepted,then, there will be decline in standard of education and that isthe reason why, under the impugned letter, the petitionerpolytechnic college was directed to take corrective measures toprescribe the internal evaluation system and grading of classeson par with the other institutions in the State governed by the2nd respondent.12.Lastly, it is stated that in respect of Diploma in Auditcourse, as per the DoTE scheme there are only 9 subjects, for whichtotal number of 400 marks are awarded; whereas according to theproposal of the petitioner polytechnic college, 12 subjects havebeen included, for which a total number of 1300 marks is awarded.It is further contended that 3 additional subjects, which have beenadded have got nothing to do with the technical education andthus the inclusion of the same is illegal. It is also contendedthat if escalated marks are awarded for these 3 subjects for thestudents studying in the petitioner polytechnic college ,certainly, it will have impact on the over all percentage ofmarks secured by the students. When the students, who are studyingin the other institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu are pittedagainst the students who are studying in the petitioner college,certainly, the students in the petitioner polytechnic college will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be in advantageous position in the matter of percentage of overall marks. This would clearly amount to discrimination, whichcannot be permitted. Further, adding additional subjects, whichhave no connection at all with the technical education would resultin decline in standard of technical education.13. The 4th respondent has not filed any separate counteraffidavit. But, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondentsubmitted that the respondents 1 to 3 are bound by the guidelinesissued by the 4th respondent and not by the special committeereport on which reliance is now made by the respondents 1 to 3.14. I have considered the rival submissions and alsoperused the records carefully.15. At the outset , I have to state that though thepetitioner is an autonomous institution , it cannot claim absoluteexemption from the purview of the Government as well as theDirector of Technical Education. Though the petitioner polytechniccollege follows its own curricula , conduct of examinations andevaluation of the students' performance , ultimately , the Diplomais awarded only by the 2nd respondent. As per the AICTE Regulations,the parent Board is the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent cannotblindly award Diplomas to whomsoever the petitioner polytechniccollege recommends. The autonomy cannot be misunderstood to meana complete freedom to the petitioner polytechnic college toprescribe any curricula, any method of evaluation and any mode ofgrading of the successful students. No freedom can be absolutewithout any reasonable restrictions; likewise no autonomy grantedto any institution can be absolute without reasonable restrictions.Therefore, the whole issue involved in this case should beapproached by keeping in mind that the State Government in itsexecutive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India hasgot power to prescribe reasonable restrictions on the autonomyeither in the matter of admission or in the matter of curricula orin the matter of evaluation or in the matter of grading.16. The learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner, with his usual fairness, submitted that the petitionerpolytechnic college is bound by the standards prescribed by the 2ndrespondent. But, all that he would argue is that theinconsistencies pointed out in the impugned letters, requiring thepetitioner polytechnic college to take corrective measures, wouldnot result in decline in standard of education. But, the same wouldonly add to the standard of technical education imparted by thepetitioner polytechnic college. Therefore, according to him, theproposal to award 10 marks for students appraisal for the internalwould only encourage better discipline, decorum and behaviour ofthe students. He would further submit that by the clauses treatingthe said cases such as, break in studies due to genuine reasons(e.g.,) medical and financial grounds as per the recommendations ofthe special committee constituted by the Principal for thispurpose, is only in tune with the DOTE norms since non autonomouspolytechnic colleges also have provisions of relaxation of break in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ studies due to genuine reasons provided the students concernedfurnish documents to justify the claim. This also, according tothe learned senior counsel, would not indicate that there isdecline in standards of technical education. 17. In respect of marks awarded for 3 additional subjectsfor the Diploma in Audit course, it is stated that these subjectsare essential ingredients for development of total personality ofthe students. These components were included by the staff andexperts of the Board of Studies on the basis of the positive feedback from the students, parents and ALUMINI of the Institution.According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, this isin no way in contradiction with the K-Scheme of the DoTE. Above allaccording to the learned senior counsel, adding 3 additionalsubjects and awarding of marks for the same would not in any mannerresult in decline in standard of technical education. 18. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for therespondents 1 and 2 would take me through the guidelines of theAICTE and the report of the Special Committee constituted by theGovernment of Tamil Nadu which has all along been followed in theState of Tamil Nadu. According to him, awarding of 10 marks out of25 marks for appraisal is not measurable qualitatively and it maylead to discrimination. This, according to him, is totally againstthe State Board norms. He would further submit that awarding ofgrades in the petitioner polytechnic college based on the medical /financial grounds and based on the opinion of the committee is weakin nature and not followed in any other institution in the State.It is unjust and the same will create unrest among the students ofother Polytechnics. He would further submit that out of 343polytechnics in the State where there are about 2.8 lacs studentsstudying, if one polytechnic college is allowed to grade thestudents in a different manner, it will amount to cleardiscrimination among students. 19. He would further submit that the writ petition ishighly prematured and the same is liable to be dismissed since theimpugned letters are only show cause notices calling upon thepetitioner polytechnic college to take corrective measures andcautioning the petitioner that in the event of failure , actionwould be taken to review the autonomous status granted to thepetitioner polytechnic college. 20. At this juncture, it should be noticed that the resultsof the examination conducted during the academic year 2008-2009have not so far been declared because the 2nd respondent, by meansof the impugned letter, has been insisting to redo the evaluationand also the grading system prescribed by the Director of TechnicalEducation. As a result, the students are suffering. 21. Though it is contended by the learned AdditionalAdvocate General that the impugned letters are in the nature ofonly show cause notices, I am not impressed by the said arguments. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ De hors the said letters, if the 2nd respondent had taken any actionto safeguard the interest of the students without wasting theirvaluable career , then, this Court would have been in a positionto appreciate the said argument. Since, the respondents 1 and 2have rest contended with the two letters without taking any furtheraction and as a result, the fate of the students is in perils, I amof the considered view that the present writ petition cannot betermed as highly premature warranting dismissal at its thresholdas it is argued by the learned Additional Advocate General.22. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitionerdoes not dispute the fact that the guidelines issued by the AICTEbind the petitioner polytechnic college. As per Clause 5 of theguidelines , the right of autonomy many not be conferred once forall. The exercise of rights on freedom of autonomy will however becontinuously earned and deserved. Initially, the autonomy begranted for a period of 3 years and the same be reviewed every 3years with the help of the committee constituted thereunder. Incase of evidence of declining standards in technical education,it is open to the State Board, after careful scrutiny, to revokethe autonomy itself in consultation with the AICTE. 23. The learned Additional Advocate General would submitthat there is a decline in standard of technical education in thepetitioner polytechnic college and therefore, the impugned noticeswere issued only with a view to review the autonomous status. In myconsidered opinion, in so far as the petitioner polytechniccollege is concerned, the autonomous status was not conferred inpursuance of AICTE guidelines after coming into force of the same.The autonomous status was given to the petitioner polytechniccollege in the year 1980 as per the norms prescribed by theDirector of Technical Education based on the report of the specialcommittee. Though, for all practical purposes, the autonomousstatus conferred prior to the coming into force of AICTEguidelines has been adopted as autonomous status granted under thesaid guidelines, it should be construed that the said autonomousstatus shall be in force only for 3 years from the date of cominginto force of AICTE guidelines in the year 1996. This court is notinformed that on expiry of 3 years term, after coming into force ofthe AICTE Norms, the respondents 1 and 2 had ever reviewed theautonomy given to the petitioner polytechnic college as requiredunder the guidelines once in 3 years. Though, the guidelines wereissued in the year 1996, for about 13 years, the petitionerpolytechnic college has been enjoying the autonomy without therehas been any review of the autonomy as required under theguidelines. This shows that the respondents 1 and 2 have notdischarged their functions in the expected lines. It is also notbrought to the notice of this Court that a committee has beenconstituted in the State of Tamil Nadu to review the autonomousstatus of these polytechnics as required under the AICTE guidelinesand that the State Board has collected any material so farevidencing declining standards of technical education imparted inthe petitioner polytechnic college. It is also not the argumentof the learned Additional Advocate General that the State Board hasbeen in consultation with the AICTE for the purpose of withdrawingthe autonomous status. When the 2nd respondent has not reviewed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ autonomous status every 3 years as required under the AICTEguidelines, it is really surprising to hear the arguments of thelearned Additional Advocate General that the impugned notices arein the nature of show cause notices to withdraw the autonomousstatus given to the petitioner polytechnic college. The question ofrevoking autonomy would arise only when there are materialscollected during the 3 years period for which autonomy is granted.In the case on hand, since no review was done so far for the past13 years , even now it is the obligation of the 2nd respondent toreview the autonomous status given to the petitioner so as todecide whether to allow the petitioner polytechnic college toenjoy the autonomy for another 3 years or not. Thus, in myconsidered opinion, it does not require any show cause notice atall, as contended by the learned Additional Advocate General. Asit is abundantly clear from the guidelines issued by the AICTEthat the 2nd respondent is required only to constitute a Committeeas required thereunder to review whether to allow the petitionerpolytechnic college to enjoy the autonomy for another 3 years ornot. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral that the impugned letters are only show cause notices forreviewing the autonomous status given to the petitioner polytechniccollege cannot be accepted because no such show cause notice isrequired for reviewing. If it is the question of revocation , thensuch notice may be required.24. Coming back to the contention of the petitioner inrespect of awarding of marks in the internal assessment andgrading of students, let me, now, consider a comparative tablesubmitted by the petitioner in respect of internal marks for theacademic year 2008-2009 which is as follows: INTERNAL MARKS BREAK-UPS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DoTE SchemePetitioner SchemeTheoryMarkPracticalMarkAttendance5Attendance5Test10Procedure,observationandtabulation /otherrelatedpractical work10Assignment10result10Totalmarks25RecordWriting25Totalmarks25TheorymarksPracticalmarkStudentsAppraisal10Procedure10Assignments5Observation,Calculations etc.,10ContinuousAssessment tests5Result &Neatness5ModelExamination525. Regarding awarding of 5 marks on assignments, 5 marksfor continuous assessment tests and 5 marks for model examinationas per the proposal of the petitioner, the respondents have got noobjection at all as these marks are awarded based on the objectiveevaluation. The dispute is only in respect of awarding of 10 marksfor students appraisal. This, according to the petitioner, isnecessary to encourage better discipline, decorum and behaviour ofstudents. But, according to the respondents, this will lead todiscrimination and arbitrariness. Further, it is against the StateBoard norms. In so far as the norms of the State Board areconcerned, as I have already stated and as admitted by the learnedsenior counsel appearing for the petitioner, it bind the petitionerpolytechnic college. According to the State Board norms, forattendance 5 marks is given, which is missing in the case of thepetitioner's proposal. In my considered opinion, it would be infitness of things that 5 marks for attendance is awarded by thepetitioner polytechnic college also in tune with the State Boardnorms. The remaining 5 marks may be awarded on the basis of anyother objective evaluation. Admittedly, during the years 2006-07,2007-08 for internal assessment, 25 marks were awarded by thepetitioner polytechnic college under three categories viz., 5 marksfor assessment, 10 marks for continuous assessment test and 10marks for model examination. It was not objected to by therespondents as there was no subjective test regarding the internal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessment marks; whereas under the proposal for the year 2008-2009 marks are awarded for internal assessment on subjective test.Therefore, as it was during the year 2006-07 and 2007-08, thepetitioner polytechnic college may award 10 marks for continuosassessment test instead of 5 marks. If that is done all the 3tests would be objective which would escape the criticism ofarbitrariness. To put it otherwise, the petitioner polytechniccollege may award 5 marks for attendance; 5 marks for assessments,10 marks for continuos assessment tests and 5 marks for modelexamination. If this is done, in my considered opinion, theproblems could be solved. During his concluding argument, thelearned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatthe petitioner polytechnic college is willing to go by the verdictof this Court, if on consideration of entire arguments, this Courtcomes to the conclusion that awarding of 10 marks for students'appraisal would not be in accordance with law. 26. Considering the said fair submission made above , I amof the view that to obviate the doubt regarding the possibility ofdiscrimination, the method suggested above may be adopted by thepetitioner polytechnic college which may be acceptable to therespondents also. This suggestion is made because this Court is ofthe view that awarding of 10 marks for students appraisal willlead to unreasonable awarding of marks subject to whims and fanciesof the teachers and the same would result in arbitrariness.Therefore, I hold that awarding of 10 marks for students appraisalin the internal examination is not sound in legal sense. In thisregard, the respondents 1 and 2 have got power to direct thepetitioner to correct the same as the respondents 1 and 2 areconcerned with quality and high standard of technical education tobe imparted to the students. 27. While coming to the next issue regarding grading ofsuccessful students, a comparative statement in respect of gradingof students as submitted by the petitioner polytechnic college isas follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As per DoTEAs per Petitioner polytechnicCollege FirstClassA candidate will bedeclared to havepassed in FirstClass if he or she secures not lessthan 60% of theaggregate marks inall semesters puttogether exceptfirst and secondsemester andcompletes all papersincluding that ofthe first and thesecond semesterwithin thestipulated period ofstudy 3 years fulltime without break-in study.FirstClassA candidate will bedeclared to have passed inFirst Class if he securesnot less than 60% of theaggregate marks in allsemesters put togetherexcept first two semestersand successfully completeshis first year or to yearsfrom the time of hisadmission to second yearunder lateral entryscheme*.-----------------------------------------*Except special cases suchas break-in studies due togenuine reasons, e.g.,medical/financial groundsas per the recommendationsof a special committeeconstituted by theprincipal for this purposeAs per DoTEAs per Petitioner polytechnicCollege https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As per DoTEAs per Petitioner polytechnicCollege FirstClasswithDistinctionA candidate will bedeclared to havepassed in FirstClass withDistinction if he orshe secures not lessthan 75% of theaggregate marks inall semesters puttogether exceptfirst and secondsemester and passesall the abovesemesters in thefirst appearanceitself and completesall papers includingthat of first andsecond semesterwithin thestipulated period ofstudy years fulltime without anybreak-in study FirstClasswithHonoursA candidate will bedeclared to have passed inFirst Class with Honoursif he secures not less 75% of the aggregate marksin all semesters puttogether except first twosemesters and passes allsemesters in firstappearance andsuccessfully completes hisdiploma within 3 yearsduration from time of hisadmission to first year ortwo years from the time ofhis admission to secondyear under lateral entryscheme*.*Except special cases suchas break-in studies due togenuine reasons, e.g.,medical/financial groundsas per the recommendationsof a special committeeconstituted by theprincipal for thispurpose. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28. Insofar as First class is concerned, the normsprescribed by the DOTE and the petitioner polytechnic college areone and the same, except proviso clause added which is opposed toby the respondent . Similarly, for the candidates who secured morethan 75% of aggregated marks as per the DOTE norms, First classwith distinction is being awarded; whereas First class with honoursis awarded by the petitioner polytechnic college. In this regardalso there is no much difference and there is no dispute betweenthe parties. Here again, the proviso clause added alone ischallenged.29. It is contended by the petitioner that it may happenin the case of some students that due to genuine reasons likemedical and financial grounds, they may not be in a position towrite the examinations and only in those circumstances, on suchgrounds, an exemption is given , which according to the petitionerpolytechnic college would not lead to decline in standard oftechnical education. The learned senior counsel would submit thatfor any reason, if a student writes the examination and fails,resulting in break-in studies, First class or First class withhonours is not awarded by the petitioner polytechnic college. Hewould further submit that, having regard to the realities in life,this kind of exemption is given and so the same cannot be treatedas arbitrary. In my considered opinion, the said contention cannotbe accepted. As it is rightly pointed out by the learnedAdditional Advocate General, it is not brought to the notice ofthis Court that any where in India in any other technicalinstitution like, the petitioner institution, this kind ofexemption is given. The learned counsel on either side would submitthat as far as the university regulations are concerned, manyuniversities condone shortage of attendance by 5% on medicalgrounds. But, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner wouldsubmit that granting exemption as per proviso clause to theproposal of the petitioner also can be treated as a condonation.In my considered opinion, the said argument cannot be accepted forthe simple reason that condonation of shortage of attendance isdone by a university to qualify a student to go for examination.If once a student is allowed to sit for the examination, theshortage of attendance has got no role to play in the matter ofgrading. But, the proviso clause in question , certainly,influences the grading of the students. Therefore, the presentcondonation cannot be equated to condonation of shortage ofattendance presently done by various universities. The learnedAdditional Advocate General would submit that this proviso clauseis also not in tune with the DOTE norms. 30. It is not brought to the notice of this Court that inrespect of grading AICTE has issued any regulation. Therefore, theregulation issued by the State occupies the field and the samebinds the petitioner polytechnic college. Under the guise ofautonomy , the petitioner polytechnic college cannot prescribe adifferent standard which may lead to an anomalous situationresulting in decline in standard of education. In my consideredopinion, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral, this will lead only to discrimination because the students https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ who study in other polytechnic colleges in the State in the samefooting cannot get First class with distinction in the event offailure by getting the same condoned; whereas the studentsstudying in the petitioner polytechnic college alone would be in ahigher position to get First class with honours by getting theirfailure condoned on medical or financial grounds. This, in myconsidered opinion , cannot be allowed. Therefore, this clause isillegal and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 were right indirecting the petitioner to take corrective measures to remove theclause in question.31. Yet another dispute is in respect subjects for whichmarks are awarded during the I-semester for the Diploma in Auditcourse. The comparative tabulation filed by the petitionerincorporating the details prescribed by DOTE and subject detailsprescribed by the petitioner polytechnic college is as follows:-SUBJECTS DTAILS FOR FIRST SEMESTER COURSES AS PER DoTEName ofsubjectsPeriodsper sem Allocation of marksInternal ExternalTotal InexternalMin.forpassCommunicationEnglish-I64257510050ComputerApplication642575Annual patternMathematics112257510040EngineeringPhysics -I 48257510040EngineeringChemistry-I48257510050EngineeringGraphics962575Annual patternPhysicsPractical322575Annual patternChemistryPractical 322575Annual patternWorkshopPractice642575Annual pattern https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SUBJECTS DTAILS FOR FIRST SEMESTER COURSES AS PER DoTE Total =560400 Workload:16 weeks X 5 days X 7 hrs = 560 daysSUBJECTS DTAILS FOR FIRST SEMESTER COURSES AS PER PETITIONERPOLYTECHNIC COLLEGE Name of subjectPeriods persem Allocation of marksInternal ExternalTotal Inexternalmin. forpassMin.forpassEnglish I4825751003040EnglishCommunicationPractical 322575100-50Basics ofcomputer scienceI64257510050MathematicsI 12825751003040Apllied Physics-I4825751003040AppliedChemistry-I4825751003040TechnicalDrawing642575100-50Applied PhysicsPractical-I 322575100-50AppliedChermistryPractical -I322575100-50 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SUBJECTS DTAILS FOR FIRST SEMESTER COURSES AS PER PETITIONERPOLYTECHNIC COLLEGE WorkshopPractice-I642575100-50Value Educaton-I3025751003040EnglishCommunicationSkill3025100100-50CHOOSE ANY ONE:1.Communitybased Service2.CulturalEducation3.LiteraryEducation4.National CadetCorps5.NationalService Scheme6.PhyscialEducation30-48 Total =6501300 Workload:approx. 17 weeksX 5.5daysX7hrs = 650 days32. Up to subjects 1 to 9, there is no dispute between theparties. The dispute is in respect of additional subjects viz.10,11 and 12 added by the petitioner polytechnic college. It iscontended by the respondent that, of course, because of theautonomy enjoyed by the petitioner, it can add any subject so asto improve the standard of technical education. But, at the sametime, under the guise of autonomy, according to the respondents 1and 2, the petitioner cannot add subjects which have got noconnection at all with technical education. The learned AdditionalAdvocate General would point out that Value Education and Englishcommunication skill , Community based services or culturalEducation or National Cadet Corps or National Service Scheme orPhysical Education have got nothing to do with the standard oftechnical education. But, the learned senior counsel appearing forthe petitioner would submit that all these courses are essentialingredients for development of total personality of the studentsand that is the reason why they were included. It is furthercontended by the petitioner that all National policies oneducation speak of promotion of physical education/sports as co-curricular or curricular activities under 'K-Scheme' Regulations,under IVth Semester even DoTE has also English Communication skill,practical and written tests in professional Ethics and conduct. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It is further contended by the learned senior counsel for thepetitioner that Cultural Education/ Literary Education / NationalCadet Corps / National Service Scheme / Physical Education are partof student life in all polytechnics operating under DoTE with thedifference that these are not being evaluated and no theory paperexist for in these polytechnics. Thus, these students are deprivedfrom having proper understanding of the basic principles underlyingthese activities. These are reasons why according to thepetitioner, these subjects were included and marks were alsoawarded for the same.33. I have carefully considered the rival submissions inthis regard.34. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counselfor the petitioner , being an autonomous institution , thepetitioner can prescribe curricula of its own. But, as per theAICTE regulations and as per the objects of autonomy as provided inClause 2 of the AICTE guidelines, an autonomous Polytechniccollege will have freedom to determine and prescribe its owncourses of study and syllabi in close collaboration with the usersystem. The aforesaid guidelines further state that autonomy shallbe a means to achieve higher standards and greater creativity inthe future and an autonomous institution will be fully accountablefor the content and quality of education that it imparts.35. Clause 3 of the guidelines states that the parent Boardnamely, the 2nd respondent, in the case on hand, will accept themethodologies of teaching , evaluation , examination and coursescurricula , etc. A conjoint reading of Clauses 2 and 3 would go toshow that an autonomous Polytechnic can prescribe its own curriculaand the same should be acceptable to the parent Board viz., the 2ndrespondent. In the case on hand, the State Board, for allPolytechnic Colleges throughout the state of Tamil Nadu, hasprescribed 9 subjects for Audit Course. The total number of marksawarded is 400; whereas, the petitioner polytechnic college awards1300 for Audit course which includes 100 marks for Value Education;100 marks for English Communication Skill; and 100 marks for anyoneof the others like, Community based services or cultural Educationor National Cadet Corps or National Service Scheme or PhysicalEducation.36. The learned Additional Advocate General would point outthat this would again bring about anomalous situation. He wouldsubmit that lateral entry to B.E. Course , the marks secured inDiploma course is taken into account. In my considered opinion,when a student, who has secured marks out of 400 is made to competewith a student who has secured marks out of total of 1300 marks,there may not be a level playing field and this would only createunnecessary complications. Further, as rightly pointed out by thelearned Additional Advocate General, Value Education has gotnothing to do with the standard of technical education. It may evenimprove the personality of the students and it may improve thediscipline in his life. But, the same has got nothing to do withthe standard of technical education. Thus, a totally unconnectedsubject has been added for which 100 marks is awarded. This cannot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be countenanced.37. The next one is English Communication Skill. SubjectNo.2 is English Communication Skill. When for English CommunicationPractical 100 marks has been awarded , awarding another 100 marksunder the guise of English Communication Skill, for which noobjective test is prescribed will also lead to discrimination. Thisalso cannot be accepted. 38. In respect of 100 marks awarded for anyone of thesubjects like, Community based services or cultural Education orNational Cadet Corps or National Service Scheme or PhysicalEducation , I am at loss to find any rationale behind the same. Itis not as though these subjects are not taught in otherPolytechnic colleges in the country. For instance, National CadetCourse and National Service Scheme are implemented in almost allhigher educational institutions in the country. But,it is notbrought to the notice of this Court that in any one of theInstitutions or Universities, marks are awarded for NCC or NSS orfor Physical Education. When the students go for employment , ofcourse, some privilege marks are awarded for possessing NSS and NCCcertificates, etc. Being a member of NCC or NSS etc., would in noway be connected with the standard of his technical education.Thus, absolutely unconnected subjects have been included, for whichmarks have been awarded which also cannot be countenanced. Thus,the respondents were right in directing the petitioner polytechniccollege to correct the above.39. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner wouldsubmit that there may be no meaning in the autonomous status, ifthe petitioner college has to go by the curricula prescribed byDoTE and the method of evaluation prescribed by the petitioner.There is some force in the argument of the learned senior counselfor the petitioner. It is true, that by enjoying the autonomousstatus, the petitioner college can determine and prescribe its ownsyllabi in close collaboration with the user system. The phrase"user system" needs to be emphasised. This would indicate that thesyllabi should have some nexus with the user system. How,NationalCadet Courses, National Service Scheme or Valuation Education canhave any nexus with the technical education is not explained bythe petitioner. Therefore, the impugned letters directing thepetitioner to do away with awarding of 300 marks for ValueEducation, English Communication Skill, etc., would in no wayinfringe the autonomy enjoyed by the petitioner. As I have alreadystated the syllabus prescribed by the autonomous college shouldalso be acceptable to the parent Board as per Clause 3 of theGuidelines of the AICTE. 40. The learned Additional Advocate General relied onnumber of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to substantiatehis contention that the regulation prescribing syllabus andcurricula by the State is binding on the petitioner. Moreparticularly, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Secy Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T.Jose & others, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2007) 1 SCC 386. I have gone through all the above judgments.These judgments mostly relate to minority institutions that too inthe matter of admission to minority institutions. No judgment hasbeen cited before this Court in respect of the autonomousinstitution. As I am accepting the arguments of the learnedAdditional Advocate General in respect of power of the StateGovernment and the Director of Technical Education in the matterof overseeing the syllabi prescribed by an autonomous institutionsand the method of evaluation, I do not want to burden this order byextracting all the judgments relied on by the learned AdditionalAdvocate General.41. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionerrelied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok KumarYadav and others v. State of Haryana and others AIR 1987 SC 454 tosubstantiate that awarding of 12.2 % marks for viva voce wouldnot amount to discrimination or arbitrary. The principles statedtherein, I am afraid, cannot be applied to the facts of the presentcase as that was the case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had todeal with the admission procedure to College. In the case on hand,the facts are distinguishable. As I have already stated when thereis a regulation issued by the State Government , evaluation methodprescribed by the petitioner should not run counter to theregulations of the DoTE.42. For all the foregoing reasons, I am of the consideredview that the writ petition must fail and the same is liable to bedismissed.43. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. However,considering the future of the students , the petitioner polytechniccollege is at liberty to take out corrective measures as indicatedi above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. If such corrective measures are taken, the 2ndrespondent shall permit the petitioner polytechnic college toconvene the awards committee meeting within a period of two weeksthereafter and publish the results. Consequently, connected MPs areclosed. No costs.kmkSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of Technical Education, College Road, Chennai-6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Principal Secretary /Commissioner of Technical Education and Chairman,Board of Examinations, Chennai 600 025.4.The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.1CC to Mr.N.Muralikumaran (AICTE), Advocate (SR.54498)1CC to MR.M.Sriram, Advocate (SR.54497) W.P.No.6370 of 2009 TS (CO)SS (29.10.2009)