CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The Chairman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 28-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.14563 of 2009P.M.R.Institute of Technology,Rep. by its Chairman P.MuthuvelrajAdayalampattu Village,Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District-600 095... PetitionerVersus1.The Chairman,All India Council for Technical Education,7th Floor, Chander Lok Building,Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,Higher Education Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.3.The Director of Technical Education,Government of Tamil Nadu,Chennai-600 025.4.The Registrar,Anna University, Chennai-600 025... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing thefourth respondent to include the petitioner College under the SingleWindow System of Admission and subsequently, to admit/allot thestudents to the petitioner College for the academic year 2009-2010for the programmes mentioned therein. For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.PurushothamanFor Respondents : Mr.N.Muralikumaran (R1) Ms.Dakshayani Reddy (R2 & R3) Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal (R4)O R D E RHeard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionerand the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. By the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken upfor final hearing and disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. This writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus todirect the fourth respondent to include the petitioner Institute,under the Single Window system of admission and to subsequently,admit/allot the students to the petitioner Institute, for theacademic year 2009-2010, for the following programmes:Sl.No.DegreeProgramme(s)1.B.E.Aeronautical Engineering2.B.E.Computer Science and Engineering3.B.E.Electrical and Electronics Engineering4.B.E.Electronics and Communication Engineering5.B.Tech.Information Technology6.M.B.A.Business Administration7.M.C.A.Computer Application 4. It has been stated that the petitioner Institute, namely,P.M.R.Institute of Technology, was established by theP.M.R.Educational Trust, in the year, 2000. The petitioner Institutehas been strictly following the Rules and Regulations prescribed bythe All India Council for Technical Education. The petitionerInstitute has been granted provisional affiliation by the fourthrespondent University, for the above mentioned programmes. While so,the fourth respondent University had raised various issues relatingto the deficiencies in the petitioner Institute, during the academicyear 2008-2009. It includes allegations regarding inadequatefacilities and amenities, including non-availability of adequatefaculty to meet the 1:15 teacher student ratio, as required by theAll India Council for Technical Education. An allegation had alsobeen made, with regard to impersonation by certain outsiders, who hadposed themselves as faculty members of the petitioner Institute.Finally, on 9.6.2009, the fourth respondent University had issued anorder suspending the affiliation of the petitioner Institute, for allthe programmes of the College, for the academic year 2009-2010.Further, the petitioner Institute had been informed by the fourthrespondent University not to admit students from the academic year2009-2010 onwards. 5. It has been further submitted that the petitioner Institutehad challenged the order of suspension passed by the fourthrespondent Univeristy, on 9.6.2009, before this Court, inW.P.No.11648 of 2009. By an order, dated 24.7.2009, this Court waspleased to set aside the order of suspension, dated 9.6.2009.Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, on 24.7.2009, thepetitioner Institute had approached the fourth respondent University,requesting that the petitioner Institute may be listed under theSingle Window System of admission, for which counselling is beingconducted by the fourth respondent University. In spite of the orderof this Court, dated 24.7.2009, being served on the fourth respondentUniversity the petitioner College had not been listed in the firstbatch of counselling under the Single Window System of admission.Since the Single Window System of admission for the Master of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Computer Application (M.C.A.) programme would be over by 28.7.2009,and the Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) programme would beover by 29.7.2009, the petitioner College would not have sufficientnumber of students for the academic year 2009-2010. It would putadditional pressure on the petitioner Institute to meet the highstandard of performance expected by the All India Council forTechnical Education, since students with higher marks would not beavailable for admission in the petitioner Institute. In suchcircumstances, the petitioner Institute has preferred the presentwrit petition before this Court, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. 6. The main contention of Mr.T.Rajagopalan, the learned Seniorcounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Institute is thatinspite of the order of suspension of the affiliation of thepetitioner Institute, passed by the fourth respondent University, on9.6.2009, having been quashed by an order of this Court, dated24.7.2009, made in W.P.No.11648 of 2009, the fourth respondentUniversity had not included the petitioner College in the list ofColleges for admission of students under the Single Window System ofadmission, for the academic year 2009-2010. The refusal of the fourthrespondent University to consider the petitioner College foradmission of students, under the Single Window System of admissionwould, in effect, nullify the order passed by this Court, on24.7.2009. In spite of the petitioner Institute having fulfilled allthe requirements for the grant of affiliation, for the academic year2009-2010, the fourth respondent University had not granted theaffiliation for the programmes conducted by the petitioner Institute.7. The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that thefailure of the fourth respondent University to list the petitionerInstitute, under the Single Window System of counselling for theprogrammes of the petitioner Institute, for the academic year 2009-2010, would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner Institute, aswell as the students of the said Institute. 8. The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that thepetitioner Institute has been having affiliation for its courses,from the fourth respondent University, for the past several years.Many Colleges and Institutes, which have no affiliation for theacademic year 2009-2010 have been listed for the counselling, underthe Single Window System of admission. Therefore, the non-inclusionof the petitioner Institute in the list of Institutions for admissionof students, under the Single Window System of admission, isdiscriminatory in nature and therefore, it is in violation ofArticles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India.9. Per contra the learned counsel, Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal,appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had submitted that thepetitioner Institute has not been granted affiliation for itsprogrammes, for the academic year 2009-2010. Even though this Courthad passed an order, dated 24.7.2009, in W.P.No.11648 of 2009,setting aside the order of the fourth respondent University, dated9.6.2009, liberty had been given to the Syndicate of the fourthrespondent University to pass appropriate orders, on merits and inaccordance with law, regarding the request of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Institute for the grant of affiliation for its programmes, for theacademic year 2009-2010. The Syndicate of the fourth respondentUniversity would be considering the request of the petitionerInstitute for the grant of affiliation, for the academic year 2009-2010, based on the explanation submitted by the petitioner Institute,as directed by this Court, by its order, dated 24.7.2009. 10. The learned counsel had further submitted that there is noprovision, under the statutes and regulations for affiliation of thefourth respondent University, for including the petitioner Institutein the list of Colleges and Institutes for admission of students,under the Single Window System of admission. Further, since thepetitioner Institute does not have the required affiliation, for theacademic year 2009-2010, it cannot be considered for admission ofstudents, under the Single Window System of admission. 11. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated29.4.2005, in Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust V. The University ofMadras (2005(2) CTC 513), had held that the grant of affiliation bythe University, which is the examining body, is not automatic, eventhough the National Council for Technical Education might havegranted the necessary recognition. Since the University is a centerof higher learning it has to maintain its reputation and therefore,it would be expected to grant affiliation only to the Institutions,which have proper facilities, qualified staff, financial resourcesetc. Therefore, no admission can be made by a College or Institute,until the necessary affiliation is granted by the University.Further, the fourth respondent University has the power, underSection 5(ac) of The Anna University Act, 1978, to affiliate collegesto the University, under the conditions prescribed and to withdrawsuch affiliation. 12. It has been further submitted that the petitioner Institute,which is lacking in providing the necessary facilities and theminimum amenities for conducting the programmes, cannot claim thatthe fourth respondent University should grant the necessaryaffiliation for its programmes, for the academic year 2009-2010, as amatter of right. Further, there have been serious allegations ofimpersonation against some of the persons associated with thepetitioner Institute. Serious complaints have been made by thestudents and the parents of the students of the petitioner Institute,regarding the deficiencies and defects in the petitioner Institute.In such circumstances, the claims made on behalf of the petitionerInstitute are devoid of merits.13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner Institute, as well as thefourth respondent University and on a perusal of the recordsavailable, this Court is of the considered view that the petitionerInstitute has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting thereliefs, as prayed for in the present writ petition. It is not indispute that the petitioner Institute has not been granted thenecessary affiliation by the fourth respondent University, forconducting its programmes, for the academic year 2009-2010. While so,the petitioner Institute is not entitled to claim that it should beincluded in the list of institutions, for the purpose of admission of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ students, under the Single Window System of admission. There is nodoubt that the fourth respondent University has the power to grantaffiliation for the programmes of the petitioner Institute, as wellas the power to refuse affiliation to the petitioner Institute.However, the power to refuse the grant of affiliation shall beexercised by the fourth respondent University, only in accordancewith the procedures established by law. 14. Even though this Court had passed an order, on 24.7.2009, inW.P.No.11648 of 2009, setting aside the order of the fourthrespondent University, dated 9.6.2009, suspending the affiliation ofthe petitioner Institute, it had been made clear that the Syndicateof the fourth respondent University would be at liberty to re-examinethe issues involved, with regard to the deficiencies and theallegations made against the petitioner Institute. It was also madeclear that it would be open to the fourth respondent University toconsider the request of the petitioner Institute for the grant ofaffiliation, for the programmes proposed to be conducted by thepetitioner Institute, for the academic year 2009-2010, in accordancewith law and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitionerInstitute to put forth its case. 15. In view of the fact that an institution which has noaffiliation cannot have a right to demand its inclusion in the listof institutions, for admission of students under the Single WindowSystem of admission, the averments made on behalf of the petitionerInstitute cannot be sustained. Even if the fourth respondentUniversity had included certain institutions, which had noaffiliation, under the Single Window System of admission, it cannotbe claimed that the same privilege has to be granted to thepetitioner Institute, since serious charges had been levelled againstthe petitioner Institute, including the allegation that there wasimpersonation of certain faculty members, during the visit of theInspection Committee to the petitioner Institute, on 5.12.2008. It isfor the petitioner Institute to convince the fourth respondentUniversity to grant the necessary affiliation, for the programmes tobe conducted by the petitioner Institute, for the academic year 2009-2010, by way of appropriate resolutions to be passed in the Syndicatemeeting, scheduled to be held in the month of August, 2009, orthereafter. 16. In such view of the matter, the contentions raised on behalfof the petitioner Institute, for its inclusion in the list ofinstitutions, for admission of students, under the Single WindowSystem of admission, for its programmes, for the academic year 2009-2010, cannot be countenanced. As such, the writ petition is devoid ofmerits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, thewrit petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cshTo1.The Chairman,All India Council for Technical Education,7th Floor, Chander Lok Building,Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,Higher Education Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.3.The Director of Technical Education,Government of Tamil Nadu,Chennai-600 025.4.The Registrar,Anna University, Chennai-600 025.+ 5 cc's to Mr.M.Purushothaman,Advocate,SR.34861Writ Petition No.14563 of 2009KSK(CO)EM/28.7.09