R.V.S.College of Pharmaceutical Sciences v. The Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE:28-1-2008CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.Nos.34627 and 34628 of 2007and connected miscellaneous petitionsR.V.S.College of Pharmaceutical Sciencesrep. By its Principal Dr.R.Venkat Narayanan242-B Trichy RoadSulur, Coimbatore 641 402...Petitioners in both petitionsvs.The Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical UniversityChennai rep. By its Registrar69 Anna Salai, Guindy,Chennai 600 032. ..Respondent in both petitionsWrit petitions filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the issue of a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus and Mandamus as stated therein.For petitioner: Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamiin both WPs.For respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,Sr.Counselin both WPs. for Mrs.A.L.GandhimathiCOMMON ORDERThese writ petitions are filed challenging theimpugned order of the respondent University dated 13.9.2007 inso far as it restricts the intake of students as 50 instead of60 in B.Pharmacy Course in the petitioner college and alsoin so far as it reduces the admission to 43 seats for theacademic year 2007-08 and for direction to the University toreceive and accept the list of students admitted for theacademic year 2007-08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. It is the admitted case that the petitionerinstitution was started in the year 1993-94 with an annualintake of 50 students in B.Pharmacy Course, for which thecentral bodies, viz., the All India Council for TechnicalEducation (AICTE) and the Pharmacy Council of India havegranted approval. The respondent University has also grantedaffiliation for the intake of 50 students. The petitionerinstitute has applied for the increase of intake from 50 to60 students and both the central bodies viz., AICTE and thePharmacy Council of India have granted approval for theincrease of intake from 50 to 60 students on 8.12.2004 and24.5.2006 respectively. On 18.7.2006, the petitionerinstitution has submitted an application to the respondentUniversity for the grant of affiliation for the increasedintake from 50 to 60 students and there was a reminder andsubsequently, by order dated 13.9.2007, which is the subjectmatter in both the writ petitions, the respondent Universityhas granted provisional affiliation for the academic year2007-08 for an intake of 50 students only. In the impugnedorder, the University has also stated that in the previousacademic year, viz., 2006-07, the petitioner institutionadmitted seven excess candidates and the same have to bereduced in the admission under management quota for theacademic year 2007-08, and directed the petitioner to admitnot more than 43 candidates both under Government andmanagement quotas for the academic year 2007-08. 3. It is the case of the petitioner institution thatas per the arrangements entered into between the Consortium ofPrivate Health Science Professional Colleges in Tamil Naduand the Government of Tamil Nadu, the members of theConsortium including the petitioner have surrendered 65% ofthe sanctioned intake for the academic year 2007-08 and thesaid 65% of the sanctioned intake would constitute 33 seatsand the remaining 35% would be 17 seats. According to thepetitioner, as per the undertaking given, the petitioner byletter dated 20.9.2007 has surrendered seven seats over andabove 65% of the seats which would become 40 seats andrequested the Selection Committee to allot students for 40seats. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that sincethe Selection Committee has not sent the number of candidates,on 30.9.2007 the petitioner requested the Selection Committeeto permit the management to fill up the lapsed seats as perthe judgement of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitionerhas challenged the impugned order on the ground that when the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Central Authorities have granted the necessary permission forthe total intake of 60 students, it is not open to theUniversity to reduce the same and the University being theaffiliating authority cannot impose the terms which are morestringent than the ones imposed by the Central Authorities asthe field is occupied by the Central Government as per Entry66, List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution ofIndia.5. The respondent University has filed its counteraffidavit. For the year 2006-07, when the respondentUniversity conducted inspection for the purpose ofaffiliation, there were deficiencies and necessaryrectification report was sent by the petitioner on 15.8.2006with a request to the University to sanction five seats whichwere sought to be reduced because of the deficiencies and torestore 50 seats. In those circumstances, for the year 2006-07, 50 seats were restored and affiliation was granted andthat was the sanctioned strength for the year 2006-07. In themeantime, the petitioner institution on 12.7.2006 requestedthe University to consider its request and given approval forthe intake of 60 students for the year 2006-07 and the samecould not be sanctioned due to the reason that variousdeficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee have notbeen complied with. 6. It is the further case of the respondent Universitythat based on the approval by the All India Council forTechnical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India and inanticipation of the approval by the University for theproposed and increased intake of 60 students, the petitionerinstitution admitted 57 students during the year 2006-07.After the admission, since the petitioner college has notcomplied with the various deficiencies, the petitionercollege, by letter dated 16.7.2007, has requested theUniversity to adjust the excess seven students admitted duringthe year 2007-08 and to that effect, a written undertakingwas given stating that the seven seats will be adjusted forthe year 2007-08 under the management quota without affectingthe admission of students during the year 2006-07. It was,based on the said undertaking given by the petitioner, theUniversity permitted the said seven candidates, admittedduring the year 2006-07 over and above the sanctionedstrength, to write examinations. Since in the year 2007-08,the petitioner institution has to adjust the said seven seatsunder the management quota, after the inspection by theInspection Committee, the University informed the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the intake of students for the year 2007-08 should berestricted to 50. It was, under those circumstances, basedon the abovesaid undertaking given by the petitioner dated16.7.2007, the petitioner was directed to restrict the seatsto 43 including the Government quota.7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would fairlysubmit that as far as the writ petition, W.P.No.34627 of 2007is concerned, now the academic year 2007-08 has come to an endand therefore, direction may be given to the respondentUniversity to consider the increased intake of students from50 to 60 for the next academic year 2008-09, to which courseof action the learned counsel for the respondent Universityhas no objection, provided that the petitioner complies withthe various requirements as per the statutes governing theUniversity. It is well-settled that when the AICTE andPharmacy Council of India being the Central bodies, empoweredunder Entry 66, List-I of the Seventh Schedule to theConstitution of India, granted approval to an institution, thefield is occupied. The University which is the affiliatingbody has to oversee whether the petitioner has complied withall the statutory requirements as well as other conditionsimposed by the University for affiliation which shall not bemore stringent than those imposed by the Central bodies, viz.,AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India. It cannot be stated thatthe University being the affiliating body should act as anapproving authority in an automatic manner and the Universitycannot be directed to disobey the statute to which it owes itsexistence, as held by the Supreme Court in A.P.ChristiansMedical Educational Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradeshand another (AIR 1986 SC 1490). However, as it is submittedby the counsel for both the parties, W.P.No.34627 of 2007 isdisposed of with direction to the respondents to consider theclaim of the petitioner, in accordance with law, foradditional intake from 50 to 60 students in the admission toFirst Year B.Pharmacy Course for the year 2008-09 subject tothe condition that the petitioner shall comply with allrequirements as per the statutes governing the University.8. As far as other writ petition, W.P.No.34628 of2007, wherein the petitioner institution was directed toreduce the number of admission to 47 for the year 2007-08, isconcerned, it is relevant to consider the letter of thepetitioner dated 16.7.2007 as produced by the learned seniorcounsel for the respondent University. The said letter of thepetitioner dated 16.7.2007 is as follows:" We hereby give the undertaking that the excess https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admitted students of 7 seats will be adjusted forthe next academic year (2007-08). This seven seatswill be adjusted in the management quota seats notaffecting government seats. Hence we request you toconsider this issue in the point of students careerand they may be permitted for registration andallowed to take up the August 2007 examinations."A reading of the said letter shows that for the year 2006-07even though the AICTE accepted the additional intake of 10students, thereby making the total strength as 60 students,the respondent affiliating University has not granted thesame while giving affiliation and it has given affiliationonly for 50 students. It is not in dispute, as it is seenfrom the letter of the petitioner itself that the petitionerhas admitted 57 students in the year 2006-07 and as per theundertaking by the petitioner institution, the petitioner isbound to reduce the said excess number of students admitted inthe year 2006-07 during the next year 2007-08 and therefore,it is not open to the petitioner now to contend that thepetitioner is not bound by such undertaking on the basis thatthe Central Bodies have granted approval. 9. The other contention raised by the learned counselfor the petitioner that for the year 2007-08 the petitionerhas surrendered seven seats to the Selection Committee andthe Selection Committee has not sent the students andtherefore, under the lapsed seat category, the petitioner hasfilled up the students is also not tenable.10. In view of the above position, I do not agree withthe contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner asthe petitioner has surrendered the seats to the Government,but admitted the said number of students indirectly under thelapsed category. In view of the same, the writ petition,W.P.No.34628 of 2007 fails and the same is dismissed.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the petitioner may be permitted to pursue the matter withthe University to reconsider its earlier decision. It is opento the petitioner institution to pursue any remedy which maybe available to it under the law and the dismissal of the writpetition will not stand in the way of the University in takingan appropriate decision in the matter.Accordingly, (i) W.P.No.34627 of 2007 is disposed ofwith direction to the respondents University to consider theadditional intake of students from 50 to 60 in B.Pharmacy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Course for the academic year 2008-09 in accordance with lawand pass appropriate orders; and (ii) W.P.No.34628 of 2007 isdismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed.khSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The RegistrarTamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical UniversityChennai,69 Anna Salai,Guindy, Chennai 600 032.•One cc to M/s A.L. Ganthimathi, Advocate SR 3608AKR (co)sg 31/01/08Common Order inW.P.Nos.34627&34628 of 2007Dated:28.01.2008