A.Balakumar v. The Director of Technical Education, Chennai – 600 025 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04.01.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.35011 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 A.Balakumar .. Petitioner -Vs-1. The Director of Technical Education, Chennai – 600 025.2. The Controller of Examination, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.3. The Principal, A.R.J. College of Engineering & Technology, Edayarnatham, Thirumakottai Main Road, Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2herein to issue the Provisional Eligibility Certificate for his admissionunder Lateral Entry Scheme in the Second Year E C E in the 3rd respondentCollege on production of necessary certificates.For Petitioner : Mr.V.BhimanFor Respondent 1 : Ms.Shanmugavalli Sekar Government AdvocateFor Respondent 2 : Mr.Mani Sundara Gopal for M/s.G.M.Mani AssociatesFor Respondent 3 : No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RThis writ petition is filed for a direction against the 1st and 2ndrespondents to issue Provisional Eligibility Certificate for the admissionof the petitioner under Lateral Entry Scheme in the 3rd respondentEngineering College and also to permit the petitioner to sit for the thirdsemester examinations commencing from 04.11.2007. The petitioner gotadmission in the third respondent college in the second year B.E. Courseunder the Lateral Entry Scheme after completing his Diploma in Electricaland Communication Engineering course in October 2006.2. The petitioner was admitted in the said course under the NRIquota. The further case of the petitioner is that he is not aware that hewas admitted under the NRI quota and was thinking that he was admitted inthe normal category and therefore there was no obligation on his part toproduce the various certificates which are required for the purpose ofissuance of Provisional Eligibility Certificate by the University as wellas the Director of Technical Education. It is clear from the instructionsissued for the Affiliated Colleges by the Anna University Tiruchirappallithat if a person gets admission under the NRI quota, the followingcertificates are to be produced along with the Application Form viz.,1. Sponsorship Letter (in original)2. Relationship Certificate obtained from Tahsildar or Revenue Officials (in original)3. Employer Certificate (in original)4. Evidence for the payment of development charges of US$1000 to the college (photo copy)5. Statement of Bank A/c. of sponsor with NRE A/c.No. (photo copy)6. Embassy Certificate of sponsor (in original) / PIO Card7. Nativity Certificate of the sponsor (in original)8. Copy of passport of sponsor9. Attested copies of Mark Sheet and Transfer Certificate.3. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any certificate withinthe time prescribed in the Prospectus. When the matter came up foradmission, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the thirdrespondent has received huge amount as fees from the petitioner foradmitting him in the second year under the NRI quota and the petitionerwas not actually aware of the said fact. Since examinations was tocommence on the next day namely 14.11.2007 for the third semester, thisCourt by an order dated 13.11.2007 has permitted the petitioner to writethe examinations which is scheduled to commence from 14.11.2007 in respectof Lateral Entry Category. It was also made clear in the said orderthat the petitioner should produce the necessary certificates to thesecond respondent viz., the Controller of Examination, Anna Universitywithin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thatorder and in default, it is open to the second respondent University to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cancel the examinations undertaken by the petitioner pursuant to theorders of this Court. The operative portion of the order dated 13.11.2007is as follows""4. In view of the same, the second respondent University isdirected to permit the petitioner to write the examinations whichare to commence on 14.11.2007 in respect of lateral entrycategory. It is made clear that the petitioner who is permittedto write the examination shall produce the necessary certificatesto the second respondent within four weeks from today and indefault, it is open to the second respondent University to cancelthe examinations undertaken by the petitioner pursuant to theorders of this court."4. The petitioner has filed an interim application in M.P.No.2 of2007 for the purpose of extension of time granted in the said order dated13.11.2007 for production of various records. In the affidavit filed insupport of the interim application, the petitioner has clearly stated thateven though he has got all the other certificates only one documents hasto be produced viz., the Embassy Certificate of sponsor (in original) /PIO card from Singapore which has not been obtained so far and has statedthat he has taken steps to get that certificate. Therefore the contentsof the said affidavit makes it very clear that the petitioner has notcomplied with the requirements provided for the Lateral Entry Scheme asper the Prospectus issued by the second respondent University. Mereallowing of the petitioner to write the third semester examination by thisCourt do not confer any right on the him, as it is made clear in the saidorder itself.5. It is well settled law that the University owes its existence toits Statute and the Courts cannot direct the University to disobey theStatute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P. Christians Medical EducationalSociety Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another (AIR 1986 SupremeCourt 1490) has observed in para 10 as follows:"10....... Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issueappropriate directions to the University to protect the interestsof the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede tothe request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students.Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be inclear transgression of the provisions of the University Act andthe regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat directthe University to disobey the statute to which it owes itsexistence and the regulations made by the University itself. Wecannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law thana direction by the court to disobey the laws......."6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs.Karnataka University and another (AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1448) has held inpara 7 as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "7....... It is for each University to decide the questionof equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit injudgment over the decision of the University because it is not amatter on which the Court possesses any ex-pertise. TheUniversity is best fitted to decide whether any examination heldby a University outside the State is equivalent to an examinationheld within the State having regard to the course, the syllabus,the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard ofexamination. It is an academic question in which the Courtshould not disturb the decision taken by the University........"and has further held in Para 8 as follows:"8...... The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges whichadmitted the appellants because the Principals of theseEngineering Colleges must have known that the appellants werenot eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitationfee in some of the cases they granted admission to theappellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer forthe sins of the managements of these EngineeringColleges......." 7. In view of the above said legal position, there is absolutely nosubstance in the contentions put forth by the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner and the writ petitioner is ineligible for admission asper the statue of the University and the prayer as sought for in this writpetition cannot be granted to the writ petitioner. For the reasons statedabove, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. It is open tothe petitioner to take steps to recover any amount which he has paid tothe 3rd respondent as Capitation fees. Consequently, the connected M.Ps.are also dismissed. No costs.kkSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Director of Technical Education, Chennai – 600 025.2. The Controller of Examination, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.+1 cc to Mr.V.Bhiman, Advocate Sr.No.688.+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.649.+1 cc to M/s.G.M.Mani Associates, Sr.No.546.VC(CO)DCP/9.1W.P.No.35011 of 2007and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007