@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Jaichandren, J.@mdashHeard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsels appearing for the Respondents.
2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. Mr. P. Muthuvelraj, the founder Trustee and Chairtnan of P.M.R. Educational Trust, has filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition, on behalf of the Petitioner Institute. He has submitted that P.M.R. Educational Trust has been created for imparting quality technical education to the students by establishing Engineering Colleges. The said Trust had established P.M.R. Institute of Technology and P.M.R. Engineering College at Adyalampattu Village in Ambattur Taluk, on the outskirts of Chennai city. P.M.R. Institute of Technology, which is the Petitioner Institute, was established by the Trust, in the year 2000, as a Self-financing College, without receiving any statutory grants.
4. The Petitioner Institute has been adhering to the Rules and Regulations stipulated by the All India Council for Technical Education. The Petitioner Institute had been granted provisional affiliation by the fourth Respondent University for the following programmes:
| Sl. No. | Degree | Programme(s) |
| 1 | B.E. | Aeronautical Engineering |
| 2 | B.E. | Computer Science and Engineering |
| 3 | B.E. | Electrical and Electronics Engineering |
| 4 | B.E. | Electronics and Communication Engineering |
| 5 | B. Tech | Information Technology |
| 6 | M.B.A. | Business Administration |
| 7 | M.C.A. | Computer Application |
5. While the Petitioner Institute has been conducting the above mentioned courses various issues had cropped up, including the issue relating to the alleged admission of students, in excess of the permitted limit, through the Single Window system. The fourth Respondent Anna University had also made various allegations against the Petitioner Institute stating that it does not have adequate facilities and amenities, as per the norms of affiliation, including the lack of sufficient laboratory equipments, hostel accommodation, canteen, transport etc. It was also alleged that the Petitioner Institute does not have adequate teaching faculty to meet the teacher student ratio of 1:15, as required by the All India Council for Technical Education. It was also alleged that there was impersonation by some of the persons, who were posing as faculty members, during the inspection of the Petitioner Institute by the Inspection Committee appointed by the fourth Respondent University. It was further alleged that the Petitioner Institute has not been maintaining the teacher student ratio of 1:15 by taking into account the sanctioned intake of students.
6. While stating the chronology of events that had occurred in the recent past, it has been pointed out that the All India Council for Technical Education, the first Respondent herein, being satisfied with the performance and the facilities provided by the Petitioner Institute, had granted approval for the academic year 2006-2007, for 240 students, for four programmes, on 24.5.2006. On 27.10.2006, the first Respondent had granted the approval to the Petitioner Institute for the revised intake of 330 students, for the said programmes, for the academic year 2006-2007. Thereafter, on 2.8.2007, the first Respondent had granted approval for the revised intake of 480 students for seven programmes, for the academic year 2007-2008.
7. On 17.9.2007, the fourth Respondent University had granted affiliation to the Petitioner Institute for an additional number of 60 seats, in excess of the number of seats applied for by the Petitioner Institute. The fourth Respondent University had also allotted the seats through the Single Window System. The first Respondent had granted approval for the revised intake of 540 students, for seven programmes, for the academic years 2008-2010, on 17.7.2008. On 18.8.2008, the fourth Respondent University had directed the Petitioner Institute to rectify certain defects in the B. Tech (Information Technology) and M.B.A. (Business Administration) programmes. On 20.10.2008, the Petitioner Institute had approached the first Respondent to grant approval for the excess students admitted through the fourth Respondent University through Single Window System, by mistake.
8. On 24.10.2008, the fourth Respondent University had informed the Petitioner Institute that there would be a re-inspection conducted on 4.11.2008. On 25.11.2008, the fourth Respondent University had informed the Petitioner Institute about the postponement of the re-inspection of B. Tech (Information Technology) Programme conducted by the Petitioner Institute, stating that it would be held, on 2.12.2008. Thereafter, on 2.12.2008, it was further postponed to 5.12.2008. During the re-inspection conducted, on 5.12.2008, with regard to the B. Tech (Information Technology) Programme, certain enquiries had also been made in the Computer Science and Engineering Departments. The inspection team had alleged that, during the enquiries made in respect of the Computer Science and Engineering Departments two persons from the school run by P.M.R. Educational Trust and P.M.R. Software Technology were impersonating as lecturers in the said Departments. While so, on 8.12.2008, the third Respondent had granted approval for the five technical courses offered by the Institute, after due verification of the records and the facilities provided. On 12.1.2009, the Petitioner Institute had submitted an explanation, with regard to the allegation of impersonation, stating that the said persons were experts with industrial experience and they were guest lecturers.
9. It has been further stated that there was some unrest amongst the students of the petitioner Institute, between 9.2.2009 and 11.2.2009, following which an agreement was entered into between the Petitioner Institute and the fourth Respondent University, on 13.2.2009, for the visit by an enquiry committee to the Petitioner Institute, on 23.2.2009. On 29.4.2009, the fourth Respondent University had issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner Institute. On 12.5.2009, the Petitioner Institute had submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice issued by the fourth Respondent University. Thereafter, on 9.6.2009, the impugned order had been issued by the fourth Respondent University, suspending the affiliation of the Petitioner Institute for the following programmes:
| SI. No. | Degree | Programme(s) | Sanctioned Intake 2008 |
| 1 | B.E. | Aeronautical Engineering | 60 |
| 2 | B.E. | Computer Science and Engineering | 120 |
| 3 | B.E. | Electrical and Electronics Engineering | 53 |
| 4 | B.E. | Electronics and Communication Engineering | 120 |
| 5 | B. Tech | Information Technology | 109 |
| 6 | M.B.A. | Business Administration | 60 |
| 7 | M.C.A. | Computer Application | 60 |
It had also informed the Petitioner Institute not to admit students for the said programmes from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. In such circumstances, the Petitioner Institute had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Counter affidavits have not been filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3.
11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth Respondent all the averments and allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition have been denied. It Has been stated that the Petitioner Institute was granted provisional affiliation, for the first time, in the year 2001. Thereafter, provisional affiliation had been granted during the subsequent years, till the academic year 2008-2009, for the courses approved by the All India; Council for Technical Education.
12. It has been further stated that the Petitioner Institute had applied for the continuation of the provisional affiliation, on 29.1.2008, for the grant of affiliation, for the academic year 2008-2009. The Inspection Committee constituted by the fourth Respondent University had inspected the Petitioner Institute, on 26.4.2008. At the time of inspection several deficiencies in the infrastructural facilities, including the laboratory, library and other general facilities, as well as deficiencies in the faculty had been noted and recorded by the Inspection Committee. The deficiencies were intimated to the Petitioner Institute, vide Letter dated 18.8.2008, granting sixty days time to submit a compliance report. Thereafter, the Petitioner Institute had submitted a compliance report, on 16.10.2008. Pursuant to the said compliance report it was informed that an Inspection Committee would visit the Petitioner Institute, on 4.11.2008, to verify the rectifications made in respect of the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee. During the inspection conducted by the Inspection committee, on 4.11.2008, the records submitted by the Petitioner Institute were not in order. Hence, the Inspection Committee had once again visited the Petitioner Institute, on 5.12.2008, after granting sufficient time to the Petitioner Institute to keep its records in order. At the time of the inspection, on 5.12.2008, the Inspection Committee had noticed that some of their teachers from P.M.R. Matriculation Higher Secondary School and some employees of PMR Software Technology were shown as though they were faculty members of the Petitioner Institute. The Committee had also noted that there were cases of impersonation. The certificates and other documents relating to Ms. S. Sumathi, Ms. R.N. Jennipher and Mr. J. Darwin were used by Ms. G. Amutha, Ms. K. Yogamangalam and another person. When the Inspection committee had enquired about the cases of impersonation the Principal of the Petitioner Institute had reported that he was unaware of them.
13. It has been further stated that, based on the report of the Inspection Committee, the fourth Respondent University had issued a letter, dated 30.12.2008, to the Chairman of the Petitioner Institute, calling for an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the Petitioner Institute. The explanation submitted by the Chairman of the Petitioner Institute was not acceptable and therefore, the matter, with all the relevant particulars, was placed before the Syndicate of the fourth Respondent University.
14. It has been further stated that the Syndicate of the fourth Respondent University, in its meeting held, on 4.2.2009, had resolved to initiate action against the Petitioner Institute. Hence, a Committee was constituted to enquire into the facts relating to the eligibility and genuineness of the faculty members, who had handled the classes for the various programmes, during the academic year 2008-2009. Further, the Committee was also directed to verify the complaints received from the parents and the students of the Petitioner Institute relating to the adequacy of the basic amenities, such as transport, drinking water, toilets, canteens etc., the fine imposed for the lack of attendance and for other reasons, the laboratory facilities available, the Hostel facilities, especially, for the ladies and the availability of generatOrs. 15. While so, the Petitioner Institute had applied for the continuation of the provisional affiliation for the academic year 2009-2010, on 10.1.2009. The Enquiry Committee constituted, based on the resolution of the Syndicate, had visited the Petitioner Institute, on 25.2.2009. Based on the enquiry conducted by the said Committee it had recommended for initiating suitable action against the Petitioner Institute, since the Institute had deliberately suppressed the true information and had presented wrong statistics in respect of the faculty members. The report of the Enquiry Committee had been placed before the Syndicate, in its meeting held on 15.4.2009. The syndicate had resolved to issue a show cause notice to the Petitioner Institute as to why the affiliation granted to it should not be suspended and as to why the admission of students for all the courses should not be stopped from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. Based on the resolution passed by the Syndicate of the fourth Respondent University a show cause notice, dated 29.04.1999 had been issued, seeking for an explanation regarding the various deficiencies that had been noted by the Enquiry Committee. The Petitioner Institute, vide its letter, dated 12.5.2009, had submitted a reply to the show cause notice. However, the explanation submitted by the Petitioner Institute does not explain the specific issues raised in the show cause notice. Only a vague and untenable reply had been given. After the receipt of the reply to the show cause notice and after a careful consideration of the said reply, the fourth Respondent University had passed an order, dated 9.6.2009, directing the Petitioner Institute not to admit students from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards.
16. It has been further stated that the earlier reply, dated 12.5.2009, submitted by the Petitioner Institute to the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, was placed before the 40th Standing Committee on Affiliation. The said Standing Committee concluded that the Petitioner Institute had provided irrelevant and untrue information to the fourth Respondent University. Accordingly, a show cause notice had been issued to the Petitioner Institute asking for an explanation. The reply of the Petitioner Institute, dated 12.5.2009, had been received by the fourth Respondent University, on 19.5.2009. The decision of the Standing Committee on affiliation was placed before the Syndicate in its 197th meeting, dated 24.6.2009 and the Syndicate had resolved to approve the recommendations of the 40th Standing committee on Affiliation held on 5.6.2009, and to ratify the action taken based on the recommendations made in that regard. In view of the fact that the syndicate had passed a resolution ratifying the orders passed by the Registrar, the subsequent reply and the details furnished by the Petitioner Institute, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 9.7.2009, would be placed before the Syndicate for appropriate decision during its meeting which is likely to be convened during the first week of August, 2009, for the passing of appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law.
17. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Institute had submitted that the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, passed by the fourth Respondent University is arbitrary, illegal and void. Sufficient details had not been furnished to the Petitioner Institute, in the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth Respondent University. The impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, has been issued by the fourth Respondent University, without considering the detailed explanation, dated 12.5.2009, submitted by the Petitioner Institute. In spite of the explanation submitted by the Petitioner Institute the fourth Respondent University had proceeded to pass a drastic order, dated 9.6.2009, directing the management of the Petitioner Institute not to admit students for all the seven programmes mentioned therein, from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. The said order would not only erode the fair name of the Petitioner Institute, but it would also adversely affect the interests of the students. Instead of giving an opportunity to the Petitioner Institute to rectify the deficiencies found by the Inspection Committee, if any, the fourth Respondent University, had taken the drastic step of invoking Regulation 25 of the Statutes and Regulations for Affiliation of the fourth Respondent University, which empowers the University to suspend the affiliation of any academic programme conducted by a College or an Institute provided the University is satisfied that there are prima facie evidence available, pursuant to the preliminary investigations conducted by the University, through authorised enquiry committees, with regard to the authenticity of the complaints received, or in respect of the non-compliance of the statutory provisions, pending final decisions regarding the withdrawal of affiliation. The fourth Respondent University is also empowered to direct the concerned College or Institute not to admit fresh students to the academic programmes, in respect of which the affiliation had been suspended.
18. The learned Counsel had further submitted that the Petitioner Institute which was established by P.M.R. Educational Trust, in the year 2000, has been strictly adhering to the Rules and Regulations of the All India Council for Technical Education, as well as the other provisions applicable to the Petitioner Institute. From the time of its inception, the Petitioner Institute has been granted provisional affiliation, by the fourth Respondent University, for the various programmes conducted by it. While so, a deficiency report, dated 18.8.2008, had been sent to the Petitioner Institute to rectify the deficiencies noted therein. The said report related to only two of the programmes of the Petitioner Institute, namely, B. Tech (Information Technology) and M.B.A (Business Administration). Sixty days time was given for rectifying the deficiencies and for submitting the compliance report. By a communication, dated 30.8.2008, the Petitioner Institute had sent the compliance report to the Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education, Chennai, with a request to accord extension of approval for the existing courses, beyond the academic year 2008-2009. Thereafter, a communication, dated 20.10.2008, had been sent by the Petitioner Institute requesting for an approval order for the increased intake of students for the academic year 2008-2009, in the Information Technology and Electrical and Electronics Engineering Courses. While so, by a communication dated, 24.10.2008, the fourth Respondent University had intimated the Petitioner Institute that an Inspection Committee would visit the Petitioner Institute, on 4.11.2008, to verify the rectification of the deficiencies, in respect of the academic programmes concerned. Later, by another communication, dated 25.11.2008, it was informed that the Inspection committee would visit the College, on 2.12.2008, to verify the rectification of the deficiencies, in respect of the academic programme, namely, B. Tech (Information Technology). By a further communication, dated 2.12.2008, it was informed that the Committee would visit the Petitioner Institute, on 5.12.2008, to verify the deficiencies in respect of the said programme. Later, by a communication signed, on 30.12.2008, issued on behalf of the fourth Respondent University the Petitioner Institute had been asked to explain within seven days from the date of the said communication as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated, as per the Statutes and Regulations of the fourth Respondent University, with regard to the alleged impersonation of the faculty members during the re-inspection of the Petitioner Institute conducted by the Committee, on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, on 12.1.2000, the Petitioner Institute had submitted an explanation to the fourth Respondent University stating that the allegation regarding impersonation by some faculty members is baseless and false.
19. It was further submitted that, on 11.2.2009, a meeting had been held at the office of the Directorate of Technical Education in which the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and other officials of the fourth Respondent University had participated. During the said meeting the management of the Petitioner Institute had clarified certain issues raised by the students and it had also submitted an undertaking to follow certain procedures, with regard to the various issues and to provide certain facilities, as required by the students and the staff of the Institute.
20. By a communication, dated 13.2.2009, the fourth Respondent University had informed the Petitioner Institute that an enquiry committee would visit the Institute, on 23.2.2009, to enquire into the facts regarding the eligibility and genuineness of the faculty members who had handled the classes during the academic year 2008-2009. It was also informed that in addition the said Committee could also verify the complaints received from the parents and the students of the Petitioner Institute, regarding the lack of facilities. It was also stated that the Committee would also verify the availability of the adequacy of basic amenities such as transport, drinking water, toilets, canteens etc., the fine imposed for lack of attendance and for other reasons, the laboratory facilities, hostel facilities for the students, including the lady students and the generator facility. Thereafter, the visit of the enquiry committee was rescheduled to 25.2.2009.
21. Thereafter, by a communication, dated 17.3.2009, it was informed that an Inspection Committee would visit the Petitioner Institute to verify the deficiencies pointed out earlier and the continued fulfilment of the requirements for the programmes offered by the petitioner Institute as per the norms and standards, curricula and syllabi of the fourth Respondent University, with regard to the provisional affiliation already granted for the previous academic year 2008-2009, and for the consideration of granting of provisional/permanent affiliation for the existing programmes and for the additional programmes/variation in the intake of the students in the existing programmes, subject to the fulfillment of statutory requirement for the academic year 2009-2010.
22, Thereafter, a show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, had been issued to the Petitioner Institute asking the management of the Petitioner Institute to submit an explanation for the various aspects noted therein. On 12.5.2009, a reply had been issued by the Petitioner Institute to the said show cause notice explaining in detail, the reasons and the steps taken by the Petitioner Institute for rectifying the defects pointed out by the Inspection team. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioner Institute and without giving proper reasons, the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, had been issued by the fourth Respondent informing the Petitioner Institute that the continuation of affiliation for the programmes mentioned therein are suspended and the admission of students in the said programmes are stopped from the academic year 2009-2010. Further, it was informed that the Petitioner Institute should not admit students for the said programmes for the academic year 2009-2010 onwards.
23. With regard to the communication of the fourth Respondent University, dated 18.8.2008, relating to certain deficiencies in B. Tech (Information Technology) and M.B.A (Business Administration) a compliance report, dated 30.8.2008, had been sent by the Petitioner Institute to the fourth Respondent University. Thereafter, several communications had been received from the fourth Respondent University stating that an Inspection Committee would visit the Petitioner Institute to verify the rectifications of the deficiencies, in respect of the academic programmes concerned. However, by a communication, dated 30.12.2008, the fourth Respondent University had asked the Petitioner Institute to submit its explanation, with regard to the impersonation of some faculty members on the day of the inspection by the Committee, on 5.12.2008. However, no details had been furnished in the said communication. Thereafter, the petitioner Institute had submitted a detailed explanation, on 12.1.2009.
24. By a communication, dated 13.2.2009, the fourth Respondent had informed the Petitioner Institute that an Enquiry Committee, which had been constituted, based on the resolution of the Syndicate, would visit the Petitioner Institute on 23.2.2009 to enquire into the facts regarding the eligibility and genuineness of the faculty members, who had handled the classes during the academic year 2008-2009 and that it would also verify the complaints received from the parents and the students of Petitioner Institute, with regard to the lack of facilities and amenities in the Institute. Even in the said communication no details, including the names of the persons who had impersonated, had been given. Only in the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth Respondent University, the details regarding the impersonation had been given. On receipt of the show cause notice a detailed explanation had been submitted by the Petitioner Institute, on 12.5.2009. Thereafter, without considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioner Institute and without giving any further opportunity to the Petitioner Institute to explain the matter, the fourth Respondent University had passed the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, suspending the affiliation for the programmes mentioned therein and directing the Petitioner Institute not to admit students to the said programmes for the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. The said impugned order of the fourth Respondent, dated 9.6.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void.
25. Mr. Mani Sundar Gopal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth Respondent University had submitted that the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth Respondent University, had contained three main charges based on which action was proposed to be initiated against the Petitioner Institute. The charges alleged against the petitioner Institute, the explanation submitted by the said Institute for the said charges and the decision taken by the fourth Respondent University thereon, should be read together. As such, there are no discrepancies in the impugned order of the fourth Respondent University, dated 9.6.2009, as alleged by the Petitioner Institute. As long as the action taken by the fourth Respondent University and the punishment imposed on the Petitioner Institute are not shocking the conscience of this Court they would be considered to be appropriate and sustainable in the eye of law.
26. Even though certain serious defects had been pointed out in the show cause notice issued by the fourth Respondent University, the Petitioner Institute had not properly explained the charges levelled against it in spite of knowing full well the deficiencies and the defects and the act of impersonation committed by some of the persons posing as regular faculty members. One of the main discrepancies noted by the Enquiry Committee is with regard to the list of faculty members submitted by the Petitioner Institute 19 names which were in the list of faculty members submitted by the Petitioner Institute in the month of October, 2008, for the academic year 2008-2009/ were missing from the list submitted by the Institute, on 10.1.2009. No explanation has been given by the Petitioner Institute as to why the names of 19 faculty members, which were included in the earlier list submitted by the Petitioner Institute in the month of October, 2008, were left out from the subsequent list, dated 10.1.2009. Even though specific queries had been raised by the fourth Respondent University, with regard to the missing names, as well as with regard to the impersonation in respect of the faculty members, no clear explanation has been given by the Petitioner Institute. The discrepancies pointed out by the Enquiry Committee would tantamount to deficiencies, for the academic year 2009-2010. Further, it would amount to admission by the Petitioner Institute that the 19 persons shown as faculty members, for the year 2008-2009, are not available for the academic year 2009-2010.
27. The learned Counsel had further submitted that the Petitioner Institute has purposely given wrong information to mislead the fourth Respondent. Even though serious and specific allegations have been made, the Petitioner Institute has given very vague and elusive answers, without meeting the points raised by the fourth Respondent University. In fact, there is no clear denial of the allegation that there has been impersonation at the time of the inspection. Further, the Petitioner Institute has suppressed many facts, while submitting the explanation to the show cause notice. Even though the Petitioner Institute has been well aware of the fact that three of their faculty members, namely, Ms. S. Premalatha, Ms. V. Kavitha and Mr. Prabhat Rajan Sahoo were full time students of M.E. Course, in different colleges, they were said to be teaching in the Petitioner Institute. Further, the Enquiry Committee had noted in its report that there are inadequacies and deficiencies existing in the laboratory facilities, canteen, transport, sports, generator and with regard to the provision of facilities in the ladies hostel. In such circumstances, the fourth Respondent University had invoked the powers vested in it, u/s 7.9 of the Statutes for Affiliation, which reads as follows:
7.9. Suspension/Withdrawal of Affiliation of an Academic Programme The affiliation (provisional/permanent) granted to any academic programme(s) in a college maybe suspended/withdrawn after adopting the procedures laid down in the Regulations. If the college fails to comply with the provisions made in this behalf or the college has failed to observe/implement any of the conditions of affiliation, or the college has conducted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interests of University education and/or students.
and it had also invoked the powers under Regulation 25 of the Regulations for Affiliation, which reads as follows:
R25 Procedure for suspension of Affiliation of an academic programme:
The University may suspend the affiliation of any academic programme (Provisional/permanent) in a college, provided the University is satisfied that there are prima-facie evidences after preliminary investigations by an University authorized inquiring committee to verify the authenticity of the complaints received and/ or non compliance of statutory provisions pending final decisions regarding withdrawal of affiliation. During the period of suspension of any such academic programme the college shall not admit fresh students to the said programme.
to pass the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, suspending the affiliation granted to the Petitioner; Institute for the programmes shown therein for the academic year 2009-2010. The Petitioner Institute had also been informed not to admit students to the said programmes from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards.
28. The Petitioner Institute has not alleged mala fides against the Inspection Committee or against the Respondents, nor has it questioned the report of the Inspection Committee. In fact, the failure of the Petitioner Institute to give proper explanation for the deficiencies and the defects pointed out in the report of the Enquiry Committee amounts to acceptance of such deficiencies and defects. Since the Syndicate of the fourth Respondent University is the appropriate authority to take a final decision in the matter, the interim order passed by this Court, on 9.7.2009, in M.P. No. l of 2009, in W.P. No. 1 1648 of 2009, could not be complied with by the fourth Respondent. The Syndicate of the fourth Respondent University is expected to meet in the first week of August 2009. The subsequent explanation submitted by the Petitioner Institute, dated 10.7.2009, and its request for continuation of the affiliation for the academic year 2009-2010 would be reviewed.
29. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth Respondent University had placed before this Court letters, dated 5.12.2008, submitted by Ms. K. Yogamangalam and Ms. G. Amutha to the Inspection Committee. In the letter submitted Ms. K. Yogamangalam she had stated that she is working in P.M.R. Software Technology and that she had been asked to come to the Petitioner Institute, as a lecturer, for the purpose of inspection. She had also stated that two more persons, namely, J. Darwin and R. Kannadasan, were also working in P.M.R. Soft-ware Technology, had also come to the Petitioner Institute as Lecturers on the day of the inspection. In the letter, written by Ms. G. Amutha it has been stated that she is working as a teacher in P.M.R. Matriculation Higher Secondary School. She had also stated that she had come to the Petitioner Institute, as a Lecturer, on the day of the Inspection.
30. The learned Counsel had also submitted that the fourth Respondent University has ample powers to take appropriate action against the erring colleges and institutes to maintain high standards in Technical Education. The fourth Respondent University also has a duty to initiate appropriate action against the colleges and institutes which have failed to provide sufficient facilities for the students to pursue the courses of their choice.
31. The learned Counsel had also submitted that the action taken against the Petitioner Institute, under Regulation 25 of the Regulations for Affiliation, would also have the effect of an order passed under Regulation 26 of the Regulations for Affiliation of the fourth Respondent University. Regulation 26 of the Regulations for Affiliation reads as follows:
R26 Procedure for Withdrawal of Affiliation of an Academic Programme:
The University may withdraw the affiliation (provisional/permanent) of an academic programme(s) of a college, for such period that it may deem fit, provided there are proven evidences for gross violation of statutory requirements of affiliation norms and/or the college has conducted itself in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the University education as revealed after detailed inquiry conducted by a duly appointed committee by the University. The students on rolls are liable to be transferred to other affiliated colleges. No fresh students shall be admitted to that particular academic programme(s) by the college
32. The impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, passed by the fourth Respondent University is only due to the default of the Petitioner Institute to avail the opportunities given to it, to explain and to rectify the defects and deficiencies found by the Inspection Committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner Institute had not been given sufficient opportunity to clarify the defects and the deficiencies pointed out by the fourth Respondent University. The claims made by the Petitioner Institute are devoid of merits and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
33. While replying to the above contentions of the fourth Respondent University, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Institute had submitted that the letter said to have been written by Ms. K. Yogamangalam and Ms. G. Amutha, on 5.12.2008, have not been shown to the Petitioner Institute at an earlier stage. It is clear that the fourth Respondent University had relied on evidences collected behind the back of the Petitioner Institute for passing the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009. It is obvious that sufficient opportunity had not been given to the Petitioner Institute to put forth its case before the fourth Respondent University, before the impugned order had been passed. It may also be noted that Regulation 25 of the Regulations for Affiliation could be invoked by the University to suspend the affiliation of any academic programme in a College or an Institute, only when there have been complaints and for the non-compliance of the statutory provisions, pending final decisions regarding withdrawal of affiliation. Further, the impugned order of the fourth Respondent University, dated 9.6.2009, virtually, amounts to an order passed under Regulation 26 of the Regulations for Affiliation for the withdrawal of affiliation of the academic programmes of a College or an Institute.
34. It has been further submitted that for passing an order under Regulation 26, sufficient evidences of gross violation of statutory requirements of affiliation norms should be available with the fourth Respondent University and the concerned College or Institute should have conducted itself in a manner which is prejudicial to the interests of the University education, as revealed after a detailed enquiry conducted by a duly appointed committee. Such proceedings had not been followed by the fourth Respondent University, while passing the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009. Even in the earlier communications of the fourth Respondent University, including the communication, dated 18.8.2008, it had referred to only two academic programmes, namely, B. Tech (Information Technology) and M.B.A (Business Administration), for which the Inspection Committee was scheduled to visit the Petitioner Institute. The deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee were to have been rectified by the Petitioner Institute, within a period of sixty days and a compliance report was to have been submitted, in that regard. After the deficiencies had been rectified and a compliance report, had been submitted, the fourth Respondent University, having been satisfied with the said report, had granted the affiliation for the year 2008-2009. While so, the fourth Respondent University has raked up the new issue of impersonation by certain persons as faculty members of the Petitioner Institute, during the inspection by the Inspection Committee. Even though the said issue had not been communicated to the Petitioner earlier, it has been raised as an issue in the show cause notice of the fourth Respondent University, dated 29.4.2009. The allegation of impersonation is made based only on the two lists of faculty members submitted by the Petitioner Institute, one in the month of October, 2008, for the academic year, 2008-2009 and another on 10.1.2009, for the academic year 2009-2010. The report of the Inspection Committee relating to the issue of impersonation had not been furnished to the Petitioner Institute before the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, had been passed by the fourth Respondent University. No documents had been shown to the Petitioner Institute as proof of the alleged impersonation. The impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, passed by the fourth Respondent University is neither in the interests of the fourth Respondent University nor in the interests of the students of the Petitioner Institute.
35. The learned Counsel had further stated that neither Regulation 25 nor Regulation 26 of the Regulations for Affiliation could be invoked by the fourth Respondent University repass the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, against the Petitioner Institute. The punishment imposed on the Petitioner Institute is disproportionate in nature and it would cause irreparable harm both to the Petitioner Institute, as well as to its students. Therefore, the impugned order of the fourth Respondent University, dated 9.6.2009, is devoid of merits and it is unsustainable in the eye of law.
CONCLUSION:
36. One of the main contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner Institute is that sufficient opportunity had not been given to the Petitioner Institute before the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, had been passed by the fourth Respondent University. It has been further contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, as it does not give clear reasons for imposing the punishment of suspension of affiliation for the programmes being conducted by the Petitioner Institute and for directing the Petitioner Institute not to admit students from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. Further, the order passed by the fourth Respondent University is contrary to the Statutes and the Regulations for Affiliation of the fourth Respondent University. Even though the inspection by the Inspection Committee was in relation to two of the departments of the Petitioner Institute, the Inspection Committee had gone into various other aspects without having been authorised to do so. The impugned order had been passed by the fourth Respondent University, without properly considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioner Institute. It had also been contended that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner Institute is disproportionate to the deficiencies and defects noted in the enquiry report.
37. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth Respondent had contended that in spite of the Inspection Committee pointing out various deficiencies and defects, based on their inspections, the Petitioner Institute had not been serious in rectifying them. Serious complaints had arisen with regard to the manner in which the Petitioner Institute has been managed. During the re-inspection conducted by the Inspection Committee, on 5.12.2008, a number of deficiencies had been noted. There was also impersonation of certain faculty members by some of the teachers of P.M.R. Matriculation Higher Secondary School and some of the employees of P.M.R. Software Technology. Further, there were certain persons shown as faculty members, even though they were pursuing M.E. Courses in different Engineering Colleges. Since there was no proper explanation from the Petitioner Institute the fourth Respondent University has been compelled to pass the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, suspending the affiliation for the programmes conducted by the Petitioner Institute and by further directing the Petitioner Institute not to admit students for the said programmes from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. It has been stated that the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, had been issued by the fourth Respondent University, in view of Section 7.9 of the Statutes for Affiliation, and in view of the Regulations 25 and 26 of the Regulations for Affiliation. Since it is the primary duty of the fourth Respondent University to maintain high standards in Technical Education, in the affiliated colleges and institutions, such a drastic action had to be taken against the Petitioner Institute.
38. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the fourth Respondent University and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the fourth Respondent University had conducted inspections of the Petitioner Institute by appointing an Inspection Committee, which had inspected the Petitioner Institute, on 26.4.2008, for the granting of affiliation, for the academic year 2008-2009. Thereafter, a re-inspection had been held, on 4.12.2008 and 5.12.2008. Based on the compliance report submitted by the Petitioner Institute rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee in respect of B. Tech (information Technology) and M.B.A. (Business Administration). During the re-inspection held, on 5.12.2008, the Inspection Committee had reported that some of the teachers of P.M.R. Matriculation Higher Secondary School and some of the employees of P.M.R. Software Technology had been shown as faculty members of the Petitioner Institute, amounting to impersonation. Therefore, an Enquiry Committee had been constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the fourth Respondent University, based on the resolution of the Syndicate of the University, for suspension/withdrawal of affiliation, in respect of the Petitioner Institute, u/s 7.9 of the Statutes for Affiliation. The Enquiry Committee had enquired into the facts regarding the eligibility and genuineness of the faculty members who had handled the classes during the academic year 2008-2009.
39. Based on certain complaints received, during the period 9.2.2009 to 11.2.2009, from the students and the parents of the students, who were studying in the Petitioner Institute, with regard to certain deficiencies in the facilities provided by the Petitioner Institute, a Committee had been constituted by the fourth Respondent University to enquire into the adequacy of the basic amenities, including transport, drinking water, toilets, canteens, hostel facilities for ladies, provision of a generator, laboratory facilities and with regard to the fine imposed by the management of the Petitioner Institute for lack of attendance and for other reasons. The Enquiry Committee had visited the Petitioner Institute on 23.02.2009 and had submitted a report to the fourth Respondent University pointing out certain deficiencies and defects in respect of the availability of faculty members in the Petitioner Institute, as noted in the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth Respondent University. The Petitioner Institute had submitted a reply, dated 12.5.2009, to the fourth Respondent University, explaining its stand in respect of the issues raised in the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009. Thereafter, the fourth Respondent University, by its impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, had suspended the affiliation for all the programmes of the Petitioner Institute for the academic year 2009-2010. The Petitioner Institute had also been directed not to admit students to the programmes mentioned in the order, from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards.
40. On analysing the above contentions, it is clear (that there have been certain deficiencies and defects in respect of the Petitioner Institute, as noted by the Enquiry Committee. Even though the Petitioner Institute has been contending that the deficiencies and the defects had been rectified and that sufficient explanation had been submitted to the fourth Respondent University, with regard to the issue of impersonation, the fourth Respondent University has not been satisfied with the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner Institute. However, it is not in dispute that the impugned order of the fourth Respondent University, dated 9.6.2009, had been passed based only on the explanation, dated 12.5.2009, submitted by the Petitioner Institute to the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth Respondent University. No clarifications had been called for by the fourth Respondent University, from the Petitioner Institute, before the impugned order,; dated 9.6.2009, had been passed. It is also clear that the Inspection Committee had relied on certain documents, which had not been placed before the management of the Petitioner Institute, before the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, had been issued.
41. There is no doubt that the fourth Respondent University has the onerous duty of maintaining high standards in Technical Education, in the affiliated colleges and institutions. Further, it is also expected of the affiliated colleges and institutions to maintain discipline amongst its staff and students. It is also the responsibility of the Petitioner Institute to; provide sufficient facilities and amenities for its students to pursue the courses of their choice, without any hindrance. If any deficiency or defect is found in the affiliated colleges and institutes, it would be the duty of the fourth Respondent University to initiate appropriate action against such colleges and institutes to direct them to rectify and make good such deficiencies and defects.
42. No doubt, the fourth Respondent University is empowered, by the Statutes and Regulations for Affiliation, to initiate appropriate action against the delinquent colleges and institutes. However, such powers cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. If it had been found that the Petitioner Institute had committed some default in following the norms of affiliation and in implementing the Rules and Regulations applicable to the Institute, it is for the fourth Respondent University to initiate appropriate corrective measures to rectify the same. However, it may not be appropriate for the fourth Respondent University to take such a drastic action, as has been done in the present case, by suspending the affiliation for all the programmes of the Petitioner Institute and by directing the Institute not to admit students for the said programmes, from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. Before such action had been taken, u/s 7.9 of the Statutes for Affiliation, the procedures contemplated under Regulations 25 and 26 of the Regulations for Affiliation ought to have been followed, in full measure. If there were complaints against a college or an institute, the authenticity of the complaints should have been verified, and if the college or institute concerned had violated some of the statutory provisions, an order could be issued for the suspension of the affiliation, pending final decisions regarding withdrawal of affiliation. The procedure for withdrawal of affiliation of academic programmes, under Regulation 26 could be invoked if there are proven evidences of gross violation of statutory requirements of affiliation norms or if the college or institute had conducted itself in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the University education, as revealed by a detailed enquiry conducted by a duly appointed Committee.
43. In the present case, no such gross violation of statutory requirements were alleged, nor has it been shown that the Petitioner Institute had conducted itself in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the University Education. No records have been shown by the fourth Respondent University to prove that the Petitioner Institute had been given sufficient opportunity to meet the allegations of impersonation. Even if it was found that the explanation submitted by the Petitioner Institute was inadequate in nature, it was open to the fourth Respondent University to call for further explanations to satisfy itself about the veracity of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner Institute.
44. Further, this Court, by an order, dated 9.7.2009, made in M.P. No. l of 2009, in W.P. No. 11648 of 2009, had permitted the Petitioner Institute to submit a detailed explanation to the show cause notice issued by the fourth Respondent University on 29.4.2009, along with the relevant records, including the list of faculty members, and it had further directed the fourth Respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within the stipulated time. However, the fourth Respondent, by a communication, dated 14.7.2009, in Lr. No. 1869/CAI/PMRIT/2009, had stated that the representation made by the Petitioner Institute would be considered by the syndicate and until then, the decision taken by the Syndicate, in its 197th meeting, would remain as such.
45. Further, it is noted from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth Respondent that the Syndicate of the fourth Respondent University would be meeting during the first week of August, 2009, and the matter relating to the Petitioner Institute would be placed before the Syndicate for the passing of appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law.
46. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that if the impugned order of the fourth Respondent, dated 9.6.2009, is not set aside it would cause irreparable harm and loss to the Petitioner Institute, as well as to the students of the said Institute. Since it would be open to the Syndicate of the fourth Respondent University to reconsider the matter afresh, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, in its meeting to be held in the month of August, 2009, or thereafter, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the fourth Respondent, dated 9.6.2009. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, issued by the fourth Respondent University, is set aside. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the fourth Respondent University to consider the request of the Petitioner Institute for the grant of affiliation for the programmes proposed to be conducted by the Petitioner Institute, for the academic year 2009-2010, in accordance with law and after giving sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner Institute to put forth its case. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
