IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE AT MADRAS DATED 07.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.Nos.15280 to 15288 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 4 of 2011 S.Arulalan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15280/2011 P.Jeyamurugan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15281/2011 K.Kannan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15282/2011 B.Mariraj .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15283/2011 P.Murugan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15284/2011 V.Murugan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15285/2011 J.Prabhakran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15286/2011 M.Ramkumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15287/2011 R.Seenivasan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15288/2011 Vs. 1.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai 6. 2.The Government Analyst (in-charge), Office of the Public Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, King Institute Campus, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai. 4.Tamil Nadu Graduate Food Inspector's Association (Reg. No.91/2000), Rep. By its General Secretary A. Rajhagopal, 4/282, Karur Road, Nandhavanapatti, Dindigul 1. [R.4 impleaded as per order dated 11.8.2011 in MP.3/11 in all WPs.] .. Respondents in all the Writ Petitions Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent in R.No.4499/G2/2010 dated 27.06.2011 and direct the respondents to issue a training certificate to the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sivasundaram For 1st and 2nd Respondent : Mr.M.C.Swamy, Special Government Pleader For 3rd Respondent : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For 4th Respondent : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Mrs.Row and Reddy O R D E R The writ petitions are filed to quash the order of the second respondent in R.No.4499/G2/2010 dated 27.06.2011 and direct the respondents to issue training certificates to the petitioners. 2.The petitioners in the above writ petitions are working as Sanitary Inspectors in the Corporation of Chennai. Initially they were sent for Food Inspection and Sampling training for the purpose of becoming Food Inspectors. Later, by the impugned order dated 27.6.2011 they were called back from training. Hence, the petitioners have filed the batch of writ petitions questioning the impugned order. 3.The petitioners are Diploma holders in Food Technology and they got diploma in the said subject in Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation which is a Deemed University. The two Division Benches of this Court by order dated 11.10.2007 and 29.07.2011 made in W.A https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (MD)Nos.236 and 237 of 2007 (TAMIL NADU GRADUATE FOOD INSPECTOR'S ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS ORGANISING SECRETARY VS. THE DIRECTOR CUM STATE FOOD HEALTH AUTHORITY AND OTHERS) and W.A.No.1029 of 2010 (TAMIL NADU GRADUATE FOOD INSPECTOR'S ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY A. RAJAGOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. M.S.MOHAMMED ISMAIL AND OTHERS) and the other Common Order passed by a learned Single Judge dated 30.07.2010 in W.P.Nos.13214 and 13300 of 2010 (E.KRISHNAN AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS) have categorically held that the Diploma awarded by the aforesaid Deemed University is not a valid one. 4.Faced with the difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the impugned orders are bad, based on the judgment of a learned Single Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 13.1.2010 in C.W.P.No.1405 of 2009 (VIKASH KUMAR VS. HARYANA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ANOTHER). 5.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharthidasan University case reported in 2001 SCC 2861 (BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERISTY AND ANOTHER VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCTION AND OTHERS) and therefore, this Court could ignore the decisions of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of this Court to allow these writ petitions. 6.On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the Division Bench of this Court passed the Common Judgment dated 11.10.2007 in W.A.Nos.236 and 237 of 2007 after taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (8) SCC 676 (BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERISTY AND ANOTHER VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS) and therefore, they sought for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 7.I have heard the submissions made on either side. 8.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Common Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11.10.2007 in W.A.(MD)Nos.236 and 237 of 2007, has considered the judgment of Supreme Court in Bharthidasan University case reported in 2001 (8) SCC 676 (BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERISTY AND ANOTHER VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS). Paragraph 10 of the said judgment in W.A.No.236 and 237 of 2007 is extracted hereunder. "On the other hand, the contention of the fifth respondent in W.A.No.236/2007, which has been arrayed as seventh respondent in W.A.No.237/2007, before the learned Single Judge and before this Division Bench is to the effect that a diploma conferred by a Deemed University, irrespective of the duration of the course https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ undergone and the minimum qualification for getting admission to the said course, should be recognised as a diploma referred to in Clause (c) of Rule 8. In connection with the above said contention, the learned Single Judge seems to have dealt with the difference between the terms 'technical institution', 'university' and 'deemed to be universities' at length. After referring to the following judgments of the Supreme Court (i) State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others reported in 1995(4) SCC 104 and (ii) Bhrathidasan University and another Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others reported in 2001 (8) SCC 676, the learned Single Judge has observed that there is no necessity to get prior approval from the AICTE before a University or deemed to be university starts a new technical course. In that view of the mater, the learned Single Judge has also observed as follows: "It is an admitted fact that the diploma was given by a deemed university and it has been granted with such status under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act and therefore, nobody other than the UGC can go behind the validity of such a diploma". 9.Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court held in paragraphs 21 and 23 that the Deemed University also should conform to the norms prescribed by AICTE and they are extracted hereunder: "In the facts and circumstances stated above, the crucial question that arises to be answered is whether a diploma course offered by a deemed to be university can be recognised to be equivalent to other diplomas, more particularly when the said diploma course comes under the definition of technical education as defined under the provisions of the AICTE, and such course does not conform to the norms prescribed by the AICTE regarding duration of course. Simply because a deemed to be university need not get prior approval of AICTE for starting a diploma course in technical education, it does not mean that such a course has to be recognised, even though the same has not been approved by the AICTE. Requirement of prior permission to start a course is one thing and requirement of approval of the diploma certificates issued by the Institution is another thing. In this case, obviously the diploma certificate issued by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation is not recognised by the AICTE as a diploma course conforming to its prescriptions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For all the reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that the impugned G.O. needs reconsideration in the light of the fact that (i) AICTE has not approved the diploma course offered by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation; and (ii) the course offered by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation was one under Distance Education Programme and the approval of the Distance Education Council and the University Grants Commission had not been obtained for the same". 10.Admittedly, the Deemed University from where the petitioners have obtained Diploma offered the course without conforming to the norms of AICTE and therefore, I am not inclined to follow the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the learned Single Judge held that the Deemed University need not conform to the AICTE regulations since they are Deemed Universities and they are bound by the University Grant Commission Act only. 11.In view of the above two decisions of the Division Bench and the other one decision of the learned Single Judge referred to above, which squarely cover this matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the second respondent discontinuing the writ petitioners from the training for Food Inspection and Sampling. 12.Therefore, these writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. cla https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai 6. 2.The Government Analyst (in-charge), Office of the Public Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, King Institute Campus, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 3.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai. 9 ccs To Mr.V.S.Sivasundaram, Advocate Sr 55112 1 cc to The Govt. Pleader, SR 55407 1 cc To Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate Sr 55354 W.P.Nos.15280 to 15288 of 2011 mrd[co] gp/22.9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/