IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE:28-1-2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.Nos.34627 and 34628 of 2007 and connected miscellaneous petitions R.V.S.College of Pharmaceutical Sciences rep. By its Principal Dr.R.Venkat Narayanan 242-B Trichy Road Sulur, Coimbatore 641 402. .. Petitioners in both petitions vs. The Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University Chennai rep. By its Registrar 69 Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. .. Respondent in both petitions Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus and Mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami in both WPs. For respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,Sr.Counsel in both WPs. for Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi COMMON ORDER These writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned order of the respondent University dated 13.9.2007 in so far as it restricts the intake of students as 50 instead of 60 in B.Pharmacy Course in the petitioner college and also in so far as it reduces the admission to 43 seats for the academic year 2007-08 and for direction to the University to receive and accept the list of students admitted for the academic year 2007-08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is the admitted case that the petitioner institution was started in the year 1993-94 with an annual intake of 50 students in B.Pharmacy Course, for which the central bodies, viz., the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the Pharmacy Council of India have granted approval. The respondent University has also granted affiliation for the intake of 50 students. The petitioner institute has applied for the increase of intake from 50 to 60 students and both the central bodies viz., AICTE and the Pharmacy Council of India have granted approval for the increase of intake from 50 to 60 students on 8.12.2004 and 24.5.2006 respectively. On 18.7.2006, the petitioner institution has submitted an application to the respondent University for the grant of affiliation for the increased intake from 50 to 60 students and there was a reminder and subsequently, by order dated 13.9.2007, which is the subject matter in both the writ petitions, the respondent University has granted provisional affiliation for the academic year 2007-08 for an intake of 50 students only. In the impugned order, the University has also stated that in the previous academic year, viz., 2006-07, the petitioner institution admitted seven excess candidates and the same have to be reduced in the admission under management quota for the academic year 2007-08, and directed the petitioner to admit not more than 43 candidates both under Government and management quotas for the academic year 2007-08. 3. It is the case of the petitioner institution that as per the arrangements entered into between the Consortium of Private Health Science Professional Colleges in Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu, the members of the Consortium including the petitioner have surrendered 65% of the sanctioned intake for the academic year 2007-08 and the said 65% of the sanctioned intake would constitute 33 seats and the remaining 35% would be 17 seats. According to the petitioner, as per the undertaking given, the petitioner by letter dated 20.9.2007 has surrendered seven seats over and above 65% of the seats which would become 40 seats and requested the Selection Committee to allot students for 40 seats. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that since the Selection Committee has not sent the number of candidates, on 30.9.2007 the petitioner requested the Selection Committee to permit the management to fill up the lapsed seats as per the judgement of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that when the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Central Authorities have granted the necessary permission for the total intake of 60 students, it is not open to the University to reduce the same and the University being the affiliating authority cannot impose the terms which are more stringent than the ones imposed by the Central Authorities as the field is occupied by the Central Government as per Entry 66, List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. 5. The respondent University has filed its counter affidavit. For the year 2006-07, when the respondent University conducted inspection for the purpose of affiliation, there were deficiencies and necessary rectification report was sent by the petitioner on 15.8.2006 with a request to the University to sanction five seats which were sought to be reduced because of the deficiencies and to restore 50 seats. In those circumstances, for the year 2006- 07, 50 seats were restored and affiliation was granted and that was the sanctioned strength for the year 2006-07. In the meantime, the petitioner institution on 12.7.2006 requested the University to consider its request and given approval for the intake of 60 students for the year 2006-07 and the same could not be sanctioned due to the reason that various deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee have not been complied with. 6. It is the further case of the respondent University that based on the approval by the All India Council for Technical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India and in anticipation of the approval by the University for the proposed and increased intake of 60 students, the petitioner institution admitted 57 students during the year 2006-07. After the admission, since the petitioner college has not complied with the various deficiencies, the petitioner college, by letter dated 16.7.2007, has requested the University to adjust the excess seven students admitted during the year 2007-08 and to that effect, a written undertaking was given stating that the seven seats will be adjusted for the year 2007-08 under the management quota without affecting the admission of students during the year 2006-07. It was, based on the said undertaking given by the petitioner, the University permitted the said seven candidates, admitted during the year 2006-07 over and above the sanctioned strength, to write examinations. Since in the year 2007-08, the petitioner institution has to adjust the said seven seats under the management quota, after the inspection by the Inspection Committee, the University informed the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the intake of students for the year 2007-08 should be restricted to 50. It was, under those circumstances, based on the abovesaid undertaking given by the petitioner dated 16.7.2007, the petitioner was directed to restrict the seats to 43 including the Government quota. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that as far as the writ petition, W.P.No.34627 of 2007 is concerned, now the academic year 2007-08 has come to an end and therefore, direction may be given to the respondent University to consider the increased intake of students from 50 to 60 for the next academic year 2008-09, to which course of action the learned counsel for the respondent University has no objection, provided that the petitioner complies with the various requirements as per the statutes governing the University. It is well-settled that when the AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India being the Central bodies, empowered under Entry 66, List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, granted approval to an institution, the field is occupied. The University which is the affiliating body has to oversee whether the petitioner has complied with all the statutory requirements as well as other conditions imposed by the University for affiliation which shall not be more stringent than those imposed by the Central bodies, viz., AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India. It cannot be stated that the University being the affiliating body should act as an approving authority in an automatic manner and the University cannot be directed to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence, as held by the Supreme Court in A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another (AIR 1986 SC 1490). However, as it is submitted by the counsel for both the parties, W.P.No.34627 of 2007 is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law, for additional intake from 50 to 60 students in the admission to First Year B.Pharmacy Course for the year 2008-09 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall comply with all requirements as per the statutes governing the University. 8. As far as other writ petition, W.P.No.34628 of 2007, wherein the petitioner institution was directed to reduce the number of admission to 47 for the year 2007-08, is concerned, it is relevant to consider the letter of the petitioner dated 16.7.2007 as produced by the learned senior counsel for the respondent University. The said letter of the petitioner 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 for the next academic year (2007-08). This seven seats will be adjusted in the management quota seats not affecting government seats. Hence we request you to consider this issue in the point of students career and they may be permitted for registration and allowed to take up the August 2007 examinations." A reading of the said letter shows that for the year 2006-07 even though the AICTE accepted the additional intake of 10 students, thereby making the total strength as 60 students, the respondent affiliating University has not granted the same while giving affiliation and it has given affiliation only for 50 students. It is not in dispute, as it is seen from the letter of the petitioner itself that the petitioner has admitted 57 students in the year 2006-07 and as per the undertaking by the petitioner institution, the petitioner is bound to reduce the said excess number of students admitted in the year 2006-07 during the next year 2007-08 and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner now to contend that the petitioner is not bound by such undertaking on the basis that the Central Bodies have granted approval. 9. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the year 2007-08 the petitioner has surrendered seven seats to the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee has not sent the students and therefore, under the lapsed seat category, the petitioner has filled up the students is also not tenable. 10. In view of the above position, I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner has surrendered the seats to the Government, but admitted the said number of students indirectly under the lapsed 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 submit that the petitioner may be permitted to pursue the matter with the University to reconsider its earlier decision. It is open to the petitioner institution to pursue any remedy which may be available to it under the law and the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the University in taking an appropriate decision in the matter. Accordingly, (i) W.P.No.34627 of 2007 is disposed of with direction to the respondents University to consider the additional 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 law and pass appropriate orders; and (ii) W.P.No.34628 of 2007 is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. kh Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Registrar Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University Chennai,69 Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. • One cc to M/s A.L. Ganthimathi, Advocate SR 3608 AKR (co) sg 31/01/08 Common Order in W.P.Nos.34627&34628 of 2007 Dated:28.01.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/