IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.01.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.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 India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to issue the Provisional Eligibility Certificate for his admission under Lateral Entry Scheme in the Second Year E C E in the 3rd respondent College on production of necessary certificates. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bhiman For Respondent 1 : Ms.Shanmugavalli Sekar Government Advocate For Respondent 2 : Mr.Mani Sundara Gopal for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates For Respondent 3 : No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R This writ petition is filed for a direction against the 1st and 2nd respondents to issue Provisional Eligibility Certificate for the admission of the petitioner under Lateral Entry Scheme in the 3rd respondent Engineering College and also to permit the petitioner to sit for the third semester examinations commencing from 04.11.2007. The petitioner got admission in the third respondent college in the second year B.E. Course under the Lateral Entry Scheme after completing his Diploma in Electrical and Communication Engineering course in October 2006. 2. The petitioner was admitted in the said course under the NRI quota. The further case of the petitioner is that he is not aware that he was admitted under the NRI quota and was thinking that he was admitted in the normal category and therefore there was no obligation on his part to produce the various certificates which are required for the purpose of issuance of Provisional Eligibility Certificate by the University as well as the Director of Technical Education. It is clear from the instructions issued for the Affiliated Colleges by the Anna University Tiruchirappalli that if a person gets admission under the NRI quota, the following certificates 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 Card 7. Nativity Certificate of the sponsor (in original) 8. Copy of passport of sponsor 9. Attested copies of Mark Sheet and Transfer Certificate. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any certificate within the time prescribed in the Prospectus. When the matter came up for admission, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the third respondent has received huge amount as fees from the petitioner for admitting him in the second year under the NRI quota and the petitioner was not actually aware of the said fact. Since examinations was to commence on the next day namely 14.11.2007 for the third semester, this Court by an order dated 13.11.2007 has permitted the petitioner to write the examinations which is scheduled to commence from 14.11.2007 in respect of Lateral Entry Category. It was also made clear in the said order that the petitioner should produce the necessary certificates to the second respondent viz., the Controller of Examination, Anna University within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order 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 the orders of this Court. The operative portion of the order dated 13.11.2007 is as follows" "4. In view of the same, the second respondent University is directed to permit the petitioner to write the examinations which are to commence on 14.11.2007 in respect of lateral entry category. It is made clear that the petitioner who is permitted to write the examination shall produce the necessary certificates to the second respondent within four weeks from today and in default, it is open to the second respondent University to cancel the examinations undertaken by the petitioner pursuant to the orders of this court." 4. The petitioner has filed an interim application in M.P.No.2 of 2007 for the purpose of extension of time granted in the said order dated 13.11.2007 for production of various records. In the affidavit filed in support of the interim application, the petitioner has clearly stated that even though he has got all the other certificates only one documents has to be produced viz., the Embassy Certificate of sponsor (in original) / PIO card from Singapore which has not been obtained so far and has stated that he has taken steps to get that certificate. Therefore the contents of the said affidavit makes it very clear that the petitioner has not complied with the requirements provided for the Lateral Entry Scheme as per the Prospectus issued by the second respondent University. Mere allowing of the petitioner to write the third semester examination by this Court do not confer any right on the him, as it is made clear in the said order itself. 5. It is well settled law that the University owes its existence to its Statute and the Courts cannot direct the University to disobey the Statute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another (AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1490) has observed in para 10 as follows: "10....... Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interests of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a 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 in para 7 as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "7....... It is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any ex-pertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the course, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should 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 which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these Engineering Colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these Engineering Colleges......." 7. In view of the above said legal position, there is absolutely no substance in the contentions put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the writ petitioner is ineligible for admission as per the statue of the University and the prayer as sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted to the writ petitioner. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to take steps to recover any amount which he has paid to the 3rd respondent as Capitation fees. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. No costs. kk Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. 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/9.1 W.P.No.35011 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/