IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.08.2005 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.39824 of 2002 and Contempt Petition No.774 of 2002 W.P.No.39824 of 2002: S.Chattanatha Karayalar College of Arts and Sciences Karayalar Nagar, Tenkasi Tirunelveli District-627 804 rep. by its Secretary N.Rajamani. .. Petitioner versus The Controller of Examinations Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Abishekapatty Tirunelveli-627 012. .. Respondent Cont.Petn.No.774 of 2002: S.Chattanatha Karayalar College of Arts and Sciences Karayalar Nagar, Tenkasi Tirunelveli District-627 804 rep. by its Secretary N.Rajamani. .. Petitioner versus 1. Dr.P.Gomathinayagam The Controller of Examinations Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Abishekapatty Tirunelveli-627 012. 2. Dr.K.Chockalingam The Vice Chancellor Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Abishekapatty Tirunelveli-627 012. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Dr.P.Nagarajan The Registrar Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Abishekapatty Tirunelveli-627 012. .. Respondents 3rd respondent impleaded as per order of Court dated 31.12.2003 made in Sub Appln.No.575 of 2003 ----- PRAYER: W.P.No.39824 of 2002 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceeding made in No.MSU/EXAM./COE/2002 dated 18.10.2002 on the file of the respondent and quash the same in so far as conditions 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. Contempt Petition No.774 of 2002 is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to issue notice to the respondents for their appearance before this Court and punish the respondents for contempt of Court for disobeying the orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.59257 of 2002 in W.P.No.39824 of 2002 dated 1.11.2002. ----- For petitioner in W.P. No.39824 of 2002 and Cont.Petn.No.774 of 2002 : Mr.S.Doraisamy For respondent in W.P.No. 39824 of 2002 and respondents in Cont. Petn.No.774 of 2002 : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s.Row and Reddy ----- ORDER In this writ petition, a College at Tenkasi has sought for a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the University dated 18.10.2002. The proceedings have been issued by the Controller of examinations and the order relates to certain directions to the petitioner College in the matter of public examinations to be conducted by the College during November, 2002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. In as much as the impugned directions relate only to the conduct of the examinations in 2002, the prayer for the issuance of a writ does not survive for consideration as on date and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. However, it is the contempt petition which had been filed subsequently, which requires to be dealt with and disposed of on merits. In the said circumstances, I would refer to the pleadings and contentions in the main writ petition only to the extent that may be necessary for the disposal of the contempt petition. 3. In the order impugned in the writ petition, the University, on its perception of certain misconduct by the College in the matter of appointment of teachers and dealing with some of the students, had issued certain directions of placing certain restrictions on the College. After referring to some of the past events and alleged commissions and omissions by the College, the respondent had issued the following directions under the impugned order. (i) The examinations will be conducted in the College itself and there was no change in the centre. (ii) The Chief Superintendent, invigilators and other examination staff will be appointed from among the faculty members of the University and the staff of other neighbouring colleges. (iii) The campus shall be handed over to the designated officers of the University from 5.11.2002 till the end of the examination. (iv) There shall be no interference by the college or the staff of the college, and in any case of disturbance, the examinations would be suspended and suitable action will be taken by the University. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner had questioned Condition Nos.(ii), (iii) and (iv). In support of the writ petition, the petitioner had contended that the college was a self-financing institution which was started in the year 1994. Before the present Management took over, the Management had followed an adhoc salary system for the staff and there were several anomalies and in order to discard the anomalies, after the present Management took over, a time scale of pay with increment was introduced from the Academic Year 2001-2002. However, some of the teachers claiming to be members of M.U.T.A., refused to receive the salary. The payments by cheques were returned as refused. It is the further complaint of the college that the said teachers had instigated some of the students to indulge in indiscipline and violence which resulted in causing damage to the property of the college. A police complaint had been lodged and was pending against five students. After enquiry, they were dismissed from the college. However, by order dated 11.3.2002 of the Dean of the University, the Principal of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the College was directed to take back the students. This was questioned by the college in W.P.No.11936 of 2002. P.Sathasivam,J., by order dated 22.4.2002, directed the students to file affidavits of undertaking conveying their regret for the incident which had taken place on 26.12.2001 and that they will not resort to any unlawful acts in future. The learned Judge was of the view that one more opportunity may be given to them to pursue their studies. The college was directed to implement the proceedings of the University and to take back all the five students. 5. In the said background, examinations of the Academic Year 2002-2003 were scheduled to be conducted on 24.4.2002. The practical examinations were held from 15.3.2002 to 6.4.2002. While so, on 22.3.2002, the respondent had sent a communication changing the university centre from the petitioner college to Manjammal Government Higher Secondary School, Tenkasi. The petitioner had filed a writ petition as against the said order and as a result of the dismissal of the petition for stay, W.A.No.1438 of 2002 was filed. However, when the appeal came up for hearing on 14.5.2002, as all the examinations were over, the appeal was disposed of. 6. According to the College, in the meantime, in April 2002, some teachers who were not qualified for appointment as lecturers, were terminated from service by following proper procedure. However, the said teachers again instigated the students to boycott the classes. Some of the students joined the boycott and they also prevented other students from attending the classes. The boycotting students also indulged in violence and caused damage to the properties. 7. While students continued to remain absent, some teachers as well as students were creating a scene as if they were taking classes on the road side near the college. The Registrar of the University compelled the petitioner College to take back the teachers who have been removed from the college, even though they were not qualified. Directions were also issued to the petitioner college not to take action against the students. The petitioner also contends that the examinations were not conducted in a proper manner at Manjammal Government Higher Secondary School. 8. The petitioner further contends that for the semester examination scheduled to be held in November, 2002, the University had issued a circular on 14.8.2002 informing the dates for its examinations. The commencement of the examination was to be on 30.10.2002. While the petitioner had complied with all the requirements, on 12.9.2002, the Registrar wrote to the College directing the principal to permit the students who have been sent out of the College, to write the examinations in spite of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fact that they did not have the required attendance nor had they paid the college fees. They were involved in indiscipline. There was also some correspondence relating to the qualifications of Professor V.Gopalsamy, who was appointed as Principal. According to the petitioner, as he was not a member of M.U.T.A., the University did not grant its approval in a motivated manner. On 19.10.2002, the respondent had issued orders which are impugned in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, there was no justification for such an order when the College was running smoothly after the removal of the unqualified teachers, who cannot be taken back. Hence, the writ petition. 9. Along with the said writ petition, the petitioner had sought for an order of interim stay in W.P.M.P.No.59257 of 2002. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 29.10.2002 and subsequently, the writ petition was admitted and interim stay was granted on 1.11.2002. 10. On 7.11.2002, the petitioner came forward with Contempt Petition No.774 of 2002, alleging that the respondents have deliberately violated the interim order by issuing fresh directions to the petitioner college, thus going against the interim order dated 1.11.2002. On 5.11.2002, they had received a telegram from the respondent informing the petitioner that in terms of the resolution by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 2.11.2002, the examination centre had been changed from the petitioner college to Parasakthi College at Courtallam. The contempt petition was heard in detail and witnesses were also examined by both sides. 11. There appears to have been a series of writ petitions and interim directions as well as writ appeals both before and after this writ petition (W.P.No.39824 of 2002) between the College and the University. What are the controversies or the merits of those controversies between the two are not issues for my consideration and I had made it clear to both sides that I would be dealing only with the contempt petition and not the other writ petitions which appear to be an endless battle between the two. I would indicate the issues over which both sides are litigating only to the extent as would be required to appreciate the mutual contentions in this contempt petition. 12. According to Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire friction between the University and the College was only at the behest of a group of teachers whose services had to be terminated as they were not qualified to hold the post. They were able to put pressure on the University to pressurise the Management to reinstate them in service. Those teachers were prepared to go to any length and even instigate the students to indulge in indiscipline resulting in damage to properties belonging to the Institution and when disciplinary action was sought to be taken against the students, then also the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University would interfere with the administration and compel the college to take them back, unmindful of the adverse consequences. The circumstances leading to the filing of the contempt application also would indicate the determined mala fide action on the part of the University and show that they would not even bother to violate orders of the Court to please a group of indisciplined staff and students and would not allow the College to maintain discipline. It is true that the erstwhile Management was responsible for making appointments of unqualified persons and not implementing proper scale of pay. After the present Management had taken over the administration, they were doing everything to set right the mistakes. The University being the supreme body to regulate the affairs of the constituent colleges, instead of appreciating the steps which were taken by the college, had taken up the cause of the teachers who had strangely gained appointment by improper means. By pretending to take action against the college for not implementing the U.G.C. scales of pay, the University was actually acting as a puppet in the hands of unqualified lecturers who were rightly dismissed from service. 13. Per contra, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, appearing for the University, contends that the college was interested only in making money out of education without even the basic infrastructure. Teachers were not paid their salary properly and the college was adopting hire and fire policy. All these issues resulted in indiscipline and when the University stepped in to enforce discipline and issued certain orders which the University was entitled to, the college would not obey its directions and would indulge in non-compliance of the directions and file a series of writ petitions. In none of the proceedings the college succeeded. The University chose to take the impugned actions only after giving due opportunity to the College and after a properly conducted enquiry. The University has the powers to issue appropriate directions in the interest of the teaching staff and the student community to maintain proper standards and also, if necessary, to change the venue of the examination, when the University was convinced that to conduct the examination in the College itself will not be conducive to the proper conduct of the examinations. 14. Now, coming to the circumstances under which the contempt petition had been filed, though the writ petition was moved on 29.10.2002 itself as it related to conduct of examination, direction was given to issue notice to the counsel for the University. After hearing both the counsel, on 1.11.2002, the writ petition was admitted and interim stay was granted on 1.11.2002. The following is the order issued while admitting the writ petition: " The grievance of the petitioner-College is that it is subjected to repeated actions by the University which are not warranted. Notice https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was given to the respondent and the counsel representing the respondent also appears. According to the counsel for the respondent, action initiated by the respondent was only in the context of problems between the college on the one hand, and teachers and students on the other hand. To my specific question whether University has instituted a specific enquiry or not, the counsel is not able to produce any material to show the University having conducted any independent enquiry on its own apart from the complaints said to have been received from the students and teachers. Admit. Issue Rule Nisi. Call for records. Eight weeks. " 15. In reply to the allegations of the petitioner that the said interim order has been violated, the Controller of Examinations had filed a counter affidavit on 21.1.2003. While denying the allegations relating to the alleged disobedience of the orders of this Court, he would state that the atmosphere in the petitioner's college was not conducive to hold academic examination because of the fact that the Management was adopting a policy of hire and fire of teachers and there was lot of indiscipline. 16. After tracing the various events which led to the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition, the respondent had stated that on 18.10.2002, orders were issued to the College directing the College to hand over the premises to the University to enable them to conduct the examination under the full control of the University. 17. In the agenda of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 2.11.2002, there were two items, namely, Item Nos.55 and 6 relating to the petitioner-college. When a detailed report of the Four Member Syndicate Sub-Committee was discussed under Item No.55, the Members of the Syndicate were deeply concerned about many violations by the petitioner-College. The Syndicate also took note of the fact that the Principal Mr.V.Gopalsamy was not properly qualified to be appointed as the Principal. There were also representations from the students for the change of venue of the examination centre as they apprehended danger of being prevented from writing the examination. The entire issue was discussed by the Syndicate on 2.11.2002 and the Syndicate bona fide believed that in the best interest of the students, the centre should be changed outside the college. It was this decision of the Syndicate which was communicated to the petitioner. The said communication is the subject matter of the contempt petition. The respondent would further state that the University and himself were duty bound to implement the decision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Syndicate and he had merely communicated the decision of the Syndicate. Neither the respondents nor the Syndicate had any intention to disobey the orders of the Court. The resolution was taken bona fide in the interest of the students. The respondents have strictly followed the directions of the Court dated 8.11.2002. The allegation that the Vice Chancellor had stated in the Syndicate meeting that he would look after the Court order was false and the said telegram has been made only with a mala fide intention to malign the second respondent. The proceedings of the Syndicate were held in camera and the petitioner was not a member of the Syndicate and the statement thus attributed to the second respondent was false, motivated and malicious. 18. In the counter affidavit filed by the Vice Chancellor, Mr.K.Chockalingam, he would state that whatever had been done by the University had been done bona fide and if any mistake had crept in, he would tender his unconditional apologies. He had read the counter affidavit filed by the Controller and what had been stated therein were substantially correct. 19. Though a reply has been filed by the petitioner, the statements made in the reply affidavit mainly pertain to the allegations of the University regarding the manner in which the college was conducted and does not have much reference to the issues pertaining to the contempt application. 20. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the respondent. With reference to the proceedings of the Syndicate, the respondent has stated that though in the counter affidavit it was pointed out that the deponent was not a member of the Syndicate and that the meeting had been conducted in closed doors and that no Syndicate Member was aware of the interim stay granted by this Court on 1.11.2002, the petitioner had chosen to say that the Syndicate was aware of the interim order. The petitioner had no first-hand information of the proceedings of the Syndicate. He has not substantiated his statement in the affidavit that one of the Syndicate Members had brought to the knowledge of the Syndicate about the order of stay. No name of the Syndicate Member has been furnished. It is not the case of the petitioner that he or his counsel communicated the order of the Court to anyone in the University. The Controller of Examinations came to know of the order only from the communication of their counsel dated 2.11.2002 addressed to the Registrar with copy to himself. The said communication was received only on 5.11.2002, informing that the matter was taken up by the Court only at the fag end of the day on 1.11.2002 and that the interim stay has been ordered earlier on 29.10.2002 and that unless it is vacated, the University may not be in a position to conduct the examination as contemplated. The Syndicate had no knowledge of the interim order when it passed the resolution on 2.11.2002. The deponent would once again tender his unconditional apologies on behalf of himself and the Vice Chancellor for whatever happened on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.11.2002 and that both himself and the Vice Chancellor are merely officers of the University and they were bound to implement the decisions of the Syndicate. 21. Oral evidence was tendered by Mr.Gopalasamy, Principal of the College, on behalf of the College as P.W.1 and three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents/University – Mr..Gomathinayagam, Controller of Examinations (R.W.1), Dr.K.Chockalingam, Vice Chancellor (R.W.2) and Mr.P.Nagarajan, Registrar (R.W.3). 22. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the evidence would disclose that the University was picking on the petitioner institution only at the instigation of M.U.T.A., which was backing the teachers whose services were terminated, due to the simple fact that they were not qualified to be appointed. The University was strangely supporting the cause of the unqualified teachers in a very curious manner and the students who had behaved in violent and indisciplined manner. Whatever mistakes which might have been committed by the erstwhile Management, the present Management was rectifying the said defects, and the University, instead of being indulgent towards the Management to help and encourage the College to achieve proper appointments and enforcement of discipline among the staff and students, instead, had fallen a prey to the pressures from the teachers who were unqualified and indisciplined students. The evidence of the Vice Chancellor was clear and the fact that he was acting under pressure was admitted. While the University was supporting unqualified teachers, they were finding fault with the appointment of V.Gopalasamy by the petitioner as the Principal of the College, who, in the perception of the University, was unqualified, while really speaking, he was qualified. As regards the salary paid to the teachers, it is true that some of the teachers were not paid at the U.G.C. scale and this was only due to the fact that the institution was at the infancy stage and the College was making all efforts to bring the teachers under the U.G.C. Scale, and in the said direction, better scale with increments was being implemented. This is the manner in which most of the private institutions are functioning at their infancy stage and it was curious that the University was showing its dynamism only as against the petitioner, thereby betraying a partisan attitude. Even the Supreme Court had pointed out that at the initial stages a private institution requires an indulgent and practical approach. On this issue, when the witnesses of the University were being questioned, they pretended ignorance, even though specific reference was made to such other institutions against which no action had been taken. There were also other institutions working with in-charge Principal. But the University sought to take action only against the petitioner College. To a specific question as to whether there were not many other similar institutions and why no action was taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ against them, R.W.1 had given an evasive reply. Likewise, to the specific allegation that MANO Colleges (run by the University) and some other private institutions under the respondent University were not implementing U.G.C. Scale of pay, the witnesses of the respondent were giving evasive replies. The entire action of the University against the petitioner College was totally partisan and motivated. 23. The facts relating to disobedience of the order are also only an extension of the attitude of the University to penalise the petitioner institution at any cost even if it requires disobedience of the orders of the Court. There was clear evidence to show that the pendency of the writ petition was within the knowledge of the three witnesses even before the meeting of the Syndicate. They have also been strictly told by the counsel for the University to keep in touch with the counsel. But in their evidence, they want to make it appear as though they had no information regarding the interim order. Learned counsel took me through the documentary and oral evidence in support of his contention that the respondents were fully aware of the interim order, but yet, would proceed with the meeting of the Syndicate and pass a resolution with an intention to violate the order. In order to avoid repetition, I am not referring to such references by the learned counsel at this stage. Learned counsel further contended that though the respondents have admitted that they became aware of the order on 5.11.2002, nothing was done to implement the order immediately after that date and before 8.11.2002, on which date, the interim order was modified. If the statement of the respondents that they were anxious to obey the orders of this Court and that they have not violated any order was true, the fact remains that nothing was done by the respondents to restore the position as it existed on the date of the interim order and the interim order was never ever complied with by the respondents. 24. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel representing the University, contended that the University had been discharging its functions as the Apex Body of keeping the educational institutions under proper control in the interest of the teaching staff and the student community and for maintaining proper standards of education. The University had no motives nor mala fides in dealing with the petitioner College, whose only motive appears to commercialise and make money through education. The College was being run by a business magnate who believes only