IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:28.07.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.9115 to 9133; 9241; 9931 to 9937; 9938 to 9944; 9945 to 9951; 10048 to 10051; 10114 to 10119; 10325 to 10332; 10359 to 10364;10511 to 10514; 10803; 11422 to 11426; 11427 to 11441; 11581; 11582 to 11585; and 11630 OF 2010 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions P.Padma ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9115/2010 R.Thirumal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9116/2010 A.Sheeba ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9117/2010 Baskar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9118/2010 S.Venkatraman ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9119/2010 E.N.Samsonraj ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9120/2010 R.Saravanan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9121/2010 R.Vidhya ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9122/2010 T.Mythili ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9123/2010 C.Sivaraman ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9124/2010 M.Kathiravan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9125/2010 S.Santhana Rajam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9126/2010 P.Saravanan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9127/2010 V.Rajakani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9128/2010 S.Selvamani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9129/2010 S.Jenny Kalaiarasi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9130/2010 P.K.Anbarasan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9131/2010 R.Muthumani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9132/2010 K.Ramya Krishnan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9133/2010 S.Shobana ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9241/2010 M.Alameen ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9931/2010 A.Mani ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9932/2010 N.Poongavanam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9933/2010 D.Suseela ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9934/2010 P.Sivakamasundari ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9935/2010 L.Parimala ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9936/2010 R.Rekha ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9937/2010 Muthukumarasamy ... Petitioner in W.P No.9938/2010 K.Ramesh ... Petitioner in W.P No.9939/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ N.Sripriya ... Petitioner in WP No.9940/2010 Sukanya Sundaresh ... Petitioner in WP No.9941/2010 P.Renuka Devi ... Petitioner in WP No.9942/2010 S.Vengatraman ... Petitioner in WP No.9943/2010 S.Sharmila ... Petitioner in WP No.9944/2010 K.Anitha ... Petitioner in WP No.9945/2010 E.Edith Esther ... Petitioner in WP No.9946/2010 A.Felix Arokya Jose ... Petitioner in WP No.9947/2010 K.Manickavasagam ... Petitioner in WP No.9948/2010 J.Jayapriya ... Petitioner in WP No.9949/2010 L.M.Premalatha ... Petitioner in WP No.9950/2010 B.Sripratha ... Petitioner in WP No.9951/2010 G.Anusooya ... Petitioner in WP No.10048/2010 C.Jayapratha ... Petitioner in WP No.10049/2010 P.Geetha ... Petitioner in WP No.10050/2010 S.Kavith ... Petitioner in WP No.10051/2010 S.Delli Babu ... Petitioner in WP No.10114/2010 H.Radhika ... Petitioner in WP No.10115/2010 P.Devi ... Petitioner in WP No.10116/2010 L.Saranya ... Petitioner in WP No.10117/2010 N.Jagadeeswari ... Petitioner in WP No.10118/2010 P.Jothilakshmi ... Petitioner in WP No.10119/2010 P.Vijayasri ... Petitioner in WP No.10325/2010 S.Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner in WP No.10326/2010 S.Rajalakshmi ..Petitioner in WP.10327/2010 S.Suguna ..Petitioner in WP.10328/2010 K.Gomathy ..Petitioner in WP.10329/2010 T.Shobana ..Petitioner in WP.10330/2010 P.R.Buvaneswari ..Petitioner in WP.10331/2010 J.P.Srividhya ..Petitioner in WP.10332/2010 S.Amutha ..Petitioner in WP.10359/2010 R.Raja Rajeswari ..Petitioner in WP.10360/2010 G.Sheeba ..Petitioner in WP.10361/2010 P.R.Jayanthi ..Petitioner in WP.10362/2010 S.Artheeswari ..Petitioner in WP.10363/2010 Rajila Rajan ..Petitioner in WP.10364/2010 S.Manjula ..Petitioner in WP.10511/2010 K.Esther ..Petitioner in WP.10512/2010 A.Aruljothi ..Petitioner in WP.10513/2010 S.P.Sureshkumar ..Petitioner in WP.10514/2010 K.Venkatesan ..Petitioner in WP.10803/2010 A.Iniyameenal ..Petitioner in WP.11422/2010 G.Subathra ..Petitioner in WP.11423/2010 A.Bagavathy ..Petitioner in WP.11424/2010 R.Prathiba ..Petitioner in WP.11425/2010 A.Lavanya Mathiyalagi ..Petitioner in WP.11426/2010 S.Boopathi ..Petitioner in WP.11427/2010 B.Thamaraiselvi ..Petitioner in WP.11428/2010 B.Theeban Chakkaravarthy ..Petitioner in WP.11429/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J.Tamil Selvan ..Petitioner in WP.11430/2010 B.Yuvaraj ..Petitioner in WP.11431/2010 S.Girija ..Petitioner in WP.11432/2010 N.Divya ..Petitioner in WP.11433/2010 J.Paranthaman ..Petitioner in WP.11434/2010 S.Vimala Gayathri ..Petitioner in WP.11435/2010 V.Lakshmi Kala ..Petitioner in WP.11436/2010 R.Manjula ..Petitioner in WP.11437/2010 D.Jasmine ..Petitioner in WP.11438/2010 D.Kalpana ..Petitioner in WP.11439/2010 M.A.Archana ..Petitioner in WP.11440/2010 K.Balaji ..Petitioner in WP.11441/2010 P.Haja Syeddu Masoth ..Petitioner in WP.11581/2010 A.Anthonidoss ..Petitioner in WP.11582/2010 S.Pavithra ..Petitioner in WP.11583/2010 G.Gowthami ..Petitioner in WP.11584/2010 A.Arunnath ..Petitioner in WP.11585/2010 S.Sathiyaraj ..Petitioner in WP.11630/2010 Vs 1. The Vice Chancellor Anna University, Madras - 600 025. 2. The Registrar Anna University Madras - 600 025. 3. The Controller of Examinations Anna University, Madras - 600 025 ...(Respondents in W.P.Nos.9115 to 9133 9241, 9931 to 9937, 9938 to 9994, 9945 to 9951, 10114 to 10119/2010, 10325 to 10332/2010, 10359 to 10364/2010, 10511 to 10514/2010, 10803, 11422 to 11426, 11427 to 11441/2010. 11581, 11582 to 11585/2010, 11630/2010) 1. The Registrar Anna University Guindy, Chennai - 600 025. 3. The Controller of Examinations Anna University, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Principal G.K.M.College of Engineering and Technology, Alapakkam Mappedu Road, G.K.M.Nagar Chennai - 600 063 ...Respondents in W.P.Nos.10048 to 10051 of 2010 Prayer : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to Memo No.COE/C20/2010/1305 Memo No.COE/C20/2010/1304 (in W.P.Nos.9936, 9950, 9951/2010) dated 20.2.2010 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. (in W.P.Nos.9115 to 9133, 9241, 9931 to 9937, 9938 to 9944, 9945 to 9951, 10114 to 10119/2010, 10325 to 10332/2010, 10359 to 10364/2010, 10511 to 10514/2010, 10803, 11422 to 11426/2010, 11427 to 11441/2010, 11581, 11582 to 11585/2010, 11630/2010) Writ Petitions praying to issue a writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records related to Memo No.COE/C20/2010/1305 DT.20.02.2010 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner herein to continue her IV Semester during 2009-2010 in her Master of Engineering in Computer Science and Engineering Programme at the third respondent college. (in WP No.10048,10049,10050/2010) Writ Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner herein to continue her IV Semester during 2009-2010 in her Master of Engineering in Computer Science & Engineering Programme at the Third Respondent College (in WP No.10051/2010) For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jayaprakash in all Wps for M/s. Sun Associates For Respondents : Mr.G.Masilamani, Sr.Counsel for Mr.Mani Sundara Gopal C O M M O N O R D E R As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are common, by consent, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The prayer in all these Writ Petitions are for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated 20.2.2010, whereby the petitioners were prevented from continuing the fourth semester programme of M.E./M.Tech degree during 2009-2010 and permitted to continue IV Smester Programme during the even semester 2010-2011. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are all Engineering Graduates having completed their B.E./B.Tech course and they have joined the faculty of various private Engineering Colleges in the State as Lecturers to teach the undergraduate Engineering students in such colleges. While they were functioning as Lecturers, they have simultaneously enrolled themselves for full time M.E./M.Tech Post Graduate programme either in the College where they were working as Lecturers or in some other private Engineering Colleges. This came to the notice of the respondent University, which called for a meeting of the Principals of the various Engineering Colleges where the petitioners were working and a Committee was constituted to go into this matter. The Committee so constituted conducted a personal hearing of all the candidates and submitted its recommendation. The recommendation was accepted by the respondent University and by the impugned order, imposed a punishment on the petitioners preventing them from continuing the IV Semester of M.E./M.Tech programme during the session 2009-2010, but permitted them to continue the IV Semester during the even semester 2010-2011. The students were further directed to seek for re-admission before commencement of the IV Semester during 2010-2011. By virtue of such order, the petitioners would loose one year and cannot complete the course this year. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioners are before this Court by way these writ petitions. 4. This Court while admitting the Writ Petitions, granted an interim order on 5.5.2010, permitting the students to sit for the IV Semester examination and directed that the results shall not be published and if ultimately the petitioners fail in the Writ Petitions, they cannot claim any equity. The respondent University filed Petitions to vacate the interim order and this Court by order dated 30.6.2010, while making the interim order absolute, made it clear that the conditions imposed originally would hold good, that the results shall not be published and if ultimately the petitioners fail in the Writ Petitions, no benefit accrues to them on account of appearing for the examination on 1.7.2010 and directed the Writ Petitions to be posted for final disposal during third week of July 2010. Based on such orders, the Writ Petitions have been posted before this Court for final disposal. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the University while passing the impugned order, categorised the students in three categories as detailed below: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ i)such of those who have resigned their job during the first semester; ii)such of those who have not resigned even after January 2009 and iii)such of those who have not resigned even before January 2010. 6. In respect of the first category, no punishment was imposed and in respect of the second category, the candidates have been prevented for one year and in respect of third category, the candidates have been prevented for two years from continuing their IV Semester and such categorisation or classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since persons who are facing similar allegations have been treated differently. It is further contended that no intimation was received from the University that the candidates should resign from their Lecturership while they were doing the first semester of the M.E./M.Tech course and only when they had completed III Semester, the University issued a notice calling upon them to appear for an enquiry on 22.1.2010. Thus, the classification adopted by the University is discriminatory. It is further contended that the University has no power to punish the students as there is no rule or regulation to the said effect. 7. The Post Graduate programme is governed by the Regulations framed by the University and the Regulation 2005 alone is applicable and under the said Regulation, there is no punishment contemplated if a candidate violates the mode of study for full time course prescribed under clause 2.2.1. It is further contended that the Regulation 2005 is only an enabling power and and if the candidate fails to attend the full time course, at best, the candidate would loose attendance and nothing more. Therefore, in the absence of any rule giving power for the University to punish the candidates, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further, the respondent University has not pointed out as to which rule, the petitioners had violated and there is no procedure contemplated under the Regulations in respect of the allegations made against the petitioners. 8. Section 5 (ab) of the Anna University Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) gives power to the University to do all such acts and things whether incidental to the powers and functions aforesaid or not as may be necessary or desirable to further the objects of the University. The power conferred under the Act could be exercised by the University only after framing Regulations or Rules and in the absence of Regulations, the University cannot act. In support of such proposition, the learned counsel relied on the Hon'ble Division Bench Judgment of this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in 2004 (5) CTC 572 [ TRICHY ENGINEERING COLLEGE Vs. ANNA UNIVERSITY]. 9. It is further contended that the University has amended the Regulations for the Post Graduate Programme on 17.5.2010 and in clause 2.2.1, a condition has been inserted that full time candidates who were enrolled for Post Graduate Programme should not attend any other full time programme or take up any full time or part time job in any Institution or Company during the period of the full time Post Graduate Programme and violation of the rule will result in cancellation of admission to Post Graduate Programme. 10. By relying upon this amendment, the learned counsel would submit that it is manifest that there is no such power prior to 17.5.2010 or impose any punishment as has been done by the impugned order. Further, there are cases where the candidates have resigned from their job, prior to July 2008 and inspite of production of adequate proof of having resigned the job, the enquiry committee failed to take into consideration the same and recommended punishment. One such case is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.10119 of 2010 where the petitioner was relieved from the post of Lecturership on 30.6.2008. Further, the University has penalised only such of those candidates who were working as Lecturers in Engineering Colleges, but, has not imposed any punishment on candidates who are working on full time basis in other Companies and Departments and Private Organisations and the petitioners who were Teachers have been unreasonably dealt with. Further, in order to facilitate the petitioners, the Institutions where they enrolled for full time Post Graduate Programme, conducted such classes during week ends and all the petitioners have attended those classes and qualified themselves. Further, the University has not taken any action against the Management which permitted the petitioners to enroll for full time programme and simultaneously work as Lecturers in the Private Engineering Colleges, but has penalised the petitioners who have spent their valuable time and resources to get themselves better qualified. That the petitioners are at the door steps of their life and at this stage, the impugned order causes irreparable hardships to all of them. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order calls for interference and prayed for allowing the Writ Petitions. 11. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent University would contend that the University has been very considerate to the petitioners and imposed only a minimum penalty which does not affect the petitioners career or in any manner their right to secure First Class Degree or Distinction. The University first called for meeting of all the Principals of the Private Engineering Colleges, thereafter constituted various committees for inspecting the colleges and after elaborate procedure, notices were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issued to the petitioners to appear before the Committee and they were all afforded sufficient opportunity to present their contentions and after considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. 12.The learned Senior counsel referred to the minutes of the enquiry committee meeting dated 6.2.2010 in support of his submission. Further, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel that there is a reasonable basis for classifying the candidates into three categories depending upon the date of resignation from the Lecturership and the classification is based on the commencement and ending of particular semester. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the respondent University. 13. The learned senior counsel would submit that the University is fully empowered to take such action and such power is traceable to Section 5 (ab) of the Act, which empowers the University to do all such acts and things which are incidental to the powers and functions as may be necessary or desirable to further the objects of the University. Further, it is contended that the petitioners being Teachers, they have to be roll models and admittedly they cannot be present in both places i.e. work as Lecturer in a College and simultaneously pursue their full time M.E./M.Tech course. 14. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would contend that no compassion need be shown to the petitioners as they are educated persons and the University has been very lenient with the petitioners and this Court would not interfere in such matters especially when the University seeks to achieve better standards in higher education. That there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice and by the punishment imposed the petitioners are in no way prejudiced and this Court will not substitute its view to that of the decision arrived at by academicians. 15. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 16. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners were working as Lecturers in Private Engineering Colleges and simultaneously enrolled for M.E./M.Tech Post Graduate programme in private Engineering Colleges. Some of the petitioners have joined the Post Graduate programme in the same Institution where they are working and the others in different Institutions. 17. By virtue of the power conferred under section 5 of the Act, the University has framed guidelines during 2005, applicable to students to be admitted to non autonomous Engineering Colleges affiliated to the respondent University. Under the Regulations https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Programme" means Post Graduate Programme such as M.E./M.Tech Degree Programme. 18. Clause 2.2.1 deals with full time study and states that candidates admitted in full time should be available in the College/Institution/University during the complete working houses for curricular, co-curricular and extra curricular activities assigned to them. Clause 2.2.2 deals with part - time day time, which is the mode of study where the candidates are required to attend classes on every working day along with full time students for half a day either in the forenoon or in the afternoon. Clause 2.2.3 deals with part time/evening, for which separate classes are conducted in the evening. The duration of a full time post graduate programme as per clause 3.1 is minimum of 4 semesters and a maximum of 8 semesters. Similarly, in respect of part time post graduate programme, it is minimum of 6 semesters and maximum of 12 semesters. Clause 9 deals with requirement of completion of semesters and the minimum attendance required is 75%. Every candidate who secures between 65 and 74 % in the current semester due to medical reasons, accident, etc. or due to participation in College or University or State level sports events with prior permission of the Principal shall be given exemption to appear for the current semester. Candidates who do not complete the semester will not be permitted to write the University examination at the end of the semester and will not be permitted to go to the next semester and are required to repeat the incomplete semester in the next academic year. Thus, under the regulations, the duration of the programme for a full time and a part time course is different and the number of semesters is more in the case of part time courses. 19. It had come to the notice of the respondent University that several students like the petitioners are pursuing full time Post Graduate Programme and simultaneously working in Private Engineering Colleges affiliated to the respondent University and based on such information, a meeting of Principals of Colleges which offered such full time Post Graduate Programme was called for on 7.12.2009 and the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University chaired the meeting and instructed the members to refrain from permitting the full time Lecturers to enroll themselves in full time Post Graduate programme. In order to curtail such activities in colleges affiliated to the respondent University, a Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor and the Committee is stated to have met on 25.11.2009 and 3.12.2009 and recommended for inspection of 17 colleges in the State. The Committee so constituted conducted inspection and submitted its report and in the said report, it was stated that some of the Colleges have admitted that they conducted M.E./ M.Tech full time programme only 2 to 4 days in a week including Saturdays and Sundays and a few colleges claim to have conducted programme during week ends with faculty members as students and therefore, the attendance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ records of the faculty members and students were called for by the Committee. The Committee further reported that some students studying first year M.E./ M.Tech programme during 2009-2010 have discontinued, some faculty members have simultaneously take M.E./M.Tech full time programme after resigning their job and some faculty members were simultaneously doing M.E./M.Tech programme under full time programme and have sought conversion from full time to part time. 20. Based on the recommendation of the committee dated 17.1.2010, pending finalisation of the matter, the following directions came to be issued: “1. The results of November/December 2009 Examinations of the candidates alleged to have violated the regulations may be withheld and they may be called for further enquiry. 2. The faculty members claimed to have resigned their post and continuing their I year M.E./M.Tech Programme may be permitted to write the January 2010 Examinations after getting an undertaking. 3. The faculty members who are doing I year and opted for conversion from Full-Time to part-Time (Day time) may be permitted, subject to the fulfillment of Part-time (Day time) admission norms." 21. It is further submitted that 255 candidates (which included the petitioners) in the second year M.E./M.Tech programme whose names were found as faculty members in the records of the University were called for personal enquiry on 5.2.2010 and 6.2.2010 and they were enquired by the Committee. Based on the enquiry conducted, the committee had submitted its observation and reported serious violation causing dilution of academic standards. Therefore, the committee recommended suitable action against erring students with a view to make them realise the importance of quality education. Based on such recommendation, the students/petitioners were categorised under different categories. 22. For better appreciation, the three categories are as hereunder: Category I (i) Students not worked as a faculty member since August 2008 and (ii) those who have resigned the faculty position https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prior to February 2009 i.e. during their I Semester of the study. List of the students falls under the category is given in the Annexure-I. These students may be permitted to continue the Full-time IV Semester of their respective M.E./M.Tech. Programmes during 2009-2010 and the results of III Semester examination held in November/December 2009 may be released. Category II Students who have not resigned their faculty position even after January 2009 List of such students is given in the Annexure II. These students may be prevented from continuing their IV Semester of the Programme during 2009-2010 and may be permitted to continue the IV Semester of the programme during the even semester of 2010-2011 as these students have pursued the Full-Time M.E./M.Tech. Programme simultaneously when working as Full-time faculty member, causing detriments both to their studies and teaching responsibilities. Results of III Semester examination held in November/Decembr 2009 may be released. If the students have already paid the fees for the IV Semester of the programme during 2009-10, no fee should be collected from him/her when he/she rejoins the programme during 2010-11. Category III Students who have been already warned during their I or II Semester of M.E./M.Tech. Programme not to continue as Full-time faculty/employee but have not resigned even before January 2010. List of such students are given in the Annexure III. These students may be prevented from continuing their IV Semester of study during 2009-10 and may be permitted to continue the IV Semester during even semester of 2011-2012 as they have failed to correct their violations in spite of two warnings given to them and continued the programme causing damage both to their studies and teaching responsibilities. Results of III Semester examination held in November/December 2009 may be released. If the students have already paid the fees for the IV Semester of the programme during 2009-10, no fee should be collected from him/her when he/she rejoins the programme during 2011-12." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23. Further, there were also recommendations against the Colleges and measures/recommendations for imparting quality education. Subsequently, the petitioners/students have represented to the University to re-consider the the punishment imposed. Based on such representation, the University considered the matter and without modifying the punishments already imposed, granted further relaxation, which is to the following effect: "(i) During the debarred period, the students may be permitted to write their arrear examinations. (ii) During the debarred period the students may be permitted to function as faculty members of the affiliated college if both the parties concerned desire so. (iii) When the students rejoin for the IV Semester for the programme, their admission may be converted to day-time part-time mkode permitting them to function as faculty member while pursuing their PG Programme as a special case. (iv) If the students who are debarred for one academic year, qualify for the degree by April/May 2012 examination, they re also eligible for First Class/First Class with Distinction as a special case subject to fulfilment of other eligibility conditions. (v) If the students who are debarred for two academic years, qualify for the Degree by April/May 2013 examination, they are also eligible for